Local indicators
Analysis based on the information of 12 study sites (all except Spain, Italy, Crete, Mexico). This exercise was not among those conducted during the 1-day workshop in Spain.
Exercise 3 was designed as a very brief exercise (taking 30 minutes only) to simply brainstorm and identify indicators used by local stakeholders to recognize land degradation processes and land conservation respectively. The indicators already identified during the previous exercise (transect walk) had to be completed with further indicators which are used by the local stakeholders to identify processes of land degradation as well as signs for sustainable land management (land conservation). Not all study sites have made the distinction between indicators of degradation and conservation (see more details below). The focus of the exercise was on local indicators used by local stakeholder groups, but external views, mainly from the researcher group, were also included in most study sites, as can easily be seen from the listed indicators in the tables below. In the workshop report, the study sites were asked to mention the group who is using the specific indicators, which partly gave some more insights (see more details below).
Beside the resulting list, the aim was also to make the stakeholders aware of indicators that point to positive or negative changes in land management practices.
Table 10 and 11 show degradation and conservation indicators listed during the exercise and grouped into categories.A number of indicators were mentioned in several sites, either identically or at least in similar words.
Table 10: Degradation indicators
| Category | Indicator | Study site |
| Land | Browning (as opposed to greening) of the land | Botswana |
| Area of irrigated land, area of arable land, area of winter crops | Nestos | |
| Fragmentation of land | China | |
| Lack of landscape management and planning | Portugal | |
| Land use (bad agriculture practice), tillage on the direction of slope | Cape Verde, Eskisehir |
|
| Erosion | Soil erosion, soil profile loss | Cape Verde, Chile, Portugal |
| Rill erosion, multiplication and increase of the rills in the fields | Morocco, Tunisia, Eskisehir | |
| Gully erosion, presence of gullies | Cape Verde, Portugal, Chile | |
| Sediment movement and accumulation | Eskisehir | |
| Laminar erosion (soil loss in t/ha) | Chile | |
| Observed wind blowing particularly during tillage period, unveiling of grains after heavy wind storms | Karapinar | |
| Uncontrollable winds, too much dust | Botswana | |
| Cattle tracks expose soil leading to erosion and sand mounds | Botswana | |
| Soils burned by forest fires | Portugal | |
| Soils | Soil crusting and compaction, hardening of land | Botswana, Eskisehir, China |
| Poor soil conditions, some of the soils become disturbed (loose, poor), reduced soil stability | Botswana, Cape Verde | |
| Lost fertile surface soil in steep slopes | Eskisehir | |
| Loss of colour of the soils and constitution of white spaces at the upper part of the fields | Morocco | |
| Outcropping: increase in visibility of stoniness and parent material (rocks) | Tunisia | |
| Stony terrains | Portugal | |
| Nutrient content, reduction of soil fertility, low soil fertility | China, Tunisia, Eskisehir |
|
| Soil moisture content, degree of water retention in the soils (humidity), fast soil drying | Nestos, Morocco, Tunisia, Saratov, Djanibek | |
| Salinization, high soil salinity | Botswana, Cape Verde | |
| Crops / vegetation | Low yields, low crop productivity, decrease in production and income | Botswana, China, Nestos, Eskisehir, Karapinar |
| Reduction of the yield of some fields even during rainy years | Morocco, Tunisia | |
| Crop growth, slow growth of plants | China, Saratov, Djanibek |
|
| Loss in crop quality | Eskisehir | |
| Drought stress in soils and crops | Eskisehir | |
| Lack of vegetation | Botswana, Portugal | |
| Poor vegetation cover | Cape Verde, Saratov, Djanibek | |
| Low or no vegetation regeneration | BoPortugalPortugal | |
| Reduced vegetation and biodiversity in grazing land, some grasses disappear | Eskisehir, Botswana | |
| Increase in demand of fodder | Karapinar | |
| Extinction of certain plants | Botswana | |
| Trees and other vegetation (e.g. weeds) die | Botswana | |
| Poor seed germination | Botswana, Saratov, Djanibek | |
| Early withering of plants | Saratov, Djanibek | |
| Incomplete decay of plant residues | Saratov, Djanibek | |
| Halophytic vegetation | Saratov, Djanibek | |
| Increasing and spreading of certain vegetation species | Botswana | |
| Different vegetation cover types: associations (several species of grasses and pines)Portugalk roses | Portugal | |
| Loss of vegetal biodiversity | Tunisia | |
| Decrease in the number of wild species | Karapinar | |
| Livestock | High mortality rate of livestock | Botswana |
| Low weight and weak livestock | Botswana | |
| Insufficient feeding of animals | Karapinar | |
| Decrease in the number of animals | Karapinar | |
| Water | Reduced discharge of groundwater and sources | Eskisehir |
| Groundwater overuse / depletion / level (necessity for lowering the pipe in drill hole each year) | Botswana, Nestos, Karapinar | |
| Needs of further exploitation of groundwater (due to drought) | Karapinar | |
| Irrigation water consumption | Nestos | |
| High groundwater level | Saratov | |
| Pools on the soil surface after irrigation/rainfall | Saratov | |
| Fast disappearing of pulls/ponds on soil surface after snow melting | Djanibek | |
| Increase of overland flow on the soils (measured downstream) | Morocco | |
| Flooding, flooding through stream | Tunisia, Eskisehir | |
| Pans, dams and lakes dry up | Botswana | |
| Lack of water, shortage of water for both animals and people, decrease in availability and quality of water, water content | Portugal, Botswana, Cape Verde, China | |
| Drying of the river | Botswana | |
| Salinization, high water salinity | Botswana, Cape Verde | |
| Salinity of groundwater | Djanibek, Karapinar | |
| Electrical conductivity (of irrigation water) | Nestos | |
| Climate | High temperatures | Botswana, Nestos |
| Rainfall, reduced and irregular rainfall | Nestos, Eskisehir | |
| Drought | Karapinar | |
| No dew (due to dry atmospheric conditions) | Botswana | |
| Evaporation | Nestos | |
| Other | Wild fires | Botswana |
| Wildlife disappears e.g. animals, butterflies, etc | Botswana | |
| Poverty and hunger | Botswana | |
| Increase in population | Cape Verde | |
| Decrease and ageing of the population | Portugal | |
| Low public participation | Portugal | |
| Lack of investment | Portugal |
Table 11: Conservation indicators
| Category | Indicator | Study site |
| Land | Greening of the land | Botswana |
| Good practices: contour planting; terraces; water points; walls; forest fires combat and prevention infrastructures | Portugal | |
| Tracks, cleaned terrains | Portugal | |
| Existence of leisure areas | Portugal | |
| Erosion | Absence of gullies | Chile |
| Soils | Acceptable levels of soil and water salinity | Botswana |
| Soil fertility increases | Botswana | |
| Easiness of soil ploughing | Morocco | |
| Crops / vegetation | Good harvests (high crop yields) | Botswana |
| Stability of the yield | Morocco, Tunisia | |
| Rapid growth of plants after the first rains | Morocco, Tunisia | |
| Good vegetation cover | Botswana | |
| Increased and improved quality of wild fruits | Botswana | |
| Livestock | Animals recover and start to reproduce | Botswana |
| Water | The river start flowing again | Botswana |
| Improved (raised) underground water table | Botswana | |
| Dams, ponds, pans and lakes fill up with water | Botswana | |
| Climate | Good rains | Botswana |
| Other | More food for both animals and people | Botswana |
| Wild animals re-appear | Botswana | |
| Food becomes abundant | Botswana | |
| Birds and other wildlife begin to sing | Botswana | |
| Diversification of the economical activities | Portugal | |
| Municipalities approach to these problems | Portugal | |
| Conscientious and receptive population | Portugal | |
| Participation in the DESIRE workshop | Portugal |
The resulting list of indicators of each study site from this exercise 3 was sent to WB4 for further use in the monitoring phase.
Degradation versus conservation indicators
As can be seen from the tables above, most study sites have not made the distinction between degradation and specific conservation indicators. But many have formulated the indicators neutrally, e.g. 'soil stability' instead of 'decreased soil stability' for degradation and 'increased soil stability' for conservation. In the tables above, those neutrally formulated indicators are all included in the degradation table and only specific conservation indicators are shown in the conservation table.
Some specifications:
- Portugal: 11 degradation and 8 conservation indicators, almost all different from each other
- Greece - Nestos: 12 indicators, mostly formulated neutral
- Turkey - Karapinar: only degradation indicators
- Turkey - Eskisehir: no conservation indicators (maybe misunderstood exercise, as they indicated possible conservation measure to some degradation indicators).
- Morocco: 5 degradation and 3 conservation indicators, all different.
- Tunisia: 8 degradation indicators, 2 conservation indicators, one being the same (yield), the other different (rapid growth of plant after first rains). Some indicators are identical or similar to those from Morocco, which raises some doubts about the authenticity.
- Russia - Djanybek: only degradation indicators
- Russia - Saratov: only degradation indicators (both Russian study sites have almost identical indicators!!)
- China: no distinction made, but indicators mostly formulated neutral
- Botswana: 25 degradation and 15 conservation indicators, thereof 3 not the opposite of a degradation sign, namely
- good rains
- increased and improved quality of wild fruits
- birds and other wildlife begin to sing
- Chile: two degradation indicators and one neutrally formulated indicator ('presence or absence of gullies').
- Cape Verde: mainly degradation indicators, but some indicators formulated neutrally (e.g. 'soil stability')
Compared to other study sites, we found that Botswana made a very thorough and detailed list of indicators, properly distinguishing between degradation and conservation indicators.
Stakeholder differences (user of indicators)
The exercise was designed as a brainstorming session in plenary. Only in the workshop report, study sites were asked to differentiate the users of the listed indicators. The information obtained can therefore only partly be used for conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important for the understanding of the indicators listed.
Some specifications:
- Portugal: no differentiation made
- Greece - Nestos: probably not done with stakeholder participants. The report only indicates 'productivity' as an indicator used by farmers; the rest has no information (12 indicators).
- Turkey - Karapinar: Differentiation made for each issue, grouping together some indicators. The issues mentioned are overgrazing, groundwater, wind erosion and drought. For each of these issues a number of specific indicators used by farmers and by GO experts are listed. Usually, the GO experts mention only 'direct measurement' or expert opinion, whereas the farmers list specific indicators.
- Turkey - Eskisehir: only the first 3 indicators (fertility, yield, drought) indicate the 'farmers' as users, for the rest of the indicators there is no information regarding the user.
- Morocco: Differentiation made. Often researchers and technicians are using the same indicators and the farmers are using others. Conservation indicators are listed as used by farmers only. One indicator is used by all 3 stakeholder groups: 'multiplication and increase of the rills in the fields'.
- Tunisia: Differentiation made. All indicators are used by the farmers, except 3 degradation indicators which are used by both farmer and researcher group (outcropping, overgrazing, rill erosion)
- Russia - Djanybek: Differentiation made between E (external) and L (local), but all indicators are listed as used by E/L (= both), except 'fast disappearing of ponds after snow melting', which is only used by local stakeholders.
- Russia - Saratov: Differentiation made between E (external) and L (local).
- China: 2 workshops made separately. 4 indicators by local farmers (related to crop, land hardening and fragmentation), 2 indicators by researchers (related to nutrient and water content), no common indicators.
- Botswana: almost all participants were local and mainly land users
- Chile: Differentiation made, but overall only three indicators. Two indicators used by technicians (soil profile loss and soil loss in t/ha), one indicator used by farmers (presence or absence of gullies).
- Cape Verde: All indicators used by local stakeholders, except 'increase in population' marked as 'local / external'.
It has to be mentioned that it was not the intention of the exercise to find out differences in the use of indicators by the various stakeholder groups; this analysis therefore remains indicative. Generally, as one would expect, it can be said that land users use more visual signs and researchers or technicians more indicators which can or need to be measured.
Comparison with WB2 list of indicators
A quick comparison with the list of indicators provided by WB2 shows that in general, all topics of WB2 are also covered by the indicators listed during this exercise. Of course, not all study sites quote all WB2 topics, as they are not all relevant (e.g. forest fire is only relevant at few sites). The only topics not appearing in the WB3 workshops are 'tourism indicators' and 'institutional indicators'.
The indicators themselves are often more detailed in what the stakeholders mention compared to the scientific indicators of WB2. Related to 'vegetation' for example, local stakeholders differentiate between 20 indicators, ranging from production to biodiversity and to early withering of plants, whereas in WB2 there are only the indicators 'major land use', 'vegetation cover type', 'plant cover' and 'deforested area'.
