Skip to main content

Workshop participants

The workshop guidelines stress the importance of inviting the same people to this workshop as have been participating in the first stakeholder workshop because the 2nd workshop builds on the analysis and discussions made in stakeholder workshop 1.

Table 3: Participants of 2nd stakeholder workshops

Study site Total % of participants already participated in WS1 Men Women Local External Farmers Comments
1 Spain 15 73% 11 4 12 3 8
2 Portugal 12 58% 8 4 10 2 1
4 Greece, Crete 8 n.a. ? ? 2 6 2 strongly reduced No. of participants compared to WS1
5 Greece, Nestos Basin 11 55% 11 0 8 3 5 much smaller No. of participants compared to WS1 (despite having invited the same plus additional people)
6 Turkey, Karapinar 22 50% 22 0 16 6 16
7 Turkey, Eskisehir 17 82% 15 2 10 7 10 strongly reduced No. of participants compared to WS1
8 Morocco 30 37% 22 8 12 18 4
9 Tunisia 28 93% 22? 6? 18 10 13
10 Russia, Djanybek 17 76% 11 6 5? 12? 3
11 Russia, Saratov 24 25% 22 2 10? 14? 4 Local - external not clear!
12 China 14 7% 12 2 10 4 3 Only 1 person who attended WS1, the rest are new
13 Botswana 18 61% 11 7 15 3 12 all E are researchers
15 Chile 22 52% 15 7 ? ? 9 Local - external not clear!
16 Cape Verde 28 89% 22 6 18 10 9 Good mix of stakeholders


E = external participants L = local participants WS = workshop

Changing participants from WS1 to WS2: In some study sites, the majority of workshop participants are different from those in WS1, which is problematic because it is difficult to follow up discussions from WS1, and the new participants lack this basis for making a sound decision on which strategy to select for test-implementation. This puts the coherence of the process at risk. Reasons for this discontinuity are manifold, among them: high turn-over of staff in institutions; institutions send whomever they think should participate; loss of interest of some individuals; bad timing of the workshop and time constraints of participants.