Step 1: Review and adjustment of objective(s)
The three parts of the WB3 methodology interconnect and together lead through a coherent process from collaborative learning to jointly selecting strategies for test-implementation. This first step in the 2nd stakeholder workshop intends to recall and link again with discussions and results of stakeholder workshop1 in order to promote coherence and continuity in the whole process. Therefore, the objectives identified in Exercise 8 of the 1st stakeholder workshop (see DESIRE deliverable 3.1.2) are the basis for continuing the process in workshop 2. However, they need to be reviewed and might need to be refined or adjusted for properly guiding the coming assessment and selection process.
In 5 out of 14 study sites Exercise 8 has not been conducted during the 1st stakeholder workshop. So, these study sites had to define the relevant objective(s) on another basis.
Comparing the objectives identified in workshop 1 and those used during workshop 2 we find:
- That in about 4 study sites, the objectives were the same;
- In most cases, the objectives that guided the selection process in workshop 2 are formulated more generally or broader than those coming out of workshop 1;
- In some cases, what was called an objective is in reality a measure;
- From the workshop reports of many study sites it is not obvious whether the objectives selected for guiding the selection process are related to the results of the first workshop (i.e. whether these results have been used as a basis or not) or whether a link has been made to workshop 1.
The objectives focus on the following issues:
Table 4: Objectives as selected at the study sites
| Issue | Objectives | Study site |
| Protecting natural resources | Land management practices for protecting natural resources | Greece - Crete |
| Land resources conservation | Chile | |
| Mitigate land deg / desertification | Mitigate land degradation and desertification effects | Cape Verde |
| Develop agriculture | Sustainable development of agriculture | Morocco |
| Soil conservation | Reduce soil erosion | Spain |
| Increase soil fertility | Spain | |
| Soil quality conservation against salinisation and water erosion | Russia - Novy | |
| Soil conservation against water erosion | Russia - Djanybek | |
| Protection of dry-farming areas from water erosion | Turkey - Eskisehir | |
| Water and soil conservation | Tunisia | |
| Water conservation | Reduce water loss | Spain |
| Improvement of water mobilization and management | Cape Verde | |
| Reduce water loss | China | |
| Fresh water conservation and effective use | Russia - Djanybek | |
| Water and soil conservation | Tunisia | |
| Prevention of rapid drop in groundwater table | Turkey - Karapinar | |
| Mitigate salinization | Soil quality conservation against salinisation and water erosion | Russia-Novy |
| Reclamation of saline and sodic soils | Greece - Nestos | |
| Forest protection | Reduction of burned area | Portugal |
| Reduce the depletion of trees | Botswana | |
| Pasture protection | Mitigate wind erosion on pasturelands | Turkey - Karapinar |
| Rehabilitation of pasturelands | Turkey - Eskisehir |
Result of Step 1
The expected results were 1) that participants are up to date and can follow-up the discussions from WS1, and 2) to agree on 1-2 objectives as a basis for selecting options for test-implementation.
On the basis of the available workshop reports it is difficult to assess to which extent links to discussions and results from WS1 have explicitly been made. The reports hardly contain information on discussions that took place during the workshop. All study sites were able to define one (or several) objectives to guide the assessment and selection process. In about 4 sites the objective was identical to what was identified during the 1st workshop; in quite a number of sites the objective became more general. In yet other cases it is unclear how exactly the objective was identified.
