Synthesis of all Stakeholder Workshops 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Workshops at the study sites
3. Results from the single steps
   1. Step 1: Review and adjustment of objective(s)
   2. Step 2: Identification of options
   3. Step 3: Identification of relevant criteria for evaluation
   4. Step 4: Scoring the options
   5. Step 5: Criteria ranking
   6. Step 6: Analysis and interpretation
   7. Step 7: Prioritisation of options - negotiation and decision making
   8. Step 8: Embedding into the overall strategy and seeking a commitment
4. Workshop evaluation
5. Strengths, weaknesses and challenges
6. Annex 1: List of stakeholder workshop reports
7. Annex 2: Table showing technologies selected in the course of WB3

Step 3: Identification of relevant criteria for evaluation

Identification process

Information on the process of criteria identification is only partially available. Most study sites have probably done it in a kind of brainstorming session. Following some details from study sites:

• Chile: Participants were asked to write the most relevant criteria on cards, which were then grouped and ranked in a plenary.
• China: The moderator distributed a checklist of possible criteria and explained the meaning of each. It is not obvious whether the list from the guidelines was distributed (which in fact was not meant to be distributed...), or their own list. Then, participants were asked to select 4-6 key economic and ecological criteria and 2-4 socio-cultural criteria. These were ranked and the top 13 selected and agreed upon.
• Portugal: Participants were divided into two village groups and were asked to propose a set of 12 criteria, which were then discussed in plenary and reduced to 3-4 per category.
• Spain: The brainstorming took place in two subgroups (farmers and others). Afterwards, the suggested criteria were discussed and a selection made by individual voting (3 votes per criteria).
• Turkey - Karapinar: From comments in the workshop report it must be concluded that they gave the list of possible criteria (from the guidelines) to the stakeholders and asked them to select a number of appropriate criteria from that list. As mentioned above (see China), this is not how the list in the guidelines is supposed to be used. The stakeholders preferably should select their criteria and describe these in their own words. We don't have detailed information but have to assume that the same also applies for Eskisehir, as moderators were partly the same.

The recommendation on the number of criteria to be selected per category (economic/production, ecological, socio-cultural) is 3-4, i.e. a total of max. 12. This recommendation was mostly followed. Only 4 study sites exceeded the total number of suggested criteria: China (13), Cape Verde (18) and both Turkish sites (14-16 per objective).

Voting of the criteria by participants in Spain (Photo: Joris de Vente)

Most cited criteria

On the 16 criteria lists from different sites (usually one per study site plus two lists from Russia - Djanybek, Turkey - Karapinar and Turkey - Eskisehir, as they had two objectives), some criteria are found repeatedly. In the following, the most often cited criteria per category are listed, as well as those, which one might expect to appear on more lists.

Economic / production:

• Crop yield increase: 11 x (sometimes as one criteria together with farm income increase)
• Increase farm income: 8 x
• Costs of implementation / expenses of inputs: 8 x
• Product / activities diversification: 6 x
• Fodder / animal production increase: 6 x

Ecological:

• Soil erosion decrease / prevention: 14 x
• Plant diversity / biodiversity increase: 6 x
• Increase organic matter content of soil: 6 x
• Increase water availability / quantity: 6 x plus 2 x under off-site
• Other water related (groundwater, river and pond rehabilitation, etc.): 5 x
• Decrease salinity / reduce risk of soil salinization: 5 x
• Soil cover increase: only 3 x!
• Reduce evaporation: only 2 x
• Drought resistance: only 1 x!

Socio-cultural:

• promotion of association, neighbourhood solidarity, community institutional strengthening: 7 x
• food security increase: 6 x
• capacity building / increase knowledge of conservation / erosion: 6 x
• Increase employment opportunities: 4 x under socio-cultural, plus 3 x under economic
• Migration reduction / fixing population and stop farming exodus: 5 x

Off-site:

• Various mentioned by 4 sites (Russia and Turkey), like ....

Result of Step 3

The first expected result was to identify relevant criteria for the evaluation of different options. It has been achieved at all study sites. The second expected result was to achieve a common understanding of the selected criteria among the participants. As most workshop reports do not specifically describe stakeholder discussions, this achievement can not be verified.