Skip to main content

Step 7: Prioritisation of options - negotiation and decision making

Sometimes, the graphs produced by the Facilitator software clearly show, which of the options scores best. In other cases this is not obvious and discussion and negotiation among the stakeholders is required. It has to be clarified whether in the specific context it is most important that an option scores better economically, socio-culturally or ecologically. It is a great opportunity to discuss such basic principles with stakeholders, though at the same time a challenging task.

As with the other steps, some study sites did report on these negotiations, others didn't and just presented the final result. This final result (the decision) is in most cases reasonably based on the precedent steps, but not always. Details can be found in table 8, which at the same time gives an overview of the methodology application for each site.

Sometimes, participants would have liked all measures to be implemented, such as in Spain: "all the participants agreed that in fact all six conservation measures are viable and worth implementing in the field. A combination of these measures would be ideal".

In certain study sites, financial constraints did not allow to actually decide on the preferred option for implementation, such as in Botswana or Turkey - Eskisehir. This also applied to China, where check dams were given up for level bench terrace and reforestation. In the case of China, the selection of check dams was anyway not based on proper analysis, as it scored very low socio-culturally. These cases proof that it is very important that relevant criteria are carefully selected and included in the scoring and analysis, especially also budget limitations. This criterion for example was not considered in Botswana.

    Decision-making process and overall impression on WP 3.3 workshop process (steps 2 to 7)

    Table 8: Decision making process at each study site

    Study site Process observations Decision (compared to analysis) Overall impression
    Spain
    • Well structured process
    • Initially open to new options from WOCAT, later focus on own options
    • Scoring done with visual option cards
    • Stakeholders mistrust Facilitator software
    		 Reasonable, although stakeholders would prefer all options. Reorganisation of best options according to 2 main land use types. Methodology well used with some minor changes within the scope of flexibility of the methodology. Surprising is the high mistrust of stakeholders in Facilitator software.
    Portugal
    • well structured process
    • work with option posters and visual cards
    • work with scoring ladder
    • proper scoring negotiation and ranking
    		 Reasonable decision, although discussion was difficult as there was no clear winner from the analysis Very good application of methodology, almost perfect
    Greece - Crete
    • unclear scoring process (in groups or individually?)
    • unclear analysis during WS
    		 Drip irrigation scored above no tillage due to only one socio-cultural criterion. Decision for no tillage therefore remains unclear and not based on evidence. Methodology probably not conducted carefully enough and in a rather mechanical style.
    Turkey - Karapinar
    • 2 objectives maintained throughout
    • Restricted criteria selection
    		 Decision reasonable, based on good analysis Major effort to apply methodology and use Facilitator software, although probably rather mechanically
    Turkey -
    Eskisehir
    • 2 objectives maintained throughout
    • Mistrust of stakeholders towards WOCAT db
    		 Analysis correct, but final decision on merging the first two options remains doubtful Major effort to apply methodology, although probably rather mechanically
    Morocco
    • High focus on presentation and discussion of assessed options
    • Lower focus on selection and decision process
    		 Decision mainly left to study site team to suggest and select the most feasible option(s) for test implementation Engaged process, but not fully following the suggested methodology
    Tunisia
    • Well conducted analysis of 3 transect group results
    • Extensive scoring matrices
    		 First option reasonable, but second option re-prioritized without clear reason. A second workshop held for final re-prioritization and decision, although not fully clear why. Quite well conduction of method, although scoring not fully taken into account for decision. Many options planned for implementation
    Russia -
    Djanybek
    • Extensive scoring matrices
    		 Decision mostly reasonable, although different prioritization for two villages Quite well conducted following the guidelines. Almost identical process in both Russian study sites.
    Russia -
    Novy
    • Maintaining two objectives throughout
    • Extensive scoring matrices
    • Unequal group size
    		 Reasonable decision Quite well conducted following the guidelines. Almost identical process in both Russian study sites.
    China
    • Variable criteria selections
    		 More or less reasonable, although preferred option scores very low socio-culturally. Due to financial constraints, the second and third options were selected. More or less well applied methodology, but the analysis and selection was not done carefully enough. It would have required some more negotiation.
    Botswana
    • Major differences in scoring between groups, but well negotiated
    		 Reasonable, although preferred option left out due to financial constraints. Ecological criteria put over economic / socio-cultural. Well done, correctly applied methodology. Possible improvement through better use of visual tools (e.g. posters, cards).
    Chile
    • Selection of options from government list
    • Regrouping of options by participants
    • Simple ranking of options based on averages
    		Reasonable, as zero tillage ranked best in almost all categories and both groups Although Facilitator was not used, the process was conducted quite well. The selected option has already been decided upon earlier, as test implementation had already started.
    Cape Verde
    • Fair sub-selection of options through stakeholders
    • Passionate discussions
    		 Quite reasonable, although afforestation did not score well economically. Vegetative barriers are second best option in all 3 categories. Well done, correctly applied methodology. Possible improvement through better use of visual tools (e.g. posters, cards).