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 8: Embedding into the overall strategy and seeking a commitment

At 8 out of 14 study sites commitments were made by different stakeholders regarding supporting test-implementation of selected measures. At some study sites (e.g. Botswana, Cape Verde, Tunisia) very detailed lists of who is going to do what were elaborated, while at most other sites the commitment was made in a more general mode. In Spain, they expanded the commitment to defining how communication with stakeholders and information on the implementation process and results will be safeguarded. In Turkey, it was found that it is difficult for governmental stakeholders who are willing to support the process but are not in a position to commit themselves / their institution and even more so to promise any financial support. Regarding the latter point, it has to be assumed that this applies to many sites and is not typical for the Turkish context only.

Regarding the refining of the draft of an overall strategy developed in workshop 1, it has to be mentioned that 5 out of 14 study sites did not have such a draft to be used as a basis for refinement. This applies to Spain, Greece-Crete, Greece-Nestos, Tunisia and Morocco. In Portugal, the draft strategy was further developed and defined in more detail. In Botswana, emphasis was given to a single element of the draft strategy which was elaborated in much detail. In most other study sites however, no real refinement or further development of the draft strategy was found, and in some sites it is even difficult to capture a broader strategy.

From the results presented in the reports it has to be concluded, that this embedding of concrete measures into a broader political, socio-cultural and economic context is a huge challenge for study site teams and for the stakeholders. Of course it was never expected that it would be possible to develop a coherent strategy in 2 exercises in a workshop with some representatives of different stakeholder groups. The aim was to sensitise study site teams and workshop participants on the importance of considering the broader context when selecting and especially while implementing concrete measures.

Results of step 8

The main objectives of this step were 1) to refine the overall strategy which was drafted at the end of the 1^st stakeholder workshop and to ensure that the option selected for test-implementation fits into the overall strategy while adequately considering framework conditions; and 2) to reach some kind of commitment of participants to support test-implementation.

Only few study sites really emphasised the development and refinement of an overall strategy for sustainable land management. This issue is and remains a challenge for the project. Workblock 1 and the NGO's involved in the project are taking this point up and are working on it.

At more than half of the study sites it was possible to get a certain commitment of stakeholders regarding the test-implementation process. This is very valuable in order to create ownership and interest of stakeholders in the project and its results.