Skip to main content

Challenges

  1. Options from other contexts require careful consideration regarding adaptation: The external options taken from the WOCAT database in step 2 require a good understanding of SLM principles, appropriate knowledge of the local situation and experience to be properly adapted to the local context.
  2. Proper use of decision support software: There is always a risk that the use of the Facilitator software raises false expectations among stakeholders on what it can and can not do regarding the evaluation of different options. Moderators need to be clear about the potential and limitations of the software, its purpose and reasonable use, and they must be capable of properly interpreting and explaining the resulting graphs.
  3. Challenging for moderators and stakeholders: The methodology of the 2nd stakeholder workshop is more complex and abstract than the one of WP 3.1, and therefore its implementation even more challenging for all involved partners.
  4. Scoring ladder: With the 'scoring ladder' - a simple to use visual tool - we thought to provide an effective tool for facilitating the scoring step. However, this tool was hardly used by workshop moderators. We will still try to find out why it was not used: was it too challenging or considered too simple, and therefore unnecessary?
  5. Correct interpretation and careful application: The graphs produced by the Facilitator software need to be analyzed and interpreted carefully. This step is decisive and at the same time challenging for the moderators. However, a serious and careful use of the methodology is required throughout the process, as the consecutive steps build on each other.
  6. Proper integration of the three components of the WB3 methodology: To ensure that parts I and II of the WB3 methodology (identification, documentation and sharing of options) are at the basis of the methodology for the 2nd stakeholder workshop (Part III). This refers to
    1. The composition of stakeholders (participants) in workshop 1 and 2 (not necessarily the same person, but at least informed colleagues of the same institutes or societal groups). In the whole process, enough attention must be given to stakeholder analysis (before WS1) which should result in a better understanding of how stakeholders can be motivated to participate and how they can be shown what is in it for them.
    2. The conformity or at least complementarity of objectives of SLM as defined in workshop 1 and 2,
    3. Using options identified during workshop 1 in workshop 2;
    4. Embedding options selected in workshop 2 into an overall (regional) SLM strategy. First reflections towards such a strategy have already been made during workshop 1.