Knowledge Management & Decision Support

Knowledge Management & Decision Support

8 April 2014, Gudrun Schwilch

CO

ST

act

ion

ES

1104

D

eser

tifi

cati

on

Hu

b

WORLD OVERVIEW OF CONSERVATION APPROACHES AND TECHNOLOGIES

The DESIRE approach

3

The usual way of finding solutions

Researchers

Technical advisor

FarmersHP. Liniger

HP. Liniger

HP. Liniger

4

Undesired effects

K. Herweg

Premises

a. Wealth of SLM knowledge and experience available -> require recognition, evaluation and learning

b. Local solutions not a priori good: SLM must be ecologically effective, economically viable and socio-culturally acceptable-> requires proper assessment

c. Technocratic approches often lead to failures-> requires participative selection and decision support process

d. Up-scaling proven SLM only possible if SLM is adapted locally -> requires a local process

Development of a

Methodological Framework

-> threepart framework leading through whole procedure from initiation to final decision

based on> the WOCAT database of best practices> tools to assess and select SLM strategies> a methodology to apply these tools within a participatory

process

• Part I – Identification: Identify existing and potential strategies with a participatory learning approach (stakeholder workshop 1)

• Part II – Assessment: Evaluate, document and share strategies with standardised questionnaires

• Part III – Selection: Select the most promising strategies with a decision support tool (stakeholder workshop 2)

Methodological framework

G. Schwilch

G. Schwilch

Documentation and evaluation with questionnaires

Part I - Identification• Stakeholder workshop 1• Mutual learning• Identification of current and

potential solutions• 3 days

Part II - Assessment• Documentation and

evaluation of 3-5 local and potential solutions

• using WOCAT questionnaires• 2-3 months

Part III – Selection and decision

• Stakeholder workshop 2• Selection and decision support

for local implementation• 2 days

Local water and biomass cycles:

• disturbances• causes and impacts

(natural and human)• solutions

Prep

ara

tion

s:D

escription

of n

atu

ral a

nd

hu

ma

n e

nv

iron

me

nt

First list o

f ac

tua

l tech

no

log

ies a

nd

ap

pro

ac

he

s (in

cl. ph

oto

s)

Indicators of degradation and conservation

Stakeholders influence and motivation

Assessment of locally applied solutions and ideas for potential strategies

Prioritize local and potential solutions for further assessment

Technology T1 and Approach A1





Prep

ara

tion

s:P

relimina

ry se

arch

for o

ptio

ns

in W

OC

AT

data

ba

seTe

ch

no

log

y po

sters

and

card

s

Selection from WOCAT database with local/potential, DESIRE and worldwide solutions

Comparison and appraisal of options for local application, with weighted criteria in decision support tool

Negotiation and decision for test implementation with commitment of stakeholders

Embedding into overall land management strategy

For each T and A:• Description, specifications and

costs• natural and human environment• analysis (pros and cons, impact,

acceptance, etc)

Review and quality assurance

Methodological framework

9

Sharing and negotiating knowledge

local authority

agricultural advisor

researcher

young land user experienced land user

possible solutions

G. Schwilch

Part I: Identification

> 3-days local stakeholder workshop> initiate process and tap local experience / innovation> L4S didactic approach: various stakeholders in specific local

context, initiate learning process through dialogue and joint reflection, enhancing trust and collaboration among local and external participants

Training material

Learning groupContext

Learning process

Contents of stakeholder workshop 1

• Identification of land degradation and desertification processes, their causes and impacts (Exercise 1 + 2)

• Identification of local indicators for land degradation and conservation (Exercise 3)

• Identification and first assessment of currently applied and of potential prevention and mitigation strategies (Exercise 7)

• Identification of stakeholders, and their roles and responsibilities concerning sustainable land management (Exercise 4)

• Working towards an outline of a coherent overall strategy for land conservation in the given local context (Exercise 8)

• Based on 3-5 most promising solutions identified in stakeholder workshop 1

• Interactive between land users and experts

• Q‘s help to understand reasons behind successful own experiences

• Standardized assessment and documentation -> reviewand quality assurance ->global database

• Basis for knowledge sharing

Part II: Assessment

Part III: Selection and decision

Stakeholder Workshop 2 (2 days)Working through a series of steps, incl. multi-criteria evaluation, to reach decision for trial implementation

Methodology:

> Selection of options is based on WOCAT database

> Scoring and decision process is supported by a decision support software

> Both tools are embedded into a stakeholder workshop, continuing the ‘learning for sustainability’ approach

Select options (step 1 + 2)

> Define objective: what are we looking for ?> Search in the WOCAT database (basket of options)> Search facilitated by leading through a series of key questions

to limit the selection to 4-7 (to be evaluated with the following steps)

Composting associated with planting pits

Zhuanglang loess terraces

Forest catchment treatment

Fanya juu terraces

Grevillea agroforestry system Small-scale

conservation tillage

Rehabilitation of ancient terraces

Stone wall bench terraces

Furrow-enhanced runoff harvesting for olives

Small level bench terraces

Improved trash lines

Degradation: water erosion

Ecograze

Hill agroforestry

…

Sunken streambed structure

Shelterbelts for farmland in sandy areas

…

Degradation: aridification

Barreras vivas

Land use: annual cropping

Check dam

Pepsee micro-irrigation system

…

Technologies resulting from the first two key questions on degradation and land use

• open-source DSS software ‚Facilitator‘

• used in background

-> potentially suitable T‘s-> needs adaptation!

Identify and rank criteria, score options (step 3 - 5)

> Identifying a set of 9-12 ecological, economic and socio-cultural criteria

> Looking at one criterion at a time and scoring all options against this criterion

• Ranking criteria under each category according importance -> this assigns weights to the criteria

Analysis (step 6)

> Visualisation of the relative merits of the options. > An option can only be sustainable if it receives good valuation

in each category

Negotiation and decision making (step 7-8)

> Negotiation of the best options -> final agreement on which option(s) selected for implementation

> Embedding into overall strategy, overcome framework obstacles

> Seek stakeholder commitment

Methodological elements

Enter criteria to search for water solutions

FACILITATOR software / Joris de Vente

> Learning between participants: a bias in favour of experts

> Local stakeholder underestimate their contributions

> Deepening SLM knowledge

> Learning going beyond SLM: appreciating the methodology

> Group consensus over SLM selection

> Appropriate and feasible SLM solutions

> Efficiency of process to facilitate SLM despite time and structural limitations

Resulting key issues of the 3-part methodology

G. Schwilch

Judgement of the study site researchers regarding quality of decision support

Criteria selection

> Crop yield increase: 11 x > Increase farm income: 8 x> Costs of implementation / expenses of inputs: 8 x> Product / activities diversification: 6 x> Fodder / animal production increase: 6 x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Soil erosion decrease / prevention: 14 x> Increase water availability / quantity: 8 x> Plant diversity / biodiversity increase: 6 x> Increase organic matter content of soil: 6 x> Other water related (groundwater, river / 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!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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

Economic

Ecological

Socio-cultural

> Generic methodology as a challenge -> successfully applied in a diversity of contexts and by a variety of researchers

> SLM practices are transferable among sites, but require adaptation -> collaboration of researchers and land users

> More field research is needed to back up expert valuation of SLM impacts -> commitment and resources

> The methodology facilitates multi-stakeholder learning processes that contributes to more SLM -> solution-oriented, economic (time and resources), comprehensive

> Decision support methodology successfully applied -> outcome in the long term to be confirmed

Conclusions

CDE (Centre for Development and Environment). 2010. Coping with degradation through SLWM. SOLAW Background Thematic report – TR12. Rome: FAO (www.fao.org/nr/solaw)

Liniger HP, Mekdaschi Studer R, Hauert C, Gurtner M. 2011. Sustainable Land Management in Practice – Guidelines and Best Practices for Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica, WOCAT, FAO

Schwilch G, 2012. A process for effective desertification mitigation. PhD thesis Wageningen University. ISBN 9789461732880.

Schwilch G, Bachmann F, Liniger HP. 2009. Appraising and selecting conservation measures to mitigate desertification and land degradation based on stakeholder participation and global best practices. Land Degradation & Development 20: 308–326

Schwilch G, Bestelmeyer B, Bunning S, Critchley W, Herrick J, Kellner K, Liniger HP, Nachtergaele F, Ritsema C, Schuster B, Tabo R, van Lynden G, Winslow M. 2011. Experiences in Monitoring and Assessment of Sustainable Land Management. Land Degradation & Development 22 (2), 214-225

Schwilch G, Bachmann F, de Graaff J. 2012. Decision support for selecting SLM technologies with stakeholders. Applied Geography 34: 86-98.

Schwilch G, Bachmann F, Valente S, Coelho C, Moreira J, Laouina A, Chaker M, Aderghal M, Santos P, Reed MS. 2012. A structured multi-stakeholder learning process for sustainable land management. Journal of Environmental Management 107: 52-63 (2012); doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.023.

Schwilch G., Hessel, R. and Verzandvoort, S. (Eds). 2012. Desire for Greener Land. Options for Sustainable Land Management in Drylands. CDE, Alterra, ISRIC and CTA

WOCAT 2007: where the land is greener – case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: HP. Liniger and W. Critchley. CTA, FAO, UNEP, CDE.

Related publications