Presentation on Knowledge Management & Decision Support, April 2014

1. Knowledge Management &
Decision Support
8 April 2014, Gudrun Schwilch
COSTactionES1104
DesertificationHub
WORLD OVERVIEW OF CONSERVATION
APPROACHES AND TECHNOLOGIES

2. The DESIRE approach

3. The usual way of finding solutions
3
Researchers
Technical advisor
Farmers
HP. Liniger
HP. Liniger
HP. Liniger

4. Undesired effects
4
K. Herweg

5. 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

6. 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

7. • 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

8. 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
Preparations:
Descriptionofnaturalandhumanenvironment
Firstlistofactualtechnologiesandapproaches(incl.photos)
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
Technology T2 and Approach A2
Technology T3 and Approach A3
Technology T4 and Approach A4
Technology T5 and Approach A5
Preparations:
PreliminarysearchforoptionsinWOCATdatabase
Technologypostersandcards
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
9
local authority
agricultural advisor
researcher
young land user experienced land user
possible solutions
G. Schwilch

10. 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

11. 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)

12. • 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 -> review
and quality assurance ->
global database
• Basis for knowledge sharing
Part II: Assessment

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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!

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Methodological elements
Enter criteria to search for
water solutions
FACILITATOR software / Joris de Vente

21. > 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

22. Judgement of the study site researchers
regarding quality of decision support

23. 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

24. > 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

25. 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