This document summarizes a study that used a participatory approach called PRACTICE to evaluate restoration and management actions in the degraded rangelands of the Kalahari in southern Africa. The study (1) identified actions used by local land users, (2) evaluated the actions using biophysical indicators selected by stakeholders, and (3) integrated the evaluations into a multi-criteria decision analysis. Through participatory workshops, stakeholders provided input on indicator weighting and action evaluations. The analysis found that good management practices generally outperformed shrub control actions. The study concluded the approach provided insights but faced challenges regarding participation, data collection, and applicability across contexts.

1. UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference, 9-12 April 2013, Bonn, Germany
Towards improved decision-making
in degraded drylands of southern Africa:
an indicator based assessment for integrated evaluation
of restoration and management actions in the Kalahari rangelands
N. Dreber, T.M. Kong, K. Kellner, A. van Eeden, A. Ocampo-Melgar

2. INTRODUCTION UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
STUDY SITE
The Kalahari case study
in the Mier area
• arid, SW-Kalahari basin
• livestock farming & game ranching
• small-holding to semi-commercial systems

3. Kalahari rangelands
Unpredictable climate,
little farm infrastructure,
inadequate water
availability, inflexibility in
employing SLM resulted in
widespread degradation of
south-western Kalahari
rangelands
Degradation severely affected
biodiversity and provisioning of
essential ecosystem services
Local attempts to mitigate degradation should
actively involve land-user at all levels of project
planning, decision-making and execution
Van Rooyen 1998, J Arid Env

4. INTRODUCTION UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
STUDY AIM
Study aims:
Towards improved decision-making for combating desertification
(1) Identifying restoration and management actions applied by affected land-users
(2) Evaluating the performance and acceptance of actions in an integrative way
(3) Sharing results with a multi-stakeholder platform
(4) Fostering the implementation of best practices in a locally contextualized manner

5. INTRODUCTION UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
THE FRAMEWORK
The PRACTICE approach:
• Filling the gap of systematic
evaluation of LD & SLM actions
• Linking science to society
• Combining local (traditional)
knowledge with scientific ex-
pertise
The 7 steps of the PRACTICE
Integrated Assessment Protocol
adapted from Bautista & Orr (2010)
IAPro

6. IAPro Step 1 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
THE STAKEHOLDERS
IAPro Step 1:
Identification of a multi-stakeholder platform

7. IAPro Step 1 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
THE STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholder identification
through a local consultation process and chain referrals based on semi-structured interviews
Chain referral scheme:

8. IAPro Step 1 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
THE STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholder identification
through a local consultation process and chain referrals based on semi-structured interviews
Multi-stakeholder platform
formed by 28 stakeholders

9. IAPro Step 2 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
ACTIONS & INDICATORS
IAPro Step 2:
Baseline evaluation of locally applied actions &
site-specific indicator selection

10. IAPro Step 2 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
ACTIONS & INDICATORS
Action 1: Good management (rotational grazing & herding)
Action 2: Shrub control (application of chemicals)
Action 3: Dune stabilization (brush packing)

11. IAPro Step 2 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
ACTIONS & INDICATORS
Indicator selection: Short-listing of indicator set
Site-specific indicators Common science-based indicators
relevant to farmers’ objectives & representing overall functioning of
personal situation dryland ecosystems
30 ecological & socio-economic • provisioning services
indicators • regulatory services
• supporting services
• cultural services
Final set of 11 indicators
short-listing criteria: • soil condition • animal condition
• redundancy • shrub abundance • water availability
• popularity • grass abundance • economic costs
• uniqueness • grass diversity • personal well-being
• data availability • biomass production • governmental help
• data collectability • grazing capacity

12. IAPro Step 3 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
INDICATOR WEIGHTING
IAPro Step 3:
Indicator ranking by stakeholders

13. IAPro Step 3 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
INDICATOR WEIGHTING
Relative importance of indicators
iteration process with social learning effect
Pack-of-Cards Method:
1. Ranking indicators as independent thinkers
2. Computation of collective weights
3. Re-ranking following group discussions and
comparison with calculated collective weights

14. IAPro Step 3 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
INDICATOR WEIGHTING
Indicator weighting: how important for the evaluation of actions?
Rank-shift: Indicator 1st 2nd
Biodiversity: 11 5 Water availability 1 1
Grazing capacity: 8 3 Animal condition 4 2
Grass abundance: 3 8 Grazing capacity 8 3
Personal well-being 2 4
Biodiversity 11 5
Soil condition 5 6
Biomass production 6 7
Abundance grasses 3 8
Economic costs 7 9
Change in perception/ social learning effect Abundance woodies 10 10
Governmental help 9 11

15. IAPro Step 4 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
INDICATOR QUANTIFICATION
IAPro Step 4:
Biophysical assessment of indicators

16. IAPro Step 4 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
INDICATOR QUANTIFICATION
Categories Criteria Indicator Unit GM SC
(proxy) good management shrub control
Supporting services Soil fertility Soil condition % organic carbon 0.1 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.08
Regulating services Resource Grass abundance plants m-2 14.0 ± 3.9 25.7 ± 11.9
regeneration
Ecosystem integrity Woody abundance rank* 1 ± 0.4 2 ± 0.7
Provisioning Grass phytomass Biomass production kg ha-1 2755.7 ± 374.1 2238.4 ± 343.5
services
Forage production Grazing capacity** ha LSU-1 4.7 ± 1.4 4.4 ± 1.2
Meat production Animal condition rank* 1.2 ± 0.4 2.4 ± 1.0
Economy Water availability Water availability rank* 1.1 ± 0.25 2.1 ± 0.8
Labor & material Economic costs rank* 1.1 ± 0.3 2.3 ± 0.9
costs
Sustainability Personal well-being rank* 1.1 ± 0.3 2.5 ± 1.0
Subsidies Governmental help rank* 1.9 ± 1.0 1.9 ± 1.4
Biodiversity Species diversity Grass diversity H' 1.04 ± 0.2 0.9 ± 0.6
*effect on action on the indicator as assessed by stakeholders (1 = affecting the most to 6 = no effect)
**overestimated for Kalahari ecosystems; applied method needs to be adapted (relations remain the same)

17. IAPro Step 5 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
MCDA
IAPro Step 5:
Integrating indicator weightings with biophysical assessments

18. IAPro Step 5 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
MCDA
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: comparing alternative restoration and management actions
Results of outranking relationships based on:
(1) relevancy (indicator relative importance representing SH perspectives)
(2) performance (indicator quantification)
Good Management vs. Shrub Control
Indifferent: Weak preference for GM:
Biodiversity Animal condition
Economic costs Woody abundance
Governmental help Water availability
Personal wellbeing
Strict preference for GM: Strict preference for SC:
Grazing capacity Grass abundance
Biomass production Soil condition

19. IAPro Step 6 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
FINAL RE-EVALUATION
IAPro Step 6:
Collective integrated assessment of actions

20. IAPro Step 6 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
FINAL RE-EVALUATION
Final re-evaluation based on indicator weighting, MCDA & group discussions
Left: stakeholder rating of actions using a likert scale, right: responses to question if one would apply the action.

21. IAPro Step 1-6 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
CONCLUSIONS
IAPro Step 1-6:
Conclusions & lessons learned
Generals:
(1) IAPro is a promising framework for evaluating restoration and management actions
(2) IAPro offers insights into the wealth of site-specific indicators
(3) IAPro allows for a locally-contextualized assessment and evaluation process
Indicators refer to local-scale needs, represent key ecosystem services and
address both ecological and socio-economic issues
Social learning & acceptance:
(1) The participatory environment furthers a more diversified understanding
(2) The exchange among stakeholders creates opportunities for co-operative actions for the
benefit of the local farming community
Being better informed allow to adapt more effectively, being part of the
evaluation process increases acceptance of results

22. IAPro Step 1-6 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
CONCLUSIONS
IAPro Step 1-6:
Conclusions & lessons learned
Challenges:
(1) Location: huge distances may result in low participation rates at critical participatory steps
(2) Temporal environmental heterogeneity: remote location + distances + time- & budget-
constraints hampers timing and frequency of data collection
(3) Spatial environmental heterogeneity: preferential sampling approach used for indicator
quantification may hamper the identification of suitable replicate sites
Project implementation and proper application depend on e.g. a stronger
collaboration between Universities, local institutions and government (compromises
might not be sufficient/ fall too short)

23. IAPro Step 1-6 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
CONCLUSIONS
IAPro Step 1-6:
Conclusions & lessons learned
Challenges:
(1) Environmental awareness and implications differ depending on the socio-economic
setting and farming objectives (e.g. commercial vs. communal ranching, farming with
grazer vs. browser)
(2) Applicability: lack of regulating local-level institutions, inappropriate governance
structures and legal policy frameworks influence and constraint restoration actions and
land management strategies
Need for a land-use / -tenure stratification for improved local contextualization

24. IAPro Step 1-6 UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
CONCLUSIONS
IAPro Step 1-6:
Conclusions & lessons learned
Way forward:
(1) Testing the approach’s flexibility in coping with different social, economic and
environmental contexts of the Kalahari
(2) Coupling the assessment approach with local-level institutional mechanisms and
structures adapted to the different land-tenure forms
(3) Assure implementation, monitoring and long-term guidance backed by governmental
help
Please refer to the extended abstract for detailed descriptions of methods applied and
outcomes, as well as further critical notes and policy recommendations.

25. UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference 2013
Thank you