Cn 10 th14_leeds_wb4_5_stakeholder_workshop_methodology_fleskens

Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009
WB4/5 Stakeholder Workshop
Methodology
Luuk Fleskens, Lindsay Stringer
Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth & Environment
University of Leeds, UK
Mark Reed
ACES, University of Aberdeen, UK

June 2009June 2009
Workshop aims
 To share and evaluate results from WBs 4
and 5 with stakeholders
 To agree recommendations for agricultural
extension and national/district policy

June 2009June 2009
Rationale
 First opportunity since WB3 for
stakeholders to engage with the
project
 Last opportunity for face-to-face
dissemination in many sites
 Opportunity to evaluate findings in
collaboration with stakeholders

June 2009June 2009
Workshop process
1. Conduct a stakeholder analysis, from which an invitation
list can be extracted - this should include local
stakeholders as well as national and district level policy
makers
2. Develop facilitation plan and agenda for workshop, assign
facilitator, book venue and invite participants
3. Run workshops according to possibilities discussed later
4. Outputs:
a) report to local stakeholders;
b) Information for policy brief (with WB6);
c) workshop summary report (in English) to WB5 leader

June 2009June 2009
Preparation
Step 1: Stakeholder analysis
Purpose: to provide a list of invitees to the workshop
Ensure a representative cross-section of the policy
community is invited in addition to local stakeholders – can
build on stakeholder analysis done for WB3
Include UNCCD Science and Technology Correspondent /
National Focal Point
If no stakeholder analysis done during WB1/WB3, the
analysis should also include local stakeholders
Send list of stakeholders, including a short description of how
they are affected/involved to Mark Reed (m.reed@abdn.ac.uk)
by 28th
Feb 2011 to enable feedback
Invite stakeholders to workshop

June 2009June 2009
Preparation
Step 2: Facilitation plan
 Assign experienced facilitator (same person
as for WB3 workshops if possible) and
inform Mark Reed who this is by 31 March
2011
 Develop facilitation plan and workshop
agenda based on the selected options (one
session or two)

June 2009June 2009
Preparation
Step 3: Selecting options
 Option 1 (preferred): organise 2 sessions,
one for local stakeholders, one for policy
makers
 Option 2: organise one session for local
stakeholders and arrange separate
dissemination meeting with policymakers

June 2009June 2009
Preparation
Step 3 (cont’d): Selecting options
 Flowcharts provided to support decision
process

June 2009June 2009
Flowchart policy-maker session
Step 1 of 3
Do you expect
policy-makers
to participate
in a workshop
if invited?
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
NO Organize WS for local stakeholders
only; organize separate interaction
with policy-makers as a session on a
different day or as a meeting
Are you able
to prepare
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
NO NO
Prepare WS
with sessions
for local SH and
policy-makers
YES

June 2009June 2009
Step 2 of 3
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
Are you able
to prepare
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
NO NO
Prepare WS
with sessions
for local SH and
policy-makers
YES
Do you expect
policy-makers
to participate in
a workshop if
invited?
Do you expect
policy-makers
to participate in
a workshop if
invited?

June 2009June 2009
Step 3 of 3
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
with policy-makers
Are you able
to prepare
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
NO NO
Prepare WS
with sessions
for local SH and
policy-makers
YES
Do you expect
policy-makers
to turn up at
venue if
invited?
Do you expect
policy-makers
to turn up at
venue if
invited?

June 2009June 2009
Decision: YES
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
Organize WS for local stakeholders
Are you able
to prepare
policy-maker
WS session?
Are you able
to prepare
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
NO NO
Prepare WS
with sessions
for local SH and
policy-makers
YES
Do you expect
policy-makers
to turn up at
venue if
invited?
Do you expect
policy-makers
to turn up at
venue if
invited?

June 2009June 2009
Decision: NO
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
Is time
available for
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
Are you able
to prepare
policy-maker
WS session?
Are you able
to prepare
policy-maker
WS session?
YES
NO NO
Prepare WS
with sessions
for local SH and
policy-makers
Prepare WS
with sessions
for local SH and
policy-makers
YES
Do you expect
policy-makers
to turn up at
venue if
invited?
Do you expect
policy-makers
to turn up at
venue if
invited?

June 2009June 2009
Decision aid ‘Attendance’
Is the WS
venue
conveniently
located for
invited policy-
makers?
Is land
degradation a
key concern for
them?
YES
Has DESIRE
raised its
profile along
the way?
YES
NO NO
Attendance is
not an issue to
be worried
about
YES

June 2009June 2009
Decision aid ‘Time constraints’
Do you expect
less than 15
local SH to
attend the
workshop?
Do you plan
to discuss less than 3
technologies?
YES
NO Organize WS for local stake-
holders only; organize interaction
with policy-makers as a session
on a different day or as a meeting
NO
Time
constraints are
not an issue
YES
Do you plan
to discuss only
one technology?
NO
YES
Time
constraints are
not an issue

June 2009June 2009
Decision aid ‘Readiness’
Has PESERA-
DESMICE been
run and are
scenarios
developed for
the study site?
Are results
interesting
to present to
policy-makers?
YES
NO
Organize WS for local stakeholders
only; organize interaction with
policy-makers as a session on a
YES
NO
Prepare WS
with sessions
for local SH and
policy-makers
Has alternative
assessment
method been
succesfully
applied?
YES
NO

June 2009June 2009
Flowchart large study site area
Step 1 of 1
Are local
stakeholders
well-enough
informed about
the entire study
site area?
NO
YES Study site area size is not an issue
to be particularly worried about.
Still, it does make sense to invite
people from different subareas.
Study site area size is an issue that
needs attention. Full geographical
representation of stakeholders
needs to be carefully assured and
venue carefully selected.

June 2009June 2009
Decision YES
Are local
stakeholders
well-enough
informed about
the entire study
site area?
NO

June 2009June 2009
Decision NO
Are local
stakeholders
well-enough
informed about
the entire study
site area?
NO

June 2009June 2009
Decision aid ‘knowledge of area’
Do local
stakeholders
engage in
activities in
different parts
of the study
site area?
Is there social
interaction with
stakeholders in
other parts of
the area?
NO
YES
Study site area size is not an issue
Is the study
site considered
by stakeholders
to be rather
homogeneous?
NO
YES YES
Study site area
size is an issue
that needs
attention. Full
geographical
representation
of stakeholders
needs to be
carefully
assured and
venue carefully
selected.
NO

June 2009June 2009
Preparation
Step 3 (cont’d): Selecting options
 Further flowcharts will be provided
with detailed documentation on the
workshop methodology
 Go through all flowcharts and e-mail
the resulting set-up of your workshop
to Mark Reed (also by 31 March 2011)

June 2009June 2009
Session with local stakeholders
Steps 1-3
1. Presentation to introduce the DESIRE project,
including summary of results from WB1-WB3
2. Presentation of WB4 trial results (prepared in
advance by study site teams)
3. Presentation of WB5 model outputs showing
which remediation options are most applicable,
most likely to be adopted and where, across
each study site

June 2009June 2009
Step 4 (MCA)
Multi-criteria evaluation of remediation
options at study site scale
 Revisit criteria used in WB3 and revise
as needed
 Do a multi-criteria evaluation using
revised criteria to prioritise which
remediation options (tested in WB4
and/or modelled in WB5) are most
relevant for dissemination across the
study site

June 2009June 2009
Step 4 (MCA) – cont’d
 Using Facilitator software, enter relevant
criteria and remediation options
 Score the extent to which scientific results
from the project have been used on a scale
of 1-5. (1 is lowest, 5 is highest)
 Discuss ranked list from the Facilitator
software & decide if all remediation
options should be disseminated or if
certain options should be prioritised.

June 2009June 2009
Outcome of Step 4
 In some study sites all trialled options may
be prioritised for dissemination. If so, we
need to understand WHY different options
were prioritised
 If none of the options that were trialled are
deemed appropriate, step 5 should be
replaced by a session designed to explain
WHY they were not deemed appropriate

June 2009June 2009
Outcome of Step 4 (cont’d)
List of priority options
 In some study sites all trialled options may
be prioritised for dissemination. If so, we
need to understand WHY different options
were prioritised
 If none of the options that were trialled are
deemed appropriate, step 5 should be
replaced by a session designed to explain
WHY they were not deemed appropriate

June 2009June 2009
Step 5 (priority options)
 How could we facilitate adoption of
priority remediation options (by using
opportunities and reducing threats?
Meta-plan followed by ‘sticky dot’ prioritisation
Meta-plan  put 4 sheets of paper on the wall
and write the question at the top; give all
participants 3-5 post-it notes and a pen; and
ask them to answer the question and put
their answers on the wall, grouping them
with similar answers; suggest themes the
post-its represent and check the group
agrees; then circle each group of post-its,
writing the theme. This is a meta-plan.

June 2009June 2009
Step 5 (cont’d)
Sticky dot prioritisation
 Give all participants 10 sticky dots and
stick as many as they like next to any
point they agree with (stronger agreement
= more dots)
 Discuss practical steps that can be taken
to implement the highest scoring ideas
and to achieve dissemination

June 2009June 2009
Session with local stakeholders:
Follow-up steps
 Explain the next steps (all stakeholders
will be sent a report specifically for them)
 Report should include contact details for
participants and external parties that can
assist with adoption/implementation of
the technologies discussed
 Include any other actions that need
undertaking, who will do them and by
when

June 2009June 2009
Session with policymakers
Focuses on:
Sharing and evaluating the results of
the local stakeholder workshop
Sharing and evaluating WB5 model
outputs showing the likely effects of a
range of policy scenarios
Discussing how priority remediation
options could be disseminated and
promoted at district and/or national
scales, using WB5 policy scenarios as a
starting point

June 2009June 2009
Preparatory tasks
 Policy makers’ time is highly constrained
so they need to learn about/be reminded
of the DESIRE project in advance of the
session
 Send brief information/background to
them with the meeting invitation

June 2009June 2009
If running a policymakers workshop
 Use visual aids created during local
stakeholder workshop (e.g. screenshots of
Facilitator software)
 Discuss results from local stakeholder
workshop recording questions and areas
of agreement/difference
 Present WB5 policy scenarios recording
questions and areas of
agreement/difference

June 2009June 2009
Policymakers workshop
 Ask question “how could we facilitate the
adoption of priority remediation options
from the previous session at study site
and national scales?”
 Use meta-plan and sticky dot prioritisation
as before
 Next steps – as before, though policy
makers will receive a policy brief instead
of a workshop report

June 2009June 2009
If meeting with policymakers rather
than holding a workshop
 Need to get similar data to that from a
workshop. To do this:
 Identify key policy stakeholders from
stakeholder analysis
 Schedule an individual meeting with at least
3 different policy stakeholders
(or offer to present at a lunchtime seminar at their
institutions where you can showcase the findings
from the local stakeholder workshop and ask for
their feedback)

June 2009June 2009
Policymakers meetings
 Present a combined, compact version of
the results of the local stakeholder
workshop and the WB5 policy scenarios.
(The presentation should finish with
results from step 5 of the local
stakeholder workshop)
 Allow a short time for questions and
discussion and record areas of
agreement/difference

June 2009June 2009
Policymakers meetings
 Revisit the preferred list of strategies and
invite the person/audience to add
elements as appropriate (record any
differences if more than one person from
the policymaker stakeholder group is
present)
 Ask them to distribute 10 sticky dots over
the list of suggested strategies
 Explain follow-up steps as before

June 2009June 2009
Summary
1. Stakeholder analysis (28 FEB 2011*)
2. Facilitator & workshop set-up (31 MAR 2011*)
3. Workshops (MAY-JUNE 2011)
4. Outputs (JULY 2011):
a) report to local stakeholders;
b) Information for policy brief (with WB6, later date);
c) workshop summary report (in English) to WB5 leader
* Mail to m.reed@abdn.ac.uk for feedback

Cn 10 th14_leeds_wb4_5_stakeholder_workshop_methodology_fleskens

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Erik van den Elsen

More from Erik van den Elsen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cn 10 th14_leeds_wb4_5_stakeholder_workshop_methodology_fleskens

Editor's Notes