1. Status and Planning
Fifth Plenary Workshop
Xi’an, China
11-18 Oct, 2010
Rudi Hessel, Coen Ritsema, Simone Verzandvoort, Erik van
den Elsen

2. Status
• Panel Review
• Work done
Planning
• Project framework
• Remaining activities and planning

3. Panel Review
Good to excellent project!
The EC has flagged the project internally for follow-up by EC
programme policy units as a:
• Success story
• High visibility/ media attractive project
• Project with impact on EU policies
• Significant impact on health, safety, environment
• Substantial breakthrough character
• Significant participation from outside EU
• Involvement of top researchers in the field
Compliment to us all!
But also a responsibility as expectations are high…

4. Panel Review – general observations/recommendations
• An ambitious, important and relevant project
• Collaboration between partners seems very good
• Project should contribute to scientific innovation and to policies at
national, EU and international level
• The HIS is very good, as is the project website
• Dissemination and exploitation of results (media, fact sheets etc.) is
so far very good
• impressive list of PhD and MSc studies done in the context of this
project
• Gender plan is excellent and exemplary for other projects
• Management team has done a very good job, both scientifically and
technically

5. Panel Review – requests to DESIRE
• Attention required for pending data delivery from study
sites (WB1 and WB5)
• Scientific innovation should be better demonstrated >>
management committee will increase efforts to increase
the visibility of the PhD research within the DESIRE
project
• Continuous emphasis should be given to an effective
involvement of stakeholders. Also, the involvement of the
policy level at the study sites needs to be improved. >>
focus now on WB4, 5 and 6

6. Panel Review – requests to DESIRE
• Continue to show DESIRE’s contribution to policies and
regulations at national, European and international level
• Verification of best management practices resulting from
the DESIRE-WOCAT method (WB3), including the
economic advantages >> in WB4&5

7. Panel Review – requests to DESIRE
• Attention for extrapolation to global scale >> show
possible use in other areas (eg through WOCAT) and by
cross-site comparison of results from WB1 (to be done), 2
(done), 3 (done), 4 (to be done) and 5 (to be done).
• Stronger quality management from the coordinator on
reports from partners and WB leaders.
• Where possible: uncertainty analysis in all work using
models (WB2, 4 and 5)

8. Panel Review – concrete points of action for WBs and NGOs
• NGOs:
• story lines on stakeholder integration and contribution
• Emphasis on integration of results in policy at national level
• WB1:
• completion of online WOCAT map database, interpretation of
maps, presentation on HIS
• Completion of driver & policy analysis and transfer to WB5 for
policy scenarios in DESMICE
• WB2: interactive tool for evaluating SLM techologies on HIS
• WB3: exchange visit
• WB4 & WB5:
• Verification of best management practices (scientific evidence…)
• Evaluation of policy scenarios and involvement of stakeholders
(WB4-5 workshops); apply lessons learned from WB3
• ensure availability of sufficient biophysical & economic data for all
sites
• WB6: Stronger policy involvement

9. Expected situation
at month 45
DESIRE – where do we stand?
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
WP 1.1
WP 1.2
WP 1.3
WP 1.4
WP 2.1
WP 2.2
WP 3.1
WP 3.2
WP 3.3
WP 4.1
WP 4.2
WP 4.3
WP 4.4
WP 4.5
WP 5.1
WP 5.2
WP 5.3
WP 5.4
WP 6.1
WP 6.2
WP 6.3

10. Regarding WBs and project deliverables:
• WB’s 1-3 should be almost finished or concluded by now
• WB’s 4-6 should be progressing full speed
DESIRE – where do we stand?

11. Deliverables until month 25
1.1.1 6 July-07 completed Y1
6.1.1 12 January-08 completed Y1
6.1.2 12 January-08 completed Y1
4.2.1 14 March-08 completed Y2
6.1.3 16 May-08 completed Y1
3.3.1 18 July-08 completed Y2
6.3.1 18 July-08 completed Y2
6.2.1 21 October-08 completed Y2

12. Deliverables month 26 & 27
2.1.3 26 March-09 completed Y3
3.1.1 26 March-09 completed Y3
1.4.1 26 March-09 completed Y3
4.1.1 26 March-09 completed Y3
3.3.2 26 March-09 completed Y3
6.2.2 27 April-09 completed Y3
6.2.3 27 April-09 completed Y3
3.2.1 27 April-09 completed Y3
3.1.2 27 April-09 completed Y3

13. Deliverables month 30 - 45
2.1.1 30 July-09 completed Y3
2.1.2 30 July-09 merged with 1.3.1
1.4.2 30 July-09 completed Y3
5.1.1 30 July-09 completed Y3
1.3.1 32 September-09 under revision
1.2.1 32 September-09 under revision
3.3.3 32 September-09 completed Y3
5.2.1 36 January-10 completed Y3
2.2.1 42 July-10 completed Y4
2.2.2 42 July-10 expected month 42
3.2.2 42 July-10 expected month 42

14. Deliverables month 46 - 60
4.3.1 52 May-11 expected month 52
5.3.1 53 June-11 expected month 53
4.4.1 54 July-11 expected month 54
4.5.1 54 July-11 expected month 54
5.4.1 54 July-11 expected month 54
5.4.2 54 July-11 expected month 54
2.2.3 56 September-11 expected month 56
6.3.2 60 January-12 expected month 60
6.3.3 60 January-12 expected month 60

15. FRAMEWORK & PLANNING

16. Project framework
DESIRE:
-Large  26 partners, 5 years, 9M euro
-Complex  16 study sites * 6 WBs * different stakeholders
-Confusing?
-Which work should be done for which WB?
-Why is this work needed?
-How do the WBs relate to each other?

17. Conceptual framework, methodological
framework, relationships between WBs 
concrete planning
Project framework

18. Climate
change
Socio-economic drivers
Demographics
Migration
Policies Prices
Markets
Social
factors
Land use
and management
Desertification
processes
Response
SLM
strategies
Other sources
of income
People
Rural
livelihoods
Sustainability
goals
Bio-physical drivers
Environmental
conditions

19. Climate
change
Socio-economic drivers
Demographics
Migration
Policies Prices
Markets
Social
factors
Land use
and management
Desertification
processes
Response
SLM
strategies
Other sources
of income
People
Rural
livelihoods
Sustainability
goals
Bio-physical drivers
Environmental
conditions
SLM loop

20. Climate
change
Socio-economic drivers
Demographics
Migration
Policies Prices
Markets
Social
factors
Land use
and management
Desertification
processes
Response
SLM
strategies
Other sources
of income
People
Rural
livelihoods
Sustainability
goals
Bio-physical drivers
Environmental
conditions
Policy loop

21. (1) Identify system
boundaries,
stakeholders and
their goals (WB1)
(2) Describe socio-
cultural, economic,
technological, political
and environmental
context and drivers of
change (WB1)
(10) Adjust strategies to
ensure goals are met &
degradation prevented
(9) Apply remediation
strategies, monitor
degradation & progress
to goals
Establish
context and
goals
Identify,
evaluate &
select
remediation
strategies
Trial strategies
& model
regional
effects
Apply
remediation
strategies &
monitor
(4) Identify, evaluate &
document existing land
degradation remediation
options (WB3)
(8) Disseminate
strategies for
extension and
national &
international
policy (WB6)
New remediation strategies may be identified and
prioritised in response to changing contexts or
because existing strategies are no longer needed
or working
(3) Determine current
land degradation
status, future land
degradation risk and
existing soil/water
conservation (WB1,2)
Stake-
holder
Analysis
Land use
mapping
(WOCAT-LADA);
review of
secondary
sources
WOCAT-LADA expert
mapping; indicator
assessment
Learning for Sustainability
methodology; WOCAT
framework for technologies
and approaches evaluation
and documentation
Field-based
methods including
scientific and
stakeholder
monitoring
PESERA and economic
models
(e.g. Agent-Based Modelling;
Input-Output Models)
(6) Trial & monitor
remediation options in field
(WB4)
(5) Prioritize
remediation options
with stakeholders
(WB3)
(7) Model biophysical
and economic effects
of remediation options
at field & regional scale
(WB5)
Participatory Multi-
Criteria Evaluation
Manuals; leaflets; Videos; policy-
briefs; demonstrations etc.

22. Core of WBs
•WB1 employs a newly developed mapping method that
allows mapping of actual degradation status as well as of
actual measures taken against degradation
•WB2 extends an indicator approach that was developed for
Mediterranean Europe to make it suitable for areas around
the world

23. Core of WBs
•WB3 combined and adapted previously independent tools
into one consistent method to select and evaluate strategies
together with stakeholders
•WB4 trials strategies selected by stakeholders, with the
involvement of stakeholders, and by combining bio-physical
monitoring with socio-economic monitoring

24. Core of WBs
•WB5 will provide an extended PESERA model, and will
combine PESERA with socio-economic modelling to
simulate the effect of policy-relevant scenarios
•WB6 creates a Harmonised Information System using the
latest internet technology, and specifically addresses
different kinds of stakeholders using dissemination products
of different levels of complexity

25. Relationships between WBs
WB1
Context
WB2
Indicators
WB3
Strategies
WB4
Monitoring
WB5
Regional evaluation
WB6
Dissemination
Evaluate model output
(P, PM)
Identify, evaluate,
select strategies (P,
PM)
Explore stakeholder
properties & needs (P,
PM)
Explore NRM institute
properties & needs
(PM)
Select and use
dissemination
products (P, PM, S)
Involvement of stakeholders:
Practitioners (P)
Planners and managers (PM)
Scientific community (S)
Legend
Information flow between WBs
Design, implement & monitor
strategies (P)
Evaluate indicators
(P, PM)

26. RELATIONSHIPS WBs
Relationships WBs:
-Some WBs need results of other WBs
-Some WBs can combine activities
-Input from other WBs into WB6 can be divided in 2 parts
-Internal: needed to perform project tasks
-External: needed for dissemination

27. Relationships WBs
WB1:
• Current status of drivers, problems, measures
etc for all WBs
• Provides policy scenario for each site to WB5,
in collaboration with NGOs
WB2:
• Provides method to asses state of
desertification, as impacted by drivers and land
use & management, using indicators
• Method to be used and updated in WB4
• Data to be used in WB5

28. Relationships WBs
WB3:
• Core stakeholder participation
• Selection of technology
• Technology for WB4
• Data for WB5
WB4:
• Tests technologies selected in WB3
• Uses (some) methods from WB2
• Provides data for WB5
• Provides advice at plotfield scale

29. Relationships WBs
WB5 Scenarios will cover:
• Selected site-specific policy from WB1
• Selected technology from WB3 (tested in
WB4)
• Other policy-relevant scenarios, such as
climate change or land use change
WB6:
Translates results of WB1-5 into messages for
stakeholders, together with these WBs,
and assisted by NGOs

30. REMAINING ACTIVITIES

31. Deliverables
Delive
rable
No
Deliverable title Delivery
date
1.2.1
An overview of desertification problems in the study
countries (map & report)
Sept
2009
1.3.1
Identified drivers of land degradation with specific
reference to the study areas at field, local and policy
level.
Sept
2009
2.2.2
Report on developed methodology for evaluation
applied land management practices using indicators
July 2010
2.2.3
A manual on “Using Indicators for Identifying Best
Management Practices for Combating Desertification”
July 2011
3.2.2 Reports on farm exchange visits Oct 2010

32. Deliverables
Delive
rable
No
Deliverable title Delivery
date
4.3.1
A report with a summary of the scientific findings, in
which the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the
conservation measures in each hotspot area are described
May
2011
4.4.1 Improved set of indicators Jul 2011
4.5.1
Report with a description of common, widely applicable
conservation measures and integration of the results
across the hotspot areas. Translation of the results and
presentation to the stakeholder communities, assistance in
drafting good agricultural practice guidelines
Jul 2011

33. Deliverables
5.3.1
Model outputs for each hotspot site to identify the likely
environmental, environmental and social effects of
proposed remediation strategies
Jun 2011
5.4.1
A list of recommended remediation strategies within
each region for policy-makers and extensionists
Jul 2011
5.4.2
A methodological approach and modelling tool that can
be used to evaluate remediation options beyond this
project
Jul 2011
6.3.2 Suite of dissemination and training products Jan 2012
6.3.3
Final DESIRE workshop on results and products with
stakeholders invited
Jan 2012

34. Activity deadline
Monitoring May 2011
Analysis monitoring per site (incl CBA, collab WB5) May 2011
Improving indicators with WB2 Jul 2011
Comparison of sites Jul 2011
Stakeholder workshop (with WB5) Jul 2011
Guidelines good agricultural practices Jul 2011
Main actions
WB4

35. Activity deadline
Models completed Done
PESERA input data Jan 2011
Base runs PESERA Mar 2011
Definition scenarios completed Mar 2011
Scenario results Jun 2011
Recommended strategies Jul 2011
Stakeholder workshop (with WB4) Jul 2011
Methodological approach and modelling tool Jul 2011
Main actions
WB5

36. Activity deadline
Site specific dissemination plans (incl products) Feb 2011
Dissemination products completed Jan 2012
3 policy papers Jan 2012
Implement policy influencing strategy Jan 2012
Policy messages per site Jan 2012
Feedback to UNCCD completed Jan 2012
Story lines of stakeholder involvement Jan 2012
Final plenary meeting with stakeholders Jan 2012
Main actions
WB6 & NGOs

37. Planning
On the verge of the last year…
Which should be:
•Year of Integration (things coming together)
•Year of Finalisation (things being completed)
•Year of Dissemination

38. Integration
•Using and improving indicators (WB2, 3 (local
indicators), 4)
•Degradation status and risk maps, and comparison of
these (WB1,2,4,5)
•WOCAT (WB1,3,4 (to evaluate plot results), 5(as input
for modelling))
•Involving (local) stakeholders (in principle all, but
probably mainly WB3-6, NGOs)
•Reaching policy makers (in principle all, but probably
mainly WB1,5,6, NGOs)

39. Finalisation
•Completion of deliverables
•Preparing dissemination products
•Scientific results

40. Dissemination
•Think stakeholders for your study site and/or WB!
•Preparing dissemination products
•Final stakeholder workshop
•Reaching out to (local) stakeholders
•Reaching out to Policy makers
•Input for HIS

41. Conclusion
Keep in mind that we do not just aim to provide deliverables
to EU!
We have responsibility towards stakeholders too
If DESIRE is successful, this will hopefully make a real
difference in the study sites

42. Thanks!