1. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th October 2010
WB4 - Ideas for dissemination
Victor Jetten, Dhruba Shrestha
UT - ITC
A brave but poor stakeholder
(digging a hole for himself)

2. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
What is there to disseminate?
• Overview of the project (diagram): always start with this, WB4 is
one part of the whole
• Overview of technologies: conveys several messages
• Effect of a technology “tested in reality” (positive and negative, or
inconclusive):
– Ecological + Socio-economic + Socio-cultural
• These effects are not based on expectations of any of the
stakeholders (farmers as well as scientists), but on tests in a
“real life” situation.
• What are these expectations?
– My situation will improve (yield/income/security/benefits)
– Desertification processes will be reversed/limited

3. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
For whom?
• Local stakeholders (farmers, technicians): talk in their
language, give an honest answer in view of their
expectations: what works, what doesn’t work and
what we don’t know
– Farmer: talk agriculture, yield, cattle, soils/water.
– Terminology: use the list of ‘local’ indicators mentioned in
WB3 (table 10, report WP 3.1). This gives the vocabulary that
stakeholders use (greening etc.)
• “Policy makers/executers”:
talk policy/money/subsidy find out what their
objectives are towards national and international
policies and advice them. NGO training

4. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th October 2010
Fire Fire Grazing
Minimumtillage
Stubble
management
Mulch/residue
Greencover
Alternativecrops
Rotation/fertility
Deepploughing
withmintillage
Planting(shrub,
trees,
reforestation)
Firebreak
Precribedburning
Freshwaterto
washsalinesoil
Gypsum
Drip
Fencing/resting
Biogass
Terrace(barrier)
Landreclamation
(dam)
Wovenfence
Waterharvesting
Gullycontrol
1 Spain X X X X
2a Portugal Macao X
2b Portugal Gois X
3 Italy
4 Greece-Crete X X X
5 Greece-Nestos X X
6 Turkey-Karapinar X X
7 Turkey-Eskeshir X X
8 Morocco X X X X
9 Tunesia X X
10 Russia-DJA X
11 Russia-NOV X
12 China X X X
14 Botswana X X X
14 Mexico X X X X
17 Chile X X X ? ?
18 Cape Verde X X
A
Irrigation
M SV
Overview of experiments
Messages:
- Impressive: look how serious we are!
- It is an international project: results of a country are
embedded in a large project.
- To the farmers in a country it shows that they are part of
something larger
So this table has to be shown differently…

5. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
Strength of icons…

6. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th October 2010
Fire Fire Grazing
Minimumtillage
Stubble
management
Mulch/residue
Greencover
Alternativecrops
Rotation/fertility
Deepploughing
withmintillage
Planting(shrub,
trees,reforestation)
Firebreak
Precribedburning
Freshwatertowash
salinesoil
Gypsum
Drip
Fencing/resting
Biogass
Terrace(barrier)
Landreclamation
(dam)
Wovenfence
Waterharvesting
Gullycontrol
1 Spain X X X X
2a Portugal Macao X
2b Portugal Gois X
4 Greece-Crete X X X
5 Greece-Nestos X X
6 Turkey-Karapinar X X
7 Turkey-Eskeshir X X
8 Morocco X X X X
9 Tunesia X X
10 Russia-DJA X
11 Russia-NOV X
12 China X X X
14 Botswana X X X
14 Mexico X X X X
17 Chile X X X ? ?
18 Cape Verde X X
A V M S
Irrigation
Use icons…
A farmer may be illiterate , but he/she may use a smartphone
with icons
Illiterate does not mean unused to technology

7. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
Possible icons for techniques

8. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
Using symbols
16 MDG targets
Colour signifies progress

9. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
Summarizing results of WB4
• Evaluation tables (the same as in WB3 but based on the
experiments: ecology – socio-economy - culture
Several answers possible
negligible
(0-5%)
little
(5-20%)
medium
(20-50%)
high
(>50%)
quantify
(indicate
unit)
before
conserv.
quantify
(indicate
unit)
after
conserv.
specify / comments
3.1.1.1 Production and socio-economic benefits
increased crop yield     ............ ............ ................................................
increased fodder production     ............ ............ ................................................
increased fodder quality     ............ ............ ................................................
increased animal production     ............ ............ ................................................
increased wood production     …........ …........ ................................................
reduced risk of production failure     ............ ............ ................................................
increased drinking / household water
availability / quality
    ............ ............ ................................................
increased water availability / quality
for livestock
    ............ ............ ................................................
increased irrigation water availability
/ quality
    ............ ............ ................................................
reduced demand for irrigation water     ............ ............ ................................................
reduced expenses on agricultural
inputs
    ............ ............ ................................................
increased farm income     ............ ............ ................................................
community institution strengthening     ............ ............ ................................................
national institution strengthening     ............ ............ ................................................
improved conservation / erosion
knowledge
    ............ ............ ................................................
conflict mitigation     ............ ............ ................................................
improved situation of socially and
economically disadvantaged groups
(gender, age, status, ethnicity etc)
   
............ ............ ................................................
improved food security / self-sufficiency
(reduced dependence on ext. support)
    ............ ............ ................................................
improved health     ............ ............ ................................................
others (specify):     ............ ............ ................................................
......................................................     ............ ............ ................................................
......................................................     ............ ............ ................................................
......................................................     ............ ............ ................................................
3.1.1.3 Ecological benefits
increased water quantity     ............ ............ ................................................
increased water quality     ............ ............ ................................................
improved harvesting / collection of
water (runoff, dew, snow, etc)
    ............ ............ ................................................
increased soil moisture     ............ ............ ................................................
reduced evaporation     ............ ............ ................................................
reduced surface runoff     ............ ............ ................................................
improved excess water drainage     ............ ............ ................................................
recharge of groundwater table/aquifer     ............ ............ ................................................
reduced hazard towards adverse
events (drought, floods, storms, …)
    ............ ............ ................................................
reduced wind velocity     ............ ............ ................................................
improved soil cover     ............ ............ ................................................
increased biomass / above ground C     ............ ............ ................................................
increased nutrient cycling / recharge     ............ ............ ................................................
increased soil organic matter / below
ground C
    ............ ............ ................................................

10. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
Proposal for display
Ecology
Socio-Economy
Cultural
“Contour ploughing”

11. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
Proposal for display
Runoff
Soil water increase
Costly (fuel)
Use local indicators?
Fields incorrect shape

12. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
This may generate a useful
overview
Reason x
Reason y
Reason z

13. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th October 2010
Results and messages
• Result: erosion in Portugal is maybe a few tons per ha! Compared
to China e.g. it is not very impressive.
• But this eroded material is very rich in nutrients (forest soil) so not
the amount matters but the type of material.
• The increase in moisture in Tunisia of a technique may be 40 mm.
• This may be significant for the survival of Olive trees.
• Conservation in China may limit sediment loss on the fields, but the
gullies will still produce sediment
• So the off-site effects (siltation rivers) may not change in the short
term

14. Plenary Meeting, Xi’an, 13th June 2009
Simplification
On the one hand:
• As a scientist your feeling will be to disagree with the simplification,
argue that something is not exactly true
• Ask yourself how important your feeling is compared to the overall
impression
• If you still don’t agree make changes
On the other hand:
• Simple is not stupidity
• For simple problems the public expects simple solutions
• Show the result to your family, and ask what they have understood