Modelling approach

Using the modelling strategy outlined in »Socio-ecological effectiveness of land management (for a summary see Figure 1), we assessed the socio-ecological effectiveness of selected management scenarios considering non-linear ecosystem dynamics and windows of opportunities and risks (Sietz et al., 2017). These management scenarios capture key management recommendations from »Guidelines for natural resource managers which are mainly based on aspects perceived by stakeholders. We modelled ecological and economic implications of these recommendations as a basis for stakeholder evaluation in Cyprus and Crete. The evaluation particularly revealed insights into the realism of modelled vegetation trends and cash flow series differentiating the usefulness of management principles according to particular study site conditions and stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations.

The management scenarios represent adaptive management strategies including opportunistic and conservational grazing management in combination with a varying degree of environmental and economic risk aversion (Table 1, see »Socio-ecological effectiveness of land management). Among these, the baseline scenario depicts a commonly used opportunistic management strategy and least risk aversion. Scenarios S1 and S2 also represent opportunistic management approaches but with higher risk aversion, while scenario S3 captures a conservation management practice, called `resting in wet years`, together with extreme risk aversion. The ‘resting’ implies that livestock density remains below the grazing capacity in wet years to support the recovery of vegetation allowing potentially higher stocking rates in the near future. Two starting conditions were chosen by the research team, i.e. degraded and restored sites (Table 1), providing a basis to discuss management impacts at various levels of initial vegetation cover. The impacts of scenarios S1-S3 are compared with the implications of the baseline scenario in order to provide an estimate of how far the ecological and economic impacts deviate from the common management situation. This allows us to discuss relative changes in vegetation dynamics and benefits derived from livestock production.  

Table 1: Scenarios of adaptive land management. (Note: Start conditions at degraded site are 45% vegetation cover (both Cyprus and Crete) and at restored site 73% (Cyprus) and 52% (Crete)).

Model Results

Starting with a degraded rangeland, the model results show that S1 causes the vegetation cover to slightly increase compared with the baseline scenario in Cyprus and Crete (Figure 2). This scenario results in a low probability of reaching >40% vegetation cover but only in the first year (Figure 2). Vegetation cover remains below 40% in the remaining years. In contrast, S2 induces a more pronounced increase in vegetation cover and high probability of reaching >40% vegetation cover throughout the 10-year period (Figure 2). Similar to S1, the modelled ecological effects of S2 are alike in Cyprus and Crete.

S1 results in economic gain (positive net income, though very low), while S2 depicts economic loss (negative net income) in both Cyprus and Crete (Figure 3). Reflecting regional differences in economic costs and benefits of livestock production, S2 resulted in an economic loss of about 1600Euro/ha in Crete but only 25Euro/ha in Cyprus (see Net Present Value in Figure 3). Regarding socio-ecological effectiveness (Figure 4), these results indicate that even though S2 is more effective in ecological terms, this scenario is more costly due to the need for alternative fodder provision, and therefore likely to be less attractive to land users.

Considering a restored site as a starting condition, model results indicate that S1 induces a slight increase in vegetation cover while S2 and S3 yield a significant vegetation cover increase and highest probability of reaching >40% vegetation cover throughout the 10 years in both Cyprus and Crete (Figure 5). In economic terms, S1 results in a very low economic gain and S2 even in economic loss in both regions (Figure 6). Due to regional economic costs and benefits of livestock production, S2 results in an economic loss of about 8 Euro/ha in Cyprus and 1400 Euro/ha in Crete (Figure 6). Only S3 yields a larger economic gain of about 12 Euro/ha in Cyprus and 600 Euro/ha in Crete (Figure 6). Together with the vegetation cover increase induced by S3, this economic gain implies best socio-ecological effectiveness among the scenarios considered here (Figure 7). Although S2 effectively prevents degradation below the critical level of 40% vegetation cover, the economic loss indicates that policy incentives such as subsidies would be useful to increase land users’ motivation to implement this type of management.

Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References

With contributions from land users and land managers, CASCADE has produced a number of guidelines for land managers in the form of principles and recommendations for SLM (Figure 1). For details see

»Guidelines for natural resource managers
»Guidelines for land managers: the forest fire context
»Guidelines for land managers: the land abandonment context
»Guidelines for land managers: the overgrazing context

The principles and recommendations were discussed with land users and land managers through workshops in each study site. Six stakeholder workshops were carried out by the CASCADE team during the period August 2016 to February 2017. Only one was held in Spain where there were two study sites, but two were held in Cyprus.

Workshop methodology

Study sites recruited 6-12 stakeholders who were previously engaged with CASCADE activities, many of whom had participated in previous workshops (see Table 1). The first workshop was held in Italy as a pilot workshop, after which the methods and the workshop protocol were further refined. Two workshops were held in Cyprus, as there is mistrust and conflicting stand points between local stakeholders and land managers and decision makers from the government (see »Randi Forest, Cyprus: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines and scenario analysis).

Given the nature of the jobs and the traditional gender division of work in pastoralist and farming societies, many of the stakeholders were males. The research aimed to have a representative sample, therefore no especial effort was made towards one gender specifically. Although various government positions in Cyprus and Crete are held by females, they did not attend the workshops, despite being invited. One female was at the Portuguese workshop. As technicians and government representatives were invited to the workshops and there is a more even gender balance in the number of females holding jobs relevant to the stakeholder context in Italy and Spain, three females attended the stakeholder workshop in each of these countries.

Table 1: Principles discussed, date and number of participants of the stakeholder workshops carried out in the study sites.

During the workshops the management guidelines from the grazing, land abandonment and forest fire guidelines (see »Guidelines for natural resource managers) were presented, distributed and discussed among the participants according to the specific study site issues under consideration (see Table 2).

Table 2: Overgrazing, land abandonment, fire and post fire management principles presented in study site workshops.
The principles relevant in each study site are marked x under the country’s column.

During the workshops, researchers first presented a brief introduction and update on the CASCADE project’s work, followed by presentation of key policies at local/national/EU levels relevant to the study site. If a local policy stakeholder had agreed to participate in the workshop, an invitation was extended to them to give a short presentation on the key policies in their area that addressed the main CASCADE issues being considered. This offer was accepted in Italy where a presentation was given by the representative of the Shepherds’ Union, and in Portugal where a national representative from the Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Forests Policies, carried out a presentation about financial programmes for post-fire management and burnt area rehabilitation. A discussion about the stakeholders’ views of the principles, the barriers and opportunities for implementing them, and about relevant policies formed the final element of the workshops. In Cyprus and Crete, a discussion about the model results for grazing scenarios was also carried out (see »Improving SLM using land management scenario analysis).

Discussions considered the following questions (which were adapted as necessary by the study site teams) regarding the land management principles, in order to explore opportunities for and barriers to their implementation:

1. Can you apply the principles and recommendations? If not, why not?
2. Would you include any further principles or recommendations?
3. Do the policies support the principles and recommendations? If not, where are the gaps? What needs to be done to address the gaps?

The research questions and methods varied slightly among the study sites depending on the characteristics of the stakeholders and principles. To discuss the relevance of the scenario analysis with the potential users of grazing scenarios, the results of the model simulations were tested against the stakeholders’ perceptions in Cyprus and Crete. Stakeholders were asked how realistically the model results reflect the vegetation trends, how feasible the management principles are, and potentially if any sites are restored, how grazing interacted with restoration. The following questions were asked during the workshops in Crete and Cyprus (for more details see »Messara, Greece: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines and scenario analysis and »Randi Forest, Cyprus: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines and scenario analysis).

• Q1 Do the model simulations realistically reflect trends of vegetation degradation and recovery observed in the study sites? If not, why not?
• Q2 Considering the model simulations, do the management principles and recommendations (e.g. 40% critical vegetation cover) make sense for the study sites? If not, why not? What key aspects would need to be changed?
• Q3 In sites where vegetation was successfully restored, how severely was the vegetation degraded (% cover) when restoration started? How many animals per hectare were grazed prior to degradation on these sites?

For details of the workshops in each study site see

»Várzea, Portugal: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines
»Albatera & Ayora, Spain: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines
»Castelsaraceno, Italy: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines
»Messara, Greece: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines and scenario analysis
»Randi Forest, Cyprus: Stakeholder workshop to evaluate SLM guidelines and scenario analysis

Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References

CASCADE policy forum methods

CASCADE held a policy forum in Matera, Italy on the 24th of February 2017. Participants represented a range of stakeholders representing groups or institutions at the international, national and local levels (Table 1).

Table 1. Participants in the CASCADE policy forum.

 The forum aimed to:

1. Identify key policy recommendations according to stakeholders and policy makers, highlighting convergent and divergent priorities between stakeholders and policy makers and among study sites;
2. Establish the entry points to inform relevant policy which could utilise CASCADE’s results and data, as well as possible barriers and opportunities for uptake of the project findings according to policy makers at different levels; and
3. Identify remaining knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research regarding SLM.

Overall, the forum consisted of two sections. A short video was presented about CASCADE research at the beginning of the forum. Next, presentations from policy representatives introduced the audience to relevant policies in the EU and internationally that deal with land degradation, tipping points and rural development. Three presentations from CASCADE members, showcased some of the main findings in relation to the important themes within CASCADE: land abandonment, overgrazing and forest fires. Each presentation was followed by questions from the audience, enabling dialogue and clarification on key points.

A roundtable with researchers, policy makers and land managers formed the second section of the policy forum engaging participants and researchers in discussing relevant issues to dryland research and management. Moderators formulated propositions and requested roundtable participants to respond, not only to answer questions from the audience, but also making sure that the objectives of the forum were achieved. The audience was asked to respond to the participants’ interventions and to ask further questions to roundtable panellists.

The questions that started off the roundtable discussion were:

1. What were the most surprising findings from CASCADE?
2. How do CASCADE results help inform your work?
3. What enablers do you need, or what is currently missing, which could help you use our CASCADE project results?
4. What knowledge gaps remain?

Relevant remarks during the policy forum

New insights provided by CASCADE’s research, the contribution that the project has made in the study sites and the further potential impact informing policy and land management were the main topics discussed. Local stakeholders, international policy makers and land managers, as well as CASCADE researchers, intervened throughout the forum.

In general, the concept of catastrophic shifts excited attention from the audience, and its meaning and implications conveyed across the different study sites was discussed. Policy makers and land managers mentioned that it is a concept that brought attention to the urgency of improving land management, and to the risk of catastrophic and irreversible damage to environmental resources if poor management practices or inaction are the norm.

Among the results that CASCADE researchers presented were the prospective outcomes of land degradation. They showed that soil erosion and loss is not always the pathway that land degradation takes. Instead, changes in land cover and vegetation can replace existing environments, leaving the landscape less diverse and providing fewer environmental services.

Other relevant results and their potential to be translated into SLM measures were debated. For example, researchers noted that not only the amount of land cover, but also the spatial arrangement of land cover is essential to resource conservation. Discussions considered that these kinds of findings could be translated into better and more accurate management principles and practices, and inform restoration programmes targeting degraded areas.

The remainder of comments and topics are presented here in four sections following the analysis of detailed notes of the interactions between participants. The analysis was undertaken in a thematic way to categorise and group comments and discussions, broadly following the questions that were considered throughout the day. First, participants’ perspectives on the participatory research undertaken by CASCADE is explored, followed by presentation of some of the ways that CASCADE has contributed towards land management in the study sites. Entry points for CASCADE’s results in relevant policy areas are identified, and finally, the contributions of the forum regarding future opportunities for progressing the SLM agenda (including dissemination and outreach) are considered.

Participatory research approach within CASCADE

The benefits of using a participatory approach for SLM research within CASCADE was discussed by both stakeholder participants and researchers. Not only policy makers and land managers found the integrated contributions of CASCADE to be novel; researchers also said that they found new information by using a participatory and interdisciplinary approach that extends beyond their usual toolkit of methods.

For researchers, the direct and iterative engagement of CASCADE elements with the study sites, enabled them to highlight relevant issues for land users and provided context to environmental issues. As local researchers with wide experience in the area commented, “everything was green, everything was excellent…But still people living there were really upset about the environment, about the landscape…Speaking with the shepherds, they said, "Look at this area, it's very bad, there is lot of shrub encroachment"”. By contextualising scientific findings within local perspectives and livelihoods, the danger of providing inappropriate scientific advice and policy recommendations is reduced. This was considered a key strength of CASCADE’s approach.

That degradation is not always indicated by losses in vegetation cover is not always an intuitive premise for researchers and non-locals, but for the local population the possibility to carry out traditional activities and livelihoods may not be reflected in the conservation state of the environment, but in the preservation of specific key resources. For example, vegetation cover increased in the Italian study site following land abandonment as bushes and trees established on previous grazing areas. However, despite the increase in biomass, for livelihoods in the area, the increased vegetation cover introduced new risks of fire and reduced the possibility to make a living from grazing those areas. Thus, for CASCADE researchers, working closely with the stakeholders provided incredibly useful insights not only about land management issues, but also about people’s needs from and links with the environment.

For land managers and stakeholders, communication with the researchers was considered beneficial as well. Stakeholders from Cyprus attending the forum mentioned that it was the first time that researchers had opened the dialogue about management practices with the land users. Therefore, combining traditional knowledge from stakeholders with CASCADE’s new insights, and furthermore, facing and working with the community’s concerns and barriers over new SLM measures, has integrated scientific aspects with local perspectives, innovation and application. Participants valued this integration highly.

How CASCADE has informed stakeholders’ work and influenced policy

Not only novel knowledge generated by the project was regarded as useful by land managers. According to policy makers in Portugal, some of the management principles were not new. However, CASCADE’s post-fire management principles were based on rigorous scientific research, and the results concurred with the empirical perceptions of local resource managers. Consequently, it provided validation and data to support the management principles being proposed by the policymakers, as well as a better evidence base with which to refine previous approaches to management.

In some cases, CASCADE principles reinstated old practices that were sustainable, which stakeholders had stopped using in recent years. For example, policy makers from Cyprus mentioned that prior to CASCADE, there was inaction from both policy makers and land managers in addressing degradation. However, the project brought attention to drylands and the risks of overgrazing, and to relevant management measures. Management principles identified by CASCADE and mentioned by stakeholders as past practices were maintaining carob trees and practicing rotational grazing. Furthermore, CASCADE principles and recommendations modified and refined management practices that were in place or were about to be carried out at the suggestion of resource managers. For example, in Cyprus, managers were considering stopping grazing to prevent land degradation, however, as CASCADE’s results pointed out the benefits of grazing, they are now revising their grazing plans so that it does not stop entirely.

That CASCADE provided well-researched information was also considered to empower land managers, as the information that they can convey is endorsed by the project. A representative from Portugal mentioned “In Portugal, only 3% of the forest area is managed only by the state. In the last 40 years, 2.5 million ha have been burned in Portugal, and 5,000 of them were burned more than 10 times in the same period. This project it is very important for us because the results gave us the knowledge we needed to transmit to the owners of the 92% of the forest”.

Entry points in relevant policies

International policies relevant to CASCADE and into which the project findings could feed were discussed extensively during the policy forum. Suggestions of key policies and frameworks from participants include the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement (on climate change), and a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on the links between land degradation and climate change. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was considered particularly relevant as it has a large budget in the EU and it comprises targets to reduce soil erosion and keep soil organic carbon at certain levels. The interlinkage between development policies and the climate change agenda was also agreed to be important, with CASCADE results offering potential to inform both, as well as more sustainable natural resource use in general. One participant from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) noted that “In the SDGs there is now the Land Degradation Neutrality as a clear target, plus other targets need to consider soil conservation in order to be met. Equally, in order to meet the 2° target of the Paris Agreement and reach negative emissions we need to take into consideration the role of land and soil management in climate change mitigation and adaptation”. This view of the articulation of soil conservation with other major agreements was shared, with the ecosystem approach being proposed by the Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) representative as a way to harness synergy between the various policies.

The research provided by CASCADE can provide better time frames of natural events and ecology. The importance of considering the time frame for grazing subsidies and designing programmes and policies was highlighted. It was mentioned that the temporality of policies, programmes and subventions, can create management issues and increase inefficiency, as expectations from land users can differ from estimated results. It is vital to manage stakeholders’ expectations in terms of how long it will take before the benefits of particular practices start to be seen. This can help to reduce disillusionment.

The different time frames over which policy makers, stakeholders and researchers operate creates challenges for creating entry points for research to inform policy. As one researcher noted: “The policy cycle has its own timeframe which doesn't necessarily fit with the scientific provision of results. I think that is a really key issue that comes up time and time again. It's just the nature of science and the nature of policy making.” Furthermore, applying the principles technically at a land management level was recognised to be different from changing policies as part of a supportive institutional environment.

Given the urgency of SLM, using the precautionary principle in policy making and planning regarding land use and land management was considered relevant to prevent further negative environmental impacts, even if there is inadequate evidence and when more research is still needed. Precautionary measures that need to be in place to prevent serious damage were discussed as a gap between policy and knowledge based measures. Risk reduction measures and a precautionary approach can also be applied to the planning of subsidies. Legislation regarding subsidies has largely focused on emergency measures during disasters, such as providing fodder in drought years. However measures to prevent environmental damage, such as designated resting of grasslands during wet seasons and in extremely wet years to allow regrowth, may prevent those catastrophes and result in more cost-effectiveness in the long term. Furthermore, in view of the risk of catastrophic shifts and other environmental damages (e.g. the increased risk of landslides due to land erosion), concerns spread beyond just environmental factors. Policy actions that sought to ensure human safety under environmental change and degradation conditions were also mentioned.

The importance of linking the management principles derived in CASCADE with wider agendas was mentioned as key to advancing SLM. To further propel the operationalisation of CASCADE’s principles, the FAO representative suggested the dissemination of the findings should be linked directly with the SDGs, or other initiatives such as FAO’s climate smart agriculture programme. That way, it can be included in the agendas of international policy makers and inform their paradigms and policies. Internationally, the importance of lobbying and disseminating the results was noted. Highlighting SLM priorities and the urgency of action to the EU in Brussels was mentioned as one of the next steps that could be adopted by CASCADE researchers. It was mentioned that in order to be operationalised, policy recommendations needed to be developed in form of specific objectives and guidelines proposed to Brussels. However, discussions also noted the fine line between the provision of scientific information to policy makers and engagement in advocacy and lobbying. Therefore, participants disagreed on the desired roles of scientists within these activities, and their ideal degree of participation.

Future opportunities and outreach

During the forum, participants discussed not only how researchers can feed their findings into policy, but also how to increase engagement with land managers. It was agreed that the dissemination of the principles and other land management measures benefitted from the participatory approach taken throughout much of the research. It was also highlighted that outreach mechanisms need to use appropriate language and channels of communication to be effective. “Make the results known to the decision makers but in a way they can understand and can transmit easily”, as an international policy maker stated.

Collaboration and cooperation between organisations was seen by international policy makers as one of the best opportunities to drive changes and improvements in land management, not only at national level but also internationally. As an international policy maker highlighted, outreach can increase social interest and thus the pressure for improving policies: “Probably the best way for policy makers to take into account what the scientific community is finding is for the scientific community to explain quite well to society about the change of paradigm, not only to the policy makers.”

Knowledge management and databases available to policy makers and land managers, were seen as an area that can facilitate or set back research dissemination, due to the lack of availability of the data or its accessibility. Often although the information can be available, the information is spread out across various specialized databases, thus restricting the accessibility to policy makers. Nevertheless, the UNCCD representative stated that his organisation has been considering the localisation of knowledge, and they are working on the development of a “knowledge hub” to facilitate access to relevant information. He suggested that CASCADE could collaborate and participate in their initiative to help increase the dissemination of project findings.

Furthermore, collaboration and communication was mentioned by policy makers as an opportunity to reach agreements and actions by a land manager from Cyprus, “We are taking some decisions at the technical level. Politicians, ministers see things differently… definitely try to convince them and I hope that the answer will be positive….Further research in the study sites, to monitor CASCADE’s measures will in fact add to policy making and pro-intervention.”

Soil conservation education at different levels was also considered as a priority area of action, both for land users and policy makers. CASCADE’s land management scenarios for analysing grazing impacts were regarded as a potential tool for transformative action, as they can not only guide management practices but also help to convey possible outcomes to a wider audience. CASCADE researchers in Spain found that a local government using a participatory bottom-up approach was more successful at managing fire risks, compared with traditional methods of education, such as awareness campaigns. However, education and social awareness were also cited to be incorporated in long-term management plans.

The contributions of CASCADE can go beyond providing new technical information. As the UNCCD participant stated “a project like CASCADE can provide more insightful understanding of the socio-economic dynamics- that is quite important. It helps to better plan interventions…because one of the things policy makers hate is uncertainty, so we can provide them with better evidence of what it is going to happen, or is very likely to happen, so it will help a lot to take up the measures and to promote intervention”.

The link between science, legislation and governability were also examined by the participants. The responsibility of local and international policy makers to use knowledge that has been supported by EU funding was questioned by a policy maker. He noted the knowledge gathered by scientific research may fail to reach relevant policy makers, thus failing to permeate key discussions, meaning that the knowledge produced by European funded projects may not be used for policy elaboration. Potentially, a considerable evidence base for policy making is thus being missed.

Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References

1. DISCUSSION

Although advanced tools for SLM in drylands such as WOCAT (World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies; www.wocat.net) have been developed, tailoring measures to particular socio-environmental systems is necessary, as conditions vary within sites and over time (Schwilch et al., 2012), and the effectiveness of programmes and measures depend on their capacity to address particular local and external issues affecting land degradation. The close contact of CASCADE researchers with land users and policy makers allowed the project to develop more insightful results and propel a practice of knowledge sharing and learning, appropriate to advance SLM.

However, stakeholders’ involvement in the research does not guarantee the identification of appropriate management measures (Schwilch et al., 2012) or the adoption of new technologies. There are various barriers to the adoption of new and innovative land management measures (Fleskens et al., 2014, Sietz and Van Dijk, 2015). Policy research and literature state that decision making is mainly driven by beliefs, values and experience, which in turn can interact with particular sets of goals and perceptions of issues and challenges (Sotirov et al., 2016, Hall, 1993). These can affect the ways in which research is used.

It is suggested that when the participation process is led by non-state representatives, it is more likely that participants would share and learn information from each other, and solutions would be reached (de Vente et al., 2016). CASCADE researchers were perceived as a third party by stakeholders, able to communicate with them and policy makers without conflicts of opinion. Such perceived objectivity can be useful, particularly if stakeholders are seeking evidence to continue with particular practices. Equally, stakeholders’ access to sound information can further foster shared perceptions and goals.

Thus, the learning and knowledge sharing process was considered particularly important by the project, especially where land users and land managers have dissenting positions, such is the case in Crete, where policy makers and shepherds were not able to attend the same workshop due to conflicting views (Sotirov et al. 2016). As shared goals are more feasible to be pursued, participatory approaches can be key in identifying common ground, connecting long and short-term ways of thinking through improved understanding. Using stakeholder engagement throughout, it was possible not only to share information, but also to share priorities, visions, and barriers. This was recognised as a tool to further design and elaborate outreach and management programmes. It also opened new channels of communication between researchers and stakeholders.

Forest sites

Stakeholders’ perceptions of land abandonment, forest fires and grazing in forested areas of Spain, Portugal and Italy differed. Mainly, stakeholders agreed with post fire and forest fire principles that linked to abandonment, as well as the grazing principles. Yet while they did not disagree with the land management principles, the approach to managing land abandonment was controversial. The causes and consequences of land abandonment are complex and encompass multidimensional factors (Renwick et al. 2013), so its management was perceived beyond the reach of CASCADE. In the views of stakeholders, it was necessary to situate the guidelines within a socio-environmental context. Spanish stakeholders saw this as key to their usefulness and applicability, especially in the land abandonment and forest fire context. In Spain and Portugal living in the region may become difficult due to the lack of services and general economic climate, alongside other externalities. At the same time, the management of the land for forest fires was closely related to land tenure, as the availability and interest of stakeholders to engage in land management varies depending on their stake and the perceived land value.

The key barriers in Spain and Portugal related to land tenure and the lack of laws that allow land managers to apply forest fire measures on private land. Private and public sectors can have different goals, which can also change over time, as values and socio-economic conditions change (Cubbage et al., 2007), while private management may respond to shorter term needs and values.

Land tenure in the hands of multiple land owners with small sized plots was perceived to be hampering land management, as land owners of smallholdings may not be involved in land management. In Portugal stakeholders stated that successful operationalization of forest fire prevention is restricted by the predominantly small-scale forest land parcels. Here, abandonment links to forest fire management.

In Italy, given that land tenure is held in larger land plots, the representative of the farmers’/shepherds’ union considered that the best option would be to set up an agency to oversee the management of publicly owned land that favoured agricultural and forestry use. This could help to preserve and better maintain publicly owned lands which are currently at risk of abandonment.

Given the complexity of managing the land when land tenure is distributed in smallholdings, stakeholders in Spain considered focusing on individual and localised productive projects as the best opportunity to boost conservation and development. Even if such projects are held at a small scale, they could work as a network. Small successful projects in the region could in turn spark development at a local level, as well as recover interest in the land once other proprietors realize its potential. Furthermore, land owners could form cooperatives to boost local production, as well as their incomes. The strategy of localised sources of production would help to concentrate on the commercialisation of valuable resources such as honey production, agrotourism and ecologic agriculture, plus they considered it more feasible as it is at a small scale and it would be possible for technicians to support owners. Stakeholders would expect that these projects could stabilise the population. Such development was seen as requiring simultaneous efforts towards creating schools for farmers. This was a novel and unexpected insight, that land users can be engaged in revitalising an area by making localised efforts, especially as more conservative or traditional strategies were expected.

Fire awareness campaigns in Spain have been ineffective according to a stakeholder from the forest fire prevention department, as many are a consequence of badly-managed stubble burning by farmers, rather than the result of accidental or negligent actions. Fire prevention campaigns were considered as top-down approaches to increase awareness. Instead, a bottom-up approach through boards and owners organisations was considered necessary by the forest fire department representative. Local stakeholders in Spain are nevertheless exploring legal means to move forward fire prevention strategies on private property. Lessons from Spain could be usefully tested in other study sites.

In general, Spanish stakeholders did not complain about the lack of technical information and documentation as a barrier to improve SLM. The Centre of Forest Research and Experimentation (CIEF) (Conselleria de Agricultura, Medio Ambiente, Cambio Climático y Desarrollo Rural) works as a governmental research centre in charge of providing GIS information and there are local technicians working within the region. Land managers and decision makers are usually affiliated to governmental or academic institutions, therefore they can access the information if necessary. In other study sites however, information is sometimes lacking or difficult to access.

In Italy, rural tourism was seen as a good alternative to boost the region’s development and to sell local produce. The tourism authority stated that there have been actions to support and promote tourism in the region, however, this was hampered by a lack of cooperation as local farmers try to sell produce independently. Direct trade with the consumer is also commonly seen as the best way to increase produce revenues and maintain production, as mentioned by the beekeeper representative in Italy. There is a common belief that tourism increases economic revenues, can improve infrastructure and promote general community development, however, to ensure that tourism development meets community expectations appropriate planning and community collaboration is necessary (Presenza et al., 2013).

Additionally, in Portugal and Spain stakeholders mentioned the need to develop farmer schools in order to maintain and transmit traditional knowledge, in shepherding, ethnobotany and ethnozoology courses, as well as to learn new SLM technologies. These kinds of ideas support many of the suggestions made at the policy forum regarding making information available to stakeholders in different ways and ensuring SLM interventions are linked to wider environment and development debates and challenges.

Grazing sites

In Cyprus and Crete, stakeholders generally agreed with the grazing principles that CASCADE proposed. Shepherds also mentioned that it was the first time that any institution approached them to talk about dryland management, and showed interest in their information and measures. Thus, it is important to maintain these kinds of efforts. Low levels of contact with dryland farmers can lead to their alienation as they can see how traditional land uses have devaluated under government indifference, which can lead them to refuse to engage with conservation efforts (Onate and Peco, 2005). Given the value of stakeholder engagement noted at both study site workshops and the policy forum, it will be vital to ascertain how best to keep in touch with the stakeholders after the end of the CASCADE project.

In Cyprus the oldest shepherds disagreed about the feasibility of integrating olive trees and carob trees in grazing areas. As mentioned before, when perceptions of traditional values are challenged by new information, there is also the risk that stakeholders reject facts in order to protect their core beliefs, thus stakeholders are more open to information that doesn’t challenge their beliefs and values (Sotirov et al., 2016). Nevertheless, through participation during the study site workshop the youngest shepherd was able to convince almost all of the rest that it was in fact feasible. Equally, they were reluctant to stop killing predators, due to traditional practices rather than environmental reasons. It is clear that such traditional practices should not be overlooked but rather, engaged with and explained in order to better understand them. Stakeholders are not however totally closed to new opportunities. Nevertheless, given the current situation in Cyprus and the wider Greek economy, market diversification in a sustainable way is considered even more unrealistic in the current socioeconomic context unless incentives are provided.

In Crete while all stakeholders considered actions after fire or drought effective, in practice this is not always the case. For many measures stakeholders saw the potential benefit of the principle, but lack the motivation for applying a new measure, thus, further efforts and incentives to reap benefits and start a wave of action are needed. Bridging the gap between knowledge and action remains a challenge.

Policy makers from Cyprus also requested more information regarding new knowledge about soil management and overgrazing, which is particularly encouraging. Policy makers often concentrate their environmental conservation efforts on protected areas, thus local CASCADE researchers considered that attention to drylands and farmland areas is a step forward to prevent further land degradation. This suggests the new information provided by CASCADE can broaden policy makers’ horizons and interests.

Using and sharing knowledge for SLM in the Mediterranean, opportunities for dissemination

Stakeholders welcomed the information given by CASCADE both in the policy forum and in the stakeholder workshops. Strategies to improve the land management agenda were noted by policy makers, such as the potential uses of management scenarios, identifying pathways for management and appreciating the benefits of stakeholder engagement and institutional collaboration.

There is still nevertheless a lack of evidence for decision makers to make an informed decision about SLM investments. Using techniques such as scenarios still offer great untapped potential. It was considered that the development and explanation of management scenarios can be particularly useful for dissemination and planning. For example an Agriculture NGO representative in Spain considered that land change scenarios could be used to demonstrate the future impact of guidelines for forest and land management in the Mediterranean region. Indeed, the use of scenario analysis and other foresight methodologies has been found to aid development of common understandings of the near future, and the challenges and opportunities for stakeholder participation (Sotirov et al., 2016). This approach can also raise awareness of the resources at stake in case of inaction, therefore is useful to promote the urgency and importance of the principles proposed by CASCADE. To deliver scenario information to a general audience can be key to convey support and engagement, for which scenarios and modelling should aim to be flexible and less complicated able to convey a narrative of future pathways (Kok and van Delden, 2009). Through the use of scenarios it is possible not only to convey a message (Kok and van Delden, 2009); scenarios can be key to appraise best measures and practices, particularly for mitigating land degradation (Fleskens et al., 2014).

During the policy forum various participants stressed the importance of the dissemination of CASCADE work and results to support policy and practices at different levels. As an international policy maker from UNCCD envisaged it “…CASCADE can take one additional step which is expanding collaboration and cooperation nationally and internationally, for different areas, and other countries and regions. But also with different entry points, sometimes for forest fire management, sometimes for forest landscape restoration…”. Equally, CASCADE’s approach and findings can be applied and tested for their applicability in other areas of the world.

Effective SLM needs a coherence across socio-economic, legal and institutional approaches and measures (WOCAT, 2007). International initiatives to coordinate and share knowledge on advances towards SLM in the Mediterranean were mentioned as potentially beneficial by stakeholders in Portugal. Sharing knowledge and alternative histories of success was deemed potentially useful, as it could be replicated throughout the region. At a regional level, there are already international collaboration initiatives that share knowledge and efforts towards land management and productive enterprises. These initiatives are promoted by governmental entities but only work to link local partners in both countries. Stakeholders in Portugal mentioned that there is a current collaboration project, with the Basilicata region in Italy. Such cooperation could be vital for exchanging expertise. More could nevertheless be done in this regard to enhance knowledge sharing.

The role of researchers in SLM was also discussed, the ethical and professional implication of staying as a distant non-participant spectator were regarded as by a resource manager who noted that “Sometimes it's our fault as scientists, too much science and we could not clearly convey the message to the policy makers [about] what exactly needs to be done…. I mentioned the Four per Thousand initiative… a group of soil scientists said - Yes but this cannot be implemented because you cannot do this, you don't have data for that - So that's our part?”. Therefore a wider discussion over the use of pragmatic approaches to improve land management and the role of scientists therein may be beneficial. There is also still a lack of evidence for decision makers to make an informed decision about SLM investment. To decide when and where to invest, it is necessary to gain an understanding of the non-linear behaviour of the ecosystem dynamics, as environmental conditions varied and the windows of opportunity for specific measures can be critical (Sietz 2017). Together, these aspects highlight that despite important advances within CASCADE, much research remains to be done.

Laws and Incentives

Local

Due to issues arising from land tenure, one of the most commonly discussed options for improving coordination and collaboration in Spain was organisation schemes to congregate stakeholders around specific objectives. Such efforts have been working in other areas of Spain, such as the “mesa de concertación” (agreement boards) working in the Valencia region, or the “Mesas forestales” (Forestry table) or “Juntas Rectoras” (governing board of Natural Parks), where boards or organisations are generally grouping multiple local stakeholders with the aim of managing the land.

In Spain there is currently an initiative to carry out a census of abandoned lands, with the aim of fomenting legal means that allow the administration of them for environmental conservation efforts. This is known in the region as “Custodia del territorio”. Such legal means and the formalisation of collective efforts could be usefully assessed in further research as to their effectiveness and appropriateness across other forest sites.

National

In Italy, improving poor infrastructure e.g. through improved road maintenance was considered by the stakeholders as one of the biggest challenges in order to boost development in the area. Lack of services can boost land abandonment if quality of life is perceived as low, and even small investments in infrastructure can boost the rural economy. Nevertheless, stakeholders considered that in a future scenario, the territory could be in a condition where land values stabilise. Therefore, existing infrastructure should be maintained (road maintenance, keeping access roads open, maintenance of irrigation networks etc.), in order to guarantee its future use. In the same way intangible assets must be preserved, such as skills and know-how (e.g. knowledge exchange about edible wild plants, methods for making bread etc.). Such efforts require policy actions and appropriate legal and institutional frameworks.

In Italy during the stakeholder workshops, it was mentioned that some legislation was hampering the production of local farmers, such as regional legislation halting on-farm slaughtering. Legislation allowing farmers to cut production costs by slaughtering and selling their produce independently (as farmers slaughtering animals on site are doing it illegally under this law) was seen as beneficial by stakeholders. Thus, farmers’ associations were seen as an option to strengthen local food networks and promote on-farm food processing of niche products. Organisation was also seen as key, as farm cooperatives could set-up a small number of collective processing plants that all farmers would have access to.

In Italy cooperation features heavily in the new policy planning period. Due to land abandonment, there is a strong consensus on the need for policies that address not only economic development but also social and environmental needs. However, although in Italy farm fragmentation is rare, it can also be a problem for SLM, as small scale owners can have less capacity to implement costly measures, plus efforts are fragmented and less effective if coordination and compromises are not achieved between owners.

In Spain the current land management directives are under study to allow actions in private lands especially in areas with high (fire) risk. Most of those areas are set aside agricultural lands (pseudoforests) with high density of pines and very low or no successional progress. The Forest Law established in 1993 already tried to permit actions in private properties affected by the design of Areas of Urgent Action (ZAUs) (mainly firebreaks) but it failed as it required one individual agreement per piece of land. Supporting this with subsidies is not feasible due to the huge number of properties and unknown land owners in many cases.

EU

In Portugal, stakeholders perceived access to EU funds as key to implement mulching as an emergency measure for stabilization. Another possibility for increasing the viability of mulching, would be the existence of a local biomass power plant, so that the costs of handling the logging residues and their application as mulch, after shredding, would, at least partially, be covered by the economic valorisation of the larger woody parts delivered to the power plants. Again, these options require institutional support.

In Italy stakeholders mentioned that providing retirement incentives to older farmers could promote greater generational change, and the farmers’/shepherds’ union representative mentioned that the EU’s measure on minimum tillage should be implemented in order to incentivise conservation agriculture.

In Basilicata, 87% of the territory is classified as mountainous, therefore, certifications such as the “Mountain Product Certification” (Regulation EU No. 665/2014) gives the region the opportunity to uniquely brand its products. Local producers in Italy saw policies on certification and designation of origin (Regulation EU No. 1151/2012) as an alternative to add value to the production, and improve resilience, as produce prices could withstand price fluctuations and continue activities if prices of a determine good fall dramatically at a given point.

However, designation of origin can also have undesired consequences if demand surpasses the supply capacity. Cypriot Halloumi cheese gained the origin denomination in 2016. Therefore, there is an ongoing campaign to boost milk production to satisfy the demand.

In synthesising the proposals from the study sites and considering them in conjunction with those from the policy forum, big gaps are apparent between the large-scale initiatives at the international level and the smaller scale efforts at local levels that can help movement towards SLM. Further work is needed to bridge these gaps if international initiatives such as the UNCCD’s Land Degradation Neutrality target setting programme are to resonate with local land managers.

2. CONCLUSIONS

The global importance of land degradation and its negative impacts on agriculture goes beyond the loss of environmental services. Humanitarian crises worldwide are arising due to the loss of land productivity as tipping points are reached. The urgency of improving SLM stresses the importance of advancing CASCADE goals and the dissemination of its work. Reaching SLM requires transformative change. One important strategy for this involves research allied with participation, collaboration with broader institutional efforts and steps to foster permanent cooperation. CASCADE aimed to provide new and relevant information not only to manage the present and project future scenarios, but also to create the bridges necessary between stakeholders, policy makers, researchers, land users and land managers. Further dissemination process will close the circle of social engagement. By learning from each other, CASCADE researchers were able to build trust and share common goals, and is a job that will prove essential in oncoming years due to climate change. Furthermore, the role of the moderator is also important, a further review and compilation of the methods used by CASCADE’s team when delivering the principles, and a discussion about the particular reception in each study site, could yield interesting results.

The forest fire and post fire principles proposed in Spain and Portugal reached a high level of approval from stakeholders, although various barriers were perceived to limit their applicability. Between the perceived barriers for applying forest fires and land abandonment principles were land tenure in both countries and individual and tailored technical support for private owners in Portugal. In Cyprus and Crete, stakeholders agreed with the overgrazing principles, although shepherds were resistant to stop hunting predators, and some challenged those principles different to their traditional practices.

Highlighting the relevance of new knowledge and linking it to relevant national and international policies was one of the most frequently mentioned ways to include CASCADE’s findings in future planning.

CASCADE’s contributions are not restricted to innovative information. The research and experiments carried out also confirmed and concurred with empirical information, supporting some traditional practices that have been lost. Thus they not only highlighted the effectiveness and importance of some of the traditional local land management practices, they also provided more detailed guidelines and support for their application. This may be particularly important in the case of traditional knowledge that may have been lost, as traditional knowledge is generally less valued in policy making than scientific studies (Stringer and Reed 2007). Furthermore, during the policy workshop it was mentioned that it is more feasible to include knowledge-based regulations in policy, as it can help to deal with uncertainty.

The importance and soundness of scientific concepts, as well as how unanimous theory and practices are within the scientific community has serious implications in advancing the policy agenda and agreements, as incorporating measures in evidence based policy making require scientific support. On the other hand stakeholders ‘on site’ are dealing with tipping points and the loss of environmental services, therefore, urgency of action may require more pragmatic approaches. It is therefore vital that both kinds of stakeholders work in collaboration with scientists.

Finally, the information presented in this report further advances our knowledge about stakeholders’ views and their perceived challenges in applying SLM measures. This information can in turn, be used to foster agreements between stakeholders, as they can identify common ground and thus move forward and agreed on shared goals. Policy makers recognized that CASCADE’s research and new insights from controlled experiments and modelling scenarios, can also help them design programmes and act as a roadmap for actions for improving land management and conservation. This reiterates the importance of integrating knowledge across disciplines, stakeholders, scales and timeframes in order to reach decisions and practices that can really advance SLM.

Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References

References cited in articles in this section of CASCADiS

• ACEVEDO, M. F. 2011. Interdisciplinary progress in food production, food security and environment research. Environmental conservation, 38, 151-171.
• CUBBAGE, F., HAROU, P. & SILLS, E. 2007. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest policy and economics, 9, 833-851.
• DE VENTE, J., REED, M., STRINGER, L., VALENTE, S. & NEWIG, J. 2016. How does the context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecology and Society, 21.
• DIMOPOULOUS, D., FERMZNTIX, I., VLAHOS, G., 2006. 2006. The responsiveness of cross compliance standards to environmental pressures. The Responsiveness of Cross Compliance Standards to Environmental Pressures Deliverable 12. A Research Paper of the Cross Compliance Network.
• FLESKENS, L., NAINGGOLAN, D. & STRINGER, L. 2014. An exploration of scenarios to support sustainable land management using integrated environmental socio-economic models. Environmental management, 54, 1005-1021.
• Hadjigeorgiou, I., 2011. Past, present and future of pastoralism in Greece. Pastor. Res. Policy Pract. 1, 24. doi:10.1186/2041-7136-1-24
• HALL, P. A. 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative politics, 275-296.
• KÉFI, S., VASQUES, A., SCHNEIDER, F., RIETKERK, A. G, MAYOR, A. G., VERWIKMEREN, M., DIAZ-SIERRA, R. & BAUDENA, M. 2016. Report on simulated pressures andecosystem responses. CASCADE Report Series. Université de Montpellier, France: CNRS.
• KOK, K. & VAN DELDEN, H. 2009. Combining Two Approaches of Integrated Scenario Development to Combat Desertification in the Guadalentín Watershed, Spain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36, 49-66.
• ONATE, J. J. & PECO, B. 2005. Policy impact on desertification: stakeholders’ perceptions in southeast Spain. Land use policy, 22, 103-114.
• PAPANASTASIS, C., KYRIAKAKIS, S., & KAZAKIS, G., 2002. Plant diversity in relation to overgrazing and burning in mountain Mediterranean ecosystems. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 3, 2-3: 53-63
• PRESENZA, A., DEL CHIAPPA, G. & SHEEHAN, L. 2013. Residents’ engagement and local tourism governance in maturing beach destinations. Evidence from an Italian case study. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2, 22-30.
• REED, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological conservation, 141, 2417-2431.
• RENWICK, A., JANSSON, T., VERBURG., P.H. REVOREDO-GIHA, C., BRITZ., W., GOCHT, A., & MCCRACKEN., D. 2013. 2013. Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 446-457.
• SCHWILCH, G., BACHMANN, F. & DE GRAAFF, J. 2012. Decision support for selecting SLM technologies with stakeholders. Applied Geography, 34, 86-98.
• SIETZ, D., FLESKENS, L. & STRINGER, L. C. 2017. Learning from Non‐Linear Ecosystem Dynamics is Vital for Achiving Land Degradation Neutrality. Land Degradation & Development.
• SIETZ, D. & VAN DIJK, H. 2015. Land-based adaptation to global change: What drives soil and water conservation in western Africa? Global Environmental Change, 33, 131-141.
• SOTIROV, M., BLUM, M., STORCH, S., SELTER, A. & SCHRAML, U. 2016. Do forest policy actors learn through forward-thinking? Conflict and cooperation relating to the past, present and futures of sustainable forest management in Germany. Forest Policy and Economics.
• STONE, M. T. & NYAUPANE, G. 2014. Rethinking community in community-based natural resource management. Community Development, 45, 17-31.
• STRINGER, L., FLESKENS, L., REED, M., DE VENTE, J. & ZENGIN, M. 2014. Participatory evaluation of monitoring and modeling of sustainable land management technologies in areas prone to land degradation. Environmental management, 54, 1022-1042.
• STRINGER , L. C., REED, M. S. 2007. Land degradation assessment in southern Africa: Integrating local and scientific knowledge bases, Land Degradation and Development 18, 99-116.
• SWART, R. J., RASKIN, P. & ROBINSON, J. 2004. The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global environmental change, 14, 137-146.
• TARRASÓN, D., RAVERA, F., REED, M. S., DOUGILL, A. J. & GONZALEZ, L. 2016. Land degradation assessment through an ecosystem services lens: Integrating knowledge and methods in pastoral semi-arid systems. Journal of Arid Environments, 124, 205-213.
• TURNER, K. G., ANDERSON, S., GONZALES-CHANG, M., COSTANZA, R., COURVILLE, S., DALGAARD, T., DOMINATI, E., KUBISZEWSKI, I., OGILVY, S., PORFIRIO, L., RATNA, N.,
• SANDHU, H., SUTTON, P. C., SVENNING, J.-C., TURNER, G. M., VARENNES, Y.-D., VOINOV, A. & WRATTEN, S. 2016. A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecological Modelling, 319, 190-207.
• WOCAT. 2007. “Where the land is greener”: Case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Editors: Hanspeter Liniger and William Critchley.  Associate editors: Mats Gurtner, Gudrun Schwilch, Rima Mekdaschi Studer. CTA, Wageningen.