1. sports
2. skating
3. figure skating

Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Collaborative Project
Role Of Biodiversity In climate change mitigatioN
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
GA number: 283093
FP7-ENV-2011.2.1.4-1
Start date of project: 01 November 2011
Due date of deliverable: 28/02/2013
Duration: 48 months
Actual Submission date: 25/09/2013
Lead partner for deliverable: WU/UPM
Authors: Consuelo Varela-Ortega, Kasper Kok, Irene Blanco, Ariella Helfgott, Marisol Toledo,
Fabiola Clavijo, Elena Lazos, Peter Gerritsen, Lucieta Martorano, Margareth Simoes, Socorro
Ferreira, Eduardo Juárez
Dissemination Level
PU
Public
PP
Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE
Restricted to a group specified by the Consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO
Confidential, only for members of the Consortium (including the Commission Services)
Document ID:
x
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 1 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
1 Publishable Executive Summary
One of the general aims of the ROBIN project is to work with local stakeholders to
provide science based information and tools to help them manage sustainable agroecosystems delivering benefits for biodiversity, climate change mitigation, livelihoods
and human welfare. This is the first of three reports on the local stakeholder
participatory process in ROBIN. It provides a review of the methodology used in the
development of stakeholder-driven scenarios for ROBIN. This includes co-design of the
participatory process with country partners, through regular negotiations, an inclusive
training activity and analysis of the ecological, socio-economic and institutional
structure and dynamics in the project's study sites. This document should also form a
useful “handbook” for the application of the participatory approach in similar projects.
The document is divided in four sections. Section One addresses participatory scenario
development and provides a systematic overview of available methods and tools.
Scenario development has evolved over time with applications in a large variety of
contexts, ranging from political decision-making, business planning and community
development to global environmental management and governance. Scenarios aid
decision makers by providing a range of plausible futures within which to test strategy
and policy. Involving stakeholders improves the efficiency and effectiveness of scenario
planning by incorporating topic specific knowledge, generating acceptance of the
scenarios and subsequent insights for policy and practice; and capacity development of
stakeholders through increased communication amongst themselves and with scientists.
There are many activities available for engaging stakeholders in scenario development:
brainstorming and clustering; ranking and scoring; diagramming and mapping; narrative
techniques; drama, games and role plays, etc. Section One goes deeper into each of
these categories.
Section Two draws from the previous section and shows the specific case of scenario
development in ROBIN. According to the Description of Work (DoW), ROBIN will
provide information for policy and resource use options under scenarios of socioeconomic and climate change to quantify interactions between terrestrial biodiversity,
land use and climate change mitigation potential in tropical Latin America. It will also
develop scenarios for climate change mitigation by evaluating their effectiveness,
unintended effects on other ecosystem services and their socio-ecological consequences.
Therefore, the qualitative scenarios will be developed locally and resulting storylines
will be quantified allowing for linkage with land use models. The specific methodology
for scenario development in ROBIN is presented with a particular focus on how to build
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) with stakeholders. FCMs are a defined and central part
of the stakeholder workshop methodology. These workshops will be used in ROBIN to
(i) define the scope and the system of relevance from the perspective of the stakeholders
both now and in a range of plausible future scenarios; (ii) to understand perceptions of
interrelationships within the system of interest both currently and in a range of plausible
future scenarios; (iii) to explore the impact of perturbation on these systems; (iv) to
generate a list of possible strategies and options for both mitigation and for preservation
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 2 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
of biodiversity; (v) to understand how these impacts represent improvements or not,
from the perspective of different stakeholder groups; and (vi) to contribute to
development of tool-kits for decision-aiding about these actions.
Section Three is intended to serve as guidance for the implementation of stakeholder
participatory workshops. The main objective of the stakeholder workshops is the
development of future scenarios for land use and biodiversity, for which the fuzzy
cognitive mapping technique will be used. The case studies in ROBIN will have three
meetings each that will accommodate the steps for scenario building. The first meeting
will focus on the understanding of the present and an introduction of scenarios and the
scenario building process. The second meeting will serve to enrich scenarios, adding the
FCMs of the future to the qualitative output from the first workshop. The third and last
meeting will focus more on the short and medium term goals and discussion about the
potential policy actions to contribute to climate change mitigation. Additionally, section
three contains useful information on stakeholder identification, the facilitation of
participatory exercises, workshop evaluation and finally a list of do’s and don’ts for
participatory workshops and FCMs development.
Section Four presents some examples of how results from FCMs can be analysed and
presented. These include the results of the FCM training workshop in Madrid and the
results of the preparatory stakeholder FCM workshops in Mexico and Bolivia.
Extensive discussion with local teams and other ROBIN partners yielded three case
studies for developing local scenarios in ROBIN in Mexico, Bolivia and Brazil. Details
of these case studies and corresponding stakeholder analyses are provided. The results
of the training workshop held in Madrid with local partners in September 2012 are
discussed. This workshop allowed participants to coordinate further steps in the
development of the project, including conceptual and methodological frameworks for
participatory processes taking place within the case studies and corresponding logistical
considerations. Participants were able to put this methodology into practice during the
workshop by simulating stakeholder meetings that lead to the elaboration of countryspecific FCMs.
Workshop participants were divided into three groups representing the three case
studies in the project: Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico. They incarnated different roles
simulating a real stakeholder meeting in each study area. Based on the knowledge of the
sites group members had, they identified the main drivers affecting bio-diversity in all
three locations. As a result of the discussion, three FCMs were developed that, once
analyzed, provided a picture of the most important factors behind the state of
biodiversity and their linkages with climate change. This exercise helped the
counterparts to become familiar with this participatory methodology and encounter the
main challenges that may arise during the process. The meeting highlighted the central
role of the facilitator in the development of FCMs. The facilitator plays a key role in
harmonizing contrasting visions, resolving issues in discussions, in order to provide a
final picture of interrelated drivers that help us solve the question posed to stakeholders.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 3 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Finally, Section Four provides the results of two preparatory workshops held in Bolivia
and Mexico with the aim of contacting, informing and engaging the different groups of
stakeholders in the participatory initiative of ROBIN. Since participants in stakeholder
workshops may have different educational and socioeconomic backgrounds, access to
the socio-ecosystems, and identities constructed with their territories, these preparatory
workshops are intended to provide a foundation of mutual understanding that can the
success of the following meetings aimed to develop FCMs.
The main results from the First Round of Stakeholder Workshops in Bolivia, Mexico
and Brazil will be presented in a separate report.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 4 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
A handbook for the participatory
process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local
stakeholder meetings
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 5 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Contents:
1
2
3
Publishable Executive Summary .............................................................................. 2
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9
Participatory scenario making: approach and methodology................................... 11
3.1 Introduction to scenario development .............................................................. 11
3.1.1
Background .................................................................................................. 11
3.1.2
When to use scenarios? ................................................................................ 11
3.1.3
Definition ..................................................................................................... 12
3.2 A toolbox of methods (Catalogue of participatory activities) ......................... 12
3.2.1
Brainstorming and clustering exercises........................................................ 13
3.2.2
Ranking and scoring ..................................................................................... 17
3.2.3
Diagramming and mapping .......................................................................... 21
3.2.4
Narrative techniques ..................................................................................... 40
3.2.5
Visualisation ................................................................................................. 42
3.2.6
Drama, games and role plays ....................................................................... 45
3.2.7
Participatory planning and decision-making ................................................ 47
3.2.8
Participatory monitoring and evaluation ...................................................... 48
3.2.9
Icebreakers ................................................................................................... 48
3.2.10 Summary ...................................................................................................... 49
3.3 Triangulation .................................................................................................... 49
3.4 Selection and Handling of Tools ..................................................................... 49
3.5 Considerations for Using Participatory Methods............................................. 50
3.5.1
Critical Perspectives ..................................................................................... 50
3.5.2
Principles for Successful Use of Participatory Techniques ......................... 53
3.6 An example: Participatory activity categorization used in SCENES .............. 54
4 Scenario development in ROBIN ........................................................................... 55
4.1 The participatory scenario-building process in ROBIN .................................. 57
4.2 Stakeholder workshops and case study sites .................................................... 58
4.3 Suggested methods for scenario development ................................................. 61
5 Setting up the participatory process in ROBIN ...................................................... 63
5.1 Training workshop ........................................................................................... 63
5.2 Identification of the stakeholders ..................................................................... 64
5.3 Contacting stakeholders ................................................................................... 65
5.4 Implementing a stakeholder workshop ............................................................ 67
5.5 Facilitating participatory exercises .................................................................. 67
5.6 Evaluation of the workshops............................................................................ 68
5.7 A list of do’s and don’ts of participatory workshops and FCMs ..................... 70
6 Developing local scenarios in ROBIN: Bolivia, Mexico, Brazil ........................... 71
6.1 Selection and overview of Case Study Sites .................................................... 71
6.2 SH Selection .................................................................................................... 85
6.3 FCMs practical exercise with experts from CS ............................................... 89
6.3.1
Development of the exercise ........................................................................ 89
6.3.2
Results: maps in CMaps and dynamic analysis ........................................... 92
6.3.3
Lessons learned ............................................................................................ 99
6.4 Preparatory Workshops .................................................................................. 100
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 6 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
6.4.1
Bolivia ........................................................................................................ 100
6.4.2
Mexico........................................................................................................ 106
7 Annexes ................................................................................................................ 109
Annex 1: Table for stakeholder identification .......................................................... 109
Annex 2: Key messages to communicate to stakeholders ........................................ 110
Annex 3: Practical Guide for implementing the 1st SHW ........................................ 111
Annex 4: Documents for evaluating SH workshops ................................................ 124
Annex 5: List of do's and don'ts ............................................................................... 137
Annex 6: CS template ............................................................................................... 141
Annex 7: Additional documentation from the preparatory workshop in Bolivia ..... 143
Annex 8: Additional documentation from the preparatory workshop in Mexico .... 148
8 References ............................................................................................................ 151
List of figures:
Figure 1. Dealing with uncertainties and complexity ..................................................... 12
Figure 2. What's important? Post-it exercise. Building water scenarios in the Guadiana
basin (Spain) ................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. Clustering exercise. Building water scenarios in the Guadiana basin (Spain) 16
Figure 4. Clustering exercise in a Training Workshop in Madrid: Analyzing the state of
biodiversity for the Guarayos region (Bolivia)............................................................... 17
Figure 5. Ranking main issues in the Guarayos region in Bolivia (center and left) and
the Cuitzmala basin in Mexico (on the right) (2013) ..................................................... 18
Figure 6. Example of a matrix ranking ........................................................................... 19
Figure 7. Rich picture of a rural community in the Solomon Islands ............................ 22
Figure 8. Spidergram – Main issues in the Guadiana basin in Spain (agricultural sector
oriented group) ............................................................................................................... 23
Figure 9. Example of a Causal Loop Diagram (Simple Restaurant Influence Diagram) 25
Figure 10. Example of general Fuzzy Cognitive Map.................................................... 27
Figure 11. Cognitive map of Brazilian rainforest deforestation ..................................... 28
Figure 12. FCM representing the water system in the Guadiana river basin, in Spain .. 30
Figure 13. Dynamic analysis of the FCM representing the water system in the Guadiana
river basin, in Spain ........................................................................................................ 32
Figure 14. General framework for executing a Sustainable Livelihood analysis ........... 34
Figure 15. Example of an Organizational and Institutional Map developed during a
stakeholder workshop. .................................................................................................... 35
Figure 16. Example of Seasonal Calendar, Ambara Region, Ethiopia........................... 36
Figure 17. Daily calendar mapping Beora, Nepal .......................................................... 37
Figure 18. Current map of the Guarayos region in Bolivia showing physical and natural
resources ......................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 19. Map of Kochiel Kenya in 15 years time according to community wide
normative visioning ........................................................................................................ 40
Figure 20. Collage based on Knowledge is King scenario in the Guadalentin (Spain)
within the SCENES project. ........................................................................................... 43
Figure 22. CCAFS Regional Socio-Economic Scenarios for East Africa ...................... 44
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 7 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 21. Impressions of a participatory collage making exercise. .............................. 44
Figure 23. CCAFS Visualisation Exercise Kochiel, Kenya ........................................... 45
Figure 24. Backcasting exercise. Building water scenarios in the Guadiana basin ........ 47
Figure 25. Activities to encourage interaction among participants in the Guarayos
region (Bolivia) .............................................................................................................. 49
Figure 26. Interaction between the qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative
methods........................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 27. A toolbox of methods .................................................................................... 56
Figure 28. Framework of the Stakeholder participation process in ROBIN .................. 58
Figure 29. Framework of the Stakeholder participation process in ROBIN ........... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 30. Geographical location of the selected case studies ....................................... 72
Figure 31. FCM developed by the Brazilian team......................................................... 93
Figure 32. Dynamic analysis of the FCM developed by the Brazilian team ................ 94
Figure 33. FCM developed by the Bolivian team ......................................................... 95
Figure 34. Dynamic analysis of the FCM developed by the Bolivian team ................... 96
Figure 35. FCM developed by the Mexican team ......................................................... 97
Figure 36. Dynamic analysis of the FCM developed by the Mexican team .................. 98
Figure 37. Participants in the Bolivian workshop ........................................................ 106
Figure 38. Participants in the preparatory workshop in Mexico .................................. 108
List of tables:
Table 1. Matrix representing the relationships between variables in the water system in
the Guadiana river basin ................................................................................................. 31
Table 2. Strengths and Weaknesses of FCMs ................................................................ 33
Table 3. Comparative overview of the three case studies selected ................................ 60
Table 4. Summary of participatory tools that could be used in ROBIN ........................ 63
Table 5. Mexican case study- Cuitzmala Watershed ...................................................... 72
Table 6. Bolivian case study- The Guarayos region....................................................... 76
Table 7. Brazilian case study- The Tapajós National Forest .......................................... 79
Table 9. SH selection in Bolivian case study ................................................................. 86
Table 10. SH selection in Brazilian case study .............................................................. 87
Table 11. Stakeholders identified in FCM exercise ....................................................... 89
Table 12. Factors identified by the Brazilian team ......................................................... 90
Table 13. Factors identified by the Bolivian team.......................................................... 90
Table 14. Factors identified by the Mexican team ......................................................... 91
Table 15. Final selection of factors for the Brazilian team ............................................ 91
Table 16. Final selection of factors for the Bolivian team ............................................. 92
Table 17. Final selection of factors for the Mexican team ............................................. 92
Table 18. List of participants ....................................................................................... 101
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 8 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
2 Introduction
One of the key objectives of ROBIN is to develop scenarios for the interrelated social,
economic, political and ecological systems relevant to tropical forest, at multiple scales
in Latin America. The general aim is to work with local stakeholders to provide science
based information and tools to help them manage sustainable ecosystems delivering
benefits for biodiversity, climate change mitigation, livelihoods and human welfare.
The work described in this report covers the initial phase of the site-specific socioecological analysis of a sequential process developed with a range of stakeholders that
will be carried out throughout the project's duration. It describes the aims, preparation
and development of the stakeholder participatory process in selected local-scale case
study areas in Bolivia, Mexico and Brazil. This process forms a key part of ROBIN’s
aim to develop management and policy options for climate change mitigation in ROBIN
to inform local and national decision makers. It will be an iterative process that will
inform, and be informed by, the indicators, monitoring methods, models and decision
support tools that are being developed in other parts of the project.
In this first report on the participatory process, we describe the preparation and
organization of the First Stakeholder Workshops in the study sites with particular
emphasis on the use of the Fuzzy Cognitive Map method (FCM) for scenario
development. These workshops will be repeated at three sites and up to three times at
each site through the project. In order to increase the comparability of the results
between the study sites and over time, we have gone a very careful preparatory process
including a review of methods, lessons learned in previous scenario building exercises
such as the SCENES EU project (Kaljonen and Varjopuro, 2007; van Vliet, 2009),
document preparation, training workshops with project partners and preparatory
workshops in Bolivia and Mexico.
Some results from the preparatory process are included in this report but the main
results from the First Round of Stakeholder Workshops in Bolivia, Mexico and Brazil
will be presented in a separate report. This document is primarily intended to serve as
guidance for the implementation of the participatory workshops in ROBIN. We also
believe that it will also form a useful “handbook” for the application of the participatory
approach in similar projects elsewhere.
The overarching purpose of the participatory workshops in ROBIN is to understand the
relationship between biodiversity and climate change mitigation in the case study
context from the perspective of the stakeholders. This includes the visions that the
stakeholders have on the present situation (1st round of stakeholder workshops) and on
future climate scenarios (subsequent workshops). The information generated should
inform other work packages, and the project as a whole to develop decision-support for
management of biodiversity and climate change mitigation.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 9 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
The corresponding objectives of the stakeholder workshops are to:
 Define the scope of the system of relevance from the perspective of the
stakeholders both now and in a range of plausible future scenarios
o Generate a list of factors that are relevant to biodiversity and climate
change mitigation from the perspective of those people in the room under
each of these scenarios current and future.
 Brainstorming and clustering exercises are appropriate for this
objective.
 Understand perceptions of interrelationships within the system of interest both
currently and in a range of plausible future scenarios
o Allow stakeholders to represent the causal relationships between the
factors in the previous exercise within each scenario, current and future.
 Causal mapping is appropriate for this objective, as is Fuzzy
Cognitive Mapping.
 Explore the impact of perturbation on these systems
o In particular, explore how changes in biodiversity impact on climate
change mitigation and vice versa.
o FCMs can be very appropriate for this purpose.
 Generate a list of possible strategies and options for both mitigation and for
preservation of biodiversity.
 Examine benefits and trade-offs of these options within the system models
generated for each scenario.
o The FCM can be used to examine this.
 Understand how these impacts represent improvements or not from the
perspective of different stakeholder groups.
o This involves knowing what is desirable or preferable for each
stakeholder group. These preferences are also important for work on the
development on decision support tools in other parts of the ROBIN
project.
 Contribute to development of tool-kits for decision-aiding about these actions
o Feed into the development of decision support tools – which will take all
of the information generated above and particularly requires the list of
action options together with the notions of preference and desirability in
order to operationalise Social Multi-Criteria Analysis (SMCA).
o Feed into land-use modeling.
The order of the objectives listed above provides the basis for an overarching
framework that can be used across field sites with appropriate activities used underneath
each of the headings above within each case study context.
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) are a defined and central part of the stakeholder
workshop methodology. As shown in above within the objectives they are extremely
useful to achieve a number of the objectives of the project. What remains is to use
FCMs within an appropriate participatory framework within each case study context.
Ultimately it is the local partners who can best decide which activities to embed FCMs
within in order to achieve this.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 10 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
3 Participatory scenario making: approach and
methodology
3.1 Introduction to scenario development
3.1.1 Background
Scenario development traces back to the 1940s, when this methodology was used in a
series of strategic studies for military planning purposes (Wack, 1985). In the 1970s, the
first scientific scenarios were introduced with the edition of the 1972 book The Limits of
Growth (Meadows et al., 1972). Later on, in the 1980s, scenarios were refined by Royal
Dutch/Shell, who used scenarios within their approach to business planning. The first
global environmental scenarios were produced by the Global Scenario Group, convened
in 1995 by the Stockholm Environment Institute to analyze future paths for world
development in the face of environmental pressures and crises in the twenty-first
century. “Today, scenario development is used in a large variety of different contexts
ranging from political decision-making, to business planning, to local community
management, and to global environmental understanding” (Kok et al., 2011).
3.1.2 When to use scenarios?
“The world is now moving through a period of extraordinary turbulence; the speed and
magnitude of global change, the increasing connectedness of social and natural
systems at the planetary level, and the growing complexity of societies and their
impacts upon the biosphere result in a high level of uncertainty and unpredictability”
(Gallopin, 2002). In this context, scenarios become a good tool when: uncertainty is
high, and controllability is low, or complexity is high, or causality is high” (Raskin et
al., 2002).
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 11 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 1. Dealing with uncertainties and complexity
Source: Zurek and Henrichs (2007)
For environmental scientists, interested in results, scenarios are a good tool for an
integrated analysis of a complex problem since they provide in-depth insight in complex
societal problems. For social scientists, focused on processes, scenarios are a good tool
for communication, conflict management, and long-term participation. Scenarios
provide an excellent tool for communication.
3.1.3 Definition
There are many definitions of what scenarios are, with only partial agreement, but all of
them coincide in the statement that scenarios are not predictions, but a description of
how the future might unfold (Jäger et al. 2006). Scenarios are defined by Van Notten
(2006) as ‘consistent and coherent descriptions of alternative hypothetical futures that
reflect different perspectives on past, present, and future developments, which can serve
as a basis for action’. They can help decision making by providing a range of plausible
futures which can be used to challenge assumptions about the future, to test policy and
practice and to raise public awareness in the present, all of which are relevant in the
framework of ROBIN.
3.2 A toolbox of methods (Catalogue of participatory activities)
Scenarios can be developed using a range of different methodologies according to our
interests and capacities. Environmental decision-making involves diverse stakeholders
operating at multiple scales. Accordingly, scenario development is most effective when
participatory approaches are undertaken, engaging various stakeholders across multiple
scales (Kok et al., 2007). Involving stakeholders improves the efficiency and
effectiveness of scenario planning by incorporating topic specific knowledge,
generating acceptance of the scenarios and subsequent insights for policy and practice;
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 12 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
and capacity development of stakeholders through increased communication amongst
themselves and with scientists (Kok et al. 2006a).
There are an unlimited number of activities that can be undertaken to elicit information,
aid sense-making and decision-making, capacity building and so on, when a group of
stakeholders are present in a room. These broadly fit into the following categories
(Mikkelsen 2005):
1. Brainstorming and clustering activities
2. Ranking and scoring
3. Diagramming and mapping
4. Narrative techniques
5. Visualisation
6. Drama, games and role plays
7. Generation of key indicators
8. Participatory monitoring and evaluation
Sets of examples of each of these types activities will be provided below. Activities
which fit under these headings can also be further divided as qualitative or quantitative
and whether they are appropriate to use in present or future contexts. Both qualitative
and quantitative methods exist “out-there” for each of these headings and all can also be
applied to both future and present contexts.
Such individual exercises can be put together in any formation based on the purpose of
the overall workshop, the nature of the participants and the specific types of data to be
generated. Some useful existing frameworks to consider drawing lessons from when
putting the activities together are:
1. Appreciative Inquiry
2. Critical systems Heuristics
3. Systemic Intervention
These frameworks are outside of the scope of this document but any interested reader
can very easily find further information on all frameworks online.
This section seeks to provide a set of examples of activities that fall under each of the
categories described above. None of them are set in stone and all can be adapted and
designed for the particular circumstances and set of participants present. Note many
exercises make sense to have these in combination and they can each serve multiple
purposes.
3.2.1 Brainstorming and clustering exercises
“Card technique” otherwise known as “Post-it note technique”
Card techniques are used to stimulate, elicit, organize and cluster information. This
technique is also known as brainstorming and clustering, or a post-it session. This is one
of the most useful and widely used techniques in workshop settings because of the ease
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 13 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
with which many ideas can be quickly collated and organized. They can be used as the
basis of ranking, causal mapping, scenario development and a number of other
activities.
The card-technique consists of two steps:
1. Ask the participants to put their ideas about the topic under discussion on a
card or sticky note. Each idea or aspect has to be on a separate card, only one
idea per card. Give a limited number of cards in order to prevent from being
overloaded with cards. In some cases where influences are strong and
independent representation is important participants should not talk to each
other, and come up with their own ideas.
2. Then, group connected items together and give a name or description to each
cluster. Use a different colour card and pen for the cluster names. Exact
duplicates of cards may be removed, but keep all ideas on the wall, also
those that do not fit in any cluster.
The second step can also be done by throwing all cards on the ground and allowing the
participants sort the cards into categories. Listen and watch for emerging categories and
write them boldly on new cards. Anyone can get down on the ground and start sorting
the cards. The nice thing is that on the ground those who are quieter tend to be more
empowered. The dominant people may remain standing and be more out of power. If
they do get down and sort, it is harder to dominate on all fours and less eye contact.
Actually moving cards also reduces talking, making it easier for those less talkative.
This is sometimes called the democracy of the ground.
Tips / Comments




The card technique is generally used in groups although it can be used by an
individual trying to analyze information.
Make sure that everybody has the same understanding of the items put forward
on the cards.
Make clear that all ideas, aspects etc are welcome as long as they are somehow
related to the topic. If there is a card with an unknown relation, ask for the
relation.
Use one point on one card.
Goals:
This method makes it easy to get input from all participants; also the less talkative
people can give just as much input. This method can quickly give a good overview of
the different issues at stake in the Pilot Area. Clustering makes it easier to see the
different overarching aspects and makes the large volume of issues easier to handle.
Materials needed:
 Thick felt-tip pens
 Pencils
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 14 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings




Flipcharts
Cards / post-its
Enough space to cluster the cards
Enough space (on the wall) to put the clusters on
What’s important/uncertain? Exercise
This exercise can be used as an icebreaker, to scope the system of interest, as the basis
for a causal map or FCM, as the basis for two-axis scenario development, or a number
of different purposes.
All participants are given a small stack of post-it notes. A large piece of brown paper is
set up somewhere visible to all. Participants are instructed to reflect on what is
important to them. It is explained that this exercise is extremely broad and can involve
anything from having 10 children to the absence of nose hairs, to improved crop
production. One by one the participants come to the “board” and place their post-it
notes on it, explaining to the rest what is important to them and why. As each
participant comes up, if they raise a point which is “close” to one already mentioned,
they place it close to the existing point. The post-it notes are successively clustered into
themes that describe what is important to the community as a whole. This exercise
creates a graphic visualization of local values, and aspirations. It also helps to set the
scope of the system under consideration.
Figure 2. What's important? Post-it exercise. Building water scenarios in the
Guadiana basin (Spain)
Source Varela-Ortega et al. (2008)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 15 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 3. Clustering exercise. Building water scenarios in the Guadiana basin (Spain)
Source: Varela-Ortega et al. (2008)
Challenges and responses brainstorming and clustering
This exercise is good for identifying the challenges people are facing, barriers to action
as well as elucidating a list of exiting strategies and options for response. These two
linked clustering activities are usually put together with ranking and scoring, causal
mapping and narrative techniques.
Set up a large sheet of brown paper with a line down the middle. Give participants two
colours of post-it notes. With one colour ask them to reflect on environmental
challenges they are facing. With the other colour ask them to reflect on possible
responses to these challenges. Begin with the challenge side of the board first focusing
on that one. One by one the participants come to the “board” and place their post-it
notes on it, explaining to the rest the nature of the challenge they are facing and being
prompted to recall an example. As each participant comes up, if they raise a point which
is “close” to one already mentioned, they place it close to the existing point. The post-it
notes are successively clustered into themes that describe the key environmental
challenges to the community as a whole.
Following this a cognitive mapping exercise is undertaken creating a map of the
participants understanding of the interconnections between challenges. These challenges
are then ranked following the causal mapping to obtain an understanding of the relative
importance of these challenges and their relative impacts. Ranking and scoring is
covered in the following section. It is mentioned here simply because these exercises are
often combined.
Then a similar clustering exercise is undertaken with the response post-it notes as one
by one each participant explains places and clusters their responses. Responses are
clustered by response type (i.e. infrastructural such as water infrastructure, social such
as the formation of an action group and so forth). These themes are then used as the
basis for the following part of the exercise.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 16 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 4. Clustering exercise in a Training Workshop in Madrid: Analyzing the state
of biodiversity for the Guarayos region (Bolivia)
Source: Varela-Ortega et al. (2012b)
Following this a narrative story circle is conducted. For each theme the question is
asked, “Has anyone tried this?” If yes, we collect the story of what happened then, the
motivation for doing it, what worked and what didn’t work and why. If the answer is no
we also ask why and collect the story about the conditions that led to inaction. These
story circles provide deep contextual information about the barriers and opportunities to
adaptation, learning from the past. Narrative story circles are covered lower down.
3.2.2 Ranking and scoring
In any ranking or scoring technique the participants are given some system of voting on
the relative importance of a listing of items. This listing of items could be anything from
challenges as shown above, to “relevant factors” to an issue, preference criteria, values,
anything.
Preferential “vote-based” ranking and scoring
Often participants are given a pool of votes in the form of stickers, small stones, buttons
or some such object. They are able to divide the objects between the items on the list in
any way they see fit – all of the votes can be dedicated to one single item or the votes
can be spread amongst the items. The more votes, the more important the item is to that
individual. This can be done publicly or in isolation with votes subsequently tallied.
Example: Challenges ranking
The challenges and responses exercise described in Section 3.2.1 often involves a
ranking of the challenges faced (after brainstorming and clustering and causal mapping).
This is done by listing the challenges, giving each participant a larger number of
stickers than items and giving them all time to divide up their votes and come up and
stick up their stickers next to each item on the list as shown in Figure 5. They are able
to put all of their votes on one item or distribute their votes across many items.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 17 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 5. Ranking main issues in the Guarayos region in Bolivia (center and left) and
the Cuitzmala basin in Mexico (on the right) (2013)
Source: Robin project (2013, work in progress)
This exercise gives us an idea of the relative priority of different challenges people are
facing. It may be that climate change and biodiversity are less important that immediate
issues of food security, livelihoods and child education in some cases. This provides
insight into the realities different stakeholders are dealing with and it is important to
understand this for interventions to be appropriate, ethical and sustainable.
Example: Predicted hazards ranking
Variations on this exercise are becoming popular for the development of disaster risk
reduction interventions around the world. Participants are asked to identify a list of
hazards, which are then designated a specific place within the room or group circle.
They are asked to elaborate on the suggestions they have made for the list to try and
draw out if the hazards have implications for loss of life, loss of property, loss of future
income generating potential, etc. Participants are then each given a certain amount of
markers (ex: stones) and asked to mark the ones they feel they are most at risk of. The
weighted list generated during this exercise will be used for the subsequent event
ecology exercise to discuss further the hazardous events most significant in the
community’s recent past and will be reviewed again during the planning process
following the exchange portion of the program to ascertain that the plans are reflective
of the hazards the community feels it is at most risk of. The exercise may also provide
some guidance as to whether the current suite of disaster risk management activities on
offer by government agencies and international organizations target perceived risks, and
as such may flag some future recommendations.
Pair-wise ranking and scoring
Pair-wise ranking is very similar to the ranking and scoring described thus far except
that participants are asked to choose between items rather than ranking them all at once.
The advantage of pair-wise ranking compared with complete preference ranking is that
people are forced to make very careful decisions between two items rather than a large
number which could in some cases be overwhelming.
Matrix scoring and ranking
Participants decide on which elements to rank against the criteria they feel are most
important. Scoring is done using stickers, stones, seeds or other counters to give value
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 18 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
for the items being ranked. Scoring can be open (value decided by each participant) or
can be based on a fixed number. For example, an item that ranks high might receive ten
points out of a possible ten given. A low rank would be one or zero points out of ten
given as to how each item scores with respect to each criteria in the matrix.
Figure 6. Example of a matrix ranking
The steps are as follows:
1. Decide which items to rank and score – this can be from a brainstorming and
clustering exercise.
2. For each item in turn ask what is good and what is bad about?
3. List negative and positive criteria.
4. Ask informants to rank or score each item. Allow the participants to decide how
they want to assess value for each item (e.g. by voting)
5. Ask other questions such as:
a. Which criteria are most important?
b. If you could only choose one, which would it be?
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 19 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Example: Ranking of factors to be included in FCM
A Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping exercise begins with a card or post-it note brainstorming
and clustering exercise. This exercise often generates more items then the time frame of
the workshop might allow for causal mapping and assignation of strength of
interactions. Thus facilitators may choose to ask participants to rank the items allowing
the group to choose the main items that are relevant for the mapping. This process is
often done using stickers to vote as described in the previous sections. They are able to
put all of their votes on one item or distribute their votes across many items.
Example: Scoring and ranking of criteria
People often make decisions balancing trade-offs between multiple different criteria.
For example, when looking for a husband a woman may have a list such as honest,
respectful, faithful, funny, intelligent and so forth. Depending on the ranking of each of
these criteria for choosing a husband she might reach a different conclusion from a
selection of options. Similarly, with decision-making about actions for climate change
mitigation and conservation of biodiversity, stakeholders may have a list of different
relevant criteria. Ranking and scoring techniques can be used to determine the relative
priority of these criteria and therefore aid decision-making. The ranking can be done
using the voting system described above, pairwise ranking or matrix ranking.
Well-being ranking
The well-being ranking is an exploratory exercise to sensitize the research team on
participant-held preferences that might otherwise be poorly understood. This is an
exercise popular with development organizations for the design of baseline surveys and
the follow-up surveys to judge long-term project impact that is reflective of perceptions
of improvement. Individuals are asked to describe the conditions of a household/area
(note this technique is scalable) that is doing well or improving and conditions of a
household that is struggling or waning. These could include structure components of the
homestead, such as roofing material, the presence of a fence or items of aesthetic appeal
or socio-economic indicators such as the number of school fees paid or the practice of
tithing to the church or mosque to name but a few examples. Based on these criteria,
individuals can rank their neighbours and explain why the bits of evidence discussed are
indicators of households doing well or struggling. The ranking process usually further
evaluates the criteria, which are continually re-adjusted and re-evaluated. Defining the
criteria is very important for the purposes of baseline surveys, but for the purposes at
hand, the discussion during the ranking process is more relevant, as it gives the
researcher a better sense of community-held preferences before beginning other
components of the data collection process.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 20 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
3.2.3 Diagramming and mapping
Construction and analysis of maps, models and diagrams can involve:
a. Social and resource maps
b. Topic and theme maps
c. Census maps and models
d. GIS based aerial maps
e. Transects
Diagramming can involve
f. Causal, linkage and flow diagrams
i. Causal maps
ii. Signed causal maps/influence diagrams
iii. Fuzzy cognitive maps
g. Force field analysis
h. Times lines, trend analysis
i. Seasonal diagrams
j. Activity profiles
k. Daily routines
l. Venn diagrams
Some examples are given below.
Rich pictures
Rich pictures are a highly visual way of exploring and representing the interactions
between different elements of a system and for gaining a deeper understanding of a
problem situation. There are no formal rules about how rich pictures must be
constructed, there is ample space for creativity. Figure 7 shows an example of a rich
picture for a rural community in the Solomon Islands. The image can contain a mixture
of text, drawings, charts, arrows and anything at all that expresses a concept. In some
cases it might be helpful to use an existing map of an area to draw different items on top
of it of stick pictures on it.
Rich pictures can be refined as our understanding of the system becomes clearer. The
entire research team will sit together on a weekly basis to draw and modify rich pictures
that bring together the content of each of the lenses in a systemic manner. These
representations can be discussed with community members, local partners and experts
to cross-check our understanding of the relationships and drivers in the system.
Rich pictures can be constructed of the present, of a normative vision of the future or of
exploratory scenarios. In the case of the normative visions and exploratory scenarios the
rich picture can be accompanied by a story that is told during the presentation (and
written down by the group facilitator). During the presentation the key elements and
linkages are described, as part of the story on the future. The facilitators of the subgroups have the important task to write down the stories and the way they are developed
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 21 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
during the scenario making process.
The process description should for instance include who had most influence during the
participatory exercise.
Goals:
 To construct information rich and nuanced visual representations of a scenario
(either present or future). Further to demonstrate systemic interactions and
linkages through arrows. Constructing the drawing is more fun than simply
talking and discussion is stimulated around the drawing as an intermediary
object.
 One rich picture can say just as much as a couple of pages of written text.
Materials needed:
 Felt-tip pens
 Pencils
 Flipcharts / large paper
 Enough space (on the wall) to put the rich pictures on
 Group setting, so that all groups can see the presentations as well
Figure 7. Rich picture of a rural community in the Solomon Islands
Source: Russell (2007)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 22 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Spidergrams
Spidergrams can be used to get a quick visual representation of the relative importance
of the main issues in each case study. They can be made both for the present and the
future. Participants will get an A4 or A5 paper with lines in a star form. Each axis
represents one of the main issues. On the outside the value of importance of the issue is
very high (10), at the cross none (0)
Figure 8. Spidergram – Main issues in the Guadiana basin in Spain (agricultural sector
oriented group)
Source: Varela-Ortega et al. (2009)
Make a flipchart that represent an empty spidergram telling which issue is located on
which axis, so that all participants place the issue at the same axis. This will make it
much easier to compare. The participant places a dot or cross on the value of importance
that he thinks the issues has. When the importance of each issue has been decided upon
the dots are connected and a spider web appears. Ask the participants to write their
name on the paper, so that you can compare the different stakeholder groups with each
other.
The spidergrams makes is easy to compare the visions with each other and with the
present on the importance of the issues.
This exercise can be done individually, or in a group.
Goals:
 Spidergrams give a visual representation of the importance of different issues. It
will help to compare the present situation with the visions and the compare the
different case studies with each other. It can also serve as input for the Fuzzy
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 23 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Cognitive Maps.
Materials needed:
 Empty spidergrams, with as many axes as issues (Excel document)
 Pencils, different colour for present and the vision
 One large spidergram, with the issues on the axes.
Timelines
Timelines are a widely used participatory tool to understand a kind of history of a
system. It basically places events along a timeline.
In fact, back-casting can be thought of as a type of timeline where the future vision is
put at the end of the timeline and the present at the beginning. Participants work
backwards from the future to the present we repeatedly ask the question “what would
need to happen before that could happen” until we reach the present. Timelines can also
be constructed stepping forwards in time from the present to the future asking “what
could happen next” in this scenario.
This type of exercise can be used to develop and enrich exploratory scenario storylines.
In the case of normative visions we repeatedly ask the question “what would we need to
do to achieve that” working backwards. This can include policy actions or other types of
intervention.
Timelines can also be constructed to a particular point in history to give a historical
perspective.
The Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) that are developed of the present and the future
system can be used as the end points for the timeline exercise as can collages or other
methods. Within the section on back-casting an exercise is shown using all current
mapping and all future visioning and mapping exercises simultaneously.
The timeline can be used to explore different barriers and opportunities in different
future scenarios. These are also plotted around the timeline.
Goals:
 When used for planning purposes timelines are used to develop a step-by-step
ordered plan of which actions would need to be taken when, and how long each
action could take, in order to achieve a desired outcome in a particular scenario.
 When used for scenario development the goal of this exercise is to develop the
visions into real storylines, describing the whole time from present to the desired
vision, including the actions that can be taken along the way. As before the
timeline makes it easier to follow which action has to be taken first and which
later. Some actions might also take a lot of time implement, which can be easily
visualized on the timeline.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 24 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Materials needed:
 Felt-tip pens
 Pencils
 Flipcharts / large papers
 Enough space (on the wall) to put the time lines on
 Group setting, so that all groups can see the presentations as well
Influence diagrams / Signed cognitive maps/Causal loop diagrams
An influence diagram is a compact graphical and mathematical representation of a
system. The “boxes” in influence diagrams are variable quantities such as social
stability rather than society. Arrows between boxes represent a causal influence. A
positive sign represents that an increase in the originating variable causes an increase in
the variable at the end of the arrow; a negative sign indicates that in increase in the
originating variable causes a decrease in the variable at the end of the arrow. If numbers
between -1 and 1 are placed on the arrows this diagram becomes known as a fuzzy
cognitive map or fuzzy influence diagram. The number represents the strength of the
causal relationship. The properties of the system can be mathematically explored by
examining the properties of the matrix describing the connection weights. These
diagrams can be also used as precursors for the use of Bayesian network and decision
theory. In a decision-making problem, maximum expected utility can be solved for. A
simple influence diagram describing the relationships between some of the key strategic
properties of a restaurant is shown in Figure 9. Causal Loop Diagrams focus on the
description of balancing (B) and Reinforcing (R) feedback loops.
Figure 9. Example of a Causal Loop Diagram (Simple Restaurant Influence Diagram)
Source: Nozdryn-Plotnicki (2010)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 25 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
These diagrams are sometimes referred to as Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs). CLDs
provide a graphic language that helps us to explore causal patterns that are important to
system dynamics but are rarely appreciated or understood in everyday life.
Identification of a cause and an effect are for many people the basic strategy for dealing
with problems – find a cause of a problem and eliminate it. However circular logic and
system structure (feedback loops, delays, and webs) are not sufficiently explored to
have a real impact on decision-making. Most people tend to think linearly, as if every
action causes a simple chain of reactions with no feedbacks that loop around to change
conditions at any point on the chain. CLDs represent the feedback structure of a system.
They help to capture hypotheses how the system structure influences the dynamics and
consider how these hypotheses relate to one another. The variables, causal relations,
overall structure and conversations occurring during model construction all offer
insights into what mental models are salient for particular individuals or teams. CLDs
can serve for communicating the important system features, especially feedbacks, which
are believed to be responsible for the emergence of a particular issue or problem.
Time trend (fuzzy graphs)
Rather than placing items along a timeline as in the case of the timelines activity, the
participants are asked to make (fuzzy) graphs of how they think that an indicator will
change. The graphs thus illustrate time behaviours that constitute a problem or issue of
concern to stakeholders. They make yet another visual tool with which scenarios can
easily be compared with each other. Time trends made for the business as usual
development can be “reference modes” against which scenarios can be compared for the
way policy actions help us escape from the trap of the reference mode.
Goals:
The time trends will give another easy to understand visual representation of a scenario.
It forces the participants to think not only about the present and the vision, but also
about the time in between. How do they think that the actions plotted on the timeline
effect those indicators? The time trends (although fuzzy) will also give valuable
information.
Materials needed:
 Pens
 Paper to draw the graphs on
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps
A cognitive map is a graphical representation of a system, where components are
represented as boxes and relationships between components are represented as arrows.
Fuzzy cognitive maps are a form of cognitive map or "mind map" useful for showing
causal relationships between variable concepts (like social instability, rather than
society), together with the strength of interaction between these variables. In general, a
fuzzy cognitive map shows the relationships between N concepts {C1, … ,CN} , if there
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 26 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
is no arrow between two concepts there is no causal relationship between those
concepts. The strength of the causal relationship of concept Ci on concept Cj is the
number aij written above each link where aij  [- 1, 1]. Whether the number aij is
positive or negative denotes whether Ci has a positive or negative causal relationship
with Cj. Figure 10 shows the basic structure of a Fuzzy Cognitive Map.
Figure 10. Example of general Fuzzy Cognitive Map
Source: Own elaboration
To understand this, consider the simpler case of a signed cognitive map. A signed
cognitive map is the "non-fuzzy" version of this where the numbers aij are only able to
take the values -1, 0 or 1, represented as a positive (+) or negative (-) sign on a link or
no link for 0. In this case a positive sign on the link between nodes Ci and Cj indicates
Ci causally increases Cj, this means an increase in Ci causes an increase in Cj, whereas a
negative sign on the link between nodes Ci and Cj indicates that Ci causally decreases
Cj, that is, an increase in Ci causes a decrease Cj. In other words, the diagram tells us
how a change in Ci will affect a change in Cj the number aij then tells us to what extent
(Kosko, 1986). The matrix A = [aij] is called the adjacency matrix.
With Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) the purpose is to achieve a better understanding of
the stakeholders’ perception of both the present system and the system state in various
future scenarios. The starting points for the development of the present system are the
main issues concerning the case study (as derived during the card-techniques session
and subsequent ranking). They will form the nodes/boxes. In the second step the
feedbacks / relations between the main issues have to be determined. Try to take as
many feedbacks into account as possible. Next, the nature of the interaction, positive or
negative is assigned and finally the numerical value which represents the strength of the
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 27 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
interaction. Figure 11 illustrates the application of FCMs to the issue of deforestation in
the Brazilian Amazon (see Kok, 2009, for further details). The analysis was limited to
factors related to agricultural expansion. Thus, all concepts Ci represent a direct or
indirect driver / constraint of agriculturally induced deforestation, while all relationships
are the processes by which the drivers influence each other.
Figure 11. Cognitive map of Brazilian rainforest deforestation
Source: Kok (2009)
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps force the participants to be explicit in their description of the
system. The visual presentation can be displayed so that it is easy for everyone to
comment on it. Stakeholders will learn about variables and feedbacks perceived by
others and can take them into account. This can be variables and feedback that they
themselves might have forgotten or did not know about. This offers a good learning
possibility. See also Cole and Persichitte (2000) for more on FCMs and learning.
The adjacency matrix is then used in a simple computer model to calculate the impact of
various types of perturbation to the system. The outcomes might inform decisionmaking about actions to effect change in the system and might also lead to a change of
perception about the system itself (and subsequent adjustments of the FCM).
Goals:




Fuzzy Cognitive Maps will be used for multiple goals:
To get a clear presentation of the system as perceived by the stakeholders.
To make the ideas of stakeholders explicit
To create a structured learning method for the stakeholders about the system.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 28 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings

As beginning and end points for a back-casting exercise
Materials needed:
 Paper cards or post-it notes (for the boxes, making it easier to change the FCM)
 Pens
 Pencils and erasers
 Excel spreadsheet with empty FCM
How to build FCM with stakeholders (steps):
1. Define the context and frame the problem along with stakeholders
• What is the question we want to analyze?
• What is the problem we are dealing with?
• What are the boundaries of time and space?
2. Identify relevant issues involved in the problem
• Brainstorming or post-it session to find out all important factors
• Identify main clusters
3. Identify important factors (BOXES)
• Based on step 2, define important factors
4. Define relationships (ARROWS)
• How are factors linked in terms of causality
5. Define the type of relationship (SIGN)
• Positive or negative?
6. Define strength (VALUE)
• How strong are relationships?
The strength of a relationship between two factors can be expressed in numerical or
verbal rating scales. After the workshop, verbal strengths can be translated into
numbers. Missing values can also be extrapolated according to local knowledge,
literature or questionnaires. Next step is to build the adjacency matrix and carry out
dynamic analysis. It is important to revise the FCM with the stakeholders once it is
finalized and discuss with them the results of the dynamic analysis.
It is important to take into account that in workshops where stakeholders are very
heterogeneous in terms of educational and cultural backgrounds, interests, and political
connections, less powerful groups may find difficulties to express their opinions and
make their voice be heard. For this reason, it is extremely important to make all
stakeholders speak and therefore prepare them for the discussion running, for example,
a brainstorming session before the start of the FCM exercise.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 29 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Example of an empirical FCM application:
The following figure shows an example of a FCM representing a water system in Spain,
built with stakeholders.
C1: Rural
developm.
policies
C0: CAP
Subsidies
C2: Application
SPUG (*)
C3:
Political will
+0,8
+0,5
C4: Coordination
of policies
+0,9
+0,6
C8: Managemt
of demands
+0,8
C5: Ef f ective
control
+0,5
+0,8
+0,5
C6: Rural
population
C14: Water
demand
+0,2
+0,5
+0,5
C11: Price
of water
-1
-0,5
+0,8
+1
C9: Fulf ilment
of demands
+0,8
-1
+0,8
+0,8
C7: Productivity of
water use
+0,5
C13: Water
scarcity
+1
C10: Ecosystems
conservation
+0,5
C12: Culture
of water use
-0,7
-0,5
Figure 12. FCM representing the water system in the Guadiana river basin, in Spain
Source: Varela-Ortega et al. (2008)
The numbers assigned to links represent the relative weight of links between a pair of
variables, compared to the others. The value will range from -1 to +1, where 1 is the
strongest link, 0 is the weakest, and the sign shows whether both variables change in the
same sense (when one increases, the other too) or in the opposite sense (when one
increases, the other decreases). This ‘semi-quantification’ is the reason why we this type
of cognitive maps are called ‘fuzzy’.
Every FCM can be assigned a matrix where all the variables are arranged in the vertical
and in the horizontal axes (in the example, C0 to C14). For each variable Ci in the
horizontal axis, we write a vertical vector showing the strength with which every
variable of the system is linked to Ci. If there is no link, the value in the vector is zero.
Table 1 shows the example of matrix corresponding to the FCM of the Guadiana river
basin. Labels C0 to C14 correspond to the variables in the system. The numbers inside
the matrix correspond to the values assigned to the relationships between those
variables.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 30 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Table 1. Matrix representing the relationships between variables in the water system
in the Guadiana river basin
Source: Varela-Ortega et al. (2008)
We can use FCMs to examine the effect of different policies and interventions. We
define a ‘change vector’ that represents the change we are investigating, a perturbation
applied to each of the variable concepts in the FCM. Post-multiplying the change vector
repeatedly by the adjacency matrix (about 20-30 times) gives successively higher order
effects of the initial perturbation. Results will give us an idea of the system stability. We
can also see how the weight of the different variables could evolve as a result of current
interactions between variables. Following with the example of the Guadiana basin,
Figure 2 shows the result of the dynamic analysis. In this case, we can see that the
values assigned to each variable stay constant quite early, after the eighth iteration. We
can also see which variables have the highest weight in the system.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 31 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
CAP subsidies
3,0
Rural developmt policies
Application SPUG
2,0
Political will
Coordination of policies
1,0
Effective control
Rural population
0,0
Productivity of water use
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
Management of demands
Fulfilment of demands
-1,0
Ecosystem conservation
Price of water
-2,0
Culture of water use
Water scarcity
-3,0
Water demand
Figure 13. Dynamic analysis of the FCM representing the water system in the
Guadiana river basin, in Spain
Note: The vertical Y-axis represents the value of each variable while the horizontal X-axis denotes the
number of iterations
Source: Varela-Ortega et al. (2008)
The quantitative analysis of the FCMs is a very interesting application when working
with scenarios, because it allows us to test the consequences of enhancing or weakening
the role of specific variables (policies, management actions, etc.) in the system (Kok,
2009). When developed in a participatory way, stakeholders have come up with
variables, links and weights as a result of common discussions, guided by a facilitator.
Regarding the weights, it is not necessary that stakeholders provide a number, but they
can give qualitative estimations (very strong, strong, medium, weak, very weak) and we
can, afterwards, translate those into numbers.
FCMs, like other systems’ analysis tools, have the capacity to improve stakeholders’
understanding of the context they are analyzing. When stakeholders are confronted with
a cognitive mapping exercise, they are forced to conceptualize and to be explicit in their
description of the system (Cole and Persichitte, 2000). If the exercise is carried out in a
group, it also helps understanding the others’ views and to learn from discussions. The
main advantage of the FCMs compared to just qualitative representations is that we can
perform an analysis of the system stability based on the strength of links between
variables and even simulate the effect of potential actions taken affecting different
variables.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 32 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
The following table provides a summary of the main strengths and weaknesses of the
FCM method.
Table 2. Strengths and Weaknesses of FCMs
FCM Strengths
FCM Weaknesses
Intuitive, easy to develop and apply
No real quantification, outputs cannot be
interpreted in absolute terms
Incomparable factors are compared and
measured with the same semi-quantitative scales
Time is not well represented; factors included in
the system do not usually all operate at the same
temporal scale
High level of integration: combines information
of different scales and different types
Allow for considering social and qualitative
aspects not included in hard-modeling techniques
and permit integration with quantitative
modeling
Forces to be explicit and facilitates a concrete
discussion
Easy insight on effect of impacts
Assigning weights can be very effort and time
consuming, sometimes hampering the creative
process
Conceptualizing a system into a FCM requires
stakeholders with a high level of understanding
Focus on feedbacks, which can uncover
previously hidden key characteristics of the
system
Source: own elaboration
Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis (SLA)
A sustainable livelihoods analysis involves a survey of available resources within the
categories of human, natural, financial, physical and social capital. The levels of each
are often plotted on a spidergram with 5 axes: human, natural, financial, physical and
social so that the relative strength of each can be assessed.
This type of mapping tells us what we have to work with in any kind of planning
process. It can be used as part of identification of barriers and opportunities.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 33 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 14. General framework for executing a Sustainable Livelihood analysis
Source: Homero-Diniz (2013)
Organizational and Institutional Map
Together the community lists all groups and organizations present and draws a diagram
the relationships between them. A Venn diagram is often appropriate as shown in
Figure 13. Circles indicate organizations and institutions while the size of the circles
represents the magnitude of membership (number of members). Groups that have
members in common are drawn as overlapping. It is important to know what
organizational and institutional capacity (or lack of it) is possible to leverage for
interventions to support climate change mitigation and conservation of biodiversity.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 34 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 15. Example of an Organizational and Institutional Map developed during a
stakeholder workshop.
Source: Constructed by stakeholders during CCAFS workshops in Kochiel Kenya, facilitated by Ariella
Helfgott
Seasonal Calendar
A seasonal calendar is a participatory tool to explore seasonal changes. The objective is
to learn about changes in environment and livelihoods over the year and to show the
seasonality of workload, food availability, human diseases, gender-specific income and
expenditure, water, forage, credit etc.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 35 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 16. Example of Seasonal Calendar, Ambara Region, Ethiopia
Source: Mikkelssen (2005)
Some possible key Questions:
1. What are the busiest months of the year?
2. At what time of the year is food scarce?
3. How does income vary over the year for men and women?
4. How does expenditure vary over the year for men and women?
5. How does rainfall vary over the year?
6. How does water availability for human consumption vary over the year?
7. How does livestock forage availability vary over the year?
8. How does credit availability vary over the year?
9. When are holidays and how many days in which month?
10.
Which could be the most appropriate season for additional activities for men and
women? What time constraints do exist and for what reason?
How to facilitate:
1. Find a large open space for the group. The calendar can be drawn on the ground or on
very big sheets of paper.
2. Ask the participants to draw a matrix, indicating each month along one axis by a
symbol.
3. It usually easiest to start the calendar by asking about rainfall patterns. Choose a
symbol for rain and put/draw it next to the column which participants will now
use to illustrate the rainfall. Ask the group to put stones under each month of the
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 36 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
calendar to represent relative amounts of rainfall (more stones meaning more
rainfall).
4. Move to the next topic and ask people during which month the food is usually scarce.
Discuss the reasons why it is scarce and make sure that the different kind of food
donations that people receive are discussed and that this information is shown in
the map.
5. Go on like this, meaning topic by topic. After finishing all the columns your matrix
should have covered the topics you wish to map out according to season.
6. After the calendar is finished ask the group which linkages they see among the
different topics of the calendar. Encourage the group to discuss what they see on
the calendar.
7. Make sure that your copy of the seasonal calendar - has a key explaining the different
items and symbols used on the map.
Material needed:
 BIG sheet of paper, pencils, markers.
 Documentation Sheet, white paper for copying the seasonal calendar.
Daily Calendar Exercise
This exercise should be used in conjunction with a seasonal calendar and the daily
calendar must be constructed for each relevant season.
Figure 17. Daily calendar mapping Beora, Nepal
Source: Bailey et al. (2012)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 37 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
The Daily Calendar is an exploratory exercise to elucidate daily labour and consumption
patterns during times of scarcity, abundance and typical years, with the corresponding
annual cycles. Participants describe what they do in detail from before sunrise to after
sun set in different environmental conditions, making distinctions between different
groups within a community and roles within households. Participants are asked a series
of questions and encouraged to give anecdotes or stories whenever possible to explain
their answers. If participants cannot remember a time of abundance, they are
encouraged to refer to folklore or stories from deceased elders. As the participants
dictate their days (first for times of scarcity, followed by times of abundance and ending
with typical conditions), it is captured on a large poster board with words and drawings
by the facilitator. Bright markers and cartoon-like drawings help keep the participants
interested and gives them an opportunity to suggest corrections if the calendar does not
adequately capture what has been explained, for example, how each daily task correlates
with the placement of the sun. The poster board ends up looking a bit like a rainbow
when drawn out. There is a different band for each environmental condition (scarcity,
abundance and typical years) that is then doubled to look at dry/wet seasons or
production and harvesting periods.
After the basic calendar is established, labour patterns of different groups of people are
added (ex: boys who herd cattle, women without children, elders etc.) to fully capture
the diversity of household labour and income contributions. The activities are again
placed in relation to the position of the sun from before sunrise to after sunset. The
exercise takes several hours to complete but offers a very clear map of production and
consumption patterns as well as adaptation mechanisms, by comparing the bands. Using
the information provided during the calendar exercise, it is often then possible to
produce comprehensive lists of income generating activities used by participants;
quantify crop yields and rates of crop failure; identify the sources and extent of
livestock losses; determine the extent to which the participants have been reliant on
emergency food aid and other services of government agencies and international
organisations; develop a better sense of the division of labour; distinguish coping
mechanisms that further degrade their environment and asset-base from those that are
neutral or beneficial; and identify multiple stressors outside the biophysical drivers of
food insecurity.
Map of village present and future
This could be adapted to mapping out the case study area both in the present and under
different future scenarios.
Map of current village:
Participants draw a map of their current village detailing all physical assets, significant
geographical features, rivers, dams, roads, houses (named by occupants if possible),
public buildings, boundaries and so forth as they exist now. A well-being ranking can
take place around the current map as an intermediary object. This exercise can be
supplemented with existing maps and GIS.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 38 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 18. Current map of the Guarayos region in
Bolivia showing physical and natural resources
Source: Toledo and Clavijo (2013)
Map of future village:
Participants are given many coloured marker pens and a large sheet of paper and
facilitated to draw a map of how they plan/would like for their village to look physically
in n years time. Participants can think about the roads, water supply and distribution,
farm design, homestead design, energy, market location, industry and so forth.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 39 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 19. Map of Kochiel Kenya in 15 years time according to community wide
normative visioning
Source: Constructed by stakeholders during CCAFS workshops in Kochiel Kenya, facilitated by Ariella
Helfgott
3.2.4 Narrative techniques
Across the world, different countries, classes, sectors, and disciplines, whatever – story
telling seems to be universal to all people. In some ways there is nothing more natural
then telling stories. Interviews and surveys typically come laden with pre-determined
thoughts of what the investigators might find, and interviewees and survey respondents
seem to fall into a mode of response based on what they think the inquirer wants to
hear. Stories and anecdotes reflect the messiness, reveal values and beliefs, and when
told in a group, create an informal environment of exploration that invariably reveals
insights one could never predict from the outset. Stories contain contextual information
that give meaning to statements such as what “a lot” “good” or “bad” mean in a
particular context and to a given stakeholder. They make it possible to meaningfully
interpret other types of participatory results. It is always good to triangulate other
methods with narrative or anecdote collection.
Narrative Circles
Narrative Circles are how we discover these stories. Each story stimulates other people
to share similar stories. Information is obtained in a context through which it can be
meaningfully interpreted. For example, if someone says a local education system is bad,
what does that mean? If they tell stories about neglect or abuse, or lack of resources at
school, we have much more insight into what is going on.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 40 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
A narrative circle consists of people sitting in a circle and sharing their stories around a
theme. The facilitator can ask narrative eliciting questions or share stories of their own
to get the process going. Once the process is started the only difficulty tends to be
ending the session.
Talking pictures
Each participant is asked to take a picture or an object with him that symbolises a
special aspect from the case study. The participant will introduce her/him self and
shortly present the picture/object and what it symbolizes. This aspect should be
something that the participant think is important for the future of the case study. The
facilitator will write down the keywords on a flipchart or whiteboard. After all
participants have presented their picture and story behind it, the flipcharts can be the
starting point for discussion or card technique exercises.
Take a picture or object with you yourself, with which you present yourself and your
role in the workshop or the importance of the workshops and ROBIN.
Goals:
 All participants have at least spoken once, making it easier to speak again. The
link person – picture also helps to remember names. The humour that is often
generated from the unusual objects / pictures gives the meeting a nice start.
 The other output related goal is to get a first quick idea of the main issues at
stake in the case study area.
Materials needed:
 Pens
 Flipchart
 Room layout in which everybody can see each other
Oral Histories
Participants are facilitated to tell the story of their lives or some portion of their lives
over a given time frame.
Event Ecology
Event ecology involves collecting narratives around a particular event such as a
significant flood or drought that the community experienced at a particular time. As
many narratives as possible are collected regarding before, during and after the event in
order to pragmatically understand what was going on (Walters and Vayda 2009). Event
ecology is a powerful tool for uncovering the tools available to people for coping during
periods of change, disturbance or crisis.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 41 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
3.2.5 Visualisation
There are many different techniques for visualizing a particular situation, problem
context or scenario. Some examples are given below.
Collages
Collages can be used as a means to visually present the present scenario (showing what
is present in the current status quo) or a range of different future scenarios (showing
what could be present in particular future scenarios). Collages are always combined
with a presentation/written text that explains the meaning of the collage and what it
represents.
Facilitators collect a huge stack of magazines and newspapers and enough scissors and
glue for the entire group. Participants are asked to cut-out and stick on the common
paper, anything that they expect to see in the particular scenario under investigation.
They could be asked to cut and stick things that are part of their present lifestyle, or they
could be asked to cut and stick things that they want to see in their future, in the case of
normative visioning. Or in the case of exploratory scenarios the participants will first
discuss how they think the future of the area will look like in the particular scenario.
How the collages will look like is up to the participants. They can make it as an ad hoc
overlapping collage, a sort of flow-diagram, but can also use the pictures on a map of
the Pilot Area, or make a story board out of it. Words, symbols and drawings can also
be added.
During the presentation the key elements and key linkages between them are described,
within the story about the scenario under investigation. The facilitators have the
important task to write down the stories and the way they are developed during the
scenario making process. The process description should for instance include who had
most influence in the group.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 42 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 20. Collage based on Knowledge is King scenario in the Guadalentin (Spain)
within the SCENES project.
Source: Kok et al. (2006b)
The collages are easy to refer to and can also be used later in the scenario development
process or in a planning process such as back-casting. Visioning and back-casting
processes commonly use collages of normative visions of the future.
Group discussion is facilitated around this jointly created intermediary object.
Goals:
 To make a visual presentation of the scenario under investigation and possibly
also the storyline describing it. Dominant people tend to talk most, less
dominant people can put their ideas in the collage by adding their choice of
pictures to the collage. The activity of choosing the right pictures and cutting
and sticking them makes it more fun to do then only talking and makes people
also more creative. One collage can say just as much as a couple of pages of
written text.
Materials needed:
 A very large number of magazines and newspapers with pictures
 Felt-tip
 Pencils
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 43 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings




Flipcharts / large paper
Glue
Enough space (on the wall) to put the collages on
Group setting, so that all groups can see the presentations as well
Figure 21. Impressions of a participatory collage making exercise.
Source: Photographs taken by Kasper Kok during a workshop in the Guadalentin in Spain .
Illustrations
Participants can make illustrations that help to visualize the scenario under
consideration. It is also possible to hire a professional artist to illustrate the visions of
participants. Below is an image of four regional socio0economic scenarios for West
Africa created by a professional illustrator in CCAFS regional scenario development
process.
Figure 22. CCAFS Regional Socio-Economic Scenarios for East Africa
Source: Vervoort (2013)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 44 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Reflective/Meditative visualization
This is a meditative exercise. Participants are arranged in a circle and asked to close
their eyes. The exercise begins with watching the breath for a short time. Participants
are then guided through a visualization of their village, their homestead, their home, and
their daily calendar of activities n years into the future.
Figure 23. CCAFS Visualisation Exercise Kochiel, Kenya
Source: Photograph taken by Chase Sova during CCAFS workshops in Kochiel Kenya, facilitated by
Ariella Helfgott.
Following the visualization exercise participants describe the future they visualized for
themselves. We progress around the circle as participants share their desired futures.
The group then collectively summarizes the visions and aspirations for development of
the community. Key themes are chosen by the group for use in the back-casting
exercise.
3.2.6 Drama, games and role plays
Drama, games and roles plays are a fantastic way of building trust, rapport and shared
understanding between participants. The Weather or Not game is provided here purely
as an example of this type of activity rather than as a suggestion for ROBIN. It is useful
for finding out what types of climate related decisions stakeholders need to make and
for ascertaining their ability to understand different forms of climate information.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 45 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Weather or Not Game
This is a game on communicating uncertainty developed by the Red Cross / Red
Crescent Climate Center, which uses playing cards and a dice and is facilitated in a
group to help players better understand probabilistic information (see
http://petlab.parsons.edu/redCrossSite/) related to climate change and how the odds of
more extreme weather events (probably many of the hazards outlined during the
preceding predicted hazards exercise) are likely to increase in frequency in future, as a
result of climate change. Ascertaining comprehension of probabilistic information is
critical for the research because of its importance in interpreting future projections at
multiple scales, including the climate analogue tool. The rules of the game are explained
to the group by the facilitator. The following is an excerpt from the game development
website:
GAMEPLAY:
1. Take the first card off the top of the red “forecast” deck and reveal it to the audience.
For example, let’s say it’s a “4″. This is equivalent to a 40% probability that there will
be a flood.
2. Ask audience members to decide: Do they act, or do they not act? Audience members
must visualize their choice by standing to act, or staying seated to not act. (Variation:
ask audience members to move to different sides of the room.)
3. Explain to the audience that you will now pull a card from the black “outcome” deck.
For example, if the card pulled out of the deck is numbered 4 or less, there will be a
flood. If it is higher than 4, there is no flood.
4. There are four possible outcomes to the game:
FLOOD
a. If they have decided to act and there is a flood, they have made a good decision,
saved many lives and they get to stay in the game for the next round.
b. If they decided not to act and there is a flood they have failed to act and are out of the
game.
NO FLOOD
c. If they have decided to act and there is no flood they have acted in vain and are out of
the game (demoted from their position)
d. If they have decided not to act and there is no flood they remain in the game for the
next round.
5. Play until there’s one person standing or time
http://petlab.parsons.edu/redCrossSite/rulesWONLowTech.html)
is
up!
(source:
Following the game, the participants will be asked to make a local comparison other
than the example given (flood). Often the exercise is sufficient for at least a handful of
participants to understand the subject matter and be able to make comparisons that are
more easily understood by the rest of the participants. This game was trialled by
Meghan Bailey in Karamoja, Uganda and coastal Kenya. In these instances the
examples given were usually weather related such as hale and storms, but other
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 46 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
examples participants drew connections with included the likelihood that a goat will
abort its foetus in one time period, how many plagues of locusts to expect in a lifetime,
chicken eggs that might break during a journey to town depending on how they are
packed, and so forth.
3.2.7 Participatory planning and decision-making
Backcasting
Having generated a shared vision of the future and mapped the current status quo,
backcasting is a process of systematically stepping backwards from the future until we
reach the present. These steps can then be implemented from where they are now
successively to achieve their desired future. This is a normative planning technique. It is
usually implemented using a long sheet of paper and many post-it notes. The
representations of the future created are placed at the right end of the sheet, and the
representations of the current state place on the left. Certain key features of the present
and future are listed on post-it notes. We move successively from the right to the left
continuously asking the question, what would we need/need to do to achieve this?
Figure 24. Backcasting exercise. Building water scenarios in the Guadiana basin
Source: Varela-Ortega et al. (2010)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 47 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
3.2.8 Participatory monitoring and evaluation
Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique
Participants are asked to describe the most significant change which has taken place in
their lives/environment/farming practices/etc over the past n years (or through a
particular intervention or workshop). After participants tell the story of this change, they
are asked to describe why it is the most significant. This technique simultaneously
provides information about the nature of change taking place in the community as well
as the value system of the community in terms of what is considered most significant.
The Most Significant Change Technique can also be used for evaluation of
interventions and puts the evaluation criteria in the hands of the community as they
choose which changes to focus on.
If MSC is conducted in a group, participants can subsequently rank all of the stories in
the group to determine the most significant change of all. This ranking process is
uncomfortable and the ranking itself is not what is important. It is the discussion of
values that takes place around the ranking which is particularly illustrative.
3.2.9 Icebreakers
There are an unlimited number of activities which reduce tension, create a relaxed and
collegiate atmosphere and build social interactions. Some examples are shown in Figure
23 below. These pictures were taken during the first FCM stakeholder workshop in
Bolivia. On the left, we can see several participants spinning around a piece of paper
lying on the ground. The purpose of this game for participants is to acquire an
understanding of the fragile nature of land as a resource. The piece of paper represents
the small fraction of the Earth’s limited land resources that support human life. The
participants represent the world’s population, which is very high and now exceeds
the natural resources available to sustain it. As populations increase and economies
expand, natural resources are depleted and the need for land becomes more and more
important. Therefore, as it happens in the real world, the participants/people are forced
to compete with each other for a portion of land as it becomes more and more scarce
(the piece of paper is divided by two in each round of the game). The participants move
round the piece of paper while the music is on. When the music stops, they have to put
at least one foot in the paper. Those who left the feet out of the piece of paper are
removed from the game. The game is repeated until only one participant can stand up on
the piece of paper. He/she will be the winner. The picture on the right shows a group of
10-15 people playing a cooperation game. The same game is running in parallel with a
second group of 10-15 people. It is fun for the two teams to be just a short distance
away from one another–close enough so that participants can keep an eye on the other
team’s game. Within a group, all the participants stand in a circle facing each other.
They have to close their eyes and extend their left hand into the circle to grab another
participant’s hand. Next, they have to extend their right hand across the circle and grab
a different person’s hand. No one can join hands with a person directly next to them in
the circle. The group must then communicate and work together to solve the knot and
untangle themselves without letting go of any joined hands.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 48 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 25. Activities to encourage interaction among participants in the Guarayos
region (Bolivia)
Source: Toledo and Clavijo (2013)
3.2.10 Summary
The methods included in this catalogue can be seen as the core of participatory methods
that have been tried out in practice on many occasions. The list is not exhaustive by any
means. New variants are continuously being developed and several methods can be
combined in the same study or project.
3.3 Triangulation
Triangulation is a method to overcome the problems that stem from studies relying upon
a single theory, a single method, a single set of data, and from a single investigator. It
implies the use of multiple methods to elicit answers to the same question to eliminate
the biases introduced by particular methods. The same is also true for facilitators,
particular groups of stakeholders, data sources and so forth. Triangulation involves
cross-checking to validate observations and information.
3.4 Selection and Handling of Tools
The challenge for the practitioner is to choose methods that are relevant in a particular
situation and for a particular group. The ability to select, adapt and combine methods,
be they participatory or more conventional methods such as surveys is a primary skill
requirement for facilitators of participatory development. There is no a priori correct
selection.
Practicing and facilitating participatory methods thus require a variety of skills and
capabilities, of which attitudes count as much as technical and pedagogic skills.
Professional facilitation of participatory methods is mandatory if these methods are to
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 49 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
constitute a serious approach to development research and practice. To retain
credibility, it is important that the practitioners possess sufficient capabilities to practice
participatory methods, and knowledge of the strengths and pitfalls of participatory tools.
Reflexivity by the researcher and practitioner himself over the possible impacts of his
preconceived notions and participation in the research or action process has been slow
to penetrate the development area. Indeed self-reflexive perspectives should be the
foundation of the participatory practitioner’s capabilities.
3.5 Considerations for Using Participatory Methods
To avoid “using the label without the substance” we will now look at critical
perspectives on participation and principles to ensure appropriate use of participatory
methods.
3.5.1 Critical Perspectives
Participation is not the panacea many assume because there are limits to what
participation alone (even if interactive) can achieve in terms of equity and efficiency,
given pre-existing socio-economic inequalities and relations of power. According to this
perspective, much of what is hailed as “participation” is a mere technical fix that leaves
inequitable global and local relations of power, and with it the root cause of poverty
unchallenged (Cornwall 2000).
Many critiques claim that participation is eminently prone to co-option by the elite.
Participatory initiatives have in several cases been turned on their head and have
ensured the promotion of the interest of dominant powers, rather than actually
empowering the poor. Green warns that participation, while now part of the standard
toolkit “may in practice replicate existing social divisions, be appropriated by the elite
and the articulate, and exclude poorer and marginalized groups, including women”
(Green 2002). Some go as far as to dub participation the ‘new tyranny’ (Cooke and
Kothari 2001). Rahnema characterises participatory methods simply as new and more
subtle forms of manipulation (Rahnema 1992).
Bina Agarwal (Agarwal 2001) shows how community forestry groups set up as
participatory institutions can exclude significant sections such as women. Similarly
exclusionary processes have also been observed in other arenas, for example, water
usage associations, village councils, and the many new governance structures being
promoted today in the name of decentralised institution building.
Many studies have shown that women are particularly vulnerable to being excluded
from the rapidly expanding attempts at participatory development (Moser 1993; Kabeer
1994). Participatory development programmes, while inclusive of women, may end up
silencing them. For example, many programmes value and privilege public debate and
communication. Yet some cultures or socio-political environments devalue women’s
public roles, moving them to be passive to men. In such circumstances a participatory
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 50 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
technique which requires women to participate in public debate would be inappropriate
and would undermine the ability of those women to contribute and to exercise influence
over the process.
Whether women’s and men’s participation should be joint or separate cannot be
determined a priori. Practice shows that the answer can only come from working with
people and letting them determine what arrangements will be culturally feasible and
socio-economically beneficial (Mikkelsen 2005). Each community is different.
Depending on where the research is being done, it may be necessary to form same-sex
groups, since in mixed groups women may not participate at all. In other contexts,
however, mixed groups may provide an excellent opportunity elicit gender differences
and concerns. Even in individual interactions it may be necessary for men to interview
and interact only with men and for women to interact only with women.
Similar logic applies to selecting appropriate participatory techniques to engage all
stakeholder groups, particularly marginalized groups. Practitioners must have a
commitment to equity, to empowering those who are marginalized, deprived, regarded
as not capable, often especially women, children and those who are poorer.
Furthermore, it is important to be aware that the personal consequences for information
providers can be serious when those in power are challenged. Techniques need to be
employed which take into account existing norms and social structures in an appropriate
way.
In order to overcome these challenges practitioners need a comprehensive
understanding of local norms, social structures and decision making processes.
Critiques point to a tendency in participatory approaches to idealize the ‘community’
and a danger of confusing between social and geographical communities. Others warn
of the danger of using the term ‘community’ as if it covered a homogeneous, idyllic,
unified population with which researchers and developers can interact with no
problems.
For example, in the past agricultural research focused mainly on male farmers and
assumed that all household members shared the same goals, had the same access to
resources and outputs and faced similar constraints. Now it is clear that in most cases
this view is incorrect. Just as differences between farmers and households may be
attributed to differences in access to resources, knowledge and information, differences
within households also exist and may be attributed to different factors. Household
members may have diverse responsibilities, perform different activities, and have
varying workloads and access to resources. They may also have conflicting interests.
“A more dynamic vision is needed of ‘institutions’ and of ‘community’, one that
incorporates social networks and recognizes dispersed and contingent power
relations, the exclusionary as well as the inclusionary nature of participation. We
need a much better understanding of local norms of decision-making and
representation, of how these change and are negotiated, of how people may
indirectly affect outcomes without direct participation … I see the need for a
radical reassessment of the desirability, practicality and efficacy of development
efforts based on community participation. This involves rethinking not just the
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 51 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
relationship between differently placed individuals and historically and spatially
specific social structures, but also the role of individuals, households,
communities, development agencies and the state (Cleaver 2001).”
All agencies concerned with people’s participation and ‘consultations’ decide who
should participate or be consulted. This requires a stakeholder analysis of who are
concerned parties with what kind of vested interest, what is their interest and which
kind of power do they have to influence the outcome of an intervention, and how can
they be motivated to participate. In practice there are many stakeholders who have a
different stake in the intervention, different interests in participating and different
interests in including or excluding others. Stakeholder analysis of the interests and
possibilities of different stakeholder groups to participate helps development planners
and project managers to be more precise and specify what kind of participatory
approaches they may aim to apply, to bring into action and to effect in cooperation with
defined stakeholders.
When participation becomes part of the standard toolkit, it is easy to forget to check
possible sensitivities involved for the participants. Several research agencies are prone
sometimes to propagate and impose the use of participatory approaches against the
wishes of people. The high opportunity costs which the use of participatory methods
may entail, in particular for the rural poor, tend to be overlooked - some communities
that have been subjected to frequent participatory interventions are suffering from
participatory fatigue because of these costs. For many communities the expectation of
their participation from so many organizations was overwhelming. A more imaginative
usage of the tools and a more careful targeting is required.
Lessons from specific situations where participatory methods have been applied against
people’s will with detrimental consequences have prompted practitioners to adopt the
principles which Rasmussen calls the “right not to participate” and the “right to direct
representation” (Rasmussen 2004), i.e. the right to represent your own views only and
not to speak on behalf of others or have others speak on your behalf.
Another lesson from practice is that participation should not concern the prospective
users (primary stakeholders) of a project alone. Indeed for people’s participation to be
successful, it will in many cases be a pre-condition that ‘officers’ of involved authorities
themselves participate as a stakeholder group in activities directed at involving the
community, or at least support the idea of people’s participation. There is also
substantial evidence that support is required from top officials for participatory
development activities to become successful (Cernea 1991).
The final critique concerns legitimacy, responsibility and accountability. A widespread
concern is that participatory methods allow practitioners to disown responsibility for
their own constructs by requiring ‘participants’ to engage in imposed behaviour, the
consequences of which the latter will nevertheless be held accountable for (Sellamna
1999). In the guise of support for democratic involvement, responsibility may be
transferred onto rural communities for decisions in which they have played only a
marginal role.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 52 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
3.5.2 Principles for Successful Use of Participatory Techniques
Practitioners have long been aware of the many threats to quality and personal integrity
in the use of participatory methods. To overcome these challenges practitioners are
recommended to respect a set of principles for using participatory methods.
Failing to put behaviour and attitudes before methods is a major threat to the quality of
participation. This is often highlighted as the most important of the principles
(Mikkelsen 2005).
Another principle is the principle of reversed learning, namely for practitioners to learn
from people, directly, on the site, and face-to-face, gaining from local physical,
technical and social knowledge. This also involves changing behaviour and attitudes,
from dominating to facilitating, gaining rapport, asking people, often ‘lowers’ to teach
us, respecting them, having confidence that they can do it, handing over the stick,
empowering and enabling them to conduct their own analysis.
This approach goes hand in hand with the principle of sharing. That is, sharing of
information, of methods, of food, of field experiences and ideas between rural people,
between them and facilitators, and between different facilitators, and sharing camps and
shelter, training and experience between different organisations.
A particularly important principle is for practitioners of participatory techniques to learn
rapidly and progressively, with conscious exploration, flexible use of methods,
improvisation, iteration and cross-checking, not following a blue-print programme but
adapting in a learning process. Mikkelsen (2005) recommends that practitioners use a
method known as triangulation, that is, using different methods, sources and disciplines,
and a range of informants in a range of places, and cross-checking to get closer to the
truth through successive approximations.
Practitioners must have critical self-awareness and take responsibility for their actions
and judgments. Facilitators must continuously examine their behavior, and try to
improve. This includes embracing error – welcoming error as an opportunity to learn
and to do better; and using one’s own best judgment at all times, meaning accepting
personal responsibility rather than vesting it in a manual or a rigid set of rules.
There is no one a priori strategy for who participates, in what, why they participate, and
how, and on which conditions. What is required is a comprehensive understanding of:
1. Participants that incorporate social networks, institutions, households,
development and conservation agencies and the state, and recognizes dispersed
and contingent power relations, differences in opportunities and interests, local
norms of decision-making and representation.
2. A wide range of different participatory methods and a deep understanding of the
opportunities and constraints, strengths and pitfalls of various participatory
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 53 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
approaches, some of which are related to how participatory methods are being
used
This will allow the practitioner to choose methods that are relevant in a particular
situation and for a particular group. The challenge for development planners to decide
on optimal approaches and the ability to select adapt and combine methods, be they
participatory or more conventional methods such as surveys, is a primary skill
requirement for facilitators of participatory development.
Practicing and facilitating participatory methods thus require a variety of skills and
capabilities, of which attitudes count as much as technical and pedagogic skills. The
primary messages in this report are:
1. Avoid being dogmatic
2. Be sensitive to the context of field work and adjust your approach accordingly
3. Listen to people’s own knowledge, but don’t think that only the voice of the
grassroots counts – that would be another kind of dogmatism.
4. The variety of stakeholders, and the relations between them matters.
5. Attempt to create dialogue with those who will be directly or indirectly affected
by your study or intervention, and share decisions and responsibilities where
feasible.
6. Respect the will not to participate.
7. Use your imagination but do not impose your views.
8. Reflect on your own role and legitimacy of your encroachment.
When practiced sensitively, participation leads to better quality knowledge and
information, effective and sustainable interventions and is an end of development in
itself. Participation is here to stay.
3.6 An example: Participatory activity categorization used in
SCENES
Below is a graphic showing a categorization of participatory techniques used in the
SCENES project1. In fact most of the above activity categories described above contains
qualitative or semi-quantitative or quantitative activities. Quantitative models are an
excellent tool, but realize the limitations in flexibility, data availability, and
involvement of non-experts. On the other hand, qualitative storylines are also useful and
attract a growing interest, but realize limitations in quantitative results. Third, storyline
and simulation mixing models and narratives maintain certain level of creativity and
diversity without sacrificing structure and exactness.
Using any combination of the activities described in Section 3.2 and creative variations
of these activities, it is possible to meet our objectives. One such way of combining
1
The SCENES project Water Scenarios for Europe and for Neighboring States (2007e2011), funded by
the EC 6th Research Framework Program (contract n_: 036822), aims to develop a set of comprehensive
water scenarios up to 2050 (www.environment.fi/syke/scenes).
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 54 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
some of the techniques described above in a scenario development process for the
project SCENES is described in the figure below.
Figure 26. Interaction between the qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative
methods
Source: Van Vliet et al. (2007)
4 Scenario development in ROBIN
According to the Description of Work (DoW), ROBIN will provide information for
policy and resource use options under scenarios of socio-economic and climate change
to: (1) quantify interactions between terrestrial biodiversity, land use and climate change
mitigation potential in tropical Latin America; and (2) develop scenarios for climate
change mitigation options by evaluating their effectiveness, as many unintended effects
on other ecosystem services (e.g. disease mitigation) as possible and their socioecological consequences. Therefore, the qualitative scenarios will be developed locally
and resulting storylines will be quantified allowing for linkage with the land use model
being applied in other parts of the ROBIN project. There will thus be a dynamic and full
link between stakeholder-driven stories and patterns of land use change. The number of
time-steps and the timeline to be considered will extend to 2100 and will incorporate
longer-term outputs from ROBIN’s integrated dynamic vegetation-land-atmosphere
modeling.
We can therefore identify two kinds of scenarios in ROBIN: exploratory scenarios,
which contain climate and socio-economic variables aimed to describe both present and
future situations; and normative scenarios, which contain strategies and concrete actions
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 55 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
for climate change mitigation. At the same time, we can classify scenarios into
qualitative (narrated in words) and quantitative (narrated in numbers). The first ones can
help to construct socio-economic narratives while the second ones can be incorporated
in climate and vegetation models as quantified model input / parameters. In turn, model
output can also be used to quantify narrative storylines and revise scenarios.
In ROBIN we consider the use of “stakeholder-driven scenarios and options” and
“participatory scenarios” and although it is not always explicit, these scenarios are to be
understood as explorative and qualitative. While these scenarios and linked to higherlevel scenarios (i.e. IPCC), they are meant to guide stakeholder discussions at the local
level at every case study site. The result of these participatory dynamics will produce
different FCMs that will be upscaled to the regional level. For this reason, case studies
need to be sufficiently generic. Even though the bulk of the scenarios used in ROBIN
emphasize exploratory elements (e.g. for the application of land use change and
vegetation models and the FCMs), there is also space for normative scenarios,
particularly in the stakeholder workshops (visioning, backcasting, roadmapping, etc.).
These methods are still to be discussed.
Figure 27. A toolbox of methods
Source: Unpublished, taken from presentation on scenarios and scales in ROBIN by Kasper Kok.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 56 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
4.1 The participatory scenario-building process in ROBIN
In ROBIN, the participatory scenario-building process consists of the following steps
(see Varela-Ortega et al., 2012a):
Step 1. Describing the present
Step 2. Long-term future scenarios
Step 3. Short-term policy and management options
First, scenarios will describe the present. This step is very similar to the development
of a “baseline” FCM. In order to understand why they think the future might evolve in a
certain way, a thorough understanding of the stakeholders’ view of the present system is
needed. The topics of deforestation, climate change, and biodiversity are very complex
and multiple perspectives exist that need to be uncovered. For stakeholders, presenting
the huge task in little bits usually works best, which argues against mixing world views
and views of the future. Therefore the first step is very important, because the present
forms the starting point for the scenario development.
Second, scenarios will be used for long-term future explorations. The long-term
future of climate and of forests is hugely uncertain. Scenarios are the best tool to
structure the uncertainty. This is an excellent concept to involve stakeholders, as
envisioning the future can be creative, fun, bonding, and useful. These long-term
scenarios give the ideas of the stakeholders on how the future might look like, given the
external drivers from global scenarios that will be used to contextualize local futures. The
method to be used at this step will be Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping combined with an
external set of higher level context scenarios such as those developed by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The new IPCC has recently
developed a new set of scenarios, updating those published in the Special Report on
Emissions Scenarios (SRES) in 2000. The new scenarios include a wider array of socioeconomic uncertainties and climate forcing variables, following a parallel process when
translating stories and climate forcing into policy. The exploratory scenarios in ROBIN
will be based on a selection of Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) (see Jones and
Kok, 2013) that need to be still defined. The exploratory scenarios will be enriched
using the input from other work packages and models, which will be used to critically
review the scenarios developed previously. It is expected that this will serve to refine and
sometimes modify the exploratory scenarios.
Third, they will inform short-term policy and management options. In step 3 the
focus is moved from the scenarios themselves to potential short term policy options that
are needed to reach the desired objectives. Exploratory scenarios are good in making
uncertainty visible, but poor in guiding decision making. Combining exploration and
visioning/backcasting provides powerful insights in ‘robust decision making in face of
uncertainty’. The methods used at this stage will be discussed later in subsequent
meetings but should include backcasting, visioning, roadmapping, policy narratives, etc.
The results of every step are used in later steps, and together they will form the final
scenarios. A story of the future only makes sense if it is complete, it needs a beginning
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 57 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
(present), a middle part in which it is described how things are changing (timeline), and
an end (the vision).
4.2 Stakeholder workshops and case study sites
MODULE 3
The final aim of the stakeholder workshops is to identify sustainable agro-ecosystems
management and policy options for mitigating climate change through the development
of participatory scenarios. Three meetings will accommodate the steps for scenario
building explained in the previous section 4.1. Figure 17 illustrates the stakeholder
participation process in ROBIN.
1st WS: Analysis
socio-economic &
ecological systems
Output 1:
• SH perceptions,
preliminary scenarios
and main drivers
• PM of the socioeconomic/ecologic
system
2nd WS: Scenario
development and
model enrichment BD mitigation options
and socio-economic
interactions
Output 2:
• SH-driven scenarios
and storylines on
mitigation options
• Enriched PM, new
drivers
3rd WS: Consultation
of best options for
using BD for CC
mitigation
Output 3:
• Best options to use
BD mitigation potential
• Social acceptance
MODULE 2
MODULE 1
feedback
Input 2:
•BD mitigation
potential
•Indicator
framework, drivers
and scenarios
feedback
Input 3:
•Socio-ecological
interactions, LUC&CC
OUTPUT OF SH ACTIVITIES WP 3.1
Input 1:
•Institutional and SH
mapping
•Socio-economic and
institutional contexts
feedback
Figure 28. Framework of the Stakeholder participation process in ROBIN
Source: ROBIN DoW (2011)
Meeting 1 - will focus on the understanding of the present and an introduction of
scenarios and the scenario building process. The first stakeholder workshop will engage
stakeholders in discussions over the issues surrounding biodiversity and climate change
and seek direct input concerning appropriate indicators for use in the ROBIN project.
This workshop will ideally be a two day workshop, but can also be in one day,
depending on the stakeholder experience in participation. The result will be a FCM of
the present and some preliminary discussions on the possible future evolution of the
system.
Meeting 2 - enriches the scenarios, adding the FCMs of the future to the qualitative
output from the first workshop. The second stakeholder workshop will be centered on
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 58 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
early outputs from the ROBIN work on measures and indicators of biodiversity and
their relationship with climate change mitigation and other ecosystem services to assess
the relevance of these outputs for decision making processes.
Meeting 3 - focus more on the short and medium term goals and discussion about the
potential actions to contribute to climate change mitigation. The third SH workshop will
use other model results and outputs from ROBIN on ecosystem service delivery, socioecological interactions and decision support tools. This last workshop will have a strong
societal and policy-oriented component and will discuss and identify with stakeholders
the best options for managing sustainable agro-ecosystems with climate change
mitigation potential as well analyzing the social acceptance, viability and policyrelevance of the selected options. The final scenarios should be representative at the
regional level. After the final workshop, the results will be disseminated to all levels.
These meetings will be repeated at up to three sites in selected local-scale case study
areas in Bolivia, Mexico and Brazil. A full series of three workshops will be held in
both Mexico and Bolivia, but a limited number of workshops will take place in Brazil.
The sites were selected after several discussions with the local teams and other ROBIN
partners. Finally, it was agreed to have one site in Mexico so that it could represent
Mesoamerica and then two sites (one in Bolivia and one in Brazil) to cover the large
region of the Amazonia in South America. These three countries are experiencing rapid
changes over important landscape extensions (agricultural expansion, logging,
infrastructure development) with significant implications for biodiversity conservation
and climate change mitigation. However, these regions face important ecological,
social, economic and political differences that are conditioning the adoption of
sustainable strategies such as REDD (e.g., Mexico and Brazil are considered REDD+
leaders while Bolivia is a REDD+ latecomer). A comparative in-deep analysis of the
situation in Mexico, Bolivia and Brazil is considered key to understand the relationships
between biodiversity and climate mitigation options in Mesoamerica and Amazonia to
draw policy-relevant conclusions. Each country (Mexico, Bolivia, Brazil) is represented
by one tropical forest area: the Cuitzmala River Basin in the south coast of Jalisco
(Mexico), the Guarayos region in Santa Cruz (Bolivia) and the National Forest of
Tapajos in the Amazon state of Para (Brazil). These areas were selected according a
number of criteria, mainly ecological relevance, accessibility, and previous/ongoing
experience on SH processes in the area. A comparative overview of the main features of
the selected case studies is provided in table 3. A more detailed analysis can be found in
Section 6.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 59 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Table 3. Comparative overview of the three case studies selected
Cuitzmala River basin
(Mexico)
- Surface: 108,900 ha
- Tropical dry forest,
Reserve of Biosphere,
Ramsar wetlands
- Tropical savanna
climate. Dry winters &
springs, Ppt: 790 mm,
Tmp : 25ºC, Altitude 01500 m
GENERAL
FEATURES
ENVIRONMENT
- Biodiversity loss
(traditional crop
varieties)
- Illegal logging
- Water pollution (agric.
chemical products)
Infrastruct.(dams), mines
Guarayos
(Bolivia)
- Surface: 1,047,000 ha
- Transitional humid forest
- Tropical climate. Rainy
season: Sept-March. Ppt:
1600 mm. Tmp: 22.6ºC.
Altitude 400-500 m
- Uncontrolled fires
- Illegal logging & hunting
- Deforestation & Degrad.
Construction of
infrastructures (roads)
BRAZIL
- Surface: 545,000 ha
- Humid tropical
forest in the Eastern
Amazon (protected
area since 1974)
- Tropical climate:
Rainy season: DecMay. Ppt: 20002500 mm. Tmp:
26.3ºC. Altitude
100-200 m
- Deforestation &
degradation
- Biodiversity loss
- Water pollution
Soil erosion
Common ‘environmental’ factors:
Deforestation, degradation, water pollution, landscape impacts (construction of
infrastructures)
-
SOCIAL
-
Land use& tenure
conflicts
Poverty &
marginalization
Large inequalities
Loss of cultural
identities
Corruption
- Inequality of land
distribution
- Land tenure insecurity
- Low levels of education
- Poverty
-
Land use conflicts
(agric./forestry)
- Low levels of
education
- Poverty
Common ‘social’ factors:
Poverty, low education level, socio-economic inequalities, land use & land tenure
conflicts
- Hunting, fishing, livestock,
Agriculture and livestock,
timber extraction, oil palm,
forestry, fishing
crafts
- Hotel industry and
- Subsistence agriculture
tourism
(rice, banana, manioc,
- Mining
maize)
-
ECONOMIC
- Competitive
agriculture
(intensive soybean
prod., extensive
livestock), fishing,
hunting, crafts,
tourism
Common ‘economic’ factors:
Agriculture, forestry, livestock, key socio-economic sectors
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 60 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
-
POLICY
Liberalization &
decentralization
- Multiple policies &
conflicting agendas
- Lack of resources / fiscal
authority
- Fragmented and changing
political system
- Lack of governance
- Decentralized forest
managem.  New Law
(IFM)
- High nº of public
policies (1988
onwards)
- Difficult
implementation,
enforcement, &
coordination of env.
Laws
Common ‘policy’ factors:
Difficult coordination of policies, lack of governance, problems of policy enforcement
In all three cases, the expansion of agriculture, motivated by increasing migration and
technical development, is clearly inducing deforestation and the loss of biodiversity. In
Mexico and Brazil dominates an export-oriented agriculture (soybean and sugarcane
production), whereas in Bolivia traditional small-scale and subsistence farming
predominates. Biodiversity seems to be determined by complex relationships in Mexico
due to the high diversity of agro-ecosystems.
4.3 Suggested methods for scenario development
The general objectives for stakeholder workshops given in the Introduction have been
applied in ROBIN. They have been revised here with a list of participatory activities
that could be used to achieve each objective under each point. This constitutes a
comparative framework across the case studies even if slightly different activities are
chosen within each case study.
1. Generate a list of factors that are relevant to biodiversity and climate change
mitigation from the perspective of the stakeholders under each of the scenarios
being considered (that is, the current status quo and two different future
scenarios). This exercise defines the system scope, that is, what is included in
the system under consideration.
a. Card/post-it note exercise combined with prioritisation of factors to be
carried forwards into FCM exercise through ranking.
i. Preferential ranking has traditionally been used.
b. Collages
c. Visualisation
d. Spidergram
e. Map of case study area
2. Allow stakeholders to represent the causal relationships between the factors in
the previous exercise within each scenario, current and future. This maps
perceptions of interrelationships within the system and will be repeated both
within the current system and in two future scenarios.
a. Causal mapping/influence diagrams
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 61 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
b. Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping. (Note that the causal arrows will need to be
placed in order to complete the FCM so causal mapping is actually
contained within the FCM methodology)
Explore the impact of perturbation on these systems. In particular, explore how
changes in biodiversity impact on climate change mitigation and vice versa.
a. Run the FCM calculation for different types of perturbation including
multiple stressors.
b. Conduct discussion around these results and the FCMs as an
intermediary object.
Generate a list of possible strategies and options for both mitigation and for
preservation of biodiversity.
a. Card/post –it note exercise
i. This could be conducted in terms of Challenges and Responses
exercise as described above or just directly brainstorming actions.
b. Event ecology and narratives around what has worked, what hasn’t
worked and why.
Examine benefits and trade-offs of these options within the system models
generated for each scenario.
a. The FCM can be used to examine this as in point 3.
b. Other work packages can also be used to examine this.
Understand how these impacts represent improvements or not from the
perspective of different stakeholder groups.
a. This involves knowing what is desirable or preferable for each
stakeholder group. These preferences are also important for ROBIN’s
decision support tools.
i. Card/post-it note exercise about desirable outcomes
ii. Ranking exercise about these outcomes
iii. Note this relates closely to the creation of a normative vision
Contribute to development of tool-kits for decision-aiding about these actions
a. Take all of the information generated above, particularly the list of action
options together with the notions of preference and desirability in order
to operationalise Social Multi-Criteria Analysis (SMCA).
b. Feed into land-use modelling
The following table summarizes the most relevant participatory tools that could possibly
be used in ROBIN by giving an overview of the particular strong and weak points of the
tools.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 62 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Table 4. Summary of participatory tools that could be used in ROBIN
Tool
Fuzzy Cognitive Maps
Strong points
Structured
Weak points
Difficult to reach a
consensus
Difficult to translate
Impossible to translate
Limits creativity
No added value
Use in ROBIN?
Yes
Stories
Integrated, creative
Yes
Collages
Highly creative
Possible
Time trends
Concrete
Possible
Spidergrams
Good overview
Possible
Card technique
Useful in other methods
Yes
Fuzzy Sets
Direct quantification
Focus on numbers
Only if needed
Source: Unpublished, taken from presentation on scenarios during FCM training workshop in 2012.
As explained in Section 3.2.3, Fuzzy Cognitive Maps will be used in all case studies as
they are a core component of the Description of Work. Other tools are used at the
discretion of each of the case study leaders; however there must be a common
framework which the specific tools fit into in order to guarantee comparability.
5 Setting up the participatory process in ROBIN
5.1 Training workshop
Between the 25 and 27 September 2012 took place in Madrid the first training and
coordination workshop of the ROBIN project (Role of Biodiversity in Climate Change
Mitigation). This event was organized by Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, lead
beneficiary of WP31 and allowed participants to coordinate further steps in the
development of the project. Moreover, this workshop was aimed to: (1) define the
participatory process to be held in case studies within the ROBIN framework; (2)
explain and discuss common methodology; (3) focus on scenario development,
stakeholder process and fuzzy cognitive mapping; and (4) undertake a practical exercise
aimed to elaborate a Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM).
The workshop was divided in three blocks. The first block provided the conceptual and
methodological framework on participatory methods ROBIN participants will apply in
the stakeholder meetings that will take place in the sites chosen as case studies. This
first session intended to bring together both theory and specific experiences, and
included presentations on scenario development and scaling, stakeholder selection, and
case study descriptions.
The second block focused on the role of the facilitator in the preparation and
development of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. Facilitators are key figures in stakeholder
meetings when using this methodology. They are meant to harmonize contrasting
visions of the stakeholders’ environment, main issues in the discussions, problems,
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 63 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
actions, drivers, connections, etc. in order to provide a final picture of interrelated
drivers that help us solve the question posed to stakeholders.
Finally, the third block allowed participants to put into practice the framework
expounded in the previous sessions by simulating country-specific stakeholder meetings
that lead to the elaboration of FCMs. The assistants were divided in three groups that
represented all three case studies in the project: Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico. The groups
then had to choose a number of stakeholders representing different roles, simulating
what a real stakeholder meeting in every of those areas would look like given the
knowledge of the sites group members had. Once the roles were assigned, every group
was asked to identify the main drivers affecting bio-diversity in all three locations. As a
result of the discussion, three FCMs were developed that provided a picture of the most
important factors behind the state of biodiversity and their linkages with climate change.
This exercise helped the counterparts to become familiar with this participative
methodology and encounter the main challenges that may arise during the process. Main
results are described in more detail in Section 6.3.
Following discussion among participants, several questions were raised during the
development of the workshop. First, when developing a FCM, it is very important to
define the scale of the site under study, the time horizon and the actors involved in the
discussion in order to narrow down the factors and drivers operating in our system. This
will provide stakeholders a solid ground for discussion. Likewise, the main question to
be asked during the workshops needs to be clearly formulated. Will it be the “state of
biodiversity in the region”? Will it be “the state of ecosystem services”? In any case, the
question should make reference to a term that is easy to define.
Second, following the experience of the training session, we can argue that the role of
facilitator is key and that workshops are not language-neutral. The quality of the
discussion and the information extracted from it will be much richer if stakeholders are
given the opportunity to express themselves in a language they feel comfortable with.
Third, in the elaboration of a map, it is important to be specific when defining the
factors that make part of it. One factor cannot have opposite effects, positive and
negative, on another (e.g. agricultural policies). In this case, the factor should be divided
into two or more (e.g. price support, subsidies, and environmental requirements). These
questions and others are further explained in the 'ROBIN Training and Coordination
Workshop' report (Varela-Ortega, 2012b).
5.2 Identification of the stakeholders
The scenario panel should consist of a group of stakeholders who represent all the
relevant stakeholder groups in each case study area, including main land/resource users
and policy sectors (Varela-Ortega et al. 2012a). The panel should make up a coherent
group, where all the interests are presented in an equal manner. The stakeholder list
should be checked once again that all relevant groups are included, trying to think not
only about the current situation in the case study, but also of the future challenges of the
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 64 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
possible stakeholders that may have a crucial role in future, although they may not be so
important today.
Approximate number of stakeholders that should be involved:
 Any stakeholder meeting should have 20-25 participants. An absolute minimum
is 15; an absolute maximum is 30 (must-list)
 The expected show-up is maximally 75%. This means that 30-40 stakeholders
should be invited (panel-list)
 A broader list of stakeholders should be made that can be used for potential
questionnaires and/or semi-structured interviews, in case you may need it. This
list should have 50-60 stakeholders (long-list)
Other stakeholder issues:
 Gender balance: we do not intend to have total equality, but some gender
balance should be attained. We suggest a target of at least 20% women (=
around 5) as recommendable.
 Age balance: some younger people should be invited. Especially in the groups
like researchers, laymen or NGOs younger people could be found that are
representative.
 Gender and age balance, as well as the overall involvement of others than just
the influential stakeholders is particularly important in the first scenario
development workshop, where creativity thinking is important.
A useful way for identifying who are the most important people for ROBIN to contact
is to develop a stakeholder table as shown in Annex 1.
5.3 Contacting stakeholders
In this section, we provide some guidelines on approximate times and methods to contact the
stakeholders, although the actual deadlines and methods will depend on the specific case
study and local organizers will decide the best way to proceed. Some general
recommendations already described in Varela-Ortega et al. (2012a) are:
When to contact them?
• Discuss with other project partners the final list of stakeholders to be invited (-4
months)
• Prepare invitation introducing ROBIN + goals of workshops (-3 months)
• Update list of stakeholders based on response (-2 months)
• Finalise list of stakeholders that accepted invitation (-1 month)
• Send reminder to stakeholders (-1 month)
• Phone stakeholders to confirm (-1 week; if necessary -1 day)
How to contact them?
• Respect the customs of your own country
• Possible channels: letter, e-mail, telephone (it is sometimes better to talk directly
than only send e-mails)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 65 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Ideas to motivate participation?
• Provide a clear description of the project, the scenario process and goals (you
could make a leaflet in native language). Some ideas on key messages to
communicate to stakeholders are provided in Annex 2.
• Identify the points/processes in which the stakeholders could have an impact if
participating. These may vary between case studies. Possible incentives you
could offer:
- have a say on the ways in which biodiversity related problems should be
handled in future
- help in developing your own REDD+ processes,
- communicate your problems so you can they can be taken into account in
policy making
- higher-level policy people will become aware of your needs
- your needs have a chance to be included in the planning process of
national and regional programs
• Organize the meetings in attractive venues (first meeting could be evening
dinner, have lunch with key persons)
What if the stakeholders say no?
• Try another person from the institution
• Respect their no as an answer and think of the possible reasons behind the
answer. (e.g. was ROBIN the reason or the participating organisation?)
• As a general principle try to get the someone from the most important
institutions and stakeholder groups and aim for a coherent group
Safeguarding the commitment through the whole process:
• This is important, since the scenario-making process takes a long time
• The institutions (and the persons) should commit to the whole process
– Indicate the level of commitment needed
• For keeping up with the commitment, it is critical to
– Keep the high quality of the meetings and process
– Activate people also in between the meeting
– Disseminate workshop outcomes and other information produced by
ROBIN to the panellists
In addition to their involvement in the definition of scenarios, stakeholders cannot be
forgotten when organizing dissemination activities. These activities are important, in
general, to obtain some research impact, but in the case of the participatory processes, the
dissemination entails additional advantages and also become crucial for the success of the
process. Complementary to the general ROBIN dissemination framework, some ideas are
provided below for dissemination of the participatory scenario building, including actions
that would improve stakeholder involvement:
• Before the scenario-building: an article in the regional/local newspapers and
professional journals telling about the project and its aims; invitations to
scenario-panels; targeted dissemination within the involved institutions and
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 66 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
•
•
societal groups; building up a www-page for each region (in your own native
languages)
Between the panel meetings: concentrate on the panel members, keep them
committed; update the www-pages with scenario-material
After the scenario-making process: aim for high media-coverage in
local/regional and national scale + professional journals
Annex 2 contains a document with key messages that should be delivered to
stakeholders prior to the development of the workshop.
5.4 Implementing a stakeholder workshop
When implementing a stakeholder workshop nothing should be left to chance. A few
days before the workshop, the organizing team should walk through its planning and
check if everything is correctly arranged.
A practical guide for implementing the first stakeholder workshop was produced by
UPM and made available to local teams (see Annex 3). It includes a sample agenda with
detail explanations regarding timing, activities, goals, and materials. As explained in the
guide, it is recommended to have a two-day workshop, but can also be in one day,
depending on stakeholder experience in participation, interest and engagement. A
meeting with 20-25 participants, divided in two focus groups, is considered ideal, but it
is possible to go through the planned exercise with a single focus group when the
number of attendees is fewer than 10. Each case study team can decide if they want to
involve an outside facilitator, but it is highly recommended having someone who is
skilled in running meetings and promoting interaction between the
various stakeholders and the experts. The facilitator should be made familiar with the
methods that will be used and it is important that he/she could speak English and
Spanish/Portuguese. The whole process will involve a substantial amount of translation
work, which should not be underestimated. It is also advisable to engage one or two
rapporteurs to keep records of the discussions and one or two external observers in
charge of paying special attention to non-verbal nuances that indicate agreement or
disagreement, interest or disinterest. In case there is not an observer, the facilitator
would take this role.
After the meeting, the workshop has to be evaluated with the facilitator, rapporteurs
and observers. It is advised that facilitators write a half to one A4 with their ideas about
the meeting, and how the methods worked. Observers should also complete a report
with their observations on stakeholder discussions and interactions.
A practical guide for implementing a stakeholder workshop is available in Annex 3.
5.5 Facilitating participatory exercises
This section underlines the role of facilitators in the design of FCMs and details the
characteristics these key figures should have in order to successfully run stakeholder
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 67 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
meetings. As explained in previous sections, it is highly recommended having someone
who is skilled in running meetings and promoting interaction between the
various stakeholders and the experts (Varela-Ortega et al., 2012b).
Duties
•
•
•
•
•
Facilitate participation, decision making and conflict resolution
Manage participants expectations
Set the rules of the game in the process of deliberation
Listen, translate, interrelate ideas and ask questions
Manage turns to speak and redirect debate.
Abilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Capacity to generate confidence and empathy
Use and interpretation of non-verbal language
Communicate with clarity
Sense needs and adapt to the group flow
Constructive use of disagreement
Translate opinions into common language
Integrate points of view so everyone feels represented
Give voice to all stakeholders
Attitude
•
•
•
•
•
Hope in achieving results
Flexibility to change dynamics
Good sense, showing respect to all opinions
Impartiality and objectivity: facilitators do not give their opinions or judgments
The agreement or the quantity of contributions are not the target in this dynamics
Preparation and previous knowledge
•
•
•
•
•
•
Define the objectives of the workshops
Design the methodology and work dynamics
Know the space where the workshop will take place
Foresee and anticipate problems
Knowledge on the topic to be discussed
Contribute with previous experiences and practical examples
5.6 Evaluation of the workshops
Evaluations are a useful tool to highlight weak points and work on them for the next
workshops; assess the achievement of our objectives in ROBIN; discover the
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 68 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
advantages and limitations of our methodology; and learn about the applicability of the
methods and tools used in future research.
Usually, participatory tools are intended to:
• Support communication and learning between stakeholders and stakeholdersscientists-policy makers
• Be adaptable for implementation in different contexts
• Produce data and information that are useful and can be used to support decisionmaking or used in further analyses
We must evaluate workshops according to three criteria:
1. Capabilities of the tools
 Elicitation of knowledge / values
 Flexibility
 Capacity to produce data in a given format
 Analytic or creative
 Easy to use, graphical interface
 Requiring specific skills
2. Success in the implementation
 Foster communication and learning
 Improve understanding of the system
 Promote individual or co-learning
 Incorporate SH views
 Be easily transferable to other contexts
 Serve to structure the participatory process
3. Usefulness of products
 Representation of uncertainties
 Accuracy
 Results readily communicated to target groups
 Clear for decision makers
We can use the following evaluation methods:
 Facilitator report
o Difficulties with the people / with the methods
o Relevant conclusions
 Mood-o-meters
o In the break
o At the end
 External observer report
o Attendees, absentees
o Atmosphere; how does it evolve?
o Relationships: who talks with whom?
o Comments, reactions to presentations and methods
o Does anyone dominate discussion? Someone who does not participate?
o Is consensus reached? How?
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 69 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
o Do conflicts arise? How are they solved?
o Do unexpected issues come up during the workshop?
Annex 4 contains a number of documents used in the evaluation of stakeholder
workshops.
5.7 A list of do’s and don’ts of participatory workshops and
FCMs
 Expectations:
– Write a list with the expectations stakeholders have with regards to their
participation in the workshops and in the project, and then analyze to what
extent those expectations were met.
 Definitions:
– Technical language may hamper comprehension. Make an effort when defining
concepts in order to provide participants with quality information before the
beginning of the workshops.
 Questions:
– Formulate clear questions agreed by the whole research team.
 The use of the central issue as a factor:
– It is against the logic of the FCM exercise to use as a factor the central element
of the debate, i.e. the question that is trying to be answered in the FCM should
not appear in the FCM as a factor itself. This action would modify the original
FCM methodology and confuse participants.
 Factors:
– It is important that factors are outlined in a “neutral” way to facilitate the
establishment of relationships with other factors.
– It is also recommendable to describe factors in detail in order to facilitate their
link with other factors.
 Scope of discussion:
– Clearly delimit the field of discussion. Be clear about the areas we want to work
in.
 Cards:
– The number of cards is not fixed and it changes depending on the number of
people in a group. In any case, it is recommended that the final map does not
have more than 10-15 cards.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 70 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
 Weights:
– Weights might be quantitative (value from 0 to 1) o qualitative (very strong,
strong, weak, very weak) translated then to a numerical scale.
 Participants:
– Show clarity in the criteria for the selection of participants.
– Make a balanced distribution of participants when designing work groups.
 Facilitator:
– Each group should have a facilitator that is present during the workshop. This
facilitator should limit the time of intervention and let all participants be noticed
in the discussion.
A full list of do’s and don’ts is available in Annex 5.
6 Developing local scenarios in ROBIN: Bolivia,
Mexico, Brazil
6.1 Selection and overview of Case Study Sites
After several discussions with the local teams and other ROBIN partners, three case
studies were selected for developing local scenarios in ROBIN: one in Mesoamerica
(Mexico) and two in South America (Bolivia and Brazil). A case study template (see
Annex 6) was circulated among local teams to define the boundaries and specific
characteristics of the case studies in Mexico, Bolivia and Brazil. Figure 29 shows the
specific location of the selected case studies in ROBIN: The Cuitzmala River Basin in
the south coast of Jalisco (Mexico), the Guarayos region in Santa Cruz (Bolivia) and the
National Forest of Tapajos in the Amazon state of Para (Brazil).
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 71 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 29. Geographical location of the selected case studies
Source: Own elaboration
Tables 4-6 were completed by local teams (UNAM, IBIF and EMBRAPA). They
present a thorough description of the selected case studies in Mexico, Bolivia and
Brazil.
Nº
ITEMS
1
Case study
coverage and
location
Características físicas
THEME
General description of the case study
Table 5. Mexican case study- Cuitzmala Watershed
CLARIFICATIONS, EXAMPLES
The Cuitzmala watershed is localized in the north-eastern part of the
physiographic province called Sierra Madre del Sur in the southwest
of the State of Jalisco.
Figure 1: Case study location
Source: Lazos and Gerritsen (2012)
The geographical bounders are 19º29’ y 19º34’ North and 104º58’ y
105º04’ West. It is an exoreic watershed located in the Hydrologic
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 72 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Region 15 and extends up to 1,089 km2.
The Cuitzmala river is 105 km; it descends from an altitude of 1500
m.a.s.l. under the name río Jirosto; further down as río San Miguel, up
to unite arroyo Tene and receives the name of río Higuerillas. Down it
goes through El Chino, Yampizque and Puerta del Cedro; it crosses
Guamuchal, Piedra Parada and El Caimán, until it crosses the Reserve
of the Biosphere Chamela-Cuixmala, to finally go into the Pacific
Ocean.
The Cuitzmala watershed crosses two municipalities:
a) The municipality Villa Purificación belongs to the region 8: SouthCoast of Jalisco. At the North and at the West, it borders with
Tomatlán municipality; at the South with La Huerta; and to the east
with the municipalities of Ayutla, Autlán and Casimiro Castillo.
The population of the municipality of Villa Purificación is 10,975
inhabitants. The municipality has 82 villages, and 81 very small
villages (less than 3 houses). In total, there are 163 communities
with5.66 persons per Km2.
The municipality is situated at the southwest of the state between the
coordinates 19°34'59" and 20°02'10" latitude North and between 104°
23'30 " and 105°03'30" West, at 458 msnm in average.
Its territorial extension is 1,937.61 km2. It is the sixth place
statewide, it represents 2.35% of the total surface of the State of
Jalisco. With regard to the surface of the South Coast of Jalisco
(7,004.39 km2) the municipality of Villa Purificación represents 28%
of the total.
The head of the municipality is the city of Villa Purificación and it is
situated at the southeast of the municipality at 440 m.s.n.m. Less than
half of the territory represents the mountain range named Sierra de
Cacoma, with heights between 800 and 1,800 msnm.
b) The municipality La Huerta belongs also to the region 8 Coast
South of Jalisco. It borders to the north: Villa Purificación and
Tomatlán, northeast with Casimiro Castillo, East with Casimiro
Castillo and Cuautitlán de García Barragán, at the south with
Cihuatlán; and at the west, with the Pacific Ocean.
The municipality has 128 villages, with a total population of 20,161
inhabitants.
Its territorial extension is 1,758.2 has. The head of the municipality is
the city of La Huerta and it is situated at the southeast of the
municipality at 280 msnm. The municipality is situated at North 10º
15’ and 19º 35’, at South 19º 45’ 50’’; to the East 104º 31’ 50’’ and to
the West 104º 20’ and 104º 45’.
2
Document ID:
Main features :
area, climate,
altitude
The municipality of La Huerta is the municipality with the highest
biodiversity in Jalisco with 5 natural protected areas and 11 sitios de
humedales Ramsar en sus litorales. The Biological Station of the
UNAM and the Cuitzmala Foundation united to become the Reserve
of Biosphere of Cuitzmala
The climate of the municipality is humid with dry winters and dry
springs. The annual average temperature is 25ºC, and has an average
annual precipitation of 790 mm between June and October.
There are 10 types of vegetation at the municipality of Villa
Purificación and la Huerta, but in Villa, temperate forests dominate it
with a presence of 80% of Pinus spp and by dry tropical forests. The
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 73 of 154
Biodiversidad y Mitigación de Cambio
Climático
Polic
y
Dimensión ecológica
dime
nsion
Características socio-económicas
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
3
Main types of
land cover
4
Main production
sectors
5
Agrarian system
6
Economic setting
7
Social setting
8
Type of climate
change
mitigation
problem
9
Main sources of
climate change
problems
10
Main climate
change policies
(at federal, at
Document ID:
most conserved forests are in Pabelo, Alcihuatl, la Eca, where the
annual temperature average oscillates between 12 and 18°C, and up to
1200 msnm. The forests are found in patchworks with agricultural
plots and pasturelands.
Types of soils: Feozem Háplico, Regosol Districo; Vertisol Pélico and
Andosol Húmico.
There are mainly three rivers: río San Nicolás at the northwest and
considered as the borderline with the municipality of Tomatlán; the
river Cuizmala that crosses the municipality north-south; and the river
Purificación that crosses from east to south. There are small non
permanent rivers as: los Guayabos, el Huehuense y la Higuera.
There are two small lagoons: El Jabalí y Corte. There are numerous
springs: La Fortuna, Chorro, Albufera, Pilas y Huehuense. Tiene
esteros: el Verde, Rosario y Perula. It has salt mines in Chamela,
Mezcales and Jaibas.
It counts with a high variety of woody species such as caoba,
primavera, pino, cedro rojo, parota y encino. The local fauna is
composed of venado, conejo, liebre, coyote, ardilla, chacal
(langostino) y camarón.
The municipality of La Huerta is mainly covered by Tropical dry
forests that contain trees that vary in altitude from 8 to 12 m.
Subcadicous dry forest, artificial pastureland, savanna vegetation,
Tular, Halophyte vegetation, river vegetation and coastal dune
vegetation.
Its mineral resources are: gold, silver, copper, estaño, iron,
magnesium, ópalo, mármol, chalk and granite.
Agriculture, cattle ranching, forestry, fishery industry, tourism
In Villa Purificación, we find: a) irrigated agriculture in very small
scale (501.20 has, represents 0.26% of the municipality surface), b)
rain fed agriculture, 6.621.6 has (3.46% of the total surface); c)
Pasturelands, 100,000 hectares, this is 52.7% of the surface.
General income levels are relatively low, unemployment exist but is
disguised by informal activities. Migration to the United States is
common
Education levels are low in general terms, ethnic groups are present in
neighbor municipalities. Conflicts over land and resources are very
common, mainly due to the tourist industry. Marginalization is regular
to high, reflecting in relatively poor living conditions.
Gradual onset and tipping points
Deforestation and expansion of cattle raising
The deforestation annual rate from 1993 to 2000 has been 615.12
hectares; this means a loss of 5,536 hectares of forests.
A serious problem is the burning of pasturelands. The construction of
new paved roads has been controversial, as there has been an
important environmental impact.
Special (federal) program for climate change
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 74 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
11
12
13
Dificultade
s
14
15
Scientific dimension
16
17
18
Información
secundaria
19
20
Viability
21
Field work
22
23
24
Document ID:
state, at regional
level)
Other sectoral
policies related
to climate change
Identification of
policy and legal
problems
Decision making
units in relation
to BD and CC
Key
actors/stakeholde
rs and
institutions
involved
Short description
of specific
climate change
mitigation –
related issues
Main research
question(s)
Opportunity to
replicate the
research (based
on
representativenes
s of the case
study)
Dissemination
potential
Motivation of the
researchers/
scientific
innovation
Availability of
information on
mitigation and
adaptation
actions/potential
Availability of
information on
socio-economic
issues
Availability of
tools/methods
Is there any
previous
experience on
SH processes in
the case study?
Key
Agricultural (encouragement to transform forest into croplands),
water (none), forest (not being well regulated), tourism
(encouragement in private big companies)
Low governance due to the eternal agrarian conflicts.
Local (Forest regulation that it is not respected), regional (Consejo de
Cuencas, Conafor Jalisco, Semarnat Jalisco, Sagarpa Jalisco), national
(Semarnat/Sagarpa, transnational(touristic entreprises, NAFTA)
Local, Regional (State) and national Administrations, big landowners,
small farmers, migrants, mining companies, forestry clandestine
companies, touristic companies, research organisations, legal and
illegal foresters (see our proposal of the preparatory workshops)
Poverty and marginalization, high rates of migration (mainly young
families), there are no local sources of work, few political efforts for
constructing a local governance, tenure problems, enormous gaps
between big landowners and small peasants, inefficient school system,
drug dealing
What are climate change mitigation options from a stakeholder
perspective?
Results can be extrapolated to the province or region or country level
Very limited interest of SH in ROBIN issues and that is why we have
to construct it at different levels and with different stakeholders. There
is availability of information channels through radio or school system.
Contributions expected around the importance of BD and CC in the
region. How is local people thinking about these issues
Information on mitigation and adaptation actions, based on a multistakeholder approach is very limited
There are socio-economic reports from the municipality. Furthermore,
a management plan for the biosphere reserve exists.
In consortium
Participatory process organized by scientists in this region and the
neighbouring region.
We have the contacts. There will be interest and accessibility from the
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 75 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Other issues
actors/stakeholde SH , time accessibility depends of the type of stakeholders
rs availability
work
Main reason why
stakeholders
Interested in learning about the socio-ecological system, opportunity
25
could be
to share views/ to communicate with policy makers
interested/have a
benefit
Opportunities to
link ROBIN
stakeholder
At this moment, the opportunities for linking ROBIN results with
26
workshops to
other projects or policy processes are limited.
other ongoing
project or policy
processes
With which WP
WP2 (Indicator framework for socio-ecological interactions of LUC
is this case
27
and CC); WP3 (Stakeholder driven scenarios, selection of mitigation
mostly
options)
associated?
Contact person for the case study: Elena Lazos Chavero - [email protected]
Peter Gerritsen – [email protected]
Table 6. Bolivian case study- The Guarayos region
THEME
General
description of
the case study
Nº
1
ITEMS
Case study coverage and
location
CLARIFICATIONS, EXAMPLES
Administrative boundaries (country, region,
province): Bolivia, Santa Cruz, Guarayos province
Municipality of Ascensión de Guarayos).
Amazonia
Cerrado
Andes
Gran Chaco
Document ID:
2
Main features : area,
climate, altitude ...
3
Main types of land cover
4
Short description of specific
climate change mitigation –
related issues
Figure 1: Case study location
Source: Toledo and Clavijo (2012)
Physical description: Ascensión is in the tropical
lowlands of Bolivia at 400-500 masl. It has
867,385 has, climate is seasonal, with rainysummer (Sept-March) and dry-winter (April –
August) periods.
Specify types of crops: Subsistence crops (rice,
banana, manioc, corn)
Forest type: Transitional humid forest (Amazonia
to Chiquitano dry forest)
Try to be as specific as possible; think of possible
socio-economic, environmental, ecological, policy
problems:
Like most of the indigenous societies of the
Amazonian forest, the Guarayos still maintain a
traditional resource management lifestyle based on
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 76 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Socioeconomic
dimension
Policy
dimension
Institutional
dimension
Document ID:
5
Main production sectors
6
Economic setting
7
Social setting
8
Main climate change
policies
9
Other sectoral policies
related to climate change
10
Identification of policy
problems
11
Decision making units in
relation to BD and CC
12
Key actors/stakeholders
13
Main reason why
stakeholders could be
interested/have a benefit
shifting agriculture, hunting, fishing, and
gathering. To guarantee land tenure rights and to
decrease poverty, the Guarayos are currently
participating in various community forestry
projects. The Guarayos region is interesting in the
sense that land tenure rights, large scale land use
change, indigenous traditions, and forest resource
extraction collide in this region. Thus, Guarayos is
a very diverse site and different stakeholders
(forest concessionaires and private owners,
indigenous communities, farmers, ranchers, local
associations, municipal entities) using these
natural resources produce negative impacts (illegal
logging, large scale agriculture, fire). These uses
increase the deforestation and degradation rate
affecting the ecosystem integrity, ecosystem
services, and impoverishing local communities.
Agriculture, industry, tourism: Agriculture mainly
for subsistence. Extraction of timber and nontimber products (oil palm, handicrafts). Medium
commercial livestock rearing.
Income level/GDP, sources of income, type of
production (self-consumption/market oriented,
local markets/exports): Guarayos has different
natural resources (wildlife, rivers, minerals,
forests, palms, etc.) but it is one of the poorest
regions in Santa Cruz Department. Not
appropriate management strategies (lack of plan
and policies) are destroying this biodiversity.
Level of education, unemployment ethnic groups,
income disparities, conflicts: Low level of
education, only primary school. Low income
generated by few commercial activities. Insecure
land tenure.
Main objectives and instruments:
Documents from the Programa Nacional de
Cambio Climático (PNCC)
Agricultural, water, forest, energy, tourism, other:
New Forestry Law considering Integrated Forest
Management.
Conflicting objectives, integration,
implementation , governance: Lack of governance,
land use tenure, land use change
Local, regional, national, transnational: Local
(municipalities, small indigenous organizations),
regional (COPNAG indigenous organization, state
government), national (ABT and government
ministries).
Administrations, local groups, companies, NGOs,
research organisations, farmers, foresters, unions:
Indigenous associations, farmers, foresters,
companies, local authorities
Interested in learning about the socio-ecological
system, opportunity to share views/ to
communicate with policy makers: In spite of the
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 77 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Scientific
dimension
14
Main research question(s)
15
Type of climate change
mitigation problem
Main sources of climate
change problems
Motivation of the
researchers/ scientific
innovation
Availability of information
on mitigation and
adaptation actions/potential
Availability of information
on socio-economic issues
16
17
Other issues
relevant to the
project
18
19
20
Which data/information is
likely to be produced by the
end of the project?
21
Availability of
tools/methods
With which WP is this case
mostly associated?
22
Document ID:
23
Is there any previous
experience on SH processes
in the case study?
24
Opportunities to link
ROBIN stakeholder
workshops to other ongoing
project or policy processes
25
Opportunity to replicate the
research (based on
representativeness of the
case study)
historical processes that affected the organization,
use of the resources and occupation of the space,
the Guarayos still maintained a strong relationship
with their forests. This study can be the
opportunity to share views and try to
resolve/prevent potential problems related to
climate change.
Which? Scope?
- How to develop a holistic approach to natural
resource management,
- The relationship between land use change
(subsistence), biodiversity, and water
availability
- The degree of deforestation and degradation of
forests in the region.
Sudden/gradual onset, tipping points/thresholds:
Question not clear
Deforestation, emissions in industry, intensive
land use: Deforestation and intensive land use
Contributions expected, opportunity for model
testing and validating: Opportunity for model
testing and validation
Anything in addition to the DoW (Table 2.5)?
Remarks?
Are there socio-economic studies in the area? Data
from surveys? Socio-economic assessment
reports? Yes
Improved knowledge on mitigation measures/
ecologic impacts/ socio-economic impacts… (try
to be specific)
Better understanding about factors and potential
solutions for the actual problems with a high level
of local participatory process.
In consortium, outside consortium, no tools: No
WP1 (Relationship BD-CC mitigation at different
scales), WP2 (Indicator framework for socioecological interactions of LUC and CC); WP3
(Stakeholder driven scenarios, selection of
mitigation options): All WPs
Participatory process organized by scientists,
policy makers, local groups: There are several
carried for different ONGs, like CIPCA, FAN,
SNV, and USAID projects.
Which, when, synergies: In the region on-going
projects about the financial mechanism for the
forest management, CIPCA development project
integrating forest management and small-scale
agriculture and at country level with the new
Forestry Law
Unique case study/ replicable methods/ results can
be extrapolated to the province or region or
country level: Results can be extrapolated to the
province, region and country level. There are
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 78 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
differences in the indigenous groups and forest
types, but the essence of the problem and the
conflicts are the same (land use change,
biodiversity, poverty)
26
Dissemination potential
Interest of SH in ROBIN issues, availability of
information channels, access to media,
communication infrastructures...
The issues facing the Guarayos region are
represented at different levels within what ROBIN
hopes to achieve as a project across Latin
America. Thus, the interest for ROBIN would be
widespread and access to dissemination channels
would not be difficult. These could be carried out
through local radio communications with the
communities, informative pamphlets,
presentations at universities, symposiums,
conferences, etc.
Contact person for the case study: Marisol Toledo ([email protected])
Table 7. Brazilian case study- The Tapajós National Forest
THEME
General
description
of the case
study
Nº
ITEMS
1
Case study
coverage and
location
CLARIFICATIONS, EXAMPLES
Eastern Amazon Forest – Lat.: 2°.30´0” and 4°28´0”S, Lon.:
54°.30´0” and 55°55´0”W. The Tapajos Flona has 530,622.00
hectare and is located near the cities of Belterra, Ruropolis,
Placas and Aveiro.
Figure 1. Case study coverage and location.
Source: Martorano and Simoes (2012)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 79 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
2
Climate
conditions
In the Brazilian Amazon, three climatic types are identified
according to Köppen climate classification. These are
subdivided into 10 typological zones (Figure 2), from the
adaptation of Martorano et al (1993). Thus, the type “Af”, has
three subzones (Af1, Af2 and Af3). “Am” is divided into
(Am1, Am2, Am3 and Am4). “Aw” climate types (Aw3, Aw4
and Aw5) are found in the East-South of the Amazon. The
climate in the region under study is tropical, wet and warm,
classified as Am3 (Martorano et al. (1993) adaptation from
Köppen). The Flona presents an annual precitation of 2,000 to
2,300 mm and during the dry season less than 60 mm.
Figure 2. Climate typology using the Köppen classification
adapted by Martorano et al (1993)
The maximum temperature is in the range between 30.5 to
32°C in the Tapajos Flona and 25.5 to 33.0°C in Legal
Amazon (Figure 3).
21a
Maximum
annual
temperature in
Tapajos Flona
and Legal
Amazon in state
of Para, Brazil.
Figure 3. Maximal temperature in Tapajos Flona and Legal
Amazon.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 80 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
The minimum temperature is in range between 21.0 to 22.5°C
in the Tapajos Flona and 18.0 to 23.0°C in Legal Amazon
(Figure 4).
21b
Document ID:
Minimum
annual
temperature in
Tapajos Flona
and Legal
Amazon in state
of Para, Brazil.
21c
Contributions to
the weather
information
3
Main soil types
4
Short
description of
specific climate
change
mitigation –
related issues
Figure 4. Minimal temperature in Tapajos Flona and Legal
Amazon.
The average monthly curve is skewed to the right, the rainy
season starts in December and runs to May. The wettest
month is March, when about 80% of the precipitation in
Santarém takes place. The remaining 20% is distributed
between the June and November.
Based on research by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of
Environment and Natural Resources – Brazil), Flona Tapajos
has 9 different types of soil, but with a macro analysis, it has
predominantly loam oxisol and red podzolic (Figure 6).
EMBRAPA provides more soil information, at
(http://www.cnps.embrapa.br/sibcs/index.html and
http://mapoteca.cnps.embrapa.br/.
Figure 6. Main types of land cover
Considering the climate change scenario with temperatures
around +3°c or +1°C, it is possible to simulate the
consequences, i.e. forest degradation, savannah increase areas
and progressively loss of biodiversity in the Amazon Biome,
reduction in rainfall, and changes in water supply.
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 81 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
The Tapajos Flona has 16 communities. Agriculture is the
main economic activity in the region, but other activities are
also relevant (Figure 7), i.e. small factories craft and livestock
(http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo201
0/default.shtm).
Socioeconomic
dimension
5
Main production
sectors
6
Economic
setting
7
Social setting
Figure 7. Main production sectors in the municipal of FlonaBelterra-Para.
Based mainly on hunting and fishering, but other activities are
developed as a means of subsistence such as cooperatives of
artisans, latex extractors and tourism, which are sources of
extra profit.
Local population are mainly classified as belonging to
economic and social low class, the education level is also very
low.
The Main Brazilian polices focus on climate change are:
ABC Programme, PPCDAm, Bolsa Verde, Operação Arco
Verde and other (Figure 8)
Programa ABC
Terra Legal
Operação Arco Verde
Operação Xingu
8
Main climate
change policies
Brasil sem Miséria
PPCDAm
Mais Alimentos
Minha Casa, Minha Vida
Rotas do Desenvolvimento
Brasil Maior
Policy
dimension
9
10
11
Document ID:
Other policies
related to
climate change
Identification of
policy problems
Decision
making level in
relation to BD
and CC
PPCerrado
Programa Água Boa
Mais Ambiente
Territórios da Cidadania
Ciência sem Fronteiras
Figure 8. Brazilian main government social economic
programmes.
Agricultural, water, forest, energy, tourism and other...
Land conflicts, regional integration, land use management,
public policies implementation and financial agricultural
support.
Local, regional, national, transnational
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
PAC
Bolsa Verde
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 82 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Institutional
dimension
12
13
14
15
Scientific
dimension
16
17
18
Other issues
relevant to
the project
19
20
21
22
23
Document ID:
Key
actors/stakehold
ers
Main reason
why
stakeholders
could be
interested/have
a benefit
Main research
question(s)
Type of climate
change
mitigation
problem
Main sources of
climate change
problems
Motivation of
the researchers/
scientific
innovation
Availability of
information on
mitigation and
adaptation
actions/potential
Availability of
information on
socio-economic
issues
Which
data/information
is likely to be
produced by the
end of the
project?
Availability of
tools/methods
With which WP
is this case
mostly
associated?
Is there any
previous
experience on
SH processes in
the case study?
Brazil Government, Embrapa, INPE, INPA, Museum Emilio
Goeldi, Promanejo, state agencies, PNF, IBAMA, National
ministry of environment, PPG7, BIRD, GTZ, DFIDm KFW
and UNDP.
Interesting learning about the socio-ecological system,
opportunity to share views/ to communicate with policy
makers, understand threatens and see what is being / can be
done to save the Amazon rainforests
Socio-ecological system of Flona Tapajos. Assess the impact
on biodiversity as a result of deforestation in the Amazon
forest. Sustainability of Amazon agriculture.
Increase in temperatures, lower precipitation and reduction of
evapotranspiration rates. Severe dry; fish mortality;
endangered flora and fauna species; spread of diseases like
dengue and malaria
Deforestation; intensive land use; extensive farming and soil
degradation.
Opportunity for the development of research that informs the
implementation of sustainable agricultural practices and its
role in CC mitigation, thus maintaining the environmental
services of tropical ecosystem.
Information on the Flona is widely available as much research
has been developed in that region.
Public agencies provide socio-economic data.
(See http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/)
Improved knowledge on mitigation measures in the Flona
area, ecologic impacts of the agriculture in the area next to
Flona, socio-economic impacts of the Flona communities and
the communities around the area, as well as support the
decision for further research.
There are methods already developed for forest management;
biodiversity catalogues at Embrapa herbarium, Museum
Goeldi herbarium, database and computational web
infrastructure knowledge. Additional methods, tools and
knowledge are available from other projects like LBA etc.
WP1 (Relationship BD-CC mitigation at different scales),
WP2 (Indicator framework for socio-ecological interactions
of LUC and CC); WP3 (Stakeholder driven scenarios,
selection of mitigation options)
Yes
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 83 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
24
Opportunities to
link ROBIN
stakeholder
workshops to
other ongoing
project or policy
processes
Opportunity to
replicate the
research
There are other projects that can be linked to ROBIN, i.e:
iLPF system - This system shares similar characteristics with
ROBIN, serving as a support to PECUS Project.
The Tapajos Flona has a big potential to highlight biodiversity
indicators under climate change scenarios that can easily be
replicated in other Amazon regions.
Government regional planning; inform decision-making; new
26
Dissemination
government programs; consolidation of an international
potential
research group; dissemination at the local level (“cartilha”), as
well as scientific publications.
Contact person for case study: Lucietta Martorano ([email protected] and
[email protected])
25
The template document used in the case study selection is available in Annex 6.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 84 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
6.2 SH Selection
Following the template for stakeholder identification specified in Annex 1, the local teams (UNAM, IBIF and EMBRAPA) identified several
types of key stakeholders:
Table 8. SH selection in Mexican case study
Actor
Authorities involved at the national
level in forest and land use
management
Relative
Relative importance Relevance
People to influence on
on land use &
1 = must list
be invited decisions (1-10)
biodiversity
2 = panel list
(number)
3 = long list
now future
now
future
Identified organizations and people
SAGARPA (Ministry Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Develop.,
Fisheries &Food); SEDER (General Directorate of Forest and
Sustainability); SRA (Ministry of Agrarian Reform);
SEDESOL (Ministry of Social Dev.); CDI
(National Commission for the Development of the Indigenous
Peoples); SEMARNAT (Ministry of Env. & Natural
Resources); CONAFOR (National Forestry Agency); River
Basin Councils
9
5
6
8
8
1
Authorities involved at the local level
in forest and land use management
Municipal presidents
Others (‘delegados, cabezales’)
Commissioners (‘regidor’) of ecology/ agriculture
15
5
5
5
5
1
Associations/Unions (different sectors.
e.g. farmer's unions, foresters)
Sugar cane farmers’ unions; Fishermen’s unions; Livestock
unions
3
4
4
5
5
1
Business organizations (e.g. Mining
companies, hotel managers)
Mining companies
Hotel managers
Sugar cane companies
4
6
6
6
6
1
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 85 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Non Governmental Organizations
Alternatura
1
1
1
1
1
3
Media
Milenio; El Costeño; La voz de la Costa
3
2
2
1
1
2
Research Centers (fields as natural and
social science, ecology)
UNAM
CUCSUR-UDG (University of Guadalajara)
6
2
3
3
3
1
Other (according to local specifics)
Chamela-Cuitxmala Biosphere Reserve
DRBSM (Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve)
4
4
5
5
5
1
Table 9. SH selection in Bolivian case study
Actor
Relative
Relative importance Relevance
People to influence on
on land use &
1 = must list
be invited decisions (1-10)
biodiversity
2 = panel list
(number)
3 = long list
now future
now
future
Identified organizations and people
Authorities involved at the
national level in forest and
land use management
MMAYA (Ministry of Environment and Water); MDRT (Ministry of
Rural Development and Land); Ministry of Developing Planning; INRA
(National Institute for Agrarian Reform); SIF (Bolivian Forest
Superintendency)
Authorities involved at the
regional level in forest and
land use management
ABT (Forestry and Land Authority)
Authorities involved at the
local level in forest and land
use management
Associations/Unions
(different sectors. e.g.
farmer's unions, foresters)
Document ID:
2
8
7
9
9
2
10
7
10
8
Municipal Government of Ascensión de Guarayos);
Forestry Departments
2
10
8
10
8
Peasant associations; Livestock farmer’s unions; COPNAG (Central
Organization of Guarayo Native Peoples);Indigenous Associations
9
5
7
10
10
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 86 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Business organizations (e.g.
Mining companies, hotel
managers)
Timber companies
Forest services providers (truckers, sawyers, manufacturers)
6
7
7
7
8
Media
Radio Guaguazuti
1
7
8
8
9
Research Centers (fields as
natural and social science,
ecology)
IBIF (Bolivian Institute of Forest Research)
CIPCA (Centre for Research and Training of Peasant Farmers)
Other (according to local
specifics)
Mennonites
3
8
7
10
10
Table 10. SH selection in Brazilian case study
Actor
Relative
Relative importance Relevance
People to influence on
on land use &
1 = must list
be invited decisions (1-10)
biodiversity
2 = panel list
(number)
3 = long list
now future
now
future
Identified organizations and people
Authorities involved at the
national level in forest and
land use management
MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply); INCRA
(National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform); MMA
(Ministry of Environment); IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Env. and
Renewable Natural Resources); SFB (Brazilian Forest Service)
5
8
9
8
9
Authorities involved at the
regional level in forest and
land use management
ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation );
SEMA (Secretariat of Environment of the State of Para); IDEFLOR
(Forest Development Institute of Para); ITERPA (Para Land Institute)
4
8
7
5
8
Authorities involved at the
local level
Municipal Secretary of Agriculture
Municipal Secretary of Environment
3
5
10
6
10
Associations/Unions
(different sectors. e.g.
Rural Union
STR (Union of rural workers)
3
5
10
5
9
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 87 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
farmer's unions, foresters)
Extrativists producers associations
Business organizations (e.g.
Mining companies, hotel
managers)
Timber companies
Eco-certified tourism businesses
Non Governmental
Organizations
2
9
8
7
4
Saude &Alegria
Greenpeace
3
7
4
7
4
Research Centers (fields as
natural and social science,
ecology)
UFPA (Federal University of Pará); UFOPA (Federal University of
Western Pará); IEB (International Institute of Education in Brazil);
Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology; LBA (LargeScale Biosphere-Atmosphere Program in Amazonian); EMBRAPA
2
2
7
2
9
Other (according to local
specifics)
Regional banks (BASA, Banco do BR, BNDS)
SUDAM (Superintendency for the Development of Amazonia)
3
4
8
3
8
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 88 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
6.3 FCMs practical exercise with experts from CS
6.3.1 Development of the exercise
In the Training Workshop held in Madrid the participants had the opportunity to put
into practice the framework expounded in the previous sessions by simulating countryspecific stakeholder meetings that lead to the elaboration of a Fuzzy Cognitive Map
from scratch (for further details see Varela-Ortega et al., 2012b). The intention behind
this exercise was to help team members become familiar with this participative
methodology, foresee the main challenges that may arise during the process and ensure
that the methodology was applied consistently across all three areas so that results could
be compared.
The assistants to the workshop were divided into three groups, every one of them
representing a different case study: Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico. As part of the
simulation, every group member was assigned a different role representing key actors in
the area. The following stakeholders were identified:
Table 11. Stakeholders identified in FCM exercise
Brazil
Amazon Conservation
Institute
Environmental NGO
activist
Government
representative
Soybean producer
Small farmer
Bolivia
Forest and land authority
Mexico
Government representative
Native
Farmer
Settler
Rancher
Ministry of water and
environment
Environmental NGO
activist
Researcher
Representative from the
tourist sector
Once the roles were assigned, every group was asked to identify the main drivers
affecting bio-diversity in the present for their particular case study by asking the
following questions: (1) What is the current state of biodiversity and ecosystem services
in the region?; (2) What factors or variables have an effect on that state?; (3) How do
those variables and factors relate to each other?; and (4) What relationships have more
importance in the state of biodiversity and ecosystem services?
The intention was to make stakeholders think about the relationship between
biodiversity, ecosystem services and climate change. Some participants in the workshop
found this question to be too technical for stakeholders. The terms “ecosystem
services”, “biodiversity” and “climate change” are not easy to grasp in all their
dimensions and trying to link them might confusing for most stakeholders. For this
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 89 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
reason, it is an important that facilitators are able to translate the question into terms that
are easy to understand by the audience. For example, making reference to the effects of
climate change (draughts, floods, temperature change, etc.) would help stakeholders to
start thinking in terms that are suitable for the discussion and then make the connections
that will help us develop our maps.
As a result of this exercise, group members identified a number of factors that were then
clustered in groups which shared similar features. Every participant wrote up to 3
factors in cards and then explained their choices with the rest of the group. Following
discussion, new factors were identified and added to the original selection. These are
indicated with a plus sign (+) in the following chart:
Table 12. Factors identified by the Brazilian team
Brazil
Policy
Public policy (+)
Political will (+) 
Disconnect between policy and ground (+)
Technical
Lack of agricultural
Use of sustainable
extension services (+)
production techniques 
Weeds
Plagues and insects
Resources
Overexploitation of
Illegal tree felling
resources 
Water pollution
Fishing resources
Economy
Farm output prices 
Land pressure 
Population increase 
Corruption (+)
Lack of knowledge about
proper techniques (+)
Grazing (+) 
Deforestation 
Soybean cultivation 
Poverty 
Table 13. Factors identified by the Bolivian team
Bolivia
Technological factors
Technology
Farm machinery
Social factors
Education 
Environmental education
(+)
Technical training (+)
Policy
Agricultural policy (+)
Deforestation and
Document ID:
Forest technology
Teledetection
Genetic diversity 
Indiscriminate hunting
Population growth 
Fire provoked by farmers
Environmental policy (+)  Economic development
Infrastructure
Agricultural expansion 
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Training
Land occupation
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 90 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
degradation 
Food security 
Environmental factors
Rain
Economic factors
Agricultural income 
Lack of staff at ATB
Plagues and diseases
Timber demand (+)
Timber price 
Table 14. Factors identified by the Mexican team
Mexico
Protected areas
Insufficient protection of nature
Education
Lack of education
Knowledge of local techniques
Public policy
Availability of budget
Slowness in paying water
Conservation policies 
Lack of support from the government
Lack of political instruments at the local
level
Illegal activities
Public safety
Economic factors
Expansion of agricultural land
Sustainable productive strategies (+) 
Agricultural prices (+) 
Agricultural marketing (+) 
Once all factors were identified, group members were then asked to prioritize those
using stickers. Every participant was given 3 stickers. Their choices are indicated with a
red dot () in the previous chart. By clustering factors and choosing those with a higher
relevance in the eyes of the stakeholders. This exercise helped to arrange a final
selection of factors which is displayed in the following charts:
Table 15. Final selection of factors for the Brazilian team
Brazil
Plagues
Grazing
Deforestation
Agricultural extension
Sustainable production
techniques
Document ID:
Soybean cultivation
Public policy
Political will
Agricultural prices
Overexploitation of
resources
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
Water pollution
Land pressure
Poverty
Population increase
© ROBIN consortium
Page 91 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Table 16. Final selection of factors for the Bolivian team
Bolivia
Farm machinery
Agricultural income
Land occupation
Plagues and diseases
Rain
Population growth
Timber price
Agricultural expansion
Timber demand
Fire provoked by farmers
Infrastructure
Lack of staff at ATB
Environmental policy
Food security
Agricultural policies
Genetic diversity
Deforestation and
degradation
Indiscriminate hunting
Forest technology
Education
Table 17. Final selection of factors for the Mexican team
Mexico
Conservation policies
Education
Illegal activities
Monocrop agricultural land
Sustainable productive
strategies
Agricultural prices
Political instruments
Environmental consciousness
Conventional productive
strategies
Agricultural policies
Availability of budget
Coastal tourism
Diversified agricultural land
Agricultural marketing
Agricultural income
Biodiversity
Productivist mentality
After a final selection of factors was chosen, group members were asked to establish
casual relationships among them, creating a flowchart. Then, participants identified the
sign of these relationships: positive (+) when an increase in one variable causes an
increase in the other; and negative (-) when an increase in one variable causes a
decrease in the other. Later, they assigned values to these relationships indicating how
strong they were using a scale within the range [-1,+1]. In the Mexican case, time
restraints did not allow the group to assign values to most of the relationships. These
were completed afterwards by the research team based on the comments made by the
team members during their presentation.
6.3.2 Results: maps in CMaps and dynamic analysis
As it was explained in the previous section, participants were divided in three groups
who worked independently in the construction of the cognitive map. As a result of this
exercise, three maps were developed that, once refined by the research team, have been
presented in the figures shown in the following sections.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 92 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Brazil Case Study
The system is composed of 14 variables, which present 15 relationships among them.
This number is quite low compared to the maximum possible links (90), which makes it
easier for the system to stabilize after a few iterations. The lack of loops in the diagram
also helps the stability of the system. 5 variables are identified as external drivers, with
no feedback from other variables in the system.
Figure 30. FCM developed by the Brazilian team
Source: own elaboration
The variables “Land pressure” and “Deforestation” are the ones receiving the highest
number of incoming arrows (3), followed by the variables “Water pollution” and
“overexploitation of resources” with 2 arrows each. This means these variables are the
most affected by the state of the other variables in the system. Based on the number of
outgoing arrows, we can deduce that there are 2 main drivers in the system: “Soybean
cultivation” and “Political will”, both of them external drivers that do not receive
feedback from any other variables in the system.
The next step in the analysis is the construction of a graph representing the evolution of
the variables and their weight in the system over time once it starts functioning. The
result is shown in the following graph.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 93 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 31. Dynamic analysis of the FCM developed by the Brazilian team
Note: The vertical Y-axis represents the value of the variables while the horizontal X-axis denotes the
number of iterations
Source: own elaboration
The first conclusion we can draw from the graph is that the stabilization of the system is
rapidly achieved, after 5 iterations. “Water pollution” is the most dominant driver,
followed by “Deforestation”. Below this variable, “Population increase” is also driving
the system, followed by “Land pressure”, “Plagues” and “The lack of agricultural
extension services”. However, all these drivers are not able to offset the strong impact
of the variable “Poverty”.
Bolivia Case Study
The FCM elaborated by the Bolivian team is reported in Figure 2. This flow chart has a
higher number of variables and relationships than the one elaborated by the Brazilian
team, however, the nature of the factors considered is similar. This graph has a very low
density of 0.11 (21 out of 190 possible arrows exist), which makes it easy for the system
to stabilize. There are 20 variables, 11 of them acting as external drivers, i.e. they do not
receive any incoming arrows: “Farm machinery”; “Agricultural policies”; “Plagues and
diseases”; “Rain”; “Infrastructure”; “Environmental policy”; “Education”; “Food
security”; “Lack of staff at ABT”; “Forest technology”; and “Timber demand”. The
variable “Population growth” is also an important driver but acts as an internal driver
since it receives some incoming arrows.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 94 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 32. FCM developed by the Bolivian team
Source: own elaboration
This cognitive map has four central issues2 (in green boxes). These are: “Agricultural
income”; “Genetic diversity”; “Deforestation and degradation”; and “Agricultural
expansion”. The first three receive 4 arrows each and the last one receives 3, mainly
from the external drivers described before.
The dynamic analysis of the system is represented in Figure 40. Figure 39 shows that
there are no feedback loops in the system description. This is reflected in the changing
values in Figure 40 that quickly stabilize. The large number of external drivers also
contributes to stabilize the system after the fifth iteration. The factor “Deforestation and
degradation” clearly dominates the rest of the variables, followed by “agricultural
expansion”, and “agricultural income”. This variable, along with “Food security”,
“Timber demand”, “Land occupation” and “Population growth” remain flat from the
first iteration, maintaining the same weight.
2
The “central issue” of the system is defined as the variable with the highest number of incoming arrows. Usually, it does not have
any outgoing arrows.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 95 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 33. Dynamic analysis of the FCM developed by the Bolivian team
Note: The vertical Y-axis represents the value of the variables while the horizontal X-axis denotes the
number of iterations
Source: own elaboration
As we can see in the graph, “Genetic diversity”, one of the central issues in the FCM, is
clearly dominated by all other variables and decreases in importance from the first
iteration until it becomes stable in the fifth. This means that genetic diversity is
conditioned to a large extent by deforestation, agricultural expansion and agricultural
income in the Guarayos Province. This picture is similar to the one obtained for the
Brazilian case, what leads us to believe that biodiversity in the Amazonian region is
highly correlated with deforestation, being the expansion of agriculture and land
pressure caused by population growth and economic activities the factors behind the
loss in biodiversity.
Mexico Case Study
The FCM elaborated by the Mexican team in presented in figure 3. Due to time
constraints, the team could not assign values to the relationships among the factors. This
task was performed later by the research team, based on the arguments given by the
Mexican team in their presentation.
The group identified 17 variables, with a total number of 28 links. The graph has the
highest number of connections, although the density was comparable to the other two
cases. The map only contains 3 external drivers, namely “Education”; “Conservation
policies”; and “Availability of budget”. There is however one clear central issue in the
map: “Biodiversity”. This factor receives 7 arrows, much more than the other central
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 96 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
issues in the system: “Monocrop agricultural land” (receiving 4) and “Diversified
agricultural land”, which receives 4. There are also factors such as “Agricultural
policies” and “Sustainable productive strategies” that have a strong influence over the
system but they are considered internal drivers since they receive arrows from other
variables.
We must remind that participants were asked to identify the main drivers affecting biodiversity by answering the following questions: (1) What is the current state of
biodiversity and ecosystem services in the region?; (2) What factors or variables have
an effect on that state?; (3) How do those variables and factors relate to each other?; and
(4) What relationships have more importance in the state of biodiversity and ecosystem
services? Following the first question that was the core of the brainstorming exercise,
the fact that the team in charge of the Mexican FCM identified “Biodiversity” as the
main factor to precisely explain the current state of biodiversity and ecosystem services
in the region, seemed as a diversion from the proposed methodology and raised and
interesting discussion among participants. In general terms, the answer to the proposed
questions does not have to coincide with the question itself as the aim of the exercise is
to reflect the stakeholders'' perceptions on the structure of the system. In the particular
case of the Mexican example, the richness of biodiversity contexts and the multiplicity
of interpretations were probably responsible of the error. In order to avoid confusion in
future stakeholder meetings and solve other methodological questions raised by
participants during the workshop, the UPM research team, upon request by some of the
participants, built a list with do’s and don’ts (see section 5.7 of this deliverable) which
aimed to help local teams in the development of the FCMs. The full version of the do’s
and don’ts list in available in Annex 5.
Figure 34. FCM developed by the Mexican team
Source: own elaboration
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 97 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Once the values were assigned to the relationships identified in the FCM, it was
possible to undertake the dynamic analysis for the system. The result is provided in
graph 3.
Figure 35. Dynamic analysis of the FCM developed by the Mexican team
Note: The vertical Y-axis represents the value of the variables while the horizontal X-axis denotes the
number of iterations
Source: own elaboration
Values of the various factors stabilise after only three iterations, despite the high
number of connections among variables. The dynamic analysis shows how
“Biodiversity” dominates the rest of the variables despite the influence the rest of the
factors have on it, as we saw in the previous FCM. Following “Biodiversity” we find
“Political instruments”; “Education”; “Educational consciousness” and “Agricultural
policies”. On the other hand, the variables “Illegal activities” and “Coastal tourism” are
dominated by the rest of the factors in the system.
The results in Mexico show a different picture from the ones obtained in Brazil and
Bolivia and cannot be explained in the same terms as the other two given the fact that
“Biodiversity” was used as a factor to explain the current state of biodiversity in the
region. The rather unconventional use of the methodology in this case does not allow us
to compare adequately the results with the other cases, although it shows the complexity
of the socio-ecological setting, the variety of production activities and human factors
and the multi biodiversity perceptions.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 98 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
6.3.3 Lessons learned
The practical exercise undertaken with experts from the three case studies served to
raise several questions related to the application of the FCM methodology and envisage
possible problems that may arise during the development of future stakeholder
workshops. These questions inspired the elaboration of the do’s and don’ts document
mentioned above and helped the research team to reach some practical conclusions. We
can highlight the following:
 The more complex a scenario is, the more difficult it becomes to develop a map.
For this reason, it is important to be clear in the definition of the factors
identified. General terms usually allow multiple interpretations and therefore fall
into contradictions. We should explain in detail what factors we are talking
about, e.g. the factor “public policy” could be positively or negatively associated
with the factor “environmental conservation”. In this case, the term public policy
should be defined more precisely so we can understand how it relates to other
factors. Moreover, we should use neutral terms when defining them in order to
facilitate the linkages among factors and to avoid value judgement.

The original FCM method does not specify if a factor can represent the central
element of the debate. However, we must advise against this practice, i.e. the
question that is trying to be answered in the FCM should not appear in the FCM
as a factor itself because it may confuse participants. FCMs are designed to be
an analysis of the complex web of drivers.

It is important to achieve a good balance in terms of stakeholder representation.
If any group of stakeholders is under-represented in the workshops, the results
will not be as fruitful as we could expect and vital information of the structure
and the dynamics operating in the region under study would not be captured.
This ill representation of the stakeholders’ perceptions will in turn hamper the
potential selection of policies.

The role of the facilitator is a vital one in the development of the stakeholder
workshops. The person given that responsibility should be a professional with
prior experience in the development of participatory exercises and, ideally,
should not have strong links with the scientific teams involved in the study in
order to remain neutral at all times. These features will allow the facilitator to
apply the methodology correctly and handle the discussion effectively.
FCMs should be developed following a two-step sequence. First, they should start with
a brainstorming that initiates a wide discussion and helps the participants to express
themselves openly and to identify the factors behind the structure and dynamics shaping
their territory. Applied to visualize the present reality or the future scenarios in a
specific case study, this inclusive exercise permits all participants to communicate their
views without any constraints of expression or discourse. Second, once we have
identified and clustered those ideas, it is time to establish specific limits to the
participants to help them focus on the selection of the most important factors and
quantify the relationships among them, giving shape to our maps. The overall success of
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 99 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
the FCM exercise and the quality of the results, relies significantly on a well balanced
combination of these two complementary actions
6.4 Preparatory Workshops
In order to understand and evaluate the drivers of change behind between biodiversity,
land use and climate change, all the teams involved in ROBIN will have to discuss with
local, regional and provincial stakeholders. Since participants in the workshops may
have different educational and socioeconomic backgrounds, enormous economic gaps,
different access to the socio-ecosystems, and different identities constructed with their
territories, existing power relations between local and regional actors may obstruct the
identification, design and implementation of alternatives. In order to solve this problem
and guarantee the success of the workshops Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM), several
preparatory workshops where undertaken in Bolivia and Mexico.
6.4.1 Bolivia
Date, location and attendance
The first preparatory workshop held by the Bolivian team was held on January 23th
2013, at the Cultural center of Ascensión de Guarayos, in Santa Cruz.
Invitations to the workshop were mainly issued via letters and by phone calls through
the IBIF team (see the letter of invitation in Annex 7). Stakeholders’ representatives
received the letter of the IBIF team explaining the main goal of the project and the
reason for holding a workshop. The IBIF team collected the stakeholders' cell phone
numbers in order to confirm their assistance to the preparatory workshop. One day
before, and the same day of the workshop, the representatives were called to confirm
and remember their attendance to the event, but also to arrange logistics. Most of the
people invited attended, because they were interested in the training aspect of the event
and because they also understood that the workshop could be useful for them and for the
region. The associations of ranchers and loggers confirmed by phone their participation
at the meeting; however, they did not attend due to work reasons. The list of participants
can be found in Table 18.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 100 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Table 18. List of participants
Position
Gender
/affiliation
Organization
Participation in
workshop (WS)
Authority and Social Control of Forest and Land
(ABT)
Technician
M
Entire WS
Municipal Government of Ascensión de Guarayos
Technician
M
Entire WS
Indigenous Forestry Association Curuvaré
Member
M
Entire WS
Indigenous Forestry Association Curuvaré II
Member
F
Entire WS
Member
M
Entire WS
Member
M
Entire WS
Member
F
Entire WS
Member
M
Entire WS
Member
F
Entire WS
Member
M
Entire WS
Member
M
Entire WS
Coordinator
M
Entire WS
Technician
F
Entire WS
Member
F
Entire WS
Member
M
Entire WS
Member
F
Entire WS
Technician
M
Entire WS
Technician
M
Entire WS
Technician
M
Entire WS
Technician
M
Entire WS
Member
F
Entire WS
Member
F
Entire WS
Development Area Program Guarayos (PDA)
Technician
M
Entire WS
Farmers Federation
Director
M
Entire WS
Forestry Services
Consultant
M
Entire WS
Indigenous Forestry Association Curuvaré III
Indigenous Forestry Association - IRARAI
Indigenous Forestry Association (IFA San Juan)
Arado Foundation
Central Organization of Guarayo Native People
(COPNAG)
Tropical and Agricultural Research Center (CIAT)
Río Blanco y Río Negro (RByRB)Wildlife Reserve
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 101 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Atmosphere in the beginning
In the beginning of the workshop all the participants received a brochure in Spanish,
explaining details about the ROBIN project; additionally, they received a folder with the
agenda, sheets for taking notes, a pen, and an evaluation form about the meeting. Each
participant also signed the list of assistance.
The atmosphere established was very good from the beginning. The place, Cultural
Center, was selected was comfortable and away from the busy activity of the main
town. To increase the good atmosphere in the place, a slideshow with images of nature
and environmental music (nature sounds) was presented while waiting for the arrival of
the participants.
Presentations
After introducing herself and the other two members of the IBIF team gave words of
greetings and welcome to all the participants and the opportunity to introduce
themselves, mentioning the name and the institution to which they belonged.
A video about the IBIF`s work in Guarayos area, through its monitoring of biodiversity
study, was presented. Additionally, a presentation in power point about IBIF and its
main objectives and activities, reinforced the idea that it is an institution dedicated to
forest research and capacity building. Then, a coffee break was provided, giving the
opportunity to exchange experiences with the team and learn more about the local
stakeholders present.
Following the coffee break, a video about climate change and how it affects our
environment was presented to the audience. The video was produced by students of a
public school in Bolivia and provided by the Simon I. Patiño Ecology Center
Foundation. The objective was to introduce them to terms like global warming, climate
change, and contamination..
According to the agenda (see Annex 7), the ROBIN project was presented after the
video. For this presentation, the IBIF team previously gave some key definitions about
climate change, mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity. She also emphasized the value
of biodiversity through four factors: production, scientific, aesthetic and ethical values
and she explained the importance and location of tropical forest in the world and
Bolivia. The IBIF team also explained the reasons why Guarayos, specifically the
Ascensión de Guarayos municipality, was chosen as case study for the ROBIN project,
emphasizing the high biodiversity and the different land uses occurring in the area.
This was followed by an explanation of the ROBIN project, the length of the project,
and the different methods being used to reach project objectives. Special focus was
placed on the relationship between modellers and field data, through participatory
processes and conducting the cognitive map. The importance of the local stakeholder
involvement in the first participatory workshop of stakeholders was emphasized. The
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 102 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
“key question” that they would respond in this participatory workshop was presented, in
order to give them ample time to think about it. Additionally, some photos of the Fuzzy
Cognitive Map training workshop carried out for the IBIF team, held in Madrid, Spain
were also presented to them. It was mentioned that Spanish experts in this method
would be visiting in the next workshop.
Stakeholder participation
Following the presentations about IBIF, the ROBIN project and the videos, the IBIF
team asked the participants to list some of the environmental problems in the Guarayos
region. This question gave them the chance to talk about these problems in the area;
particularly about the changes that have occurred in recent years as a result of the
different land use activities.
Below are some of the opinions expressed during the meeting.

The ABT representative started the discussion mentioning that there were no
problems in the region, since he considers that the problems occur more in the
city.

The Farmers Federation representative recognized that there are many problems
related with deforestation and that would be important to find solutions because
people even now do not respect anymore the “curichis” (local term for wetlands)
and rivers” He also said “it is very difficult to control the illegality of some
economical activities as logging and there are "capitalists" in Guarayos that lent
themselves to everything”.

Representatives of AFI San Juan suggested that maybe the ROBIN project could
harder with the other municipalities that have the same problem as Ascension.

Representatives of RByRN Wildlife Reserve were very active. They said “there
is a high rate of illegal hunting in the area, especially in the protected area,
where we work, and there is no economic support for wildlife conservation”.
Also, “the Guarayos are almost losing all of nature because everyone is currently
working in the forest management plan and there is not control on illegal
activities by ABT, people are logging inclusive the seed trees". It was mentioned
that their predecessors used to have "chaco" (a small family holding for planting
and growing crops, through shifting from forest to agriculture). They further
stressed that before the weather was very favourable for crops, since rains and
the dry season came to exactly time and that's why they knew exactly the dates
and periods of planting and harvesting. But now, due to the changes in the
climate, it is not possible to know precisely as before. Now, the days are really
hot and this is because many trees have been removed; there is the belief that the
big trees attract the rains. They mentioned “the deforestation is partly due to
migration of Russians and Mennonites in the region, who use the land for
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 103 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
intensive and commercial agriculture. Now the majority of people are dedicating
themselves to forest management and not to the subsistence agriculture, so they
have to consume and buy more expensive products cultivated in other regions
(i.e Chapare)'. They asked for more coordination with authorities of the
protected area because the rate of illegal hunting in high. They don’t have
enough vehicles, fuel, and personnel to move through the affected areas and
control it. He also indicated that there were more tree species and now they are
losing species as mara, ochoó, hoja de yuca, naming some of them. Finally,
declared that “there are few people interested in taking care of the reserve and
many are seeking only their economic interests, so the community does not
benefit at all”.

COPNAG members reported that “everyone knows that Guarayos is a very
diverse forest area and it has already several management forest plans not only
in Ascensión but also in Urubichá, Yaguarú, Salvatierra, and San Pablo”. They
also mentioned key problem of the pollution of rivers due to the mining
activities and the garbage people throw in the road leading to San Pablo. They
affirmed that there is fish and wildlife devastation because of the indiscriminate
fishing and hunting activities and there are no enough rangers in the protected
areas to control the hunters and fishers.
With these comments, the IBIF team mentioned that the main idea in the ROBIN
project is to analyze what is happening in the region; probably many people/actors are
involved in the problem (farmers, hunters, loggers, authorities, and conservationists)
and probably is not just one but several problems in the area. It is very important first to
know and understand what is happening in Guarayos, try to identify the main problem
or factor that is affecting more the biodiversity loss, and discuss with the local
stakeholders how to solve these issues
Mapping the present natural resources
After the discussions and comments related to the main problems about the environment
and land use, the participants were divided into three groups to perform a map of
Guarayos. This map was requested in order to first know how natural resources are
distributed along the Municipality of Ascensión de Guarayos nowadays.
Each group began with a discussion on how to make their drawing and what should be
considered in the map. After the maps were drawn, two or more representatives of each
group presented them to the participants. The three maps are shown below, with an
explanation about their content and the participants from each group.
Group 1: This group drew key areas, such as forestry, agricultural (mentioning the main
crops: rice, banana, manioc, and pineapple), cattle ranching, palm forest (cusisales), and
agricultural fields of the Mennonites. They also considered the main roads connecting
Guarayos to other towns (San Pablo, Urubichá) and to departments (Santa Cruz, Beni),
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 104 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
rivers (San Pablo, Negro, and Zapocó), and lakes (Laguna Corazon). Additionally, the
wildlife resources (parrots, fish, lizards, snakes, etc.) were also mentioned in this map.
Group 2: This map followed the geographic shape of the Municipality. Additionally,
the RByRN wildlife reserve was recognized in this map. It includes a long list of
mammals, reptiles, and fish showing a high diversity. They emphasized the presence of
a large hill, natural water reservoirs, and mining areas. Furthermore, they showed
agricultural activities (crops of rice, soybean, and sunflower) taking place near the
reserve.
Group 3: This group analyzed the question in a different way producing a “risk map”,
in order to show how they are being affected by the land use occurring in the region.
For example, they drew a large hill, indicating deforestation. Close to the rivers (San
Pablo, Zapocó) they recognized the contamination due to the garbage. In the Blanco,
Negro, and Zapocó rivers, pollution by mining activities was indicated. They also
showed Cerro azul (hill) and several mining areas, where gold and tantalio are
exploited, very close to Ascension (approx. 80 km). Besides, they showed deforestation
related to agricultural areas of rice, corn, soybean, cassava, banana, and other fruits.
On the other hand, they drew as a red zone of sawmills around Ascension and
highlighted pineapple and cattle ranching areas. In one part of the map they also drew
the wildlife reserve and the forestry concession La Chonta as part of the forestry
reserve.
Workshop evaluation
Almost at the end of the event, all participants received an evaluation sheet in order to
know their opinions, to improve the organization and content of the event, and their
feelings (through faces) about the workshop. Each face was classified in very good,
good, bad, and too bad (see Annex 7). The results indicate that 72% of the participants
felt that the course was good and 28% that was very good. People requested more
training events, more research in urban and rural areas, and more women participation.
At the end of the event, people defined the date for the 1st participatory workshop. All
people agreed to participate again in a week (January 30th). IBIF assistants took a
picture (see Annex 7) including all the participants and promised to bring this picture, a
CD with publications of IBIF to give everyone at the next meeting. Some CDs, with 100
publications from IBIF, and ecological cards were given to the participants in this
opportunity in order to increase the knowledge about scientific names of plants and
ecological studies carried out in Bolivia.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 105 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Figure 36. Participants in the Bolivian workshop
Source: Toledo and Clavijo (2013)
6.4.2 Mexico
A key aspect of ROBIN’s work is to work with local stakeholders in Latin America to
better understand the factors, which affect peoples’ responses to climate change and
related mitigation options. A series of stakeholder workshops is being developed, and in
Mexico, two preparatory workshops have been held in January. As the Mexican ROBIN
team wants to engage with a broad range of groups, and thus it was felt that holding
preparatory workshops to begin with was the most sensible approach. One of the
project’s focus areas in Mexico is the Cuitzmala watershed, which irrigates two
municipalities: Villa Purificación (upstream) and La Huerta, south of Jalisco
(downstream).
The first preparatory workshop was held on 26 January in the town of Villa
Purificación. The workshop was held in a local hotel that is located in the centre of the
town. Presidents of both the municipalities were among the 52 participants, mainly
farmers (including cattle farmers and sugar cane, avocado and maize growers). One
fisherman also attended, as did some community leaders and a representative from an
iron mine. Invitations were made by letter, by email and by phone calls. Key message in
the invitations was the possibility to discuss local problems and solutions, emphasizing
the importance of local stakeholders views.
The ROBIN team introduced the main objectives of the project and presented some
ideas concerning climate change and biodiversity. The main objectives refer to the
overall ROBIN project objectives. The importance of the local actors' participation was
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 106 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
discussed. The group was divided into two, mixing people from the two municipalities.
As such, a great diversity of actors and opinions was assured.
The groups, using mainly the group discussion technique, then addressed four main
questions:
1. What have been the most important changes in the region in the last 50 years?
2. What have been the causes of these changes?
3. What have been the advantages and the disadvantages of these changes?
4. Who has won and who has lost from these changes?
Among the issues identified by the participants, deforestation and an increase in pasture
for cattle raising was identified as a major change. These changes were identified for the
whole watershed. The participants felt large landowners, external people and
government schemes, promoted it as they have more power and influence in the region.
Concern was expressed over the loss of river fauna, depletion of natural resources,
increased use of agrochemicals and a switch from communal land to privately owned
land. However, some identified that these changes had increased opportunities for
employment in the area. Interestingly, the farmers identified themselves and other
people from the region as losers, while all the external agents were considered as
winners.
The second preparatory workshop took place on 28 January in the research station of
Chamela at the Coastal area, and involved representatives of several government
institutions along with local officials responsible for ecology, agriculture and tourism,
the municipalities' presidents, tourism entrepreneurs, social and natural scientists, a
local conservation group (directors of ecological reserves) and a few local farmers. Due
to a large farmer meeting the day before, many of the invited farmers were not able to
assist
Participants split randomly into four groups and, using the group discussion technique,
addressed these questions:
1. What have been the government programs/policies that have had most impact on
biodiversity loss and climate change in the region on the last 50 years?
2. What have been the advantages and disadvantages for the region?
3. Who have been the winners and the losers?
4. Proposals/alternatives.
In this workshop, tension clearly existed between the tourism entrepreneurs, farmers
and conservationists. Concern was also expressed about the lack of integration between
different government initiatives. However, the following general conclusions were
drawn:
 There is great many programs and policies that make the institutional context
very complex.
 Institutional contradictions exist
 There are both winners and losers, both within and outside the regional
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 107 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings

Proposals for improvement exist at different levels.
Participants in the preparatory workshop in Mexico
Figure 37. Participants in the preparatory workshop in Mexico
Additional documentation from the preparatory workshop in Mexico is available in
annex 8.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 108 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
7 Annexes
Annex 1: Table for stakeholder identification
Actor
Identified
People to Relative
Relative
organizations be invited influence on
importance on
and people
(number) decisions (1-10) land use &
biodiversity
now
future
Now
Gender Age
Relevance
balance balance 1 = must list
2 = panel list
3 = long list
future
Authorities
involved at the
national level in
forest and land
use management
Authorities
involved at the
regional level in
forest and land
use management
Authorities
involved at the
local level in
forest and land
use management
Associations/Uni
ons (different
sectors. e.g.
farmer's unions,
foresters)
Business
organizations
(e.g. Mining
companies, hotel
managers)
Non
Governmental
Organisations
Media
Research Centers
(fields as natural
and social
science, ecology)
Other (according
to local specifics)
Source: based on Kaljonen and Varjopuro (2007)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 109 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Annex 2: Key messages to communicate to stakeholders
What is ROBIN?
ROBIN is a 4-year research project, running from November 2011 to November 2015 and
funded by the European Commission. ROBIN is supporting REDD+ Programme, focusing
our research on the role of tropical forest ecosystems in climate change mitigation in Latin
America.
Tropical forests provide different types of services: food, fibres and medicines, they filter
water and control its flow and they ‘soak up’ carbon dioxide from the air, mitigating
climate change. However, they are threatened by unsustainable use, partly because of a
poor understanding of the interactions between the socio-ecological processes that are
taking place.
We intend to improve our understanding of relationships between biodiversity and socioecological process through which we respond to climate change, in order to optimise
carbon and non carbon ecosystem services from tropical forests and contribute to the
design of robust polices. To do so, we will co-create knowledge by highly participatory
methods and stakeholder involvement is crucial for that.
The key question for Robin is: how can we manage biodiversity and land use in Latin
America to mitigate climate change without unintended consequences for other ecosystem
services and people?
What will ROBIN provide?
ROBIN will provide information for policy making, together with resource use options,
under scenarios of socio-economic and climate change.
ROBIN will deliver improved understanding of the role of biodiversity in climate change
mitigation, and also strategies and tools for climate change mitigation, and the
assessments of the risks and uncertainties associated with climate change mitigation
options.
What methods will be used?
ROBIN will combine new techniques, including remote sensing, for biodiversity
assessment in complex multi-functional landscapes, data base analyses, integrated
modelling and participatory-driven approaches at local and regional scales. The
integration of models into the participatory process will allow the selection of significant
and robust mitigation options.
Participatory methods will be applied in three representative case studies in Mexico,
Bolivia and Brazil. Future scenarios and management strategies will be developed with the
participation of stakeholders.
Stakeholder will participate, as well in the selection of indicators and drivers for the
analysis of the potential of biodiversity in mitigating climate change.
Why is it important to participate?
ROBIN will provide a platform for stakeholder dialogue, where the different interest
groups can discuss together and work on a common understanding of their problems.
ROBIN will provide a link between local knowledge, science and policy making. It will be
an opportunity for stakeholders to incorporate their knowledge and views in the policy
making process. This can lead to better informed and socially accepted decisions.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 110 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Stakeholder participation can help us carry out stakeholder relevant research and create a
shared understanding of ecological-human system. It encourages social acceptance of
measures and provides guidance for local decision making.
ROBIN Consortium
Robin involves 12 partner organisations, six in Meso and South America and six in Europe:
1. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, NERC, UK (coordinators)
2. Alterra, Netherlands
3. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, CONABIO, Mexico
4. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria, EMBRAPA, Brazil
5. Instituto Boliviano de Investigación Forestal Asociacion, IBIF, Bolivia
6. Universitaet Klagenfurt, UNI-KLU, Austria
7. Instituto de Ecología, INECOL, Mexico
8. Potsdam Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschun, PIK, Germany
9. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, UNAM,Mexico
10. Wageningen Universiteit, WU, Netherlands
11. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, UPM, Spain
Guyana Forestry Commission, GFC, Guyana
Annex 3: Practical Guide for implementing the 1st SHW
Reader guide:
This practical guide shows the implementation process of the first stakeholder workshop in
ROBIN that will be devoted to understand the present situation as the starting point for the
development of future scenarios on land use and biodiversity. It includes a sample agenda to
use as a guideline when planning the stakeholder workshop. Make sure that your planning for
your workshop will have at least a similar level of detail as this sample agenda; it will make
your workshop run smoother. If you have already made a program, then use this guide to see
how detailed you should be and of what kind of issues you should think. The present guide
provides an overview and a detailed outline of the workshop with explanations regarding
timing, activities, goals, and materials.
The first stakeholder workshop in ROBIN will ideally be a two-day workshop, but can also be in
one day, depending on stakeholder experience in participation, interest and engagement. A
meeting with 20-25 participants, divided in two focus groups, is considered ideal, but it is
possible to go through the planned exercise with a single focus group when the number of
attendees is fewer than 10. The expected result of this workshop is a FCM of the present in
which the stakeholder views on the current state of the land use, including the natural
environment, will be presented. If you have decided to use only a part of the methods
presented in this guide, think about how you will overcome the gaps. Which goals do you now
miss and how will you reach those goals in a different way. If you have changed the time
planning within the workshop think about how you can make sure that you can reach your
goals in that time frame.
Each case study team can decide if they want to involve an outside facilitator, but it is highly
recommended having someone who is skilled in running meetings and promoting interaction.
It is also advisable to engage one or two rapporteurs to keep records of the discussions and
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 111 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
one or two external observers in charge of paying special attention to non-verbal nuances that
indicate agreement or disagreement, interest or disinterest. In case there is not an observer,
the facilitator would take this role.
Days before workshop:
 Walk through your planning a last time; Is everything arranged?
 Call the stakeholders. Do they still plan on coming?
 Is every body’s role clear? Observers are there to observe, rapporteurs take notes, and
both have no input. Facilitators facilitate, but do not steer the project.
 Make sure you'll be able to deal with unexpected issues quickly and effectively.
Think ahead and anticipate issues before they become problems. Have you thought about
back up options? E.g. how to rearrange groups if key stakeholders do not show up?
The day after the workshop: Evaluate the workshop with the facilitator, rapporteurs and
observers. Write down/elaborate all your ideas and thoughts on the workshop, and start
analyzing the results. It is advised that facilitators write a half to one A4 with their ideas about
the meeting, and how the methods worked. Observers should also complete a report with
their observations on stakeholder discussions and interactions.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 112 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Day 1- Story of the present
TIME
9:00
10.00
ACTIVITY
 Check room
 Check catering
 Check beamer
 Check laptop
 Check if you have all necessary
materials
 Arrival
10:30
 Welcome
 Introduce yourself and other
members of the team
 Introduce the ROBIN project
 Explain the program
 Establish the ‘rules of the game’
11:00
 Introduction of stakeholders
 Understand what stakeholders
expect from the workshop
 Check if coffee is ready
Document ID:
DESCRIPTION
 Is the lay-out as you wanted, or do
you have to change it?
 Does the catering have the same
program as you?
 Is the beamer working with your
laptop, or do you need assistance?
 Registration
 Check list of participants
 Start introducing yourself/members of
the team (rapporteurs?)
/facilitator/observer
 Short introduction about ROBIN:
goals, main concepts, expected
results, utility for them
 Describe the schedule. What will be
done in this workshop and what can
they expect for the remaining
workshops
 Define clearly the ‘rules of the game’
 Start first with someone you think
does not have problems with speaking
in public
 Make sure people don’t talk too long
(max. 5 each)
 Ask what people expect from this
workshop and write the main issues
down
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
GOALS
 Making sure that everything will go
as smoothly as possible
MATERIAL NEEDED
 Meeting logistics checklist
 Beamer
 Laptop
 Presentations
 Welcoming the participants
 Registration materials
 Informing stakeholders
 Setting clear goals, preventing
confusion
 Engaging stakeholders in the whole
process
 Name tags
 Presentations
 Program
 Breaking the ice. Getting to know
each other
 Creating a comfortable
“atmosphere”
 Getting everyone to talk
 Encouraging communication with
the stakeholders to ensure their
aims and objectives are taken into
 Flipchart
 Felt tip pen
© ROBIN consortium
Page 113 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
11:30
 Coffee break
12:00
 Highlight the importance of the
case study in terms of ecosystems
and biodiversity to mitigate
climate change
 Discuss the present condition of
land use and the current state of
the environment, including the
pressures upon it, with the
different stakeholders
(Brainstorming)
 Evaluate morning
 Check if lunch is on schedule
13:00
 Lunch
Document ID:
 Check every now and then if you are
on schedule
 Talk with SHs to see how the project
and the workshop is being perceived
 Describe the case study. Use visual
maps to support your explanations.
Make sure everyone knows what the
case study boundaries are and what
you are talking about. Use simple
easy-to-understand language (e.g.
avoid using the term ‘climate change’
or ‘biodiversity’, use instead ‘changes
in temperature, droughts, number of
species’)
 State the goal of the brainstorming
session: Identify the current state of
the land use and the environment
(forest, rivers, crops, animals, rain…)?
 Set and announce a firm time limit at
the beginning of the session
 Write every idea, good or bad,
expressed by the stakeholders on a
flip-chart as they go through their talk.
Try not to use abbreviations
 Use mood-o-meters to evaluate
feelings
 Talk with SHs to see how they think
the workshop is going
 Think about afternoon program
 Are there any changes needed?
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
account
 Developing informal contacts
among stakeholders
 Relax
 Put stakeholder thoughts into the
case study context
 Make stakeholders feel
comfortable throwing out ideas
and not afraid say something
unconventional
 Developing informal contacts
among stakeholders
 Relax
© ROBIN consortium
Page 114 of 154
 Coffee/thee
 Flipchart
 Felt tip pen
 Maps of the case study
 Cards with mood faces
(  )
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
14:00
 Describe the purpose of the study
and the main aspects of the
research methodology
 Introduction to FCMs
 Show a simple FCM
 Show possible output
 Explain how FCMs will be used
 Allow time for questions
14:30
 Split them in smaller groups to
develop the map of the present
 Identify important aspects related
to the state of biodiversity in the
specific case study using the cardtechnique
 Write factors on post-its and paste
them on the flipchart
 Think about missing factors that
can be added
 Make clusters
 Prioritize factors
 Check if coffee is ready
Document ID:
 Explain the purpose of the study, the
importance of exploring the present to
be able to shape the future
 Explanation of system thinking and
FCMs
 Examples from different fields and
areas in Latin America, and in other
parts of the world (Spain, Turkey, Italy,
Baltic countries)
 Don’t go too much in depth
 Explain exercise
 Divide SHs in groups which are diverse
and well-balanced
 Have a ready-made list with the
names of the participants distributed
in the groups and hang them in the
wall so they can see the group they
belong to
 Avoid interferences between the
groups (use different rooms, different
spaces within a room)
 Every group will have an observer and
a rapporteur. The facilitator will have
to take care of the two groups at the
same time (you should take the role of
the facilitator when he/she is busy
helping the other group)
 Pose a clear question: Which are the
factors that have influenced the
current state of the land use, including
the natural environment, in the
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
 Making sure that the participants
know what to do and why it is
relevant
 Presentations
 Getting input from all participants
 Mapping main issues
 Getting an impression importance
of the different issues for each
stakeholder (can later be use for
developing spidergrams and for
finalizing FCMs)
 Getting
clusters
that
are
understood and supported by the
whole group
 Coloured cards
 Wall paper/Whiteboard
 Adhesive tape
 Flipchart
 Felt tip pen
 Erasers
 Gomets
 Printed
questions and
definitions
of
difficult
concepts
 Map of the region under
discussion
© ROBIN consortium
Page 115 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
region?
 Having a map of the region under
discussion could help to identify the
factors by SHs
 Hand out 2-3 cards per person
 SHs will fill in the cards with their
answers individually (approx. 5 min), if
someone needs more cards, allow
them have more
 Once the cards are filled out, the
facilitator should collect them one by
one, sticking the cards on the wall
while allowing participants to explain
them individually
 Every time a new card is collected and
explained, the facilitator will ask the
other participants if they have also
identified a similar factor. If so, this
card should be collected and
explained before continuing with the
exercise
 Someone from the group/rapporteur
should take notes of the explanations
so it is easier to reformulate the idea
on the card
 Identify missing factors following
discussion. Any new factor identified
should be added on a card with a
different colour
 Facilitator then will try to cluster the
cards in groups that share the same
characteristics, but in the end
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 116 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
stakeholders will decide on grouping
issues. Don’t throw away any card. Put
duplicates hidden behind normal
cards. Give each cluster a name.
 In order to facilitate the construction
of the map, the different factors
identified in the discussion are
prioritized. Participants will identify
those factors which they believe are
more important in the system by
sticking a gomet on their chosen cards
up to a maximum of three. This will
help us identify the central issues
(factors with a highest number of
gomets).
16:00
16:30
 Coffee break
 Continue with the development of
the FCM for the present
 Discuss about relations among
cards
 Draw links between factors
 Assign values to links
 Ask and note down the reasoning
behind links, polarity and strengths
Document ID:
 The second part of the dynamic will
try to answer the question: What are
the relationships we can draw among
the factors we identified before?
 Those cards identified as central issues
will be placed in the central part of our
whiteboard
 SHs will first explain the relationships
they want to establish among factors.
The facilitator will move the cards on
the whiteboard to place related
factors next to each other.
 Once the relationships between
factors are more or less clear, the SHs
will link the different factors by
drawing unidirectional arrows. Next,
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
 Getting a better understanding of
relationships between the main
factors and drivers of the system
© ROBIN consortium
Page 117 of 154
 Coffee
 Wall paper/Whiteboard
 Adhesive tape
 Felt tip pen
 Erasers
 Flipchart
 Printed questions and
definitions of difficult
concepts
 Map of the region under
discussion
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
17:30
 Compare the FCMs (plenary
session)
 What are the main similarities and
differences?
 Any new factor added?
 Any factor removed?
 Make sure that discussion is
possible
18.30
 End of day 1
 Find out how SHs like the first day
 Thank everybody!
 Introduce the schedule for
tomorrow
Document ID:
SHs will identify the sign of these
relationships: it is positive (+) when an
increase in one variable causes an
increase in the other; and negative (-)
when an increase in one variable
causes a decrease in the other
 Finally, SHs will assign values to these
relationships indicating how strong
they are with a number within the
range (-1,+1)
 It is not necessary to quantify the
relationships using numbers, SHs can
make use of scales of + and - (up to 6),
or words (strong, normal, weak that
later will be translated into numbers
by the research team
 Let each group present their FCM
 Choose a group leader to explain the
results to the rest of the audience.
Someone should take notes on a
flipchart
 Allow a maximum of 5 minutes per
group
 Save some time for questions and
comments
 Go over the day: what has been done,
how will it be used? Give them an idea
of what you can do with a FCM and
tell them that you will send them the
results.
 Use mood-o-meters to evaluate
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
 Integrating different views
 Further discussion
 Flipchart
 Felt tip pen
 Getting feedback and
recommendations to improve
tomorrow’s session
 Keeping SHs involved and
interested in attending the
following workshops
 Cards with mood faces
(  )
© ROBIN consortium
Page 118 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
feelings. Make clear that any feedback
is welcome
 Give some ideas about the session of
tomorrow
Evening*
Dinner and social events
* At some point during the evening, you shall analyse the results obtained and start making the dynamic analysis in Excel. You shall work also in the
development of a common FCM of the present to inform discussions in Day 2. Look for common factors within the different FCMs and try to select the
most important ones using the clusters and rankings made by the stakeholders in early afternoon. Give relative importance of each common factor (0-10)
and create a spidergram with common factors on axis. Think about the relationships among factors and draw links to connect the different factors. Finally,
identify the polarity and strength of the relationships. Once you have created your common FCM of the present, reproduce it in two flipcharts. You will
need to present it to the stakeholders in Day 2.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 119 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Day 2- Common vision of the present
TIME
8.30
9.00
9.45
ACTIVITY
 Check if room layout is still OK
 Check catering and materials
 Start up beamer
 Start up computer
 Welcome everybody
 Show the program for today
 Remember the 'rules of the game'
 Recap the previous session
 Present first results calculation.
Discuss them, is it what they
expected
 Show a common FCM of the present
 Highlight common factors and
illustrate the relative importance of
each common factor (spidergram)
 Check if coffee is ready
Document ID:
DESCRIPTION
 Go over all the materials and check the
meeting space and all the logistics
GOALS
 Being ready when the first
stakeholders arrive
 Go through today's program and
remember the 'rules of the game' as
new SHs may have joined the session
today
 Explain quickly what was done the day
before
 Describe the current state of the system
as seen by the different SHs groups
 Show them a first draft of the dynamic
analysis. Give them an idea of what you
can do with a FCM and what the results
look like
 Give the option to make clarifying
questions
 Propose a common FCM, based on the
results of the workgroups of the
previous day
 Explain the most important common
factors and its relative importance using
a spidergram (describe what a
spidergram is using simple words)
 Establish a dialogue about key factors
 Give the option to make clarifying
questions
 SHs knowing what is expected
from them
 Informing new stakeholders
about the work done the day
before (if needed), reminding
others of what was done
 Showing analysis and
possibilities to use the FCMs
Showing the potential of FMCs
 Checking if everything was
understood correctly
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
 Trying to emphasize similarities
between FCMs to help the SHs
create a common vision of the
present (in the end, they
decide!)
© ROBIN consortium
Page 120 of 154
MATERIAL NEEDED
 Meeting logistics checklist
 Beamer
 Laptop
 Presentations
 Program
 FCMs from previous
session
 Excel graphs
 Map of the region under
discussion
 Presentation
 Unified FCM (in wall
paper)
 Spidergram
 Flipchart
 Felt tip pen
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
10:30
11:00
 Coffee Break
 Split SHs in groups for discussion
 Review and enrich the proposed
FCM for the present
 Plenary presentation of enhanced
FCM
 Evaluate morning
 Check if lunch is on schedule
Document ID:
 Give the SHs the opportunity to discuss
and enrich the unified FCM of the
present, preferably in different groups
leaded by a facilitator
 Make a group composition different
than last time. It will help building an
integrated vision
 Have a ready-made list with the names
of the participants distributed in the
groups and hang them in the wall so
they can see the group they belong to
 Avoid interferences between the groups
(use different rooms, different spaces
within a room)
 Every group will have an observer and a
rapporteur. The facilitator will have to
take care of the two groups at the same
time (you should take the role of the
facilitator when he/she is busy helping
the other group)
 Give three cards to each group so they
can add new factors to the conceptual
map, if needed
 Handout
papers
with
empty
spidergrams (each axis should divided
into 5-10 sections to give a 5-10-point
scale). Ask the stakeholders to label
each of the axis according to the factors
previously identified and to note the
relative importance of each factor. Once
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
 Getting
input
from
all
participants
 Getting an impression of
importance of the different
issues for each stakeholder
 Integrating different views for
the selection of a unified FCM
for the present
 Further discussion
© ROBIN consortium
Page 121 of 154
 Coffee
 Unified FCM (in wall
paper)
 Coloured cards
 Adhesive tape
 Felt tip pen
 Erasers
 Empty spidergrams for the
participants
 Flipchart
 Cards with mood faces
(  )
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
13.00
Lunch
14.00
 Reunite groups to reach a consensus
on the present FCM
 Any new factor added/removed?
Any new relationship
added/removed?
 Make sure that discussion is possible
Document ID:
they have marked their score on
each axis they will have to join the dots
together. Everyone should use the same
axis on the same place, to make
comparison easy
 Ask them to check and complete links,
and to measure the strengths of the
relationships
 Ask/listen for reasoning behind
feedbacks, polarity and strength (and
note them down)
 Choose a group leader to explain the
results to the rest of the audience.
Someone should take notes on a
flipchart
 Allow a maximum of 5 minutes per
group
 Save some time for questions and
comments
 Use mood-o-meters to evaluate the
morning session
 Talk with SHs to see how they think it is
going
 Think about afternoon program
 Are there any changes needed?
 Outcomes from each discussion
group will be discussed (changes in
factors, relationships). Leave enough
time for discussions, a consensus have
to be reach!
 Once each of the new elements have
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
 Informal contacts among
stakeholders
 Time to take a deep breath
 Getting a common
representation of the current
situation that could serve as
basis for developing future
scenarios
© ROBIN consortium
Page 122 of 154
 Flipchart
 Wall paper/Whiteboard
 Coloured cards
 Adhesive tape
 Felt tip pen
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
 Approve the final FCM of the present
15.30
 Wrap-up
 Brief what they did during the
workshop, and explain what you will
do with it.
 Thank them, invite them for next WS
15.45
 Short survey for all SHs, including
mood-o-meters (  )
16.00
End of the workshop
Farewell Refreshments
Document ID:
been discussed and agreed, give the SH
a short break and develop rapidly with
your team the unified FCM of the
present enriched by the SHs. Then, ask
them for final approval
 Explain what they accomplished
 Give thanks for attending, tell them you
hope to see them next time
 How did they like it? Was it
understandable? Where their ideas
included?
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
 Making SHs feel that they really
contributed something worth
much
 Making SHs fell that they are
important and very valuable to
the process
 Making SHs feel like going to
the next WS
 Evaluating methods and
process
© ROBIN consortium
Page 123 of 154
 Mood-o-meters (  )
 Questionnaires
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Annex 4: Documents for evaluating SH workshops

Example of a facilitator report
Project SCENES
List of expected output from IA2 to other WPs
First Stakeholder Meeting
Madrid, May 6th, 2008
Facilitator report
Nuria Hernández-Mora
The first stakeholder meeting of the Guadiana Case study of the SCENES project was held in
Madrid, on May 6th 2008, at the Ortega y Gasset Foundation. Participants included
representatives from irrigator associations of the upper and middle Guadiana basin;
representatives from local and national environmental groups active in the basin; representatives
from the agricultural agencies of the Castilla La Mancha (Upper Basin) and the Extremadura
(Middle Basin) autonomous regions; and members of the Guadiana River Basin Authority.
Researchers from the SCENES and NeWater projects were also present.
This first stakeholder meeting takes place in the midst of a public participation process that is
being led by the Guadiana River Basin Authority for the elaboration of the Basin Management
Plan in compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. Initial meetings
have been limited to discussion groups where members of the same interest groups and part of
the basin have met to identify key challenges to be addressed by the plan (Esquema de Temas
Importantes). Additionally, stakeholders from the Upper Guadiana Basin have met frequently
over the past 4 years both in the context of the NeWater European research project as well as to
discuss the Special Plan for the Upper Guadiana Basin, launched by the Guadiana River Basin
Authority in 2006 with the goal of mitigating the effects of intensive groundwater use and
recuperate groundwater levels in the area.
The meeting started with presentation on the goals and structure of SCENES, the socio-political
context in which it is taking place and the expectations from stakeholders both in this first
meeting as well as throughout the project. The scenario building methodology was explained by
SCENES team members Gema Carmona and Irene Blanco. After the introductory session,
participants were divided into two working groups, each made up of a mix of representatives
from different stakeholder groups and different parts of the basin. A member of the SCENES
team worked with each group during the scenario building process. The issues that characterize
the Upper and Middle Guadiana basin are significantly different and both parts of the basin have
been hydrologically disconnected for decades as a result of groundwater overdraft in the Upper
basin. However, the mix of participants from different parts of the basin was thought necessary
and useful in order to introduce new concepts and ideas particularly among stakeholders of the
Upper basin who, as was stated above, have been meeting regularly for some time. The
Guadiana Basin Authority also was interested in encouraging stakeholders from different parts
of the basin to sit together in anticipation of later work to be done in the basin planning process.
The scenario building exercise was divided into two working sessions, each 90 minutes long. In
the first session, participants were asked to map the situation as they saw it today. In the second
session, they were encouraged to choose a plausible scenario among the four possibilities
considered by the IPCC, and then identify future issues that will determine water resources
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 124 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
availability and management in the next 25-50 years. In both sessions an initial ice-breaking
question was posed that participants were asked to discuss. After that, they were given two
cards in which they each had to write down the two key issues that determined water
management in the basin. These cards were placed on a board by the SCENES team member,
and participants were encouraged to conceptually organize the issues and to start identifying
relationships between them.
The meeting format and scenario building process proved useful to help identify key issues and
priorities for different interest groups; facilitate constructive discussion; elicit new ideas; and
build a common understanding of the situation. However, the methodology is not entirely
intuitive. More time would have been needed, particularly in the first session, for participants to
experiment with the potential of the scenario building methodology and effectively work
together to build the network. This would have been particularly important in identifying the
strengths of the connections between the different issues. The experience gathered during the
first session made it possible for the second visioning exercise to work more smoothly.
A final session served for both groups to present the results of their discussions and,
interestingly, resulted in remarkably similar scenarios being built by each group independently.
Evaluations indicated a high degree of satisfaction among meeting participants, particularly due
the collaborative nature of the exercise which allowed for agreements to be reached among
stakeholder groups that a priori hold different views on significant water management issues.

Feedback questionnaire
What expectations do you have for the scenario-making process as a whole?
Main problems in the region
In your opinion what are the main problems regarding biodiversity in the XXX area?
Were there diverging views on the main problems discussed in this workshop?
Please choose one of the following assertions that in your opinion describes the degree of
divergence on views of the main problems. Please read all options before choosing
Tick here
one.
There wasn't any divergence at all.
There was very little divergence.
There was some divergence and we needed to lengthen discussions because of them.
There were very divergent views on the main problems and discussing about them
required a lot of time.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 125 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
None of the above. Better description is:
What were the main divergences about?
Are you satisfied with the way how divergences about main problems were handled in the
workshop?
Yes  No 
Comments on that?
Future
Are you satisfied with the scenarios that were produced? Yes  No 
Comments on the scenarios?
Are you satisfied with the process by which the scenarios were made? Tick in the box
Yes  No 
Were the fast-track scenarios presented in the workshop useful for creating scenarios for
the region? Tick in the box
Yes  No 
Comments on the way scenarios were made and on the fast-track scenarios?
Were there diverging views on future visions of the region?
Please choose one of the following assertions that in your opinion describes the degree of
Tick here
divergence on views of the future visions. Please read all options before choosing one.
There wasn't any divergence at all.
There was very little divergence.
There was some divergence and we needed to lengthen discussions because of them.
There were very divergent views on the main problems and discussing about them
required a lot of time.
None of the above. Better description is:
What were the main divergences regarding future visions about?
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 126 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Are you satisfied with the way how divergences about future visions were handled in the
workshop?
Yes  No 
Comments on that?
The following two questions focus on the contents of the discussions during the whole workshop
In your opinion, was there something essential missing from the discussions? If so, what?
How can you use/apply the issues discussed/learned at the workshop in your own work?
Working tools and methods
How would you grade (from 1-5) this workshop as a whole? Grade:________
Rating: 1= poor; 2= needs improvement; 3= satisfactory; 4= good; 5= excellent
How would you grade (from 1-5) the following working tools and methods used in this
workshop?
Rating: 1= poor; 2= needs improvement; 3= satisfactory; 4= good; 5= excellent
- Post-its (i.e. cards put on the walls to display participants' views), grade: _____
Comments on the method:___________________________________________________________
- Spidergram, grade: _____
Comments on the method:___________________________________________________________
- Fuzzy cognitive mapping, grade: _____
Comments on the method:___________________________________________________________
- Collages of futures, grade: _____
Comments on the method:___________________________________________________________
Your background
Which of the following organisations/sectors do you represent?
Organisation Tick in a box
Document ID:
Sector Tick in a box
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 127 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
 Local public administration
 Regional public administration
 National administration
 Research
and education
 Private sector
 Association
 Other____________________________
 Water
 Agriculture
 Fishing
 Forestry
 Nature protection
 Other___________________________
Participatory methods and the scenario work
I disagree completely
I disagree to some extent
I cannot say
Agree to some extent
I agree completely
How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following assertions? Please choose a number in
the column on the right hand side of the table.
The workshop increased understanding between different views and
interests
1
2
3
4
5
The participatory process succeeded in taking advantage of the
different types of knowledge and expertise of the participants
1
2
3
4
5
During the workshop I learned new things about interests and
perceptions of other participants
1
2
3
4
5
Participating in the workshop helped me to build a more
comprehensive understanding of the area
1
2
3
4
5
Other participants brought into discussions fresh ideas
1
2
3
4
5
The fact that we worked together with different participants raised
fresh ideas that were new to all participants
1
2
3
4
5
Working with different scenarios helped me in envisioning futures
1
2
3
4
5
My ideas were included in the scenario outcomes
1
2
3
4
5
The scenario-making process is useful for river basin management
planning
1
2
3
4
5
The produced scenarios are usable for river basin management
planning
1
2
3
4
5
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 128 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
What should be done otherwise to increase the usefulness/usability of the scenarios?
MANY THANKS!

Mood-o-meters
¿Qué le está
pareciendo la
reunión?
¿Qué le ha parecido
la reunión?
 
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 129 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings

Observation template
Activity & goal
Possible activities and methods
used in your meetings.
OBSERVATION
Observation of discussions and
interactions
Arrival
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED
Quantitative information and materials
produced during the meeting
Writing of synthesis afterwards
List of participants
List of absentees

Representation of different stakeholders
Synthesize:
- Amount of different stakeholder groups
represented
- Gender balance
- Age balance
Welcome
Welcoming the participants
Introduction of stakeholders with
“talking pictures/objects”.
Transcribe discussion;
Identify speaker
 Reasoning for selecting the
objects and its importance for
the pilot area (which arguments
are used by which stakeholder?)
 Reactions from others:
opposition/support by whom,
on which arguments → note
also non-verbal reactions,
including expressions of
Getting to know each other, ice
breaking, creating nice
‘atmosphere’, mapping biggest
issues, getting everyone to talk
Understand what stakeholders
expect from the workshop
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
Collect and list the issues raised
(The person who is facilitating the
meeting will probably collect them, so the
observer needs to list the issues later.
Below the same is meant when the
observer is asked to 'collect' outputs)
© ROBIN consortium
Page 130 of 154
Problem framing
 What issues different stakeholders bring
up and how they see the problem in
context
 What are the differences/ similarities in
the ways in which different stakeholders
see the issue at hand
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Activity & goal
Possible activities and methods
used in your meetings.
Explain the program
Establish the ‘rules of the game’
OBSERVATION
Observation of discussions and
interactions
disinterest
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED
Quantitative information and materials
produced during the meeting
Writing of synthesis afterwards
How many refused to present an object?
Identify the ones who refused to
present an object
Observe and assess atmosphere in
the beginning
(enthusiastic/neutral/reluctant)
What are the important aspects
in the Pilot Area? (Cardtechnique)
Highlight the importance of the
case study in terms of
ecosystems and biodiversity to
mitigate climate change
Discuss the present condition of
land use and the current state of
the environment, including the
pressures upon it, with the
different stakeholders
(Brainstorming)
Evaluate morning
Document ID:
Observe discussions/comments
while issues are written on the cards
Presentation: Observe and write
down the problems identified by
different stakeholders
Clustering: observe and transcribe
how the clustering process proceeds
- transcribe discussions, identify
who influenced the final
outcome (= whose ideas were
adopted, based on which
arguments, non-verbal incl.
disinterest)
- Who did not take part to
discussion?
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
Write down the final clusters of main
problems & collect all the post-its
What expected problems were not
presented at all?
How many cards were included/left out?
© ROBIN consortium
Page 131 of 154
Problem framing
 What issues different stakeholders
identify as problematic
 What are the differences/similarities in
the ways in which different stakeholders
see the main problems
 How are the identified problems
linked/clustered together
 Did any unexpected linkages between
different stakeholders' problems occur?
Methodological aspects
 Was it easy to name the problems by
each participant?
 Was it easy/hard to find clusters of
common problems?
 Did new problems arise while clustering?
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Activity & goal
Possible activities and methods
used in your meetings.
Describe the case study. Use
visual maps to support your
explanations. Make sure
everyone knows what the case
study boundaries are and what
you are talking about. Use simple
easy-to-understand language
(e.g. avoid using the term
‘climate change’ or ‘biodiversity’,
use instead ‘changes in
temperature, droughts, number
of species’)
LUNCH
 Talk with SHs to see how they
think the workshop is going
OBSERVATION
Observation of discussions and
interactions
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED
Quantitative information and materials
produced during the meeting
- Cards left alone: Whose &
what cards?
Observe who eat with whom?
Any patterns observable?
 Develop informal contacts
Introduction of FCM
 Show a simple FCM
 Show possible output
 Explain how FCMs will be used
Document ID:
Observe & transcribe discussion and
comments
Who? Which arguments? nonverbal incl. disinterest
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 132 of 154
Writing of synthesis afterwards
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Activity & goal
Possible activities and methods
used in your meetings.
OBSERVATION
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED
Observation of discussions and
interactions
Quantitative information and materials
produced during the meeting
Observe how people reacted to mix
of groups?
List the composition of the groups
Writing of synthesis afterwards
Allow time for questions
Split up in smaller groups
Get input from different fields in
the different groups
 Identify important aspects
related to the state of
biodiversity in the specific case
study using the card-technique
 Write factors on post-its and
paste them on the flipchart
 Think about missing factors
that can be added
 Make clusters
 Prioritize factors
Break
Observe the break: who's talking
with whom? Are they talking about
FCM?
Creating a FCM; assign feedbacks
Observe & transcribe discussion in
each group (at least as many groups
as you have observers)
System thinking, getting a better
understanding of relations
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
Collect all the possible drawings (also the
drafts)
© ROBIN consortium
Page 133 of 154
From individual problem frame to common
problem
 How people start to work out with the
common problem?
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Activity & goal
OBSERVATION
Possible activities and methods
used in your meetings.
Observation of discussions and
interactions
between main aspects.
Transcribe discussion, arguments, by
whom
Observe co-operation & social
intercourse
- Who is most aloud, who has
most convincing arguments
('convincing' means that s/he
can convince others, not
necessary convincing in your
opinion), based on what
knowledge, based on which
arguments?
- Who gets to decide the
linkages?
- How much 'experts' intervene,
are asked help from? (experts
like SCENES people or other
recognised as experts)
- Who is not influencing?
- Was consensus possible? why
yes/no
- pay special attention to the use
of knowledge & interests
 Continue with the
development of the FCM for
the present
 Discuss about relations among
cards
 Draw links between factors
 Assign values to links
Ask and note down the reasoning
behind links, polarity and
strengths
Creating a FCM; Assign values to
feedbacks
Document ID:
Quantitative information and materials
produced during the meeting
Public
Writing of synthesis afterwards


... continues
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED
What kind of knowledge people are
bringing to exercise?
Can any signs in cognitive or social
learning be detected?
... continues
© ROBIN consortium
Page 134 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Activity & goal
Possible activities and methods
used in your meetings.
OBSERVATION
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED
Observation of discussions and
interactions
Quantitative information and materials
produced during the meeting
Writing of synthesis afterwards
Observe and transcribe discussion &
person
Collect the FCM's of each group

System thinking, getting a better
understanding of relations
between main aspects.
Compare the FCMs (plenary)
Further discussion, integrate
different views
Transcribe: discussion, arguments,
by whom
 Reasoning for linkages and their
values (which arguments?)
 Reactions from others
(opposition/support by whom,
on which arguments, non-verbal
incl. disinterest)
What kind of learning processes
(cognitive & social) FCM exercise
stimulated?
Problem framing
 How do the different FCM's relate to one
another; is there any common
understanding of the problem
detectable?
 If not, what are the main conflicting
issues?
 If consensus seems to be close to
formation, how does it reflect to views
presented at the start of the workshop
- how are different interests reflected in
the problem formulation?
- which interests/issues are omitted?
Methodological aspects
 Was the use of FCM easy/hard for the
participants
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 135 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Activity & goal
Possible activities and methods
used in your meetings.
OBSERVATION
Observation of discussions and
interactions
THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED
Quantitative information and materials
produced during the meeting
Writing of synthesis afterwards


Feed back
mood-o-meter   
Gather information from Mood-o-meter
 facilitator
 methods used
better facilitation, methods that
better suit stakeholders
end
social events
Document ID:
Observe the atmosphere and group
formations
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 136 of 154

Was the FCM helpful in stimulating
system thinking (cognitive) and social
learning (between different interests)
How different knowledge was handled
during the process?
Direct feed back to the process
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Annex 5: List of do's and don'ts
Reflexiones post-simulación
01/10/2012-Alba Ballester Ciuró
 Expectativas:
– Realizar una lista con las expectativas de los stakeholders respecto a su
participación en los talleres y en proyecto ROBIN.
– Analizar hasta qué punto se pueden cumplir esas expectativas teniendo en cuenta
los objetivos y limitaciones del proyecto y actuar en consecuencia modificando
las expectativas o proponiendo estrategias y acciones para su consecución.
 Definiciones:
– El lenguaje excesivamente técnico dificulta la comprensión, hagan un esfuerzo
en definir conceptos y dotar a los participantes de información de calidad antes
de empezar las dinámicas de trabajo en los talleres
– .Es importante clarificar cuál es la definición que se utiliza en el proyecto (p.e.
qué es biodiversidad, o servicios ecosistémicos), para que los participantes sepan
“de qué estamos hablando concretamente”. La falta de concreción suele
conllevar confusión en las dinámicas y lo que se pretende de ellas.
– Seleccionen nombres para los conceptos que puedan ser pensados en términos
medibles
 Preguntas:
– Re-formular las preguntas de los talleres en función de los objetivos del proyecto
y de los propios talleres.
– Es importante dedicar un tiempo a formular preguntas claras en las que todo el
equipo de investigación esté de acuerdo.
– Tener claro qué se quiere obtener de los talleres y qué preguntas formulamos en
cada momento.
– Por otro lado, es importante ver en qué lugar queda el debate de servicios
ecosistémicos dentro del proyecto, si se incorpora o no en los talleres, con qué
objetivo y cómo.
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 137 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
 El objeto como factor:
– Carece de lógica utilizar como factor el elemento central del debate (p.e. no tiene
mucho sentido que la biodiversidad aparezca en el mapa como un factor de la
biodiversidad), a menos que se introduzca como una variable metodológica de
los FCM y no como factor en sí mismo. Sea cual sea la decisión, debería ser
implementada la misma metodología en todos los estudios de caso.
– De ser incorporado el tema como parte del mapa modificaría en parte la
metodología original de los FCM (y considero que debería ser justificada esa
modificación), además de conllevar confusión entre los participantes. Parece por
tanto desaconsejable utilizarlo.
 Factores:
– Es importante que los factores sean “neutros” para facilitar el establecimiento de
relaciones posteriores con otros factores. Es decir, que se evite un juicio de valor
(p.e. falta o insuficiencia de educación ambiental, o excesiva deforestación).
– De cara a facilitar las relaciones entre factores es aconsejable su detalle y
concreción. Los factores generales pueden dar lugar a muchas interpretaciones y
contradicciones, por eso es importante detallar exactamente a qué factor nos
estamos refiriendo (p.e. el factor “política pública” puede relacionarse
positivamente o negativamente con el factor “conservación ambiental”, por lo
que parece adecuado definir con mayor precisión el factor “política pública” de
forma que se comprenda el signo de su relación con otros factores).
– A veces no encontraremos una definición de factor completamente convincente;
en ese caso podemos optar por preguntarnos cuál es la relación que se da en más
ocasiones y atribuirle el signo a partir de esa generalización (p.e. siguiendo con
el ejemplo “políticas públicas” y “conservación ambiental”, podríamos decir o
bien que a mayor número de políticas públicas mayor conservación, o menor
conservación. En ese caso optaríamos por la relación que consideremos más
representativa).
 Ámbito de estudio:
– Delimitar claramente y dimensionar el ámbito objeto de debate. Ser claros sobre
qué zona queremos trabajar.
– Los factores cambiarán en función de la zona que se escoja. Una escala mayor
previsiblemente nos llevará a identificar factores más generales.
– Los factores generales son útiles a la hora de generar conclusiones generales,
pero quizás sea preferible partir de casos concretos, compararlos, y de ahí sacar
unas conclusiones generales.
– La dimensión de análisis debe ser asequible
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 138 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
 Tarjetas:
– El número de tarjetas no es fijo, se pueden dar 2, 3, 4…en función del número de
personas que tengamos en cada grupo y del tiempo que dispongamos para el
debate.Se aconseja dar un número inicialmente limitado y decir que si alguien
necesita más puede coger más, tal y como se hizo en la simulación.
– En cualquier caso, es recomendable que el mapa final no contenga más de 10-15
tarjetas.
– Es importante utilizar tarjetones grandes para que su contenido sea visible a
cierta distancia. Se desaconsejan post-it.
– Las tarjetas que se rellenen a lo largo del debate serán de un color diferente a las
producidas en un momento inicial para poder diferenciar las tarjetas creadas por
los participantes de las producidas en común por todo el grupo.
 Priorización:
– La priorización de los factores principales (p.e. con pegatinas) no es un paso
imprescindible en el desarrollo de la dinámica, pero puede ayudar a la
construcción del mapa (p.e. previsiblemente los factores más importantes serán
los que tengan más relaciones con otros factores.
– Para empezar a elaborar el mapa estratégicamente, los factores principales
pueden ser colocados en el centro del mapa.
– Este procedimiento puede ser útil para análisis posterior (p.e. ver qué papel
juegan los factores considerados más importantes en las relaciones finales del
mapa, etc).
 Pesos:
– Los pesos pueden ser cuantitativos (valor de 0 a 1) o cualitativos, pero deberían
fijarse de igual modo en los distintos estudios de caso.
– Si asignar un valor numérico a las relaciones entre dos factores es complicado
para los participantes, empleen una escala verbal (muy fuerte, fuerte, débil muy
débil) que luego pueda ser traducida a número.
– Si una vez acabado el debate encontramos que existen relaciones que no tienen
atribuido ningún peso, debemos revisar la información actual o análisis que se
hayan llevado a cabo con anterioridad sobre el caso de estudio que nos ocupa y
atribuir los valores que estimemos razonable.
 Visualización de resultados:
– Es importante que los participantes puedan irse a casa con una imagen fruto de
su trabajo durante toda la jornada, y que esa imagen sea parecida a la que se les
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 139 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
presentará en el segundo taller; eso ayudará a que se sientan más identificados
con el mapa y los resultados de los talleres, y en consecuencia del proyecto.
– Todos los participantes tienen que sentirse identificados con el mapa resultante.
– Disponer de pizarras blancas en las que poder dibujar y borrar relaciones y
cambiar tarjetas de un lado a otro ayudará a obtener resultados más claros.
 Representatividad:
– Muestren claridad en los criterios de selección de participantes.
– Hagan una distribución equilibrada de los participantes a la hora de elaborar los
grupos de trabajo.
– Lo que muestran los mapas es la opinión de un grupo de partes interesadas. Para
que el resultado sea lo más representativo posible es importante seleccionar a
partes interesadas que actúen como representantes de la opinión de su colectivo,
y no a título personal. Si tomáis la decisión de que actúen a título personal
obtendréis un resultado más subjetivo, y no por ello querrá decir que esté mal,
sino que será menos representativo.
– El trabajo en grupos pequeños requiere concentración, si es posible lleven a
cabo las discusiones en salas distintas o manténganse separados.
– La continuidad es importante en este tipo de metodologías, es necesario que los
participantes asistan a todas las reuniones del taller.
 Objetividad:
– Tiene que estar presente la voluntad e intención de objetividad en el
planteamiento, diseño y resultados de los talleres y del proyecto, pero es
importante hacer una gestión de expectativas en ese sentido para no concluir con
frustración. ¿Qué es objetivo? ¿Qué es perfecto?
– Cuando la técnica no convenza o le encontremos limitaciones no la desechemos,
busquemos antes vías para mejorarla. Todas las técnicas tienen límites,
explotemos su potencial y mejorémosla.
– Los talleres no son el lugar donde buscar soluciones.
– Muestren una buena disponibilidad para escuchar y aprender de las opiniones de
los demás, consideren que todos los participantes son expertos por su
experiencia y conocimiento.
 Facilitación y relatoría:
– Cada grupo debe tener un facilitador que esté presente durante todo el tiempo de
trabajo en grupo. Ese facilitador puede actuar como relator (con papelógrafo), o
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 140 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
si es posible disponer de un relator del debate (ese papel puede hacerlo un
miembro del equipo de investigación).
– En plenario habrá un solo facilitador que guíe la sesión y un relator que anote las
aportaciones del debate plenario.
– Las particularidades de cada caso marcan la forma de abordar el trabajo con las
personas y su implicación en los talleres.
– Limiten el tiempo de las intervenciones y faciliten que todos los participantes
tomen la palabra en la discusión.
– Visualicen el debate y tomen nota de los resultados de la sesión.
– No hagan votaciones, lleven a cabo una prospección cualitativa de los nuevos
argumentos.
Annex 6: CS template
TEMPLATE CASE STUDY DESCRIPTIONS FOR SITE SELECTION
This template has been prepared to be filled by the case study teams for every potential
site. Information contained in this template will be used to select the sites where the
ROBIN participatory process will be held. Please make sure to send it back to WP1.3
([email protected]) by 15th March 2012.
NAME OF THE CASE STUDY: ___________________________________________
THEME
General
description
of the case
study
Nº
1
ITEMS
Case study coverage and
location
2
3
4
Main features : area, climate,
altitude ...
Main types of land cover
Short description of specific
climate change mitigation –
related issues
5
6
Main production sectors
Economic setting
7
Social setting
Policy
8
Main climate change policies
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Socioeconomic
dimension
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
CLARIFICATIONS, EXAMPLES
Administrative boundaries (country,
region, province...)
Physical boundaries
Physical description
Specify types of crops, forest type
Try to be as specific as possible; think of
possible socio-economic,
environmental, ecological, policy
problems
Agriculture, industry, tourism
Income level/GDP, sources of income,
type of production (selfconsumption/market oriented, local
markets/exports)
Level of education, unemployment
ethnic groups, income disparities,
conflicts
Main objectives and instruments
© ROBIN consortium
Page 141 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
dimension
9
10
Institutional
dimension
11
12
Scientific
dimension
13
Main reason why
stakeholders could be
interested/have a benefit
14
15
Main research question(s)
Type of climate change
mitigation problem
Main sources of climate
change problems
16
17
Other issues
relevant to
the project
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Document ID:
Other sectoral policies
related to climate change
Identification of policy
problems
Decision making units in
relation to BD and CC
Key actors/stakeholders
Motivation of the
researchers/ scientific
innovation
Availability of information
on mitigation and
adaptation actions/potential
Availability of information
on socio-economic issues
Which data/information is
likely to be produced by the
end of the project?
Availability of
tools/methods
With which WP is this case
mostly associated?
Is there any previous
experience on SH processes
in the case study?
Opportunities to link ROBIN
stakeholder workshops to
other ongoing project or
policy processes
Opportunity to replicate the
research (based on
Agricultural, water, forest, energy,
tourism, other
Conflicting objectives, integration,
implementation , governance
Local, regional, national, transnational
Administrations, local groups,
companies, NGOs, research
organisations, farmers, foresters,
unions...
Interested in learning about the socioecological system, opportunity to share
views/ to communicate with policy
makers…
Which? Scope?
Sudden/gradual onset, tipping
points/thresholds
Deforestation, emissions in industry,
intensive land use
Contributions expected, opportunity for
model testing and validating…
Anything in addition to the DoW (Table
2.5)? Remarks?
Are there socio-economic studies in the
area? Data from surveys? Socioeconomic assessment reports?
Improved knowledge on mitigation
measures/ ecologic impacts/ socioeconomic impacts… (try to be specific)
In consortium, outside consortium, no
tools
WP1 (Relationship BD-CC mitigation at
different scales), WP2 (Indicator
framework for socio-ecological
interactions of LUC and CC); WP3
(Stakeholder driven scenarios, selection
of mitigation options)
Participatory process organized by
scientists, policy makers, local groups
Which, when, synergies
Unique case study/ replicable methods/
results can be extrapolated to the
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 142 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
26
representativeness of the
case study)
Dissemination potential
province or region or country level
Interest of SH in ROBIN issues,
availability of information channels,
access to media, communication
infrastructures...
CONTACT PERSON FOR THE CASE STUDY:
Annex 7: Additional documentation from the preparatory workshop in Bolivia

Invitation letter (example)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 143 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings

Agenda
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 144 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings

Feedback results (example)
Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 145 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN (283093)
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings

Document ID:
ROBIN D3.1.2 Handbook for the participatory process
Date: 25/09/2013
Public
© ROBIN consortium
Page 146 of 154
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings

Pictures of the workshop (selection)
M. Toledo explaining to the participants the
ROBIN project.
Participants working on their map of Guarayos.
Participants of the Group 3 drawing the map of resources of
Ascensión de Guarayos.
Members of the Group 2 presenting their map to the others
participants.
Claudia Moirenda from the Group 1 drawing the Guarayos map.
Presentation of the video about climate change
147
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Annex 8: Additional documentation from the preparatory workshop in Mexico

Workshop agenda: Preparatory meeting #1
Programa
“REFLEXIONES SOBRE LA INTERRELACIÓN ENTRE BIODIVERSIDAD,
CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO Y DESARROLLO SOCIAL: PROPUESTAS PARA LA COSTA
SUR DE JALISCO”
Sábado 26 de enero 2013, UNIVERSIDAD DE GUADALAJARA-CUCSUR /
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM
Hora
11:00
11:0511:15
11:1511:20
11:2012:05
12:0512:25
12:2512:40
12:4015:30
13:0013:15
13:1515:30
Actividad
Bienvenida
Presentación del equipo
Mencionar objetivos generales del taller
Financiamiento internacional – preocupación
internacional
Involucramiento de actores locales
Resultados a largo plazo
Presentación de los participantes (nombre y de
dónde vienen) 30 min
Presentación Proyecto
Responsable
Elena Lazos/Peter
Gerritsen/Manuel
Maass
Elena Lazos
Elena Lazos
Adriana
Peter Gerritsen
Receso (refrigerio)
Trabajo en equipo:
Modera: Elena y
Peter, Relator:
Jazmin y Natalia
Explicar reglas del juego/Recordar Objetivos
Trabajo en dos equipos. Facilitadores: Elena y
Peter
148
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
13:1513:45
13:4514:15
14:1514:45
14:4515:15
15:3016:00
16:0016:15
16:1516:30
16:30

Transformaciones de la región en los últimos 4050 años: ambiental, social, económico, político.
¿Cómo se ha transformado la región en los
últimos 50 años?
Factores que han provocado estas
transformaciones
¿Qué ha provocado esto? ¿por qué?
Ventajas y desventajas de estas transformaciones
generales y locales
¿Quiénes han ganado y quiénes han perdido?
¿Qué han ganado y perdido? ¿Quiénes se han
visto favorecidos por estos cambios y quiénes se
han visto perjudicados?
Plenaria
Conclusión general y acuerdos para el siguiente
taller
Clausura
Elena
Peter
Pdte Mpal Villa
Purif.
Comida
Workshop agenda: Preparatory meeting #2
PROGRAMA TALLER:
BIODIVERSIDAD, CAMBIO CLIMATICO Y DESARROLLO SOCIAL
28 DE ENERO 2013, UNIVERSIDAD DE GUADALAJARA-CUCSUR /
Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, UNAM
Hora
10:30
10:3010:35
10:3510:50
Actividad
Bienvenida/Inauguración
Presentación del equipo
Mencionar objetivos generales del taller
Financiamiento internacional – preocupación internacional
Involucramiento de actores locales/Biodiversidad-Cambio
Climatico/Taller en Villa Purificación
Resultados a largo plazo
149
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
10:5011:50
11:5012:10
12:1012:30
12:3014:00
12:3012:35
12:3512:55
Presentación de los participantes (nombre, institución, conocimiento de
la zona)
Presentación Proyecto
12:5513:15
Formas de implementación (diseño, mecanismos e instrumentos) e
impactos de los programas y politicas en la biodiversidad, el cambio
climatico y el bienestar social.
¿Cuáles han sido las formas de implementación (diseño, mecanismos e
instrumentos) y los impactos de los programas y politicas en la
biodiversidad, el cambio climático y le bienestar social?
13:1513:35
Actores y (sub)regiones/zonas beneficiados y relegados
Receso (refrigerio) – incluye traslado a salones
Trabajo en equipo:
Reglas del juego/moderador/preguntas
Progamas y politicas del Estado y de la Federación (y su interelación)
en los últimos 40-50 años. Relación con la biodiversidad, cambio
climatico y el desarrollo social.
¿Cuáles son los programas y politicas del Estado y de la Federación
(y su interrelación) en los últimos 40-50 años en relación con la
biodiversidad, el cambio climatico y el desarrollo social?
¿Quienes son los actores y (sub)regiones/zonas beneficiados y/o
relagados con estos programas y politicas?
13:3513:55
14:0015:15
15:1515:30
15:30
Nuevas propuestas relacionadas con la biodiversidad, el cambio
climatico, y el bienestar para la región.
¿Qué nuevas propuestas relacionadas con la biodiversidad, el cambio
climatico y el bienestar plantea para la región?
Plenaria
Conclusión general y acuerdos para el siguiente taller
Clausura
Comida
150
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
8 References
Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An
Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework. World Development 29 (10),
1623-1648.
Bailey, M., Chaudhury, A., Helfgott, A., Sova, C., Thorn, J. (2012). Farms of the
Future. CCAFS Report under the Systemic Integrated Adaptation Program.
Cernea, M. M. (1991). Putting People First. Sociological Variables in Rural
Development. New York, Oxford University Press.
Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory
Approaches to Development. Participation: the new tyranny? B. Cooke and U.
Kothari. London, Zed Press.
Cole, J. R., K. A. Persichitte (2000). Fuzzy cognitive mapping: Applications in
education. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 15 (1), 1-25.
Cooke, B., Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny. London, Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. (2000). Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on Participation
for Poverty Reduction.
Green, M. (2002). Social Development: Issues and Approaches. Critical Perspectives.
Development Theory and Practice. K. a. Minogue, Palgrave.
Homero-Diniz, F. (2013). From landless to forestless? Settlers, livelihoods and forest
dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Jäger, J., Rothman, D., Anastasi, C., Kartha, S., van Notten, P. (2006). GEO Resource
Book. A training manual on integrated environmental assessment and reporting.
Training module 6. UNEP & IISD, Nairobi.
Jones, L., Kok, K. (2013). Scenarios for use in ROBIN. Unpublished report (D2.3.1).
ROBIN project.
Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed Realities: Gender Heirarchies in Development. London,
Verso.
Kaljonen, M., Varjopuro, R. (2007). Design of participatory scenario-building process
and their linking to dissemination activities. Deliverable 5.2, SCENES project (GOCE
036822). DG Research, European Commission.
151
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Kok, K. (2009). The potential of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for semi-quantitative scenario
development, with an example from Brazil. Global Environmental Change 19, 122133.
Kok, K., Biggs, R., Zurek, M. (2007). Methods for developing multiscale
participatory scenarios: insights from southern Africa and Europe. Ecology and
Society 13 (1), 8. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art8/
Kok, K., Patel, M., Rothman, D.S., Quaranta, G. (2006b). Multi-scale narratives from
an IA perspective: Part II. Participatory local scenario development. Futures 38: 285311.
Kok, K., Rothman, D., Patel, M. (2006a). Multi-scale narratives from an IA
perspective: Part I. European and Mediterranean scenario development. Futures 38,
261-284.
Kok, K., Van Vliet, M., Bärlund, I., Dubel, A., Sendzimir, J. (2011). Combining
participative backcasting and exploratory scenario development: Experiences from the
SCENES project. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78, 835–851.
Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies 24 (1), 65-75.
Lazos, E., Gerritsen, P. (2012). Presentation on the Mexican case study in ROBIN, the
Cuitzmala watershed. Universidad Autónoma de México (UNAM) and Universidad
de Guadalajara (EDG). WP3.1 Training and Coordination Workshop, 25 – 27
September 2012.
Martorano, L.G.; Nechet, D., Pereira, L.C. (1993). Tipologia climática do Estado do
Pará – adaptação do método de Koppen. In: Boletim de Geografia Teoretica. 23 (4546) ,307 - 312.
Martorano, L., Simoes, M. (2012). Presentation on the Brazilian case study in
ROBIN, the Flona Tapajós. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria
(EMBRAPA). WP3.1 Training and Coordination Workshop, 25 – 27 September 2012.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W. (1972). The Limits
to Growth, Universe Books, New York.
Mikkelsen, B. (2005). Methods For Development Work and Research: A New Guide
for Practitioners. New Delhi, Sage Publications.
Moser, C. (1993). Gender Planning and Development. Theory, Practice and Training.
London, Routledge.
Nozdryn-Plotnicki, A. (2010). http://www.thinkor.org/2010/09/restaurant-systemsdynamics-influence.html.
152
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Oxford English Dictionary (2012). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. The Development Dictionary. W. Sachs. London,
Zed Books.
Gallopin, G., Raskin, P., Tariq, B., Gutman, P., Hammond, A. Kates, R., Swart, R.
(2002). Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. A report of the
Global Scenario Group, SEI PoleStar Series Report no. 10, Stockholm Environment
Institute, Boston.
Rasmussen, S. S. (2004). Poverty Reduction Strategy Planning and Decentralisation at
District Level, Ghana. Denmark, COWI.
Russell, S. C. (2007). A Systems Approach to Building Resilience to Natural
Disasters at a Local Level in Pacific Island Nations. 13th ANZSYS Conference.
Systemic Development: Local Solutions in a Global Environment, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Sellamna, N. E. (1999). Relativism in agricultural research and development: Is
participation a post modern concept? London, Overseas Development Institute.
Toledo, M., Clavijo, F. (2012). Presentation on the Bolivian case study in ROBIN, the
Guarayos region. Instituto Boliviano de Investigación Forestal (IBIF).
WP3.1 Training and Coordination Workshop, 25 – 27 September 2012.
Toledo, M., Clavijo, F. (2013). Report on the preparatory stakeholder workshop in
Bolivia. Unpublished report, ROBIN project.
van Notten, P. (2006). Scenario Development: A Typology of Approaches. In: OECD
(Ed.) Think Scenarios, Rethink Education, 66-92.
Van Vliet, M. (2009). Final version of Conceptual Models and narrative storylines,
and analysis over all Pilot Areas. Deliverable 2.7, SCENES project (GOCE 036822).
DG Research, European Commission.
Van Vliet, M., Kok, K., Lasut, A. Sendzimir, J. (2007). Report describing
methodology for scenario development at pan-European and Pilot Area scales,
SCENES Deliverable 2.1, Wageningen University, Wageningen
Varela-Ortega, C., Blanco, I., Juarez, E. (2012b). ROBIN Training and Coordination
Workshop. Unpublished report, ROBIN project.
Varela-Ortega, C., Carmona G., Blanco, I. (2012a). Workshop guidelines for ROBIN,
Unpublished report, ROBIN project, July 2012.
153
Project name (GA number): ROBIN 283093
D3.1.2: A handbook for the participatory process in ROBIN:
Development of methods for local stakeholder meetings
Varela-Ortega, C., Carmona, G.,Esteve, P. (2009). Second drafts of storylines and
conceptual models at the Regional and Pilot Area levels. Unpublished report
(DIA2.3). SCENES project.
Varela-Ortega, C., Esteve, P., Carmona, G., (2010). Third drafts of storylines and
conceptual models at the Regional and Pilot Area levels
Varela-Ortega, C., Esteve, P., Blanco, I., Carmona, G., Herández-Mora, N., (2008).
First drafts of storylines and conceptual models at the Regional and Pilot Area levels.
Unpublished report (DIA2.2). SCENES project.
Vervoort, J.M. (2013) Shared action on food and environments in East Africa.
ECI/CCAFS Joint Policy Brief.
Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: shooting the rapids, Harvard Business Review 63, 139–
150.
Walters, B., Vayda, A. (2009). Event Ecology, Causal Historical Analysis, and
Human- Environment Research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
99 (3), 534-553.
Zurek, M. B., Henrichs, T. (2007). Linking scenarios across scales in international
environmental scenarios. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (8), 12821295.
154