Appraising and selecting conservation measures to mitigate desertification and land degradation based on stakeholder participation and global best practices

Most desertification research focuses on degradation assessments without putting sufficient emphasis on prevention and mitigation strategies, although the concept of Sustainable Land Management (SLM) is increasingly being acknowledged. A variety of already applied conservation measures exist at the local level, but they are not adequately recognised, evaluated and shared, either by land users, technicians, researchers, or policy makers. Likewise, collaboration between research and implementation is often insufficient. The aim of this paper is to present a new methodology for a participatory process of appraising and selecting desertification mitigation strategies, and to present first experiences from its application in the EU-funded DESIRE project. The methodology combines a collective learning and decision approach with the use of evaluated global best practices. In three parts, it moves through a concise process, starting with identifying land degradation and locally applied solutions in a stakeholder workshop, leading to assessing local solutions with a standardised evaluation tool, and ending with jointly selecting promising strategies for implementation with the help of a decision support tool. The methodology is currently being applied in 16 study sites. Preliminary analysis from the application of the first part of the methodology shows that the initial stakeholder workshop results in a good basis for stakeholder cooperation, and in promising land conservation practices for further assessment. Study site research teams appreciated the valuable results, as burning issues and promising options emerged from joint reflection. The methodology is suitable to initiate mutual learning among different stakeholder groups and to integrate local and scientific knowledge.

Best Practices in Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy and Urinary Reconstruction: Recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel

CONTEXT Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly used for radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary reconstruction. Sufficient data have accumulated to allow evidence-based consensus on key issues such as perioperative management, comparative effectiveness on surgical complications, and oncologic short- to midterm outcomes. OBJECTIVE A 2-d conference of experts on RC and urinary reconstruction was organized in Pasadena, California, and the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, California, to systematically review existing peer-reviewed literature on robot-assisted RC (RARC), extended lymphadenectomy, and urinary reconstruction. No commercial support was obtained for the conference. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review of the literature was performed in agreement with the PRISMA statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Systematic literature reviews and individual presentations were discussed, and consensus on all key issues was obtained. Most operative, intermediate-term oncologic, functional, and complication outcomes are similar between open RC (ORC) and RARC. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC generally requires longer operative time than ORC, particularly with intracorporeal reconstruction. Robotic assistance provides ergonomic value for surgeons. Surgeon experience and institutional volume strongly predict favorable outcomes for either open or robotic techniques. CONCLUSIONS RARC appears to be similar to ORC in terms of operative, pathologic, intermediate-term oncologic, complication, and most functional outcomes. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC can be more expensive than ORC, although high procedural volume may attenuate this difference. PATIENT SUMMARY Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is an alternative to open surgery for patients with bladder cancer who require removal of their bladder and reconstruction of their urinary tract. RARC appears to be similar to open surgery for most important outcomes such as the rate of complications and intermediate-term cancer-specific survival. Although RARC has some ergonomic advantages for surgeons and may result in less blood loss during surgery, it is more time consuming and may be more expensive than open surgery.

A methodology for appraising and selecting strategies to mitigate desertification based on stakeholder participation and global best practices

The main aim of the methodology presented in this paper is to provide a framework for a participatory process for the appraisal and selection of options to mitigate desertification and land degradation. This methodology is being developed within the EU project DESIRE (www.desire-project.eu/) in collaboration with WOCAT (www.wocat.org). It is used to select promising conservation strategies for test-implementation in each of the 16 degradation and desertification hotspot sites in the Mediterranean and around the world. The methodology consists of three main parts: In a first step, prevention and mitigation strategies already applied at the respective DESIRE study site are identified and listed during a workshop with representatives of different stakeholders groups (land users, policy makers, researchers). The participatory and process-oriented approach initiates a mutual learning process among the different stakeholders by sharing knowledge and jointly reflecting on current problems and solutions related to land degradation and desertification. In the second step these identified, locally applied solutions (technologies and approaches) are assessed with the help of the WOCAT methodology. Comprehensive questionnaires and a database system have been developed to document and evaluate all relevant aspects of technical measures as well as implementation approaches by teams of researchers and specialists, together with land users. This research process ensures systematic assessing and piecing together of local information, together with specific details about the environmental and socio-economic setting. The third part consists of another stakeholder workshop where promising strategies for sustainable land management in the given context are selected, based on the best practices database of WOCAT, including the evaluated locally applied strategies at the DESIRE sites. These promising strategies will be assessed with the help of a selection and decision support tool and adapted for test-implementation at the study site.

Best practices and innovative capacity development approaches in ARD programmes of ERA-ARD consortium members: Draft compilation of National Contribution

In the framework of the European Research Area for Agricultural Research for Development (ERA-ARD) project, a survey of innovative approaches in capacity development (CD) was undertaken. All Consortium members were asked to describe innovative approaches and best practices of CD mechanisms within their ARD programmes. A tabular overview of all the programmes or mechanisms can be found on page 4. Abstracts of the programmes or mechanisms are compiled in alphabetic order of the consortium members in this document. The intention of this catalogue of mechanisms is to give an overview of different approaches and practices and not to provide a comprehensive mapping of all the ongoing CD activities of the Consortium members. Thus, the programmes described represent only a fraction of all the ongoing CD programmes on the national level.

Peer Review Processes for Transdisciplinary Articles: A Reflection on Journal's Practices

Publishing is an essential means of validation and communication of research. This is no different in transdisciplinary research, where publishing also aims at contributing to the development of society through sharing of knowledge. In the scientific world, authors need to disseminate and validate results, reflect on issues, and participate in debates. On the other hand, institutions and individuals are assessed according to their publication record – as probably the most influential of all current evaluation criteria. Occupying the space between article production and counting impact factors, journal editors and reviewers play an important role in defining and using rules to assess and improve the work submitted to them. Publishing transdisciplinary research poses specific challenges, in particular with regard to peer-review processes, as it addresses different knowledge communities with different value systems and purposes.

Domain-Specific Program Checking

Lint-like program checkers are popular tools that ensure code quality by verifying compliance with best practices for a particular programming language. The proliferation of internal domain-specific languages and models, however, poses new challenges for such tools. Traditional program checkers produce many false positives and fail to accurately check constraints, best practices, common errors, possible optimizations and portability issues particular to domain-specific languages. We advocate the use of dedicated rules to check domain-specific practices. We demonstrate the implementation of domain-specific rules, the automatic fixing of violations, and their application to two case-studies: (1) Seaside defines several internal DSLs through a creative use of the syntax of the host language; and (2) Magritte adds meta-descriptions to existing code by means of special methods. Our empirical validation demonstrates that domain-specific program checking significantly improves code quality when compared with general purpose program checking.

Knowledge Management and Decision Support for Sustainable Land Management

Much research has focused on desertification and land degradation assessments without putting sufficient emphasis on prevention and mitigation, although the concept of sustainable land management (SLM) is increasingly being acknowledged. A variety of SLM measures have already been applied at the local level, but they are rarely adequately recognised, evaluated, shared or used for decision support. WOCAT (World Overview of Technologies and Approaches) has developed an internationally recognised, standardised methodology to document and evaluate SLM technologies and approaches, including spatial distribution, allowing the sharing of SLM knowledge worldwide. The recent methodological integration into a participatory process allows now analysing and using this knowledge for decision support at the local and national level. The use of the WOCAT tools stimulates evaluation (self-evaluation as well as learning from comparing experiences) within SLM initiatives where all too often there is not only insufficient monitoring but also a lack of critical analysis. The comprehensive questionnaires and database system facilitate to document, evaluate and disseminate local experiences of SLM technologies and their implementation approaches. This evaluation process - in a team of experts and together with land users - greatly enhances understanding of the reasons behind successful (or failed) local practices. It has now been integrated into a new methodology for appraising and selecting SLM options. The methodology combines a local collective learning and decision approach with the use of the evaluated global best practices from WOCAT in a concise three step process: i) identifying land degradation and locally applied solutions in a stakeholder learning workshop; ii) assessing local solutions with the standardised WOCAT tool; iii) jointly selecting promising strategies for implementation with the help of a decision support tool. The methodology has been implemented in various countries and study sites around the world mainly within the FAO LADA (Land Degradation Assessment Project) and the EU-funded DESIRE project. Investments in SLM must be carefully assessed and planned on the basis of properly documented experiences and evaluated impacts and benefits: concerted efforts are needed and sufficient resources must be mobilised to tap the wealth of knowledge and learn from SLM successes.