Toolkit for the

Indicatorsof Resiliencein Socio-ecological Production
Landscapes and Seascapes

RESEARCH
PROGRAM ON

Water, Land andEcosystems

Toolkit for the

Indicatorsof Resiliencein Socio-ecological Production
Landscapes and Seascapes

Citation
UNU-IAS, Bioversity International, IGES and UNDP (2014) Toolkit
for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production
Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS).
Acknowledgement
This toolkit was developed as part of a Collaborative Activity by
the United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Studyof Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Bioversity International, Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), and the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) under the International
Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI). The toolkit is basedon the experiences of field testing of the first set of the indicators conducted by Bioversity International and UNDP. National
Coordinators from the UNDP-implemented Global Environment
Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP) in the twenty UNDPCOMDEKS countries provided valuable inputs to the developmentof the first set of the indicators, and have been playing a pivotal
role in the testing of the indicators, capturing the perspectives ofcommunities in the field.
The toolkit is also based on the useful inputs from a number ofindividuals who participated in the following events on the indicators and the toolkit: UNU-IAS Seminar on the indicators (April
2013, Yokohama, Japan), Expert Workshop on a draft toolkit for theindicators (July 2013, Yokohama, Japan) organized by UNU-IAS
and IGES, Seminars on Indicators Research (January 2014,
Rome, Italy) organized by Bioversity International. Participantsin these events include Maurizio Farhan Ferrari (Forest Peoples
Programme), Fumiko Fukuoka (UNDP), Yoko Watanabe (GEF
Secretariat), Hongyan Gu (Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences),
Rikiya Konishi (Ministry of the Environment, Japan), Fumiko Nakao(Ministry of the Environment, Japan), Dorothy Wanja Nyingi (Kenya
Wetland Biodiversity Research team, KENWEB), Naohisa Okuda(Ministry of the Environment, Japan), Krishna Chandra Paudel(Government of Nepal), Suneetha M Subramanian (UNU-IAS), andAtsuhiro Yoshinaka (SCBD).

List of contributors
Nadia Bergamini (Bioversity International)
William Dunbar (UNU-IAS)
Pablo Eyzaguirre (Bioversity International)
Kaoru Ichikawa (UNU-IAS)
Ikuko Matsumoto (IGES)
Dunja Mijatovic (Bioversity International)
Yasuyuki Morimoto (Bioversity International)
Nick Remple (UNDP)
Diana Salvemini (UNDP)
Wataru Suzuki (UNU-IAS)
Ronnie Vernooy (Bioversity International)
Design and layout: patrizia.tazza@gmail.com
Cover: Agrobiodiversity Conservation Area in Begnas, Nepal.
© Bioversity International/Dunja Mijatovic
ISBN 978-92-9255-006-6

Table of contents
Foreword
Chapter 1 Introduction

5
7

			
			
		
			
			
			

7

1.1 About this toolkit
1.2 Socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes(SEPLS)
1.3 Resilience in SEPLS – What is it?
1.4 About the indicators
1.5 Who can benefit from using the indicators?

7
8
9
12

Chapter 2: The indicators

17

			
			
			

17
18
19

2.1 What the indicators measure
2.2 How to use the indicators
2.3 List of indicators

Chapter 3 Practical guidance for using the indicators

29

			
			
			

31
38
45

3.1 Stage 1: Preparation
3.2 Stage 2: The assessment workshop
3.3 Stage 3: Follow-up

Chapter 4 Examples from the field49			
4.1 Namibia – An overview of the process
				4.2 Fiji – Identification of concrete community actions
			
4.3 Turkey – Development of a landscape/seascape strategy
				4.4 Kenya – Results analysis for researchers

49
54
59
64

Floating islands on lake Titicaca, Puno, Peru
© Bioversity International/Alfredo Camacho

Foreword
As I have watched the development of the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes andSeascapes (SEPLS), I have come to believe that these have the potential to be one of the most effective tools for not
only measuring, but also raising awareness of the concept of resilience in the field of sustainable development.
Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the set of indicators first developed by Bioversity International and UNU-IAS
in 2012 is that they aim not to provide hard, quantifiable numbers to measure resilience – which would be a highly
difficult and problematic process – but rather focus on a community’s own perceptions. By encouraging community
members themselves to reflect on landscape and seascape resilience and how it can be improved, the indicators
potentially give them a greater sense of ownership over management processes, hopefully leading to more lastingsustainability.
Up to now, this has been a good idea in principle, but there has been little practical guidance for how to translate it
into actual practice. With the publication of this toolkit, based on actual experience from field-testing the indicators
around the world, I am confident that this issue has been addressed. The indicators themselves have been updated
to reflect lessons learned, and the guidance provided in the toolkit should allow users everywhere to make effective
use of them.
As the concept of resilience steadily moves into the mainstream in the ongoing worldwide discourse on biodiversity
and sustainability, I am proud to see that these indicators of resilience are also ready for mainstreaming as an important tool. I am sure that this toolkit will reward any community in which it is used with a greater appreciation of theresilience of their landscapes and seascapes, and with greater sustainability looking to the future.
Professor Alfred Oteng-Yeboah
Ghana National Biodiversity Committee

6 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

1
Semau island, Indonesia© Bingkai Foundation

Chapter 1: Introduction | 7

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 About this toolkit

workshops are members of the local community andstakeholders in the local area. Their participation allows
them to evaluate current conditions across the landscape and identify and reach agreement on priority
actions, contributing to enhanced communication
among stakeholders and empowered local communities. Workshops may be planned and implemented
by people from within or outside the community. The
guidance provided in this toolkit is primarily intended
for organizers and facilitators of resilience assessment
workshops.
The toolkit is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1
explains the conceptual background, the purpose,uses and benefits of the indicators. Chapter 2 introduces the twenty indicators themselves. Chapter 3
provides practical guidance on how to use the indicators in an assessment workshop held by the local
community. This involves steps to be taken before,
during and after the workshop itself, including followup discussions and repeated workshops, encouraging a continuing, long-term, adaptive approach to
management. Chapter 4 presents examples of pastuse of the indicators to highlight certain aspects of theassessment process.

This toolkit provides practical guidance for making
use of the “Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological
Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)” in
the field. The indicators are a tool for engaging local
communities in adaptive management of the landscapes and seascapes in which they live. By using thetested methods presented in this toolkit, communities can increase their capacity to respond to social,economic, and environmental pressures and shocks, toimprove their environmental and economic conditions,thus increasing the social and ecological resilience of
their landscapes and seascapes, and ultimately makeprogress towards realizing a society in harmony withnature.

1.2 Socio-ecological production
landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS)

The approach presented here is centred on holding
participatory “assessment workshops”. These involve
discussion and a scoring process for the set oftwenty indicators designed to capture communities’
perceptions of factors affecting the resilience of theirlandscapes and seascapes. The participants in these

Humans have influenced most of the Earth’s ecosystems through production activities such as agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, herding and livestock production.
While human impacts are often thought of as harmful tothe environment, many such human-nature interactions
are in fact favourable to or synergistic with biodiversity

To understand the rationale and purpose of the indicators, the toolkit reviews two basic concepts: “socioecological production landscapes and sea-scapes(SEPLS)” and “resilience”.

8 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

These landscapes and seascapes vary widely due
to their unique local climatic, geographic, cultural,and socio-economic conditions. However, they arecommonly characterized as dynamic bio-cultural
mosaics of habitats and land and sea uses where theinteraction between people and the landscape maintains or enhances biodiversity while providing humans
with the goods and services needed for their wellbeing. A variety of different names exist for these areas
across countries and languages, including dehesa in
Spain, ahupua’a in Hawaii, and satoyama in Japan, so
the term “socio-ecological production landscapes andseascapes” (SEPLS) has been coined to refer to themcollectively.
SEPLS have protected biodiversity and provided local
communities with ecosystem services around theworld for many years. However, with rapidly-growing
human demands for food and other goods in recent
years, as well as changes in socio-economic systems
due to industrialization, urbanization and globalization, diverse production areas have been transformed
towards more uniform systems requiring intensive
use of external inputs such as chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides. Over time, this has had
significant impacts on the associated biodiversity
and ecosystems that underpin agricultural production
activities. These impacts can be measured in terms ofloss of resilience and sustainability in production areas
to an extent that threatens human well-being, due tothe degradation of natural resources and reductions inecosystem services.

© COMDEKS Bhutan/Dorji Singay

conservation. Around the world, local communities’
efforts over many years to adapt to the surrounding
environment and enjoy its bounty for the long term
have created unique and sustainable landscapes andseascapes that have provided humans with goods
such as food and fuel, and services such as water purification and rich soil, while hosting a diversity of animaland plant species.

Dynamic mosaic of habitats and land uses in Gamri
Watershed, Bhutan

1.3 Resilience in SEPLS – What is it?
Local communities and the ecosystems they live in may
experience pressures and disturbances of different
types and degrees, from extreme weather events tomarket shocks and profound demographic and institutional changes. Forests, farmlands, lakes and otherhabitats are affected by fires, storms and droughts,
and nearly all landscapes and seascapes are affected
to some degree by human-induced pressures such aspollution, soil erosion, deforestation and introductionof invasive species that can lead to ecosystem degradation. Events such as political unrest and economic
crises impact human societies, causing changes to theway ecosystem goods and services are used. These
disturbances can directly and indirectly affect the
livelihoods of local communities, for example throughhigher input prices, reduced production and lower crop
prices. In addition to the impacts from these shocks andshort-term disturbances, ecosystems are influenced byrelatively gradual but continuous changes in the climate
and socio-cultural practices and institutions.

Chapter 1: Introduction | 9

While some changes may cause critical damage toecosystems and people’s livelihoods, SEPLS vary inthe degree to which their communities can absorb,
resist and/or recover from these impacts. The abilityof a SEPLS to absorb or recover – in terms of both
ecosystem processes and socio-economic activity– from various pressures and disturbances without
lasting damage is what is referred to as the “resilience”
of the SEPLS. More generally, resilience refers to the“capacity of a system to deal with change and continue
to develop; withstanding shocks and disturbances
and using such events to catalyze renewal and innovation”1. Maintaining resilience in SEPLS is crucial for
securing ecosystem services and sustainable production systems for the long term, both benefiting local
communities and contributing to global sustainable
development objectives.

Strengthening of SEPLS resilience by local
communities
The long-term persistence of community-managed
SEPLS that employ appropriate management and useof natural resources and biodiversity defines them as
resilient systems. Nevertheless, many communities
face growing challenges in maintaining these landscapes and the social and ecological processes thatsustain them, especially in the face of rapid and often
interrelated changes in socio-economic systems, accelerated by increasing climate change and ecosystemdegradation. Communities, as the primary managers of
the processes and resources of SEPLS, must reinforce
existing management practices and institutions, andinnovate in order to adapt to these changes and restore
or strengthen the social and ecological resilience of
their landscapes and seascapes.

1

Stockholm Resilience Center (2014) What is Resilience?.
http://www.stockholmresilience.org

Resilience in SEPLS is a product of ecological, social,
cultural and economic systems, dynamically linked toeach other in ways that create synergies. Improvementsin ecosystem services, for example, may require theadoption of new methods of natural-resource management, or new types of diversity in crops, animals andassociated species. It may also require appropriate
local governance mechanisms, including agreed-on
rules on resource access, use and exchange, which
may be embedded in formal and/or non-formal institutions. Increased sustainability of agro-ecosystems may
require that access and equity issues be addressed,
such as support for the role of women in crop selection,
production and marketing.
The management of interlocking social and ecologicalsystems requires the capacity to accept and cope withcomplexity and continuing adaptation. This capacity
is associated with rural communities that depend on
the wide range of functions, products and services that
their landscapes provide. The resilience indicators inthis toolkit are designed to contribute to a community’s
sense of ownership over the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of their production andresource-management practices. Lessons and knowledge generated by these activities can then be used
to communicate local visions and strategies for resilient landscapes and productive ecosystems as input
into higher-level policies and programmes that affectcommunity livelihoods as well as further conservation
and resource-management planning.

1.4 About the indicators
Local communities require a more complete understanding of the status and changes in conditions intheir landscapes and seascapes in order to strengthen
resilience. However, resilience can be difficult tomeasure precisely because it is complex and multifaceted. Instead of attempting to define an overall

10 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)© Bioversity International/Dunja Mijatovic© COMDEKS Brazil/Isabel Figuereido

measure of resilience for SEPLS, this toolkit introduces
an approach for monitoring SEPLS using a set of indicators designed to capture their essential attributes.

Seascape in the Bouma National Heritage Park on Taveuni
Island, Fiji

Pastoral landscape in Jequitinhonha Valley, Brazil

The spatial scale of SEPLS, in the context of using theindicators, depends on how local community members
themselves identify the area they depend on for theirsurvival and livelihood. It generally includes the mosaic ofland-uses from which communities derive the goods andservices on which they depend directly or indirectly andwhere they have a direct impact on the resource baseand regular interactions with the natural biodiversity. A
SEPLS may be delineated by administrative boundaries(e.g., a national park or state borders) or geographic
boundaries (e.g., a watershed), or by other factors.

© Bioversity International/Nadia Bergamini

The Indicators of Resilience in SEPLS consist of a setof 20 indicators designed to capture different aspectsof key systems – ecological, agricultural, cultural andsocio-economic. They include both qualitative andquantifiable indicators, but measurement is basedon the observations, tallies, perceptions and experiences of the local communities themselves. They are
to be used flexibly and can be customized to reflect
the circumstances of each particular landscape orseascape and its associated communities.

Inland water landscape at Begnas Lake, Nepal

The indicators aim to provide communities with a framework for discussion and analysis of socio-ecologicalprocesses essential for SEPLS resilience. This relates
to critical livelihood and development objectives suchas food security, agricultural sustainability, institutional

Chapter 1: Introduction | 11

and human development, provision of ecosystem services and conservation of biodiversity, strengthening ofcommunity- and landscape-level organizations, andlandscape governance for equity and sustainability.
Discussion of the indicators within communities stimulates knowledge-sharing and analysis, which are key
factors in creating social capital for landscape governance, planning and management, and fosters community ownership of this process. Periodic use of these
indicators enables evaluation of progress towards
development and sustainable management objectives
and identification of priority actions for local innovation
and adaptive management.
The indicators can contribute to local communities
and other stakeholders in the following areas:• Understanding SEPLS resilience• Supporting development and implementationof resilience-strengthening strategies
The indicators can help to identify and track social
processes, institutions, and practices for land-use,conservation, and innovation that are part of a resilientsystem’s capacity to adapt and change. Through review
and discussion of assessment results, communities
can learn what areas and factors to focus on, which
may include components of agricultural biodiversity,
food security, ecosystem services, livelihood, governance and others.
• Enhancing communication among
stakeholders
Because they provide a framework with a common
set of parameters, the indicators can enhance theexchange of experiences and information within andbeyond SEPLS and their communities, for example,© Frederik van Oudenhoven

The indicators provide an analytical framework forunderstanding resilience and its status and changes
in SEPLS. They are defined and measured in terms
that are easy for local communities to understand anduse, and can be adapted for successive analyses. By

assessing current conditions and trends in different
aspects of SEPLS, users can understand resilience asa multidimensional objective.

Landscape heterogeneity in the Cuchillas del Toa Biosphere Reserve, Cuba

12 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

between upstream and downstream communities andamong communities in different geographic regions.
• Empowering communities in decision-making
processes and adaptive management
Use of the indicators facilitates a continuous process of
discussion and participation within local communities,
leading to knowledge of what works and what does not.
This kind of adaptive management model promotes agreater sense of ownership among the people living in
SEPLS, encouraging them to be active at the policymaking level. Using the indicators as a framework fordiscussion also helps create consensus on what needs
to be done to build or enhance resilience across thelandscape and guide decisions and implementation.

• Contribute to enhancing trust and social capital incommunities and resolving conflicts• Inform policymakers, donors, and relevant stakeholders on the situation of their SEPLS and necessary areas for support in a more efficient manner• Exchange experiences with communities who have
tried the indicators

1.5 Who can benefit from using
the indicators?

NGOs and development agencies implementing
projects in SEPLS:• Enhance understanding of resilience from theperspective of local communities• Promote participatory processes• Monitor and evaluate project interventions on resilience and biodiversity conservation and identify
areas for support• Communicate with policymakers and donors on
the situation of the SEPLS they are working withand necessary areas for support in a more efficientmanner

While the indicators are primarily designed to be usedby local communities, they have the potential to bevaluable tools for others such as NGOs, development
agencies, and policy-makers. The indicators may also
be helpful for researchers to understand SEPLS andhow communities see their landscape or seascape.
The role of facilitator may be more important in situations where it is difficult for communities to use theindicators on their own.

Policymakers and project planners:• Better understand local conditions from theperspective of local communities• Improve communication with local communities• Identify areas that need to be improved and reflect
these in policymaking, planning, and other decisionmaking processes• Increase coherence across different project sites byapplying a common analytical framework and tools

The following are some possible benefits for different
users.

Researchers:• Enhance multi-dimensional understanding of local
conditions from the perspective of local communities• Deepen the understanding of resilience by examining results from different sites• Identify research gaps

Local communities:• Increase common understanding of SEPLS (e.g.,conditions and threats to them) among and beyond
community members• Identify priority issues and actions for sustaining
SEPLS that benefit livelihoods and well-being, andto evaluate past efforts that community has made

Chapter 1: Introduction | 13

Indicator approaches
at different levels
Indicator approaches are used increasingly invarious sectors and contexts. At the global andnational scales they play important roles in monitoring progress toward achieving specific goals andtargets. For example, around 100 indicators havebeen listed1 to monitor the progress of implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 201120202 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets3, adopted
during the CBD COP 10 in Japan in 2010 to provide
a framework for action by all stakeholders to protect
biodiversity and enhance its benefits for people. The
Millennium Development Goals Indicators4 are a
set of 60 indicators for the measurement of progress
toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)5,
eight international development targets to be met by2015 for addressing extreme poverty. The UN agreed
at the Rio+20 Conference in 2012 to develop a setof Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)6 andis currently working to define the goals and relevant
indicators to be adopted in 2015.
National- and global-scale indicators need to bequantitative for comparison across space and time
and to be able to aggregate data at larger spatial
scales. They also must be scientifically valid andobjective, with assessment often conducted byexperts. Unlike these higher-level indicators, theIndicators of Resilience in SEPLS introduced in thistoolkit are for use at the local level. They include both
qualitative and quantifiable indicators, but measurement is based on the observations, perceptions andexperience of the local communities themselves.
These local observations can be complemented
by scientific data and information from global andnational observations and data sets as well as priorstudies. However, external data should be able to be

adopted into the local knowledge base. The indicators in this toolkit provide local communities with aframework to discuss both current conditions of resilience and potential areas for improvement as part ofthe process of adaptive management. This can leadto quick and proactive efforts by local communities
to strengthen the resilience of their production landscapes and seascapes. It also provides a consistentprocess for monitoring resilience of the landscapeor seascape and the implementation of measures
to address components and factors that lead to
reduced resilience.
The Indicators of Resilience in SEPLS partially overlap
and complement some of the higher-level indicators.
More resilient landscapes resulting from the use of theindicators and implementation of actions identified
from their use will also contribute to global and nationaltargets, such as those of the CBD (e.g., the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets and National Biodiversity Strategic
Action Plans), and the FAO International Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/3 (www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-11/cop11-dec-03-en.doc)
www.cbd.int/sp/
www.cbd.int/sp/targets/
mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=Indicators/OfficialList.htm
www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1300

14 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Background

The Satoyama Initiative is a comprehensive effort
to spread awareness that protecting biodiversity
entails the protection of both wild and humaninfluenced natural environments, such as farmland
and secondary forest, which have been managed
sustainably over a long time. It is also an effort at
thoughtful action towards the conservation and useof such human-influenced natural environments.
Established through a joint collaboration between the
Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOEJ) and theUnited Nations University Institute for the Advanced
Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), the Satoyama
Initiative was recognized during the 10th meeting of

the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD COP 10) in 2010.
From its inception, the Satoyama Initiative has taken
a global perspective and sought to consolidate expertise from around the world regarding the sustainable
use of resources in socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS). To this purpose, on
19 October 2010 at CBD COP 10, the International
Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI) wasestablished to promote the activities identified by the
Satoyama Initiative. A total of 51 organizations enteredinto partnership as founding members of IPSI, and asof 2014, their number had more than tripled. As aninternational platform open to organizations dealing
with SEPLS, IPSI has sought to foster synergies in theimplementation of their respective activities, as wellas other activities planned under the initiative.

© LIBIRD/Sajal Sthapit

The Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological
Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)
and this toolkit were developed as a collaborative
activity under the International Partnership for the
Satoyama Initiative (IPSI).

Chapter 1: Introduction | 15

To date, over 20 IPSI Collaborative Activities havebeen initiated under IPSI, including this toolkit andits indicators, carried out by Bioversity International,
the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES), the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) and UNU-IAS. For more information on IPSI,
please visit satoyama-initiative.org
The Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological
Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)
were first developed by Bioversity International and
UNU-IAS. The set of indicators has been tested
in the field by Bioversity International in Bolivia,
Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ethiopia, Fiji, Kenya, Mongolia,
Nepal and Uganda, and also in selected areas intwenty countries participating in the Community
Development and Knowledge Management for the
Satoyama Initiative Programme of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP-COMDEKS; seebelow) to form part of a baseline-assessment andcommunity-consultation process to help measureand understand the resilience of target landscapesand seascapes. The field testing involved assessments conducted through a participatory and inclusive multi-stakeholder process in communities that
inhabit, use and protect landscapes and seascapes.
These assessments have been subsequently
compiled and analyzed to support the developmentof strategies by identifying appropriate communitybased activities in each SEPLS to strengthen theirresilience. The indicators in Chapter 2 are the revised
set of indicators based on these experiences.
The Community Development and Knowledge
Management for the Satoyama Initiative (COMDEKS)
Programme is an IPSI collaborative activity by UNDP,
MOEJ, CBD Secretariat and UNU-IAS with the goalof promoting sustainable use and management of
natural resources in SEPLS. Funded through theJapan Biodiversity Fund established within the CBD
Secretariat, the COMDEKS Programme is implemented by UNDP, and delivered through the GEF
Small Grants Programme, allowing for a fast, flexible,
and proven mechanism to reach communities andcivil society at the local level. As part of COMDEKS,
small grants are provided to local community
organizations with the overall long-term objective ofenhancing resilience in SEPLS by developing soundbiodiversity management and sustainable livelihood
activities with local communities to maintain, rebuild,and revitalize landscapes and seascapes. COMDEKS
grant-making is expected to generate key lessons
on community-based best practices to maintain andrebuild SEPLS toward the realization of “societies inharmony with nature”, as defined in the vision of theSatoyama Initiative. Launched in 2011, the project isbeing implemented in twenty countries around theworld – Bhutan, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana,
India, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Mongolia,
Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Slovakia and Turkey. For more
information about the COMDEKS Programme, visit:www.comdeksproject.com.

16 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

2
Participants score their landscape using indicators for resilience during a workshop, Bhutan© COMDEKS Bhutan/Dorji SingayChapter 1: Introduction | 17

Chapter 2: The indicators

heavily transformed by extractive practices. Resulting
SEPLS are likely to support higher levels of biodiversity and be more resilient to external shocks thanmore simplified systems. In the context of climatechange, the protection and restoration of watersheds,
forests and costal ecosystems in SEPLS help regulatehydrology and microclimate, thereby providing a buffer
against extreme weather events, floods and droughts.

Biodiversity (including agricultural
biodiversity)

2.1 What the indicators measure
The indicators measure elements of SEPLS resiliencethat are, almost by definition, strongly interrelated. The
practices and institutions that they describe can begrouped in five areas:• Landscape/seascape diversity and ecosystem
protection• Biodiversity (including agricultural biodiversity)• Knowledge and innovation• Governance and social equity• Livelihoods and well-being

Landscape/seascape diversity andecosystem protection
Heterogeneous landscapes and seascapes that
resemble natural patterns provide greater biodiversity
benefits than intensively-managed monocultures ormarine environments where natural ecosystems likemangroves, seagrass beds or coral reefs have been

The health of a landscape or seascape and the ecosystems it supports is reflected in part in the diversity of
species living in it and their interactions. It also often
forms the physical, cultural and spiritual bases ofcommunities’ well-being. Biodiversity contributes tocommunity and landscape/seascape resilience by
providing ecosystem services, which are sustained ordegraded by the practices and institutions that regulate
the use of natural resources. Agricultural biodiversity
includes species used for food, fodder, fiber and fuel,as well as the large number of non-harvested species in
the wider landscape that benefit communities throughthe services they provide, such as pollinators, soil
biota and regulators of pests and diseases. Agricultural
biodiversity provides material for experimentation,
innovation and adaptation. The genetic diversity foundin local crop varieties and animal breeds, expressed
in important traits such as drought, cold and saline
tolerance and resistance to pests and diseases, helps
them adapt to various soil and climate conditions. Lossin diversity of these traits decreases options for risk
management and adaptation.

Knowledge and innovation
Communities strengthen their own resilience by experimenting, innovating and learning within and between

18 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

different knowledge systems, cultures and age groups.
Adaptation strategies may be novel or old, but generally build on bio-cultural or traditional knowledge. Thisknowledge is specific to the locations and cultures ofgiven socio-ecological interactions. It is embodied inresource-use customs, agricultural traditions, local
languages, cultural values and social institutions.
Many communities are losing their knowledge of local
resources, biodiversity and the historical events thathave shaped their landscapes and seascapes. The
maintenance of this knowledge increasingly depends
on the ability of elders, parents and the younger generations in a community to document and share it.

peoples’ ingenuity and the biodiversity portfolio they
have available.

2.2 How to use the indicators
The indicators presented in the table below have beendeveloped to guide the assessment of resilience duringassessment workshops participated in by community
members and others. Assessment entails assigning ascore and trend to each indicator in response to thequestions in the table’s second column. A score can be
assigned to all indicators using the 5-point scale givenin the table’s third column, and information about trends
can be captured using the categories shown here:

Governance and social equity
Gender inequalities, social exclusion and marginalization can hinder the ability of women, indigenous groups
and others to strengthen the resilience of their landscapes or seascapes. Women, youth and the elderly
hold specific knowledge and skills related to biodiversity. For indigenous communities, resilience is intrinsically linked with efforts to protect traditional ways ofsubsistence and cultural heritage. The ability to accessancestral lands and engage in traditional land use
and agricultural practices are important conditions forcommunities to maintain biodiversity and associatedtraditional knowledge.

Livelihoods and well-being
The resilience of a production landscape or seascapeis also dependent on the availability of efficient andfunctioning infrastructure such as communication,
health and education to meet various community
needs and aspirations. Livelihood improvement canbe directly linked to the options and opportunities ofcommunity members to engage in a variety of sustainable income-generating activities developed throughScoresTrends(5) Very high↑ Upward trend(4) High(3) Medium→ No change(2) Low↓ Downward trend(1) Very low

The other columns in the table are meant to facilitate understanding of the questions for scoring andto capture additional information during the group
discussion. The first column gives an explanation of
the question for scoring and some examples of what
is meant by some of the terminology. The last column
contains, where relevant, additional questions which
can be asked after individual scoring has been done
and the group is engaged in reaching a consensus.
These questions are not fixed and can vary according
to the situation at the discretion of the facilitator.

Chapter 2: The indicators | 19

Notes can be found in the first column of some of theindicators. These are intended to facilitate answering
the questions for scoring. For example, when talking
about landscape and seascape diversity it may be
useful to refer to a participatory mapping exercise, or
the timeline used to explain the concept of resilience

may help scoring when talking about the capacity forrecovery and regeneration of the SEPLS. For more
specific advice on how to carry out an assessment
workshop, see Chapter 3, where the mapping exercise and timeline form part of the introduction of theworkshop.

2.3 List of indicators
Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

ScoresDiscussion
questionsLandscape/seascape diversity and ecosystem protection(1) Landscape/seascape diversity
The landscape or seascape is composedof a diversity/mosaic of natural ecosystems(terrestrial and aquatic) and land uses.
Examples:Natural ecosystems: mountains, forests,
grasslands, wetlands, lakes, rivers, coastallagoons, estuaries, coral reefs, sea grassmeadows and mangrove forests.
Land uses: home gardens, cultivated fields,
orchards, (seasonal) pastures, haymaking lands,
aquaculture, forestry and agro-forestry, irrigation
canals, water wells.
Note: Landscape/seascape diversity and land
uses can be demonstrated through a mapping
exercise.

Is the landscape/seascape composedof diverse natural
ecosystems(terrestrial andaquatic) and landuses?

(5) Very high(There is a large number ofnatural ecosystems and landuses)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(There is only one or a verysmall number of natural
ecosystems and land uses )Are there areas in
the landscape orseascape where
ecosystems areprotected underformal or informal
forms of protection?

(5) Very high(Key resources are undersome form of protection)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(There are no areas underprotection)(2) Ecosystem protection
Areas within the landscape or seascape areprotected for their ecological and/or cultural
importance.
Note: Protection may be formal or informal andinclude traditional forms of protection such as
sacred sites.
Examples:
Strict nature reserves, national parks, wilderness
areas, heritage sites, community conserved
areas, marine protected areas, limited-use
areas, sacred sites, grazing reserve areas, rules
and regulations to exclude outsiders from the(seasonal) use of natural resources, etc.

Which ecosystems
are protected andwhat is the form ofprotection?

20 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

ScoresDiscussion
questions(3) Ecological interactions between different components of the landscape/seascapeEcological interactions between different
components of landscape or seascape aretaken into consideration in natural resource
management.
Examples of ecological interactions:
Areas slated for conservation or restoration
benefit other areas through pollination, pest
control, nutrient cycling and increase of animal
population.
Forests protect water sources and provide
fodder, medicine and food.
Agricultural activities can affect other parts of
the landscape.
Marine protected areas may increase marine
populations also in other in fishing areas (spillover effects).

Are ecologicalinteractions between
different componentsof the landscape orseascape consideredwhile managing
natural resources?

(5) Very high(Ecological interactions are
considered while managing
natural resources)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Ecological interactions are notconsidered while managing
natural resources)(4) Recovery and regeneration of the landscape/seascape
The landscape or seascape has the ability torecover and regenerate from environmental
shocks and stresses.
Examples of environmental shocks andstresses:Pest and disease outbreaks;
Extreme weather events such as storms,
extreme cold, flooding and droughts;
Earthquakes and tsunamis;
Forest fires.
Note: If a timeline is created during theworkshop introduction, in which recent shocks
and stresses are listed, it can be a helpfulreference for scoring this indicator.

Does the landscapeor seascape havethe ability to recoverand regenerate
after extreme
environmental
shocks?

(5) Very high(Very high ability to recoverand regenerate)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Very low ability to recover andregenerate)

What was thecommunity’s
response torecent shocks andstresses?

Chapter 2: The indicators | 21

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

ScoresDiscussion
questions

Biodiversity (including agricultural biodiversity)(5) Diversity of local food system
Foods consumed in the landscape or seascapeinclude food locally grown, gathered from local
forests and/or fished from local waters.
Examples:Cereals, vegetables, fruits, nuts, wild plants,
mushrooms, berries, livestock, milk, dairy
products, wildlife/insects, fish, seaweeds, etc.

Does the community
consume a diversityof locally-produced
food?

(5) Very high(Diversity of locally-sourced
foods is very high and thesefoods are widely consumed)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(There are very few or no
locally-sourced foods)(6) Maintenance and use of local crop varieties and animal breeds
Households and/or community groups maintaina diversity of local crop varieties and animal
breeds.
Examples:Seed guardians, expert animal breeders, animal
breeding groups, home gardens, community
seed banks.

Are different local
crops, varieties
and animal breeds
conserved and usedin the community?

(5) Very high(Local crop varieties andanimal breeds are widelyconserved and used)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(There are few or no local cropvarieties and animal breeds)

Is the quality ofseeds and breeds
maintained?
Do invasive species
replace local ones
or is this not taking
place?

(5) Very high(Common resources aremanaged sustainably)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Common resources areoverexploited or depleted)

What is the statusof exploitation ofcommon resources(forests, fisheries,
grasslands)?

(7) Sustainable management of common resources
Common resources are managed sustainably inorder to avoid overexploitation and depletion.
Examples:Grazing regulations;Fishing quotas;
Sustainable tourism;
Control of wildlife poaching and illegal logging;or harvesting of forest products.

Are common
resources managed
sustainably?

22 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

ScoresDiscussion
questions

Knowledge and innovation(8) Innovation in agriculture and conservation practices
New practices in agriculture, fisheries andforestry are developed, adopted and improved
and/or traditional practices are revitalized.
Examples:
Adoption of water conservation measures suchas drip irrigation or water harvesting;Diversification of farming systems;
Introduction or re-introduction of drought- or
saline-tolerant crops;
Organic agriculture;
Terracing;
Reintroduction of native species;
Shifting and rotation of grasslands;
Reforestation;
Replanting of corals, sea grass and mangroves;
Fish houses;
Selective fishing gear.

Does the community
develop, improveand adopt new
agricultural,fisheries, forestry,
and conservation
practices and/or
revitalize traditional
ones to adapt tochanging conditions,
including climatechange?

(5) Very high(The community is receptive
to change and adjusts its
practices)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(The community is notreceptive to change andmakes few innovations)(9) Traditional knowledge related to biodiversity
Local knowledge and cultural traditions related
to biodiversity are transmitted from elders andparents to young people in the community.
Examples:Songs, dances, rituals, festivals, stories, local
terminology related to land and biodiversity;
Specific knowledge about fishing, crop planting
and harvesting, and the processing andcooking of food;
Knowledge included in school curricula.

Are local knowledge
and cultural
traditions related
to biodiversity
transmitted fromelders and parents toyoung people in thecommunity?

(5) Very high(Local knowledge and cultural
traditions are transmitted toyoung people)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Local knowledge and cultural
traditions are lost)

Which innovative
practices areused in managing
agriculture, fisheries
and forestry?

Chapter 2: The indicators | 23

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

Scores(10) Documentation of biodiversity-associated knowledge
The biodiversity in the landscape or seascape,including agricultural biodiversity, andknowledge associated with it is documented,
stored and made available to community
members.
Examples:Traditional knowledge registers;
Resource classification systems;
Community biodiversity registers;
Farmers’ field schools;
Animal breeding groups;
Pasture co-management groups;
Seed exchange networks (animal and seed fairs);
Seasonal calendars.

Is agricultural
biodiversity,and associatedknowledge
documented andexchanged?

(5) Very high(Documentation is robust)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(There is little or no
documentation in thecommunity)

Are women’s
knowledge,
experiences andskills recognized
and respected
at household,community andlandscape levels?

(5) Very high
(Women’s knowledge,
experiences and skills
recognized and respected at
all levels)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low (Women’s knowledge,
experiences and skills are notrecognized and respected)(11) Women’s knowledge
Women’s knowledge, experiences and skills arerecognized and respected in the community.
Women often have specific knowledge,
experience and skills about biodiversity, its
use and management, which are different fromthose of men.
Examples of women specific knowledge:
Know-how about the production of particular
crops;
Collection and use of medicinal plants;
Caring for animals.

Discussion
questions

24 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

ScoresDiscussion
questions

Governance and social equity(12) Rights in relation to land/water and other natural resource management
Rights over land/water and other natural
resources are clearly defined and recognized
by relevant groups and institutions, for example
governments and development agencies.
Recognition can be formalized by policy, law
and/or through customary practices.
Examples:Land-use groups;
Community forestry committees;
Co-management groups or communities.

Does the community
have customary
and/or formallyrecognized rights
over land, (seasonal)
pastures, water andnatural resources?

(5) Very high
(Rights are fully recognized
and not disputed)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Rights are not recognized andheavily disputed)

Do these rights give
security in terms ofaccess and use?

(5) Very high(Platform or institution iscapable of transparent,
participatory and effective
decision making)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(There is no multistakeholder
platform or institution)

Does agreement
exist about theboundaries of natural
resources in terms ofaccess and use?
Is the policy andlegal environment
supportive or not?

(13) Community-based landscape/seascape governance
The landscape or seascape has capable,accountable and transparent local institutions
in place for the effective governance of its
resources and the local biodiversity.
Examples of institutions:
Organizations, rules, policies, regulations andenforcement aimed at resource management;
Traditional authorities and customary rules;
Co-management arrangements, for example
joint forest management, between local people
and government.

Is there amultistakeholder
landscape/seascape platform
or institution able toeffectively plan andmanage landscaperesources?

(14) Social capital in the form of cooperation across the landscape/seascape
Individuals within and between communities areconnected and coordinated through networks
that manage resources and exchange materials,
skills and knowledge.
Examples:Self-help groups;
Community clubs and groups (women’s andyouth groups);
Intercommunity networks;
Associations of federations with a focus on
natural resource management.

Is there connection,
coordination andcooperation within
and between
communities forthe management of
natural resources?

(5) Very high(There is a very high level ofcooperation and coordinationin natural resource(4) management)(3) High(2) Medium(1) Low
Very low(There is little or no
cooperation and coordinationin natural resource
management)

Is the level ofout-migration low?

Chapter 2: The indicators | 25

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

ScoresDiscussion
questions

Is access toopportunities andresources fairand equitable forall community
members,
including women,
at household,community andlandscape level?

(5) Very high(Access to resources andopportunities is fair andequitable at all levels)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Access to resources andopportunities is not fair andequitable)

Is decision-making
fair and equitable
for all community
members, including
women, at all levels?

(15) Social equity (including gender equity)
Rights and access to resources andopportunities for education, information anddecision-making are fair and equitable for allcommunity members, including women, athousehold, community and landscape levels.
Examples:Upland and lowland communities;
Community members belonging to different
social or ethnic groups;
Women’s voices and choices are taken into
consideration in household decision-making
and at community meetings where decisions
about collective actions are made.

26 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

ScoresDiscussion
questionsLivelihoods and well-being(16) Socio-economic infrastructure
Socio-economic infrastructure is adequate forcommunity needs.
Examples of socio-economic infrastructure:
Schools, hospitals, roads and transport;
Safe drinking water;
Markets;
Electricity and communication infrastructure.

Is the socioeconomic
infrastructure
adequate forthe needs of thecommunity?

(5) Very high(Socio-economic infrastructure
meets all community needs)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Socio-economic infrastructure
does not meet community
needs)(17) Human health and environmental conditions
The overall state of human health in thecommunity is satisfactory, also considering theprevailing environmental conditions.
Examples:Absence or regular occurrence of diseases;
Frequency of disease outbreaks that affect alarge number of people;
Absence/presence of environmental stresses
like pollution, lack of clean water, exposure to
extreme weather events.

What is the general
health situationof local people
also considering
the prevailingenvironmental
conditions?

(5) Very high(The health situation and theenvironmental conditions aregood)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(The health and theenvironmental conditions arebad)

What are the mainrisks?
What types of
medicine are used?
(i.e. traditional
healing methods,
modern medicine)

Are households
in the community
involved in a variety
of sustainable,
income-generating
activities?

(5) Very high(Households are involved in avariety of sustainable, income
generating activities)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Households have noalternative economic activities)

What activities
generate income inthe landscape orseascape?

(18) Income diversity
People in the landscape or seascape are
involved in a variety of sustainable incomegenerating activities.
Note:
Diversity in economic activities can help
households in case of unexpected downturns,
disasters, changes in environmental conditions,etc.

Chapter 2: The indicators | 27

Indicator description

Questionsfor scoring

Scores

Does the community
develop innovativeuse of the local
biodiversity for its
livelihoods?

(5) Very high(Livelihoods are being
improved by innovative use of
local biodiversity)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(Livelihood improvements
are not related to local
biodiversity)

Are households andcommunities able
to move aroundbetween different
production activities
and locations asnecessary?

(5) Very high(There are sufficient
opportunities for mobility)(4) High(3) Medium(2) Low(1) Very low(There are no opportunities formobility)

Discussion
questions(19) Biodiversity-based livelihoods
Livelihood improvements in the landscape orseascape are concerned with innovative use of
local biodiversity.
Examples:Handicrafts using local materials, e.g. wood
carving, basketry, painting, weaving etc.;
Eco-tourism;
Processing of local foods, bee-keeping etc.

(20) Socio-ecological mobility
Households and communities are able to movearound to take advantage of shifts in production
opportunities and avoid land degradation andoverexploitation.
Examples of mobility:
Shifting cultivation and crop rotation practices;
Shifting between agriculture and herding/fishing;
Seasonal migration of herders;
Shifting fishing grounds;
Maintaining reserve areas for periods ofhardship.

Are there agreed
rules and regulations
for effectively doingso?

28 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

3
Kitui landscape, Kenya© Ren FujimuraChapter 3 Practicalguidance for using theindicators

communities. For guidance, this toolkit provides examples of the indicators in action, taken from previous
field-testing by Bioversity International and UNDPCOMDEKS, plus some practical tips for practices thathave been proven effective in the past.
A resilience assessment generally consists of threemain stages: 1) preparation, 2) assessment workshop
and 3) follow-up.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide users of
the indicators with concrete advice on their practicalapplication, including various processes for actively
engaging local communities in planning, preparing
and holding assessment workshops, and then implementing activities for restoring and maintaining SEPLS
after an assessment of their resilience.
While it is possible for the indicators to be used in several
different ways for various policy-making, academic orother purposes, they are generally intended to be usedin the context of a community-based assessment workshop held within the target landscape or seascape. The
guidance provided in this toolkit is primarily intended
for organizers and facilitators of resilience assessment
workshops.
Different landscapes and seascapes may have vastlydifferent geographical scales, governance systems,
stakeholders, cultural traditions, and resources, andthus require different approaches to assessment workshops and follow-up activities. Facilitators and stakeholders should be flexible in identifying locally-adapted
solutions accounting for the specific circumstances of

The preparation stage consists of planning andorganizing a community-based resilience assessment
workshop. This may include steps such as clarifying
the purpose of the assessment, determining theassessment area and obtaining information about thelandscape/seascape, resident communities and stakeholders as well as practical matters such as translating
the indicators into the local language.
The workshop itself is when the assessment of landscape or seascape resilience by local stakeholders
actually takes place. A workshop will generally consistof: introductory presentations; scoring based on theindicators; and discussion, summary and next steps.
This toolkit also provides tips for workshop facilitators to explain unfamiliar concepts such as “socioecological production landscapes and seascapes”
and “resilience”, and encourage active and meaningful
engagement of the participants.
The follow-up stage can vary widely depending on the
purpose of the assessment, but is generally intended touse assessment results as part of an ongoing, participatory landscape/seascape management and planning process. This toolkit introduces ways of analyzing
assessment data and scores, organizing follow-up
discussion among stakeholders, and identifying priority
areas and community-based interventions to enhance
resilience.

30 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Outline of the practical guidance•••Stage 1:
Preparation

•
•
•
•
•

•

Stage 2:Workshop••••Stage 3:
Follow-up•••

Clarifying the purpose of the assessment
Selection of the assessment area
Obtaining information about the landscape orseascape and its resident communities
Identification of stakeholders for planning
Clarifying the SEPLS and its boundary
Identification of workshop participants and facilitators
Deciding the style and duration of the workshop
Interpretation and translation of the indicators

Introduction–– Self Introductions–– Participatory mapping exercise–– Discussion of biodiversity–– Discussion of resilience–– Explanation of the indicators
Scoring–– Individual scoring–– Group scoring
Discussion, summary and next steps

Analysis of assessment data and scoring
Present analysis of assessment and review summary
the assessment
Discussion of analysis and identification of key topics
to discuss
Discussion on potential action lands in thecommunities
Evaluation of the exercise

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 31

3.1 Stage 1: Preparation

Selection of the assessment area

Setting the stage

The target landscape or seascape should be determined based on the purpose of the assessment andthe available resources, and a demonstrated interest
and engagement of the communities living in the area.

Before planning the details of an assessment workshop, it is advisable to make sure there is a clear understanding of a number of basic principles, such as theexact purpose of the assessment, the target SEPLS,
etc. All involved parties should share the same understanding to ensure that everyone is working toward thesame purposes.

To help clarify why the landscape or seascape waschosen, it may be useful to develop a number of parameters, such as natural assets, socio-economic activities, cultural heritage, threats and opportunities, and thepresence of particular species and biodiversity values.

Clarifying the purpose of the assessment
indicators in action

It is important to make sure that everyone involved in
the planning of the resilience assessment has a clear
and consistent understanding of the purpose(s) of theassessment and what it is expected to accomplish. The
purpose of the assessment will affect how it is carried
out.

Tips:
Some examples of purposes of an assessment may
include:• Gaining a common understanding of the state of thelandscape or seascape.
• Identifying strengths of and threats to the landscapeor seascape.
• Empowering local communities to strengthen theirresilience.
• Developing landscape/seascape management
strategies and identifying possible collaborative
actions in the landscape or seascape to strengthen
resilience.
• Enhancing trust and social capital in communities
and resolving conflict.
• Monitoring resilience of the landscape or seascapeand its communities over time.

selection of the assessment
area• For Bioversity International’s study in Bolivia,
a local NGO that had worked for over two
decades on the conservation, improvement
and marketing of local varieties of roots andtuber crops to benefit small farmers in sixteen
villages facilitated the planning and preparingof the resilience assessment. The NGO
selected two of the villages to conduct theresilience assessment.
• For the COMDEKS baseline assessment in
Namibia, the target landscape was a newconservancy that had been created as anadministrative unit and was selected by the
SGP National Steering Committee based ona number of criteria including its biodiversity
value, ecosystem sensitivity, tourism potential,
its ranking among the most underdeveloped
areas in Namibia, and UNDP presence in thearea (see Chapter 4).

32 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

indicators in action© COMDEKS Nepal/Top Bahadur Shahi

information collection

Stakeholders gather to assess boundaries of thelandscape in Daman, Nepal

Obtaining information about the landscapeor seascape and its resident communities
Obtaining scientific and statistical information about thelandscape or seascape facilitates better understandingof the area and appropriate design and preparation of theassessment. This information is also useful for assessment participants and stakeholders to have a common
understanding of the area and to utilize the informationin the resilience assessment. Information may include
land uses, population, rainfall, livelihoods and others, aswell as biodiversity and its value.
Where possible, it is a good idea to obtain information
on development plans and projects being undertakenin the area, capacities of key stakeholders such as
governments, NGOs and community-based organizations and their presence in the area, and any potential opportunities and synergies available to enhance
resilience.

• Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping
was used to identify the target landscape for
COMDEKS activities in Cambodia and divide
the target area into a number of socio-ecological areas taking into account topography, rainfall patterns, soil types, land use, forest coverchange and statutory land tenure systems.
• In Bhutan, the baseline assessment of thetarget landscape was carried out building
on an existing Watershed Management Plan
developed in 2009 by the Royal Governmentof Bhutan, which had been stalled due to alack of financial resources. In this case, theCOMDEKS landscape-wide baseline assessment was part of an effort to build on existingdevelopment plans to rebuild and revitalize theGamri Watershed based on the data alreadycollected for those plans.

Identification of stakeholders for planning
Key stakeholders in the area should be identified during the planning process for consultation in
the next phase. These should represent all relevant
sectors and may include local and national NGOs;
indigenous peoples’, women’s, elders’, and youth
groups; officers in forest and agricultural management; cooperatives and unions; representatives fromlocal farmers, fishermen, hotel owners and tourism
operators; and others.

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 33

indicators in action• During the COMDEKS assessment in Malawi,
the assessment facilitators were supportedby the District Executive Committee (DEC),
composed of members from the different
government departments (agriculture, fisheries, environment, education, planning, etc.).
Selected members of the DEC accompanied
the assessment coordinators as they mobilized
communities through local traditional authorities and village heads. The team conducteda participatory appraisal with relevant NGOs,
local communities and front-line agriculturaland natural resources extension staff in thearea.
• In Namibia, where an assessment was carriedout for an already-defined conservancy, theNGO contracted to run the assessment madeuse of the radio, which is the major meansof wide-scale communication in the area, togather stakeholders from around the conservancy. The NGO then consulted as many people
as possible to gain an understanding of thevarious actors and interests in the landscape.

Consultation and planning
Consultation with local stakeholders is a useful way
and essential requirement to learn more about thearea and communities to tailor the assessment to local
needs. Some degree of consensus must be reached on
the assessment’s purpose, definition of the landscape/seascape and its boundary, participants, facilitators, etc.

© COMDEKS Cambodia/Ngin Navirak

identifying stakeholders

Community members are consulted before devisinglandscape strategy, Cambodia

Tips:
Consultation with local stakeholders will facilitate
learning more about:• Community priorities, the current state of theenvironment and socio-economic conditions andperceived threats.
• Existing and potential projects and plans in thetarget area.
• Capacities and capability of the various stakeholders in the area.
• Opportunities for collaboration with other activities.
• Suitable community representatives and otherassessment participants representing different
groups.
• The expected time frame for trends in changes of
the indicators of resilience (for example, 10 years,
30 years, etc.).
The following pages cover some of the issues involvedin the planning of an assessment and consultation withlocal stakeholders.

34 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Clarifying the SEPLS and its boundary
indicators in action

Identification of resilience assessment
workshop participants
The participants in the workshop will vary depending
on its purpose and the background of the landscapeor seascape. Participants may include key local stakeholders with a variety of interests such as local farmers,
fishermen, government authorities, the private sector
and others, as well as cross-sector expertise if technical service providers are included.

clarifying the landscape
In Cambodia, information from the Geographic
Information System (GIS) was used to divide thetarget Seung Siem Reap watershed area into three
sub-areas, upstream, midstream and downstream.
The watershed area is highly heterogeneous dueto the wide diversity of biological, geographicaland topographical features located within theregion. In order to capture the heterogeneity of thetarget landscape, and identify potential community-based activities to enhance resilience of thelandscape, the target area was further divided into
six socio-ecological zones, taking into accounttopography, rainfall pattern, soil types, land use,
forest cover change, and statutory land tenuresystems.

© COMDEKS Cambodia/Srey Marona

The exact landscape or seascape should be defined
based on a community perspective. The boundariesof the landscape or seascape (watershed, jurisdictional boundaries, social definition of the landscapeor seascape, etc.) may be determined through consultation with key local stakeholders and/or by using
sketches, maps, GIS data of the region, etc. In general,
it is helpful to take a flexible approach depending on
local needs. The SEPLS and its boundary can also
be discussed at the beginning of the assessment
workshop.

Attention should be paid to ensuring there is a goodgender and age balance. Likewise, it is vital to include
indigenous peoples and minority groups if they arepresent in the landscape or seascape. For a large
or diverse landscape or seascape, it is important toinclude stakeholders from different communities in thetarget area.
In order to identify assessment participants fromdifferent groups, it is useful to visit all communities
in advance. Communities can suggest key representatives of the community to be participants in theworkshop.

Geographic Information System (GIS) has been usedin Cambodia to divide the target watershed area
into three sub-areas and six socio-ecological zones
based on the heterogeneity of the landscape.

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 35

The norms and culture of the area should be considered. To enable effective participation of women in
the planning process and strategy development,
community consultation and the assessment need
to be conducted in the context of social conventions,organizing separate meetings for men and women if
appropriate. This approach has been employed atseveral COMDEKS sites including Gilgel Gibe I dam
catchment area in Ethiopia.
Where inequalities exist, gender integration in theresilience assessment workshop and strategy development should focus on strengthening women’scapacities and leadership abilities, and helping
to advance their involvement in governance anddecision-making processes, as gender equity helps
to increase resilience. Ways of doing this include
supporting specific projects managed by women’sgroups within the landscape, ensuring women’s
participation in community-based institutions andinvolving women in engagement with external partners and networks. For example, after the assessment workshop in the Natewa-Tunuloa Peninsula,a COMDEKS site in Fiji, a village chief suggested
that women should lead the COMDEKS project
recognizing that, despite their limited access toresources, they can greatly improve livelihoods intheir communities such as by bark cloth production and weaving to support small scale cottage
industries.

Women are interviewed to gather information on local
small scale farming activities, Niger© COMDEKS Ethiopia/Zeleke Tesfaye

It is essential that gender knowledge is captured anddocumented to improve the participation of womenin future community programs including landscapeor seascape resilience-strengthening strategy development and action plans.

© COMDEKS Niger/Bassirou Dan Magaria

Gender mainstreaming

Women and men are separated into groups to ensureboth perspectives are heard, Ethiopia

36 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Identification of facilitators
Facilitators are the people who will run the workshop,
and their role may involve organizing, planning, acting
as emcees, following-up, and other tasks. The facilitators should lead the smooth proceeding of an assessment workshop and stimulate active and equal participation of workshop participants.
It is important to have a note-taker among the facilitators, who understands local languages to be usedduring the workshop and discussion. The notes takenby this person will be of vital importance during thefollow-up stage.
Ideally, facilitators have a working relationship with
communities in the area. If local community members
are actively engaged in SEPLS management, they
themselves can become facilitators. In such cases,
they may require some training in how to facilitate.
Local NGOs and project coordinators who havedeveloped a strong relationship with local communities through existing projects can be good candidates
to serve as facilitators. Alternatively, facilitators needto develop a relationship with the communities andlearn about the landscape or seascape through available documents and discussion with key community
members before the assessment workshop. In this case,facilitators may need to spend some time in the communities to learn about them beforehand.
The role of the facilitator during an assessment isvital for explaining the concepts of “socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS)” and“resilience” to communities and workshop participants.
Facilitators should have a good understanding of theseconcepts and be able to translate the indicators into
the local language if necessary, or reword them withvocabulary understood at the local level.

Deciding the style and duration of theworkshop
A resilience assessment workshop generally consistsof three main parts: 1) an introduction; 2) scoring of theindicators; and 3) discussion of the results and wrapup. Time constraints may allow for more or less time,
but testing has shown that the introduction and scoring
may take one whole day (including lunch and tea break),with another half day for discussion and wrap-up.
The design of an assessment workshop should bebased on information obtained in the consultations,field visits and other information collection, and finalized together with local stakeholders. For this reason,
it is important to have a good understanding of thetarget landscape or seascape and the socio-economic,
cultural, and other circumstances of resident communities during planning. For example, women and men
tend to have different perceptions because of thedifferent roles they usually have, and come up withdifferent views on many of the indicators. In such cases
it is recommended to have separate groups for thescoring process and then bring the results together inthe whole group discussion. The same process can beconsidered for community members of different socioeconomic status.
The number, size and duration of assessment workshops depend on the resources available and thecapacity of the communities. In many cases local
community members, such as farmers and fishermen,
will be busy with their work, so it is advisable thatthe assessment workshop be completed within one
or two days, or adapted to the schedule of the local
stakeholders.

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 37

Sample assessment workshop
timetable
Bioversity International held assessment workshops in Fiji, with participants from villages in the
Bouma National Heritage Park on Taveuni Island.
Around 10 villagers from each of two villages
participated in a 1.5 day workshop. Since there
were a large number of participants, the introduction was done for the whole group and the groupthen divided into two, with each village doing its
own mapping exercise and scoring of the indicators. Discussions were held separately for eachvillage the next day.
DAY 1: Introduction and scoring
9:30-10:00
10:00-11:00
11:00-12:00
12:00-12:15
12:15-14:00
14:00-14:30
14:30-16:30
16:30-17:00

Introduction (30 min.)Participatory mapping exercise (1 hour)
Discussion about diversity andresilience in the communities (1 hour)
Tea break (15 min.)Scoring (Questions 1-7)
(1 hour 45 min.)Lunch break (30 min.)Scoring (Questions 8-20) (2 hours)
Summary of the assessment and next
steps (30 min.)Interpretation and translation of theindicators
Prior to the assessment workshop, it is essential to
make sure that the resilience indicators are expressedin language that the participants will be able to understand easily. This may require translating them into one
or more languages. Even for native English speakers,
it may be necessary to alter the language used in theindicators to make them more easily understood in thelocal context.
The indicators have been developed to be applicable todifferent types and sizes of landscapes and seascapes.
Therefore, facilitators and participating communities
may also need to adjust the content of the indicators
depending on the local circumstances. Depending on
the context, additional indicators can be integrated
while indicators that are not deemed relevant maybe
discarded.

© COMDEKS Niger/Bassirou Dan Magaria

indicators in action

DAY 2: Discussions
9:30-10:00
10:00-11:00

11:00-12:00
12:00-12:30
12:30-13:00

Analysis of scoring and review
summary of the assessment (30 min.)Discussion of analysis andidentification of key topics to discuss(1 hour)
Discussion of potential action plansin the village (1 hour)
Evaluation of the exercise (30 min.)Lunch (30 min.)During a baseline assessment in Niger, stones are usedas markers

38 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

3.2 Stage 2: The assessment workshop
Introduction
An assessment workshop will generally begin with an
introductory presentation given by the facilitators. It is
important during the introduction that time be allowed
to answer any questions participants may have.
Explaining key concepts and answering all questions
can be expected to take a few hours.
Participatory activities may also be carried out at thistime, to ensure not only that participants feel comfortable interacting with each other, but also that they
have a common understanding of the landscape orseascape and its resources. See below for some examples of participatory activities.
It is a good idea to collect participant information suchas name, age, gender and village name or organization, or, alternatively, circulate a sheet for participants
to provide this information at the beginning of theworkshop.

© COMDEKS Ghana/George Ortsin

Tips:• Prepare enough copies of the translated indicatorsfor each of the participants and facilitators.
• Provide pens or pencils and scratch paper for allparticipants.
• Ensure that there is enough poster-sized paper andmarkers, coloured pens for mapping, stickers, tape,scissors and/or whatever will be needed for prominently displaying scoring results, mapping, etc.
• Prepare suitable refreshments and organize meals
for participants as appropriate.
• Consider how participants are going to get to theassessment, and whether transportation should be
provided.

Baseline assessment workshop, Ghana

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 39

Tips:
The introduction is a good opportunity to explain:• The purpose of the assessment and the value of
people’s participation. Be aware that in some places
it can be very difficult for communities to open up
and hold discussions freely.
• The basic concepts of “socio-ecological production
landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS)” and “resilience”. It is important that all participants understand these concepts. The use of simple, easy-tounderstand language is recommended as well as
examples to help participants understand. It may be
useful to use pictures or photos of socio-ecologicalproduction landscapes or seascapes.
• Other concepts found in the indicators, such as“agricultural biodiversity” and “land uses”. Picturesand diagrams may be helpful.
• The flow of the resilience assessment and indicators according to their specific themes. These are:Landscape/seascape diversity and ecosystem
protection; Biodiversity (including agricultural biodiversity); Knowledge and innovation; Governanceand social equity; and Livelihoods and well-being.
• The workshop schedule, including plans forfollow-up.

The exact procedure for the introductory segment will varydepending on time, resources, local context, purpose
etc., and may include some or all of the following:Self-introductions
If participants are from multiple communities within alandscape or seascape, or if facilitators or other participants are from outside the target community, it may
be helpful to have each participant introduce himself
or herself and explain their interest in the assessment
workshop.

Participatory mapping exercise
Having participants draw a map of their landscape orseascape including resources, land-uses, landmarks
and others – agricultural lands, water sources, hunting
or fishing areas, buildings, etc. – is useful for identifying the landscape or seascape and its boundaries
and ensuring a common understanding of the target
area. Participatory SEPLS mapping is also effective forengaging participants in discussion.
Discussion of biodiversity
Discuss and list examples of agricultural andaquatic biodiversity such as fruits, vegetables,
medicinal plants, trees, livestock, pollinators, fish andcrustaceans, including their local names. It may also beappropriate to list various kinds of wildlife.
Discuss and list landscape or seascape components including fields, forest patches, rivers, pastures,
wetlands, water sources, coral reefs etc. Also list the
local words for these components.

Discussion of resilience
Make a timeline with major events and changes inrelation to the climate, environment and others, such as
droughts, floods, storms, earthquakes etc., on a large
sheet of paper.
Explain resilience, for example, as “recovering after
stress” (see Chapter 1: “Resilience in SEPLS – What isit?”), and then let participants explain it in their own words.
Explain adaptation, for example, and ask participants
how they cope with droughts, floods, typhoons, earthquakes, forest fire, pest, disease and other disasters.

Explanation of the indicators
Explain the concept of indicators in general, as well as
the Indicators of Resilience in SEPLS specifically, their
purpose and how using them is intended to benefit thecommunity.

40 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

indicators in action

Participatory mapping exercise© Bioversity International/Dunja Mijatovic

A participatory mapping exercise can provide an
opportunity for involvement of a greater numberof both men and women from the community
including those traditionally marginalized, building
trust and strengthening relationships between
facilitators and community members, and establishing a structure in which decision-making andresponsibilities are shared. The mapping activity
initiates a community involvement forum which
continues to be developed through regular village
meetings. Finally, the maps created serve as
reference material for future planning, providing
important insight into the specific socio-ecologicalcharacteristics of the area.

Community members in Fiji engaged in participatory
mapping

Scoring
The process of having the workshop participants score
their landscape or seascape according to the twenty
indicators of resilience is at the heart of the assessment
workshop. The twenty indicators are each accompanied by questions for use in scoring, as well as notes,
examples and additional discussion questions whereappropriate.
The physical method of collecting scores may dependon the local context. When planning the workshop,
facilitators should decide whether each participant will
be given a scorecard, write their scores on a chalkboard, place a number of small stones into a cup, orsome other method.
Scores: The indicators are intended to be scored on a
five-point scale. A score of 1 means the landscape orseascape performs very poorly in that indicator and ascore of 5 means an extremely good performance. (seepage 18)
Trends: A basic score for each indicator may beenough in some cases. In cases where resources allow,
it may be desirable to have participants also provide
their perceptions of trends, notes on reasons for theirscores, and potential problems and solutions.
Trends are generally captured using a time span (5, 10,30 years etc.) determined for each indicator. It is generally sufficient to evaluate trends using a three-tiered
scale (improving; no change; worsening), but a more
complex five-tiered scale (rapidly improving; slowly
improving; no change; slowly worsening; rapidly worsening) has also been used.
It is important to ask questions on the resilience indicators in a way that is easy to understand for all participants. It is recommended that facilitators prepare inadvance how to pose each question to the participants
using local examples and interpreting questions in theChapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 41

local context. When participants have difficulty comprehending a question, facilitators can assist participantsby explaining the scores and trends.

• To reach a common understanding (if possible) of
the landscape/seascape situation and any threats
and solutions.

Individual Scoring
The facilitator should ask the participants the question
for each resilience indicator and explain with somelocal contexts and examples. Have each individual
participant give his or her own score for each indicator.

To reach consensus, the additional questions found in
the fourth column of the indicator table (Chapter 2) canbe asked during the discussion.

© COMDEKS Bhutan/Dorji Singay

Tips:• Facilitators should work at creating a participatory
and communicative atmosphere to keep participants interested and engaged in the process.

Participants score their landscape using indicators forresilience during a workshop, BhutanGroup Scoring
After individual scoring has been completed, the groupshould discuss, for each indicator question, whichscore represents the overall perceptions of the wholegroup. This may be done by having individual participants discuss their scores and trends and the reasons
behind them to arrive at a consensus opinion, or
another method such as taking a simple mathematical
average.This step is important:• To provide a space for discussion.
• To identify different views within and amongcommunity members.

• It is important to capture how things have changed
temporally and what the drivers associated withthese changes are. This will help the communities
develop strategies to improve their resilience as afollow up process to the resilience assessment.
• Materials such as cards, small stones, plastic or
paper caps can minimize the time taken for scoring.
Providing a cup and 5 small stones for each individual participant, facilitators can ask the participants to put stones for each question in the cup
while a note-taker captures individual scores.

It may be useful to prepare an indicator score sheet
like the one on the next page on a poster-sized sheetof paper and write each participant’s scores for thewhole group to see, in order to facilitate a participatory
process in arriving at group scores.

42 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Table 1. Score sheet for group scores
Indicator
Question#

Name
Score

Trend

Name
Score

Trend

Name
Score

Name

Trend

Score

Trend

Name
Score

Trend

Group
Consensus
Score

Trend

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

© Bioversity International/Yasuki Morimoto

Discussion, summary and next steps

Scoring data collected at a workshop in Kenya

Discussion of the results of the indicator scoring is as
important as the scoring itself. An active and productive discussion of the indicator scoring can help participants understand how to enhance the resilience of thelandscape or seascape and identify potential community-based activities that can improve resilience basedon these findings. The additional questions found in theindicator table (Chapter 2) can be also asked at thisstage to guide the discussion.
Facilitators should guide the discussion in a way thatencourages participants to share ideas, views, problems, threats, explanations and local solutions suchas knowledge and practices used to mitigate, manage

and recover from shocks. Based on these understandings, participants should further explore options forenhancing the resilience of the landscape/seascapeand identify possible next steps for the group to take.
Everyone should be encouraged to speak freely in thediscussion, even if there is repetition, and a note-takershould record the comments.

Tips:
Group discussion is a good opportunity to:• Identify potential solutions to problems facing thelandscape or seascape.
• Ask participants what strikes them most about thefindings.
• Discuss how to improve the resilience of the landscape or seascape and identify potential community-based activities to do so.
The following are some examples of possible elements
for the discussion. Facilitators can consider organizing
another session a few days or weeks after the assessment workshop to further promote discussion andidentify next steps.

Discussion of scoring results
After summarizing the assessment scores, facilitators
may display diagrams and the indicator score sheets
on a wall, and stimulate discussion on strengths andweaknesses in landscape or seascape resilience.
Facilitators may go over each resilience indicator question again, or cover each sub-category of the indicators. Participants should share their thoughts on thescores, their reasons, and practices used to respond toshocks and changes.

© Bioversity International/Ronnie Vernooy

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 43

Discussing the results of the indicators scoring exercise inplenary, Khotont district, Mongolia

Tips:
The following is one option to process the collectedscoring data:• Calculate average scores of each sub-category of
the resilience indicators.
• Draw a radar diagram on a big sheet of paper to help
participants visualize the results during discussion.
Discussion on specific topics
Facilitators can stimulate discussion to identify key
topics for the community.
Key discussion topics may include:• Key community concerns and threats to landscapeor seascape resilience.
• Needs for improvement in current practices.

44 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Discussion of potential action plans withincommunities
Once key topics have been identified, facilitators should
encourage participants to discuss potential activities
in the form of action plans for their communities. It is
important that community members develop their own
action plans to ensure community ownership.

Key elements of an action plan may include: reachinga common understanding of priorities for the landscape or seascape; facilitation of collaboration acrossdifferent sectors; landscape or seascape strategy
development; and adaptive management of the landscape or seascape. A multi-objective strategy, taking aholistic landscape or seascape approach, can be more
effective than a narrow, sectoral approach.

© IGES/Ikuko MatsumotoCommon challenges in resilienceassessment

Example of radar diagram from a workshop in Fiji

Tips:
The following four elements are key points when developing action plans:• What needs to be done?
• Who will do it?
• Who will lead it?
• Who from outside the community can help implement activities?

Allocating sufficient time for discussion
If facilitators do not take enough time to explain
the purpose of the exercise, focusing, for example,
on simply getting scores, there may not be enoughdiscussion among the participants, making the workshop less effective for engaging local communities.
Managing expectations from communities
It is important to manage expectations from community members related to the resilience assessment
workshop. Local communities should understand thatan assessment workshop is one step in an ongoing,
participatory process to improve resilience.
Encouraging participation of all stakeholders,
including womenParticularly in large-scale landscapes and seascapes,
sometimes only representatives of local cooperatives and communities, mostly men, may be invited
to the workshop. If time and conditions allow, additional house visits to women are strongly advised toovercome gender barriers.

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 45

Evaluation of the workshop
It is often helpful to seek feedback from participants
about the assessment workshop. This can help facilitators to make future workshops more effective based on
the particular local context.

Allowing for sufficient follow-up discussions
In order to involve a larger number of community
members, follow-up workshops at the local levelcan be organized to supplement the assessment
workshop. These can serve to share findings andgenerate discussion in the community concerning
the challenges ahead.

3.3 Stage 3: Follow-up
In the weeks and months after an assessment workshop, facilitators should encourage follow-up dialogue
among workshop participants and other stakeholders
in the landscape or seascape in order to reflect on
steps that can be taken to achieve greater SEPLS resilience, and if possible organize follow-up sessions.
How the follow-up is carried out as part of an ongoingprocess depends on the purpose and nature of theworkshop. For example, results from a workshop held
to help identify specific development projects to be
funded by a national government or a donor may be
used differently from the findings of a workshop held
for academic research. The following are some examples of possible ways results may be used.

© Bioversity International/Ronnie Vernooy

Tailoring the language of the indicators
It is essential to tailor the language of all content
to meet the specific capacities of participants. The
language used in the indicators may be too complex
for many people to comprehend easily. Facilitators
may have to simplify the terms and provide examples
relevant to local communities to ensure all members
understand the terms and concepts. Interactive
mapping exercises and use of photos of the landscape or seascape can prove particularly successful
in providing a spatial dimension to conservation
priorities and encouraging relevant and practicalsolutions to SEPLS resilience.

Assisting the Mongolian herders of Khotont district tounderstand the indicators

46 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Quantitative, qualitative andcomparative analysis to identify
community needs
Various types of quantitative, qualitative andcomparative analysis can be applied to scoring
results, each of which will identify different issues
and needs. For example, past use of the indicators has shown that quantitative analysis of scorevalues was useful in identifying risk perceptions
shared among the communities in a landscapeor seascape (such as loss of local crop varietiesand poor ecosystem management), while qualitative analysis using discussion helped to focus on
the perceived reasons for these (such as lack ofawareness and ineffective government actions).
Comparative analysis between communities
where multiple assessments are carried out can
provide hints as to what kinds of interventions
may be effective in different areas. See Chapter 4,
Example 4 for examples of data analysis.

Further analysis of assessment data andscoring
Scoring data collected at a workshop can be used forvarious types of qualitative, quantitative and comparative analysis. Further analysis can be useful for understanding trends, identifying more effective follow-up
activities and strategies, and for scientific research.

Share the results of the assessment
workshop with other stakeholders
The workshop results can be shared with other stakeholders. The facilitator can present perceived strengths
and weaknesses in landscape or seascape resilienceby displaying the diagrams and the indicator score
sheets and sharing the discussion results.

Develop concrete action plans withincommunities
Strategy or concrete action plans can be further
consolidated to plan and implement specific projects
or activities to enhance SEPLS resilience.
It is also good to elucidate concrete steps that participants will take in implementing the action plans. It is
important to remember that both short-term goals thatcan be achieved with currently-available resources andlong-term goals to direct the continued development of
the SEPLS should be considered.

indicators in action

Follow-up
In the north-western part of Makawanpur district in
Nepal, the results of a resilience assessment wereeffectively used to develop a landscape strategy forthe area. The indicator scoring showed a relatively
poor perception in the area of ecosystem protection, so the following were identified as important
strategic issues in developing goals and objectives:••••

Increasing connectivity
Addressing marginality and inequality
Diversification of land uses
Respecting useful traditional knowledge
and complementing it with new innovations• Synergy building• Gender and social Inclusion• Market linkage
Importantly, the assessment also showed which
earlier interventions had been beneficial in areas
such as agricultural biodiversity, which helped
guide the above priorities.

Chapter 3: Practical guidance for using the indicators | 47

Repeated resilience assessment foradaptive management
For adaptive landscape/seascape management, theindicators may not be only used as a one-time exercise, but instead utilized throughout projects’ lifetimes.
Landscape or seascape strategies can be adjusted
depending on periodic resilience assessments over anumber of years. This requires allowing appropriate
time for discussion and interpreting changes that thedata reveal and adapting strategies accordingly. It isgood to pay attention to any seasonal differences thatmight affect responses, and try to perform the scoring
exercise at the same time each year if appropriate.

Possible post-assessment follow-up
activities
For local communities and NGOs:
Propagating a common understanding of priority issues
for the landscape or seascape:• Hold discussions on the status of the landscapeor seascape as perceived by local stakeholders inorder to reach a clear understanding as a basis forpriorities in collaborative actions.
• Facilitate communication on goals and expected
outcomes at the landscape/seascape level.
• Identify priority issues to be addressed bycommunities.
• Identify key threats and intervention strategies tostrengthen community resilience including livelihood improvement.
Facilitation of collaboration across different sectors:• Identify possible allies for resilience strengthening
activities in the landscape or seascape.
• Strengthen partnership among various actors andensure sustainability and resilience of the landscapeor seascape.

Landscape/seascape strategy development:• Develop landscape/seascape resilience-strengthening strategies and action plans.
• Enhance community participation in the decisionmaking process on landscape/seascape management at local and national levels, and promote
communication with policy-makers.
• Present outcomes of the workshop to key national
stakeholders, and enhance communication with
policy-makers in order to facilitate the incorporationof local landscape and seascape strategies into
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
and other development plans.
Adaptive management of the landscape or seascape:• Use assessment results as a baseline for further
monitoring changes in the landscape or seascape.
• Conduct resilience assessments periodically toenable adaptive management of the landscape orseascape.
For policymakers:• Utilize the resilience assessment as a decision
making tool to identify intervention priorities anddevelop strategies at the local and national level.
• Promoteparticipatory
landscape/seascapemanagement among different stakeholders.
• Identify an integrated approach in the various
project planning and project implementation stages
in landscapes/seascapes.

48 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

4© Julie Laurent

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 49

Chapter 4 Examples fromthe field

4.1 Namibia
An overview of the process
Background
The following description of a resilience assessment
workshop prepared and implemented in Namibia
describes how results collected and discussion stimulated from the application of the indicators could be
used for the formulation of participatory landscapestrategies.
Priority area and rationale for selection
The Ipumbu-ya Shilongo Conservancy was selected by
the SGP National Steering Commitee as a COMDEKS
pilot landscape mainly due to its biodiversity, ongoingpreservation efforts, sensitive ecosystem, and tourism
potential. The Conservancy is located in the Oshana
and Omusati regions of northern Namibia within the
Cuvelai-Etosha Basin, a trans-boundary wetland
system which consists of hundreds of drainage channels that are dry throughout most of the year. However,when flows do occur, they can range from very small

trickles to large floods of water, making landscapeconditions dependent on seasons and weather variability. Spreading across 154,800 hectares, it is one
of approximately 70 conservancies in the country inwhich community members manage and benefit fromtheir resources jointly on a local level. The area is alsosignificant for its proximity to the Etosha National Park,a world-renowned wildlife sanctuary that is home toelephants and other African wildlife.
As a semi-arid area challenged by issues such as water
availability for both sustaining wildlife grazing and agricultural production, the conservancy is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and despite its
protected status, is still underdeveloped agriculturally,
ecologically, and economically. For these reasons, forseveral years UNDP has provided long-term engagement and systematic support to this landscape interms of community-based climate change adaptation projects. Thus, COMDEKS activities in Namibia
are expected to build on the lessons learned and on
the networks of partners and stakeholders, as well as
strengthened institutions, resulting from these previous
efforts.

Preparation
A local NGO was awarded a grant to facilitate aworkshop with members from the local community
to conduct the baseline assessment. In order to raiseawareness and mobilize support among community
members, the primary means for mass communication in the region, were used, and preparatory visitswere also made by the facilitators. Potential participants were also sought out through consultations withtraditional authorities and other responsible parties in
the conservancy. A wide range of local stakeholders,
including farmers, natural resource monitors, government representatives and community leaders wereinvited to participate in the assessment with an eye

50 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

towards balanced representation of constituents in
conducting the workshops. During the preparatory
phase the indicators were translated by the facilitators
into the local language, Oshiwambo, and hand-outs
were prepared with the indicators in both English andOshiwambo.

Average scores for each category were written on
large pieces of paper and put on the wall to facilitate
discussion on the second day.

Mapping exercise, scoring, and discussion
During the first day of the resilience assessment
workshop, men and women were divided into twogroups for a participatory mapping exercise in which
each group drew a map of the conservancy and its
resources, and then were asked to write their scoresfor the indicators on paper. The scores for the resilience indicators were collected and entered into a
spreadsheet for analysis after the first day’s session.

Participatory mapping exercise. A group of men creating
their map during the baseline assessment mapping
activity as a basis for assessing resilience© COMDEKS Namibia/Nikey L. Gaseb

In March 2014, the initial two-day stakeholder assessment workshop to conduct a baseline assessment of
the socio-economic and ecological resilience of thelandscape and to identify key issues was held in a
hotel conference room in the town of Oshakati. Thirtyeight community members, including 15 women and
23 men took part in the discussion, which was used
to provide input for the development of the landscape strategy. One-on-one discussions were also
held between the workshop facilitators and the otherorganizations working in the landscape such as the
Namibia Development Trust, Creative Entrepreneur
Services, the local NGO Omalundu Iimuna Kommitiye
Elungameno (OIKE), and the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism, to incorporate their viewpoints, lessons
learned, and best practices from similar projects
funded previously. A follow-up two day stakeholder
workshop was later organized at the Engombe
Agricultural Centre, where the formulated landscapestrategy was presented and endorsed by community
representatives.

© UNU-IAS/William Dunbar

Assessment workshops

A group of women collaborate for the mapping activity

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 51

© UNU-IAS/William Dunbar

The second day of the workshop consisted of a discussion of the previous day’s results. An overall explanation of the sub-categories of the resilience indicatorsand their results (on a scale of excellent, good, fair,poor, and very poor) was given by the facilitators.
Facilitators also discussed the following with members
for each category: 1) what the situation is, 2) what
activities are being done now, and 3) what activities
might be needed in the future. While the conservancy
was generally given high marks in some areas such as
agricultural biodiversity, it was perceived to be lacking
in ecosystem protection, with people tending to agree
on the need for more enforcement and compliancewith regulations. Areas for improvement were found innearly all measured categories.

Suggestions for improvements included socioeconomic infrastructure-related concerns, with the ideathat more institutional capacity was needed to enforce
rules in place, such as a larger budget for natural
resource monitors. Workshop members also indicateda desire to establish a market to sell local products
and tourist lodges to promote ecotourism of the area.
Other suggestions focused on awareness-raising
about the need to improve landscape resiliency, withpeople calling for more training in sustainable production techniques and more effort to create a culture ofmutual cooperation, through promoting visits to otherconservancies and exchange of best practices.
One of the major themes emerging from the discussion
was the need for better community-based governance,as the community itself is not responsible for making
the decisions needed to preserve the ecosystem. The
participants seemed to agree that younger generations
are less engaged in the conservancy effort due to highrates of out-migration for school and then work.

The different groups represented often had differing
opinions based on their own situation; for example, it
was perceived that people living near the edges of theconservancy had a different perspective on the situation inside the conservancy than those from near thecenter, and that women had less interest in the salt
pans as a natural resource than men because traditionally women are not allowed to go into the salt pans tocollect salt.

© UNU-IAS/William Dunbar

Explanation and scoring of the target landscape using the
SEPLS indicators during the baseline assessment

Participants engage in discussion

52 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Wrap-up
After these discussions, the facilitators wrapped up theworkshop by again stressing that this workshop wasmeant as the beginning, not the end, of a process.
Beyond the immediate development of the landscapestrategy and identification of projects to be carried out
directly through COMDEKS or other donor funding, theindicators will be used as an adaptive management
tool, with a plan to hold another assessment workshop
within the next few years to identify trends in perceived
resilience and to evaluate the effectiveness of thestrategy.
Follow-up
After the baseline assessment, a follow-up session
was held to present the landscape strategy to stakeholders for validation and endorsement. In addition to
constraints and challenges, the stakeholder consultation process also identified many opportunities forthe landscape such as the potential for tourism andprotection of biodiversity due to the landscape’s close
proximity to the Etosha National Park.
The types of community projects identified bystakeholder participants that may be supported
by COMDEKS and/or other donor funding in the
Ipumbu-ya-Shilongo Conservancy include activities
that will improve freshwater retention, for both humanconsumption and agricultural use, rehabilitation ofwells, and the development of “conservation tillage”
as an agricultural practice, which would allow water topenetrate the soil and nourish crops for a longer periodof time. Other activities may focus on increasing theuse of indigenous crop varieties or the creation of wildlife preservation zones, which would sustain regional
biodiversity while creating a source of revenue for the
local community through ecotourism.

Lessons learned and challenges identified during
the process
1 Discussion through interpreters may not flow assmoothly as, and may take longer than, expected– Discussion during the assessment workshop wasoften hampered by the need to translate between
English and Oshiwambo. In order to save time andcircumvent the need of translating all the proceedings between English and the local language, one
possible solution may be to divide participants into
smaller groups.
2 The facilitator must ensure ample time for explanation of Satoyama and SEPLS resilience andoverall sustainability of ecosystem biodiversity
and services – Explaining these concepts so thatall stakeholders understood them took a great dealof time. Effort must be made so that key concepts
are understood by the community, to ensure acceptance and participation by community members in
the process. Again, it may be more productive tosplit into smaller groups for those who need a closer
explanation in their local language.
3 Sufficient time should also be allocated forcompletion of the mapping activity – Although it
was time-intensive, the mapping process proved
particularly successful in providing a spatial dimension to conservation priorities, allowing for a more
concrete discussion of landscape issues andencouraging relevant and practical solutions tolandscape resilience. The extra time taken in thiscase was considered worthwhile.
4 The importance of integrating gender perspectives, even in a community with relatively highgender equality should be stressed – During theworkshop, there was some resistance to divide
scoring groups by gender, with the argument that
there is relatively high gender parity in the community. In some nearby ethnic groups, women areChapter 4: Examples from the field | 53

held in a much lower position than men, but in the
Ipumbu-ya-Shilongo Conservancy, while it may
not be exactly equal, women speak their opinions
openly in the presence of men and even hold positions of authority. However, even though there is
not a great disparity between men and women,
men and women did highlight different elements
and aspects at the landscape level, such as differences in attitudes towards salt pans as a natural
resource. Although not always necessary to divide
groups along gender lines, workshop facilitators
should encourage the active participation of all
stakeholders, including women and marginalized
communities, in the discussion.

hunting. This would increase tourism revenue, but
cattle-grazing activities in this area would have to
be moved to the central area of the conservancy.
In cases like this, it is important to make sure allcommunity interests have representation when
formulating a landscape strategy, so that thenegotiated strategy will be as broadly-supported
as possible. Relatively neutral exercises, such as
mapping and scoring indicators, can be useful inthis regard by encouraging collaboration and agreement about landscape conditions before moving on
to contested topics involving changes in land-uses.

© Gregory Naud

5 Various community interests and incentives canrequire sensitivity to balance – Among the issues
discussed during the resilience assessment was a
proposal to turn the southern part of the conservancy into a zone exclusively for sustainable wildlife management, including regulated big-game54 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

4.2 FijiIdentification of concrete community
actions
Local community members on Taveuni Island, Fiji, wereable to identify possible actions to strengthen the resilience of their communities’ landscapes and seascapes
through assessment workshops held by Bioversity
International (see “Indicators in Action: Sample assessment workshop timetable” on page 37 for the workshops’ design). Two assessment workshops were heldin the villages of Lavena and Korovou, with participantsfrom four villages in the Bouma National Heritage Parkon Taveuni Island: Korovou, Lanvena, Vidawa andWaitabu. The Bouma National Heritage Park covers
about 15,000 hectares of rainforest including strict
conservation areas known as the Nature Reserve(communities cannot take anything from this area),
and the Forest Reserve (communities can take natural
resources from this area only for their subsistence). Allfour villages are located along the coast, and most of
the villagers are involved in both agriculture and fishing.
Thus, villagers’ awareness of connectivity between

different components of the landscape and seascapeis relatively high. The four villages have been also
involved in community-based ecotourism since 1990,
with funding assistance from the New Zealand Aid
Programme. Thus, the communities have been actively
involved in natural resource management, particularly
related to ecotourism.
Through discussions of the group scores for each indicator, the villagers were able to share their perceptionsof the status of their landscapes and seascapes, andto reach common understanding among elders, youth,
men and women. After finishing the group scoring, they
discussed ways to strengthen landscape and seascaperesilience based on this understanding, which allowed
them to come up with concrete ideas for actions that
could be implemented at the village level.
For example, participants from Waitabu village reachedagreement on the following group scores for eachindicator.1
1

The resilience Indicators used in the Fiji workshop were a previous version
slightly different from the set of indicators found in this toolkit.

Vidawa village
Korovou village

Lanvena village
Waitabu village

Map of the Bouma National Heritage Park in Taveuni Island

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 55

Table 2. Group scoring from Waitabu village, Taveuni Island, Fiji
Questions for scoring

Common understanding of the group

Landscape/seascape biodiversity and ecosystem protection

Group Score/trend
3

1 Landscape/seascape diversity
Is the landscape/seascape composed of diverse natural
ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic) and land uses?

The establishment of a Marine Protected Area covering
part of the village fishing grounds has produced
substantial benefits to the community.

4á

Seascape protection is done through the Marine
Protected Area, but none of the landscape is protected
besides the Nature Reserve, where access to naturalforest is restricted in the northern part of the village.

2á

2 Ecosystem protection
Are there areas in the landscape or seascape where
ecosystems are protected under formal or informal
forms of protection?

3 Ecological interactions between different components of the landscape/seascape
Are ecological interactions between different
components of the landscape or seascape consideredwhile managing natural resources?

The importance of connectivity is understood, butvillagers are still poaching and using herbicides andpesticides in agriculture.

3á

4 Recovery and regeneration of the landscape/seascape
Does the landscape or seascape have the ability torecover and regenerate after extreme environmental
shocks?

After a hurricane, landscapes/seascapes will recover.
However, it will take some time. For example, recoveryof coconut trees, taro and coral reef take 3, 2 and 2
years respectively.

Biodiversity (including agricultural biodiversity)

3á

3.6

5 Diversity of local food system
Does the community consume a diversity of locallyproduced food?

There is a high diversity of local foods. However,villagers’ diets and preferences have been changing
and villagers have started buying food in stores, such as
canned fish, flour, noodles etc.

5â

6 Maintenance and use of local crop varieties and animal breeds
Are different local crops, varieties and animal breeds
conserved and used in the community?

Local varieties still exist, but these are slowly being
replaced by commercial ones (e.g. taro), and villagers
are not interested in maintaining local varieties.

3à

Fishing practices are improving, but are still notsustainable.

3á

7 Sustainable management of common resources
Are common resources managed sustainably?

56 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Questions for scoring

Common understanding of the group
Knowledge and innovation

Group Score/
trend
3.2

8 Innovation in agriculture and conservation practices
Does the community develop, improve and adopt
new agricultural, fisheries, forestry and conservation
practices and/or revitalize traditional ones to adapt tochanging conditions, including climate change?

Agroforestry practices, such as avoiding clear-cutting,help resilience in the face of hurricanes. However, thesepractices are not enough.

3á

Some knowledge is passed down through collective
work on farms.
Kava sessions (drinking kava) among villagers areoccasions to share knowledge.

3á

9 Traditions and knowledge related to biodiversity
Are local knowledge and cultural traditions related tobiodiversity transmitted from elders and parents toyoung people in the community?

10 Documentation, access and exchange of agricultural biodiversity
Is agricultural biodiversity and associated knowledge
documented, accessed and exchanged?

Agricultural biodiversity and knowledge is accessedand exchanged among villagers, but no documentation
exists. Documentation is not part of the culture.
Documentation in the area has been done by thegovernment, but villagers don’t always have access to
documents.

3á

Women gave a score of 4, while men gave a score of 5.
Understanding between men and women was different.

4á

11 Women’s knowledge
Are women’s knowledge, experiences and skills
recognized and respected at household, community andlandscape/seascape level?

Governance and social equity

4.2

12 Right in relation to land/water and other natural resource management
Does the community have customary and/or formallyrecognized rights over land (seasonal) pastures, waterand natural resources?

Villagers feel that they have a certain freedom over land
and water resources, although the system in place limits
the allocation of farm land for each family.
The fishing ground is common property shared by twoother communities.

5á

There is a committee that looks after natural resources.
The committee is supported by the national government
and fisheries department, which are promoting
sustainable development.

4á

13 Community-based governanceAre governance mechanisms by local communities andinstitutions effective for sustainable natural resources
and biodiversity management?

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 57

Questions for scoring

Common understanding of the group

Group Score/trend

14 Social capital in the form of cooperation across the landscape/seascapeIs there connection, cooperation and coordination
within and between communities for the management of
natural resources?

Cohesion within the community is good, but not
between communities.

4á

Inequalities are only seen in decision-making processes
in clan meetings. Women’s position in decision-making
is weak.

4á

Each clan has an equal share of resources. However,among the three clans in the village, some have smaller
populations than others and so have more resources perperson.

4á

15 Gender equity
Do women have the same opportunities as men indecision making, access to resources, education,
information and innovation?
16 Social equity
Is access to resources and other opportunities fair andequitable for all community members?

Livelihoods and well-being

4

17 Socio-economic infrastructure
Is the socio-economic infrastructure adequate for theneeds of the community?

Roads in the village are in poor condition, which is oneof the priorities for improvement.

4á

The village is kept clean and tidy.
Waste is separated, and plastic is burned.
Every Monday, those that are sick are taken to the nurse.
Biofilters have been installed in two community watertanks for drinking water.
Flush toilets are in every household.

5á

Reliance on agriculture (taro and cassava) is too high(60-70%).
Tourism in the Marine Park and handicraft (mats, fans,virgin coconut oil) are potential other sources of income.

3á

The Marine Park is an attempt not only to improve theconservation status of the coral reef and benefit fromspillover effects on surrounding areas, but also as a main
tourist attraction.

4á

18 Health of people and environmental conditions
What is the general health situation of local people
taking into consideration the prevailing environmental
conditions?

19 Income diversity
Are households in the community involved in a variety ofsustainable, income-generating activities?

20 Opportunities for biodiversity-based livelihoods
Does the community develop innovative use of local
biodiversity for its livelihoods?

58 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

After reviewing this common understanding of the statusof the landscape/seascape, the group selected priority
discussion topics to identify possible actions for thevillage. The four discussion topics were as follows:
1 Reduction of chemical use in agricultural activities
2 Reforestation in areas with heavy clearing for
agroforestry

3 Revitalization of traditional knowledge including
farming practices
4 Promotion of more income-generating activities
The villagers discussed each topic and came up withthe following ideas for concrete actions in the village.

Table 3. Ideas for actions in Waitabu village, Taveuni Island, Fiji
Topic

What needs to be done?

Who will do it?

Who will lead it?

External support

1• Revive traditional collective work (balebale) in
the village to reduce use of chemicals

village men

village headman,village chief

Tete Taveuni (local NGO
promoting use of organic
fertilizers), Ministry ofAgriculture (national gov’t)

2• Organize village meetings where the village
chief and elders can tell the community about
the importance of reforestationvillage chiefplantationcommittee of eachvillage

Forestry Department (national
gov’t), because it has native
seeds

3

• Discuss revival of traditional knowledge
including farming practices during collective
work

youth groups,
eldersvillage headman,village chief

Ministry of Agriculture(national gov’t), Ministry of
iTaukei (“indigenous”) Affairs(national gov’t)

villagers, womenvillage headman,village chief• More dialogue between elders and youth toshare knowledge with young villagers, forexample during the collective work
• Documentation of traditional knowledge• Traditional farming practices include:–– Farming diversity: planting not only taro
and cava, but also other products–– Planting taro every 4 months: taro takes 8months to harvest. Thus, 4 months after
planting, villagers plant again so that they
can harvest taro every 4 months–– Practice agroforestry to protect marine
resources
4

Plant taro in the off-season, since villagers cangrow taro at any time on Taveuni Island, so thatvillagers can sell it in the off-season (April andMay) in a market where taro can be sold at ahigher priceFind good markets for local handicrafts (sewing,tapa cloth, mats and others), for example in avisitor centre in the village or resort hotels on
the island
Plant more Pandanus to produce more mats

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 59

Background
The following case study from COMDEKS activities in
Turkey highlights how the indicators can be used for
empowering local communities in the management of
their landscapes through the formulation of participatory landscape and seascape strategies. Through the
COMDEKS programme, UNDP is encouraging a highly
participatory and inclusive approach to formulationof landscape and seascape strategies, built around acommunity-driven vision for restoring and maintaining
SEPLS resilience.
After the identification of the target landscape for
COMDEKS activities in Turkey - selection made on thebasis of several criteria, the most important of which
was the demonstrated interest and engagement of thecommunities themselves - a resilience assessment washeld in the Datça-Bozburun Peninsula in the Muğla
province of Southwest Turkey to assess the current
situation in the target SEPLS and to better understandlocal communities’ perceptions. This baseline assessment led to the preparation of a COMDEKS Country
Programme Landscape Strategy, a comprehensive
document which outlines the landscape profile,
expected goals and outcomes, and key measures andstrategies for community-based actions.
The Datça-Bozburun Peninsula is recognized as a Key
Biodiversity Area (KBA)1 as it represents one of themost pristine lowland forest and coastal landscapes in
the Mediterranean. The targeted area spans 247,700
hectares and includes the peninsula and its surroundings, with a northward extension covering the richmarine habitats of Gökova Bay. It is a diverse hilly landscape with harbours and bays along its coasts. The

steep cliffs prevent the expansion of the road network
to some extent and provide patches of habitat for
wildlife.
About 90 percent of the Datça-Bozburun Peninsula
is protected under natural parks, wildlife reserves
and natural and archaeological sites, as well as six“No-Take Zones” (NTZs) and two Special Environmental
Protection Areas (Gökova SEPA and Datça-Bozburun
Peninsula SEPA). However, Datça-Bozburun is at riskof losing its valuable protected status, which to datehas reduced threats to the landscape.

© COMDEKS Turkey/Gökmen Argun

4.3 Turkey
Development of a landscape/seascapestrategy

The Datça-Bozburun peninsula is recognized as a key
biodiversity area

1

“Key biodiversity areas are places of international importance for theconservation of biodiversity through protected areas and other governance mechanisms. They are identified nationally using simple, standard
criteria, based on their importance in maintaining species populations.”(Source: www.iucn.org)

60 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)© COMDEKS Turkey/Zafer Kızılkaya

Participants
Three workshops were held in the peninsula in orderto maximize key local stakeholders’ participation. In
total, more than 70 stakeholder representatives from
17 target communities were involved in the workshops.
Due to the large size of the area and the high populationon the peninsula, only representatives of local cooperatives and communities, mostly men, were invited tothese workshops, although if time and conditions allow,
additional house visits to women are strongly advised
to overcome gender barriers in such cases.

Fishing is one of the key livelihood activities in Gokova Bay

Preparation

A literature review, assessment of local capacities,
site visits and consultations with local stakeholders
were conducted. Local stakeholders included representatives of local villages, municipalities and city
councils; cooperatives and unions for agriculture, fisheries, tourism and infrastructure; individual farmers,
fishermen, hotel owners, tourism operators, animal
keepers and local residents; local and national protection-oriented NGOs working on nature conservation
and agricultural biodiversity; and local academics
researching marine protection.

© COMDEKS Turkey/Zafer Kızılkaya

Information collection and stakeholder
identification
The team of experts supporting the baseline assessment prepared information regarding the status ofconservation and livelihood activities in the area, taking
into account for example the continuous decrease inpopulations of vulnerable Mediterranean species.

Local fisherwoman in Datça-Bozburun PeninsulaChapter 4: Examples from the field | 61

One challenge was adapting the terminology to thecommunity’s needs. As the language used in theindicators was difficult for most of the participants
to comprehend, the COMDEKS team translated andsimplified the terminology and provided examples relevant to local communities to ensure that all members
would understand the terms and concepts.

in the problem tree analysis included a loss of local
agricultural products such as fig and mastic, abandonment of traditional fishing and diving practices in favourof conventional products with higher profit margins,
destruction of valuable forests and decreasing wildlife
population. Literature also shows that populations ofvulnerable Mediterranean species continue to shrink
despite protection status.

Assessment workshops
Landscape strategy and action plan
The assessment workshops lasted 3-4 hours, including
an introductory presentation and exercises to createa more informal, participatory and communicative
atmosphere. The assessment of the landscape situation was based on 1) an interactive mapping exercise,2) scoring of the resilience indicators, and 3) a problem
tree analysis, which was produced from discussions
during the process.
Prior to the workshops, participants were asked tomark important assets, values, threats and conflictareas by sticking notes and photos onto a map of thelandscape. The composed map not only provided valuable information on key characteristics of the area, butalso underlined sensitive areas of interest, problems,
opportunities and threats.
After the mapping exercise, the three resilience assessment workshops were held, and later key stakeholders
who did not appear at the meetings were visited individually. Then, a follow-up session was organized to
discuss problem analysis.
Based on the interactive mapping exercise and indicator assessment, local communities identified threatsand problems in the areas. They found that, as a resultof increasing development pressures such as urbanization, pollution and habitat destruction in terrestrial andmarine ecosystems, the degradation level of the landscape is increasing. Important problems highlighted

The series of consultations undertaken on DatçaBozburun provided a snapshot of the current situation of the landscape from the perspective of key
stakeholders. In addition, a landscape-level perspective was very helpful for local communities to have an
opportunity to visualize how their actions affect thelandscape, and how those actions link together. The
process generated a list of values, opportunities andthreats, from which the strategy to enhance landscaperesilience was developed.
Based on these consultations, stakeholder representatives developed the COMDEKS Country Program
Landscape Strategy with four desired outcomes: 1)
to improve and/or maintain ecosystem services bystrengthening participatory land use planning andmanagement practices; 2) to increase resilience of agriculture through conservation of plant genetic resources
and implementation of agro-ecological practices using
traditional knowledge; 3) to improve the livelihoodsof the people through eco-friendly community-based
enterprises that reduce impacts on the ecosystem andscenic value of the landscape; and 4) to create and/or strengthen institutional governance mechanisms
through more inclusive and participatory decisionmaking processes at the landscape level.
During the consultative process for the developmentof the Landscape Strategy, participants also identified© Bebeci C.

62 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Landscape poster with information on landscapeelements and COMDEKS funded activities developed
during the baseline assessment in Turkey

This poster, titled “Challenges and solutions toenhance the resilience of the Datça-Bozburun
Peninsula’s socio-economic production landscapeand seascape” was produced through the assessment process. It is used as an educational tool for
local communities and for building awareness among
visitors to the area.
The left side of the map simulates the interactive
mapping exercise held during the assessment, inwhich community members were asked to markimportant assets, including key biodiversity andlocal products, as well as threats and challenges
such as sea pollution, overfishing and ghost nets.
The right side outlines the nine community-based
projects identified through the resilience assessment
workshops, and currently supported by COMDEKS,
which focus on both landscapes and seascapesof the peninsula. Below the annotated map, eightmessages welcome visitors in both Turkish andEnglish and present ways to respect the landscape’s
natural features by avoiding disturbance to animal
habitats, supporting sustainable fishing, and empowering local cooperatives to ensure conservation of
the Datça almond and other local products.

the kinds of local interventions needed to achievethese outcomes and guide the design and selection of
specific community projects for direct grant funding –either from COMDEKS or other donors. Based on thiscommunity-driven landscape planning process, the
SGP National Steering Committee in Turkey selectednine projects in the Datca-Bozburun Peninsula, allof which are administered by community organizations and are designed to improve the livelihoods of
local populations while strengthening the resilienceof surrounding ecosystems in the target landscape.
For example, the “Transition to Responsible Fishing
Practices in Datça Peninsula” and “Ghost Net Hunters”
projects aim to protect biodiversity and improve
ecosystem services by combating overfishing, the lackof regulatory enforcement and illegal harvesting within
no-fishing zones, while the “Ecosystem Sustainability,
Rehabilitation and a Start for Ecotourism at Hacetevi
Hill” and “The Conservation, Promotion and Fair Tradeof Datça Almonds” projects are working towards developing resilient agricultural systems. All of the projects
take a holistic approach to sustainable communitybased development and create synergies throughout
the target landscape.
Stakeholder-driven planning processes and the practical application of the indicators, based on community
perspectives, are effective tools for reaching common
understanding of threats and solutions and for defining
strategies to enhance SEPLS resilience throughcommunity-based activities.
The COMDEKS Turkey Landscape Strategy serves asa collaborative adaptive management tool to protect
Datça-Bozburun Key Biodiversity Area while improving
the livelihoods of local communities. After the use of
the Resilience Indicators as a tool for communities toassess their landscape, identify desired ecological,
social and economic outcomes, and plan activities tobuild resilience, the COMDEKS project in Turkey soon
began the process of conducting an ex-post baseline© COMDEKS Turkey/Deniz Acarli

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 63

Divers from the “Ghost Net Hunters” projectassessment in order to measure results and achievements at the landscape level, assess change in perceptions, and adapt planning for subsequent management
practices that will reflect lessons learned.

64 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Background
The following description of workshops preparedand implemented in Kenya by Bioversity International
serves to highlight how results collected from workshops may be analysed by researchers to help elucidate the range of perception of risks faced by thecommunity and the existing degree of innovation tocope with changes and development needs. While theindicators used in this study are an earlier version andare slightly different from the latest set of indicators,
the overall process shows how the indicators can be
useful not only for developing management strategies,
but also as a research tool.

and indicator question/discussion session. One day
was allotted for each village to conduct its FGD. The
introduction/brainstorming session took up the first
2 hours, and the indicator session, answering all
20 indicator questions and discussion, took about
4-5 hours. In each FGD, before starting, simple
demographic information such as full name, age
and gender of the participants was also recorded.

© Bioversity International/Yasuki Morimoto

4.4 Kenya
Results analysis for researchers

Assessment workshops
The field-testing in Kenya involved 5 communities which were selected among partners locatedin different agro-climatic conditions that had been
involved in previous Bioversity research activities withgood and long-term partnerships. In consideration ofgender and age balance, a group of 6-7 participants
who are able to represent each community were invitedfor the exercise. Information was collected from a totalof 34 individuals (Table 4). This number was determinedfor coordination purposes to obtain good commitment
from the participants. In addition, in order to make logistical arrangements smooth (such as starting the focus
group discussions right away), a Bioversity representative went to all communities one week before to identify
the participants and make arrangements including thevenue, food, etc.
The Focus Group Discussion (FDG) consisted of
two parts: an introduction/brainstorming session,

The facilitator first introduced and explained the main
objectives of the day

A participatory mapping exercise was organized in
the brainstorming session to create a common understanding of the scale of the community landscape,landscape contents and ecosystem services. The
resulting community map served as a first step to identify the scale of the landscape and location of the major
landscape characteristics within the community. After
mapping, the facilitator allowed the participants toengage in a discussion of major components of the landscape, climate-related calamities, a historical calendar
of major events and calamities, major food crops, livestock, wild foods, trees, crop lands, recent landscapechanges and access and control over resources. Key
technical terms such as “landscape”, “agricultural

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 65

Table 4. Village location and number participating in the Focus Group Discussion
District

Village

LatitudeLongitude

Elevation
(m)

Major
Ethniccommunity

Total
paticipants

GenderAge

M

F

AverageMax

Min

KikuyuRuku-1,207

36,693

1.978

Kikuyu

6

3

3

48,8

80

29

MbeereNjarange-0,46137,814850

Mbeere

7

3

4

48,7

70

23

Kitui

Museve-1,32538,071

1.283

Kamba

7

3

4

53,4

70

23

Kitui

Nzewani-1,38638,015

1.130

Kamba

7

2

5

43,3

68

22

MachakosKisaani-1,43837,438

1.344

Kamba

7

3

4

48,6

74

35

34

14

20

48,6

80

22

The facilitator explains the different elements of thelandscapeA section of the region around Museve was drawn on
the map, including two sub-locations and 10 villages.

© Bioversity International/Yasuki Morimoto© Bioversity International/Yasuki Morimoto

biodiversity”, and “resilience” were also describedin local languages. Information was written on a big
sheet of paper, which was helpful during the following
scoring of the indicators (Table 5a and b). At the endof the exercise, one representative presented the map
to all the other participants which were invited to add
what was missing on the map. This exercise did not
aim to obtain a geographically correct map, but rather
to help participants create a focus for their discussions.

The map created during the participatory mapping
exercise66 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

Table 5a. Major landscape components and calamities identified in Museve village, Kenya
Category

Description

Major landscapesand landmarks

Hills, ridges, forests, large trees and rocks, swamps, dams and water points including wells, roads, schools,
houses, dispensaries, churches, seasonal rivers and streams, radio and telephone boosters, crop fields, grazing
lands

Protected
landscapes andareas

Forests, water dams, cultural sites and sacred places, schools, markets, churches, dispensaries, roads

Crops

Maize, beans, sorghum, cassava, sweet potatoes, cocoyam (Xanthosoma sp.), sugarcane, bananas, kale, blacknightshade (Solanum sp.), carrots, pumpkins, edible gourds (Lagenaria siceraria), onions, coriander, pigeon peas,
cowpeas, climbing beans, green gram, bambara beans, watermelon, finger millet, pearl millet, custard apples(Annona reticulata), tomatoes, avocadoes, passion fruit, mangoes, oranges, pawpaw, tangerines, guava

Trees

Cupressus sp., Eucalyptus sp, Grevillia robusta, Senna siamea, Vitexpayo, Croton macrostachys (kitundu),
Antidesma venosum (kikala), miklanginga

LivestockCows, goats, sheep, donkeys, chickens

Wild animals

Monkeys, nzonga, squirrels, rabbits/hares, rats, mice, mongoose, impala, snakes

Climate-related
calamities

Prolonged dry season (drought), overgrazing, floods, land erosion, crop pests such as army worms, bush fires,interference of people, diseases (animal and human)

Social calamities

Poverty, unemployment, malnutrition and hunger, drug abuse, lack of morality among youth, Indigenous trees cut
down and not planted again

Table 5b. Example translations of landscapeterms prepared for the discussion in
Kikamba (a local language)
EnglishKikambaLandscapenzi/nthi, wmbowanthi/nzi(“nature of country”)

Resiliencekwiyumiisyo, kwingangiiya

Diversity

mbulanio, kivathkanyo

The population of this landscape was estimated tobe 6-7,000 people in 750-800 households, with theperceived scale of the landscape varying among thefive communities surveyed.

Results analysis
After the workshop, researchers carried out further
analysis using the collected scores, helping to identify
risks faced by the five communities. Local innovations
and challenges were shown to have implications forpotential community development.
Three types of analytical method were utilized: quantitative, qualitative and comparative. The following
are examples of results found through each of thedifferent methods. Table 6 shows the proportion of
respondents scoring 1 (explained as “high risk” inthese workshops) to 5 (explained as “good state”)
for each of the 20 indicators in the five communities.

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 67

Table 6. Percentages of respondents with different scores and trends, mean scores and trends in thefive communities, indicating degree and variation of perception scores and trends for the 20 indicators

2
21

3
41

4
21

5
12

Nzewani

Kisaaniâ æ à ä á

Ruku

Njarange

MuseveNzewani

Kisaani

Mean trend *MuseveTrend (%)

Njarange

1
Heterogeneity and6multifunctionality in thelandscape2 Areas protected for their21
cultural and ecologicalimportance3 Sustainable use of0
resources
4 Environmental security0and safety
5a Local crops, varieties and 3
animal breeds used in acommunity
5b Agricultural biodiversity
62
documented andconserved in community
classification systems
and community seedbanks
6 Diversity of local food0
system
7 Innovation in agricultural
0biodiversity management
for improved resilienceand sustainability
8 Access and exchange of0
agricultural biodiversity
9 Transmission of3
traditional knowledge
from elders, parents
and peers to the young
people in a community
10 Cultural traditions related 0
to biodiversity
11 Number of generations
0
interacting with thelandscape1

Mean score *Ruku

Indicators

Score (%)

3.0 a

3.7 a

3.9 a

2.6 a

2.4 a

0

59

12

26

3

2.5 a

2.4 a

2.3 a

4.0 b

2.4 a

59

18

3

0

1.0 a

2.1 b

2.7 b

2.1 b

2.0 b

6

47

24

24

0

3.0 b

1.9 a

2.4 ab

4.0 c

2.0 a

56

38

6

0

3.0 bc

2.0 a

3.1 c

2.4 ab

2.0 a

0

59

9

32

0

2.5 ab2.0 a

3.1 ab

4.0 c

2.0 a

32

59

9

0

3.3 b

2.1 a

3.0 b

2.7 ab

2.7 ab

0

26

6

68

0

3.5 b

2.0 a

3.6 b

4.0 b

4.0 b

6

76

15

0

2.8 ab

2.6 a

3.3 ab3.4 b

3.0 ab

0

32

3

65

0

3.0 ab

2.1 a

3.7 b

3.7 b

4.0 b

32

6

0

0

1.0 a

1.0 a

1.4 a

2.3 b

1.4 a

0

0

26

71

3

3.0 a

3.9 b

3.9 b

4.0 b

4.0 b

50

41

9

0

3.5 b

2.1 a

2.3 a

2.4 a

2.7 ab

3

21

3

74

0

3.7 b

1.9 a

3.9 b

4.0 b

4.0 b

38

47

12

3

4.0 c

2.1 a

2.1 a

3.0 b

2.9 b

0

9

6

76

9

4.0 ab

3.1 a

3.9 ab4.3 b

4.0 ab

53

26

18

3

4.2 c

2.1 a

2.0 a

3.0 b

2.4 ab

0

21

6

74

0

3.8 b

2.1 a

4.0 b

3.7 b

4.0 b

32

56

9

0

3.3 c

3.1 bc

2.4 ab

2.7 ac

2.0 a

0

38

3

59

0

2.0 a

2.3 a

4.0 b

3.6 b

4.0 b

26

62

12

0

2.7 a

2.9 a

3.1 a

2.4 a

3.1 a

6

65

6

24

0

2.0 ab2.4 b

1.7 ab4.0 b

2.1 ab

0

38

53

9

4.2 b

3.6 ab4.1 b

3.3 ab

3.4 ab

0

97

3

0

0

2.0 a

2.1 a

2.0 a

2.0 a

2.0 a

68 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

1
41

2
21

3
35

4
3

5
0

Nzewani

Kisaaniâ æ à ä á

Ruku

Njarange

MuseveNzewani

Kisaani

Mean trend *MuseveTrend (%)

Njarange

Mean score *Ruku

Indicators

Score (%)

1.0 a

3.1 b

1.4 a

2.9 b

1.4 a

0

0

21

79

0

3.0 a

4.0 b

3.9 b

4.0 b

4.0 b

0

3

18

47

32

5.0 d

4.1 bc

4.6 cd

3.6 ab

3.3 ab

0

76

24

0

0

2.7 b

2.0 a

2.4 ab2.0 a

2.1 ab

0

3

59

32

6

3.3 ab

3.3 a

4.1 b

3.4 ab

2.9 a

0

3

3

85

9

4.5 b

3.7 a

3.9 ab

4.0 ab

4.0 ab

38

18

32

12

0

1.0 a

1.0 a

3.6 d

3.0 c

2.1 b

0

0

29

71

0

3.5 b

3.0 a

4.0 c

4.0 c

4.0 c

0

0

0

21

79

5.0 b

5.0 b

5.0 b

5.0 b

4.0 a

0

18

82

0

0

2.0 a

3.0 b

3.0 b

3.0 b

3.0 b

0

9

68

21

3

3.2 a

2.9 a

3.1 a

3.7 a

3.0 a

0

0

24

76

0

3.5 a

4.0 a

3.9 ab

3.7 a

3.7 a

17

Practices of
documentation andexchange of local
knowledge
Use of local terminology
or indigenous languages
Women’s knowledge
about biodiversity andits use
Local resource
governance
Autonous access toindigenous land andnatural reoserces
Gender18

Social infrastructure

0

32

50

18

0

4.0 c

2.1 a

2.6 ab

2.7 ab

3.0 b

0

3

3

91

3

4.0 a

3.6 a

4.1 a

4.0 a

4.0 a

19

Health care

0

24

56

21

0

4.0 c

3.1 b

2.3 a

2.6 ab

3.0 b

0

0

0

100

0

4.0 a

4.0 a

4.0 a

4.0 a

4.0 a

20 Health risk

9

56

26

9

0

3.5 b

1.9 a

2.3 a

2.0 a

2.3 a

0

24

6

71

0

3.8 b

2.0 a

4.0 b

3.6 b

4.0 b

Total (%) / Mean *

9

27

41

17

7

3.14 a2.67 a2.98 a2.92 a2.63 a

1

28

14

55

1

3.14 ab 2.74 a

3.41 b

3.69 b 3.40 ab

12

13
14

15
16

Quantitative analysis
The proportion of each score given by participants wascalculated for each indicator to identify specific areas
the community perceived as more risky.
In total, the proportion of respondents giving a scoreof 3 was the highest at 41%, but 36% of the total
respondents answered with scores of 1 and 2. For
trends, the highest rate was seen as “some increase”(ä), with 55% of total respondents.
The highest proportion of respondents scored 1 (“highrisk”) and 2 (“risky”) for “Agricultural biodiversity documented and conserved in community classification
systems” (94%), followed by “Areas protected for theircultural and ecological importance” (79%), and “Healthrisk” (65%). On the other hand, the highest proportionof respondents saw trends of 1 and 2 for “ Numberof generations interacting with the landscape” (97%),
followed by “Use of local terminology or indigenous
languages” (76%), and “Cultural traditions related
to biodiversity” (71%). This shows that participants
shared a risk perception of losing local crops, varieties, classification knowledge and cultural systems thatmanage the ecosystem and landscape diversity, theyoung generation tends to disregard local institutions,cultural practices, religions and communal property.
Comparison of scores (i.e., the proportion of eachscore) among different age, gender, and community
groups was useful for further analysis.
Qualitative analysis
During the assessment, facilitators documented
participants’ comments and explored the direction of
the communities’ development. In the discussions, anumber of problems faced by the community, causesof the problems, local solutions, potential intervention activities and major stakeholder institutions were
captured on cards and categorised by root cause,
problems and local actions.

© Bioversity International/Yasuki Morimoto

Chapter 4: Examples from the field | 69

Some of the key comments were documented on cards
during the assessment and used for the follow-up session
in discussions about potential action plans within thecommunities

Discussion among community members was a fundamental element of this study and useful to understandthe context of actions with high ecological or social
impact. In the discussions, a number of community
intervention activities and actions taken by communitybased institutions were described regarding natural
resources, empowerment of the people, creation of
ecological awareness and protecting the environment.
On the other hand, the lack of government action andpolicy implementation was articulated as a weakness.
Individual community members did not feel they had
the influence to prevent other community members
from cutting trees, making charcoal, converting to crop
fields, harvesting sand, taking animals to the watering
place etc. Continuare questa frase con quella sopra eSostituire tutto questo paragrafo con: The main causesof this were seen as population increase and colonial
influence, which have greatly weakened both traditional community punishment and cultural systems
that prevented activities such as cutting trees without
permission from the community authority. This situation is worsened by the fact that most information

70 | Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)

related to agricultural and ecosystem biodiversity has
been passed on only through oral tradition and there
has been a lack of educational materials describing
local biodiversity in local languages.
Comparative analysis
For a comparative study, target communities need tobe identified strategically in consideration of their agroclimatic, geographical (location, distance to markets or
towns, altitude etc.), and socio-cultural characteristics.
In this case, an interesting observation was seen forindicators related to documentation and exchange of
local knowledge, from comparative analysis between
the communities. The Kisaani community had better
perceived risk compared to the other communities,
which was considered to be a result of earlier community efforts. In Kisaani between 2001 and 2002, withhelp from Bioversity International, a group of women
known as the Kyanika Women’s Group undertook aproject to safeguard the diversity of gourd and cowpea
varieties and local knowledge about their many uses.
During this project, they visited different parts of Kenya,collecting many types of gourd and cowpea varieties
and recording people’s knowledge about them. The
fruits, seeds and information were stored and exhibited in a special building, a kind of community resource
centre, which acts as a source of seeds and an education centre.
Comparative analysis in this case helped to show
the real effectiveness of past interventions, and thus
provide evidence for what types of interventions shouldbe pursued in the future.

Findings of the results analysis
The indicator workshops and results analysis helped
to identify perceived risks and potential development options for securing ecosystem services andsustainable production systems through enhancing
social cohesion, human capital and farmers’ knowledge
regarding management of locally-available agricultural
diversity. This process, including continued interaction,
can raise self-motivated awareness and local ownership in decision-making and creation of action plans
to implement community-based interventions and thus
strengthen resilience in the landscape.
Some practical lessons learned from conducting thisstudy:• A group of 6-7 participants was found to be appropriate for managing and facilitating discussions but
insufficient for statistical data assessment of scores.
In order to understand community perceptions
from statistical analysis, a larger number of participants from various social backgrounds need to be
selected from a broader range of the population.
• Working out potential options requires a lot of time.
The research team and facilitators therefore need
to identify the ideal number of participants for thisexercise. Around 15-20 active participants are themaximum number that one facilitator can handle.
If two pairs of facilitators and note takers are available, two separate discussions can be organized,
possibly divided by gender.

For more information contact the
Secretariat of IPSI, UNU-IAS
E-Mail: isi@unu.edu

http://satoyama-initiative.org/