Prevention and restoration actionsto combat desertificationAn integrated assessment:The PRACTICE Project

Abstract

Prevention and restoration actions to combat desertification: an integrated assessment(PRACTICE) is a support action of the European Commission Seventh FrameworkProgramme for Research and Technological Development, which is being developedduring three years since September 2009. It gathers scientists and stakeholders fromseveral desertification affected regions of the world, in order to learn from ongoingexperiences on combating desertification, such as afforestation, improving pastures,controlled grazing, watershed management, and sustainable agricultural practices.The central goal of PRACTICE is to link science to society in order to share and transferevaluation methods and practices to combat desertification. To pursue this goal,PRACTICE first aims to develop and implement an integrated evaluation protocol toassess the effectiveness of prevention and restoration practices, applicableworldwide. The evaluation protocol of PRACTICE considers the mutual interactionsbetween human and environment. The assessment protocol also represents anintegrated approach because it considers simultaneously both, biophysical and socio-economic attributes. The protocol is based on (1) key common indicators thatrepresent overall ecosystem and human-environmental system functioning, (2) site-specific indicators identified by local stakeholders that are relevant to the objectivesand the particular context conditions, and (3) stakeholder perspectives. Indicators areselected in the framework of ecosystem services developed by the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (MEA), focusing on human well-being and trying to beconsistent with the desertification impact indicators selected by the United NationsConvention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and with recommendations byConvention on Biological Biodiversity (CBD) and United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Multi-criteria decision models will beused for integrating the information provided by the various biophysical and socio-economic indicators and for integrating the stakeholder perspectives. This paperpresents the status of the project in June 2011 on the occasion of the seminar.‘‘Policies, programmes and projects to combat desertification. How to evaluatethem?’’

Key words : assessment, desertification, restoration, stakeholders.

Leopoldo Rojo1

Susana Bautista2

Barron J. Orr4

Ram�on Vallejo5

Jordi Cortina2

Mchich Derak3

1 Ministerio de AgriculturaAlimentaci�on y Medio AmbienteDirecci�on General de Desarrollo Rural yPolıtica ForestalGran Vıa de san Francisco 428005 MadridEspa~na<leopoldorojo@gmail.com>2 Universidad de AlicanteDepartamento de EcologıaInstituto Multidisciplinar de EstudiosMedioambientalesApartado 990380 AlicanteEspa~na<s.bautista@ua.es>3 Direction r�egionale des Eaux et Foretset de la Lutte Contre la D�esertification du RifAvenue Mohamed VBP 72293000 T�etouanMaroc<mchich78@hotmail.com>4 University of ArizonaOffice of Arid Lands Studies1955 E, 6th Street, No. 205ATucson, AZ 85719USA<barron.orr@gmail.com>

To cite this article: Rojo L, Bautista S, Orr BJ, Vallejo R, Cortina J, Derak M, 2012. Prevention andrestoration actions to combat desertification. An integrated assessment: The PRACTICE Project.S�echeresse 23: 219-26. doi: 10.1684/sec.2012.0351Reprints : L. Rojod

oi:10.1684/sec.2012.0351

S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012 219

Research article

S�echeresse 2012 ; 23 : 219–26

Context, objectives and structureof PRACTICE assessment approach

Science has made noticeable progress inaiding our understanding of drivers andprocesses of desertification (Geist, 2005;Rojo et al., 2008,). Projects and policiesof sustainable management and restora-tion of lands affected by desertificationhave been applied world wide, whileexchange of knowledge on the resultsof such policies and proper assessmentof their efficiency have been very limited(Bautista et al., 2009; Fern�andez-Ondo~no et al., 2010) compromisingthe adoption of improved methods ofmanagement and restoration.PRACTICE project aims to provide amethod for aparticipatoryand integratedassessment (Brook and McLachlan,2005) of management and restorationactions to combat desertification. Theproject web page www.ceam.es/prac-

tice contains additional details andinformation. The project has just crossedits first half and will finish in September2012. This article is based on the presentstatus of project development which isfocussed on the refinement and applica-tion of the protocol for participatoryevaluation of management and restora-tion actions, according to the project’sschedule.Figure 1 illustrates the PRACTICE assess-ment concept, based on the integration ofexpert and stakeholder knowledge. Firstsocio-economic and biophysical criteriaare combined to construct a systemof generic indicators of projects perfor-mance established by scientists andexperts, based on the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005)and UNCCD (United Nations Conven-tion to Combat Desertification) principles(Orr, 2011). This system of genericindicators is then complemented by aset of site-specific indicators based on the

criteria established by scientists and localstakeholders after a process of iterativediscussion and knowledge exchangewhich we refer as social learning. Thefinal joint set of generic and specificindicators selectedaswell as their relativerelevancy is decided by this process ofsocial learning and is applied to assessthe performance of the restoration ormanagement project. Improvement andadaptation of project measures, as wellas adoption by the local stakeholders(Reed et al., 2008) is expected as a resultof this process of evaluation.PRACTICE is presently being applied andtested in different socioeconomic andbiophysical contexts with different syn-dromes of desertification in specific sitesin Africa, Asia, Europe, North Americaand South America. Table 1 shows thelocation of these test sites, their socioeco-nomic context and the main objectiveof the desertification control measuresapplied.

R�esum�eActions de pr�evention et de restauration pour combattre la d�esertification. Une �evaluationint�egr�ee : le projet PRACTICE

Actions de pr�evention et de restauration pour lutter contre la d�esertification : une�evaluation int�egr�ee (PRACTICE) est une action de soutien du septi�eme programme-cadre de recherche et de d�eveloppement technologique de la Commissioneurop�eenne. Elle se d�eroule pendant trois ans �a partir de septembre 2009. Elleregroupe des scientifiques et des intervenants en provenance de plusieurs r�egions dumonde affect�ees par la d�esertification, afin d’apprendre des exp�eriences en cours surla lutte contre la d�esertification, telles que le reboisement, l’am�elioration despaturages, le paturage control�e, la gestion des bassins-versants et des pratiquesagricoles durables. L’objectif central de PRACTICE est de relier science et soci�et�e afinde partager et transf�erer des m�ethodes et pratiques d’�evaluation pour combattre lad�esertification. Pour atteindre cet objectif, PRACTICE vise d’abord �a d�evelopper etmettre en oeuvre un protocole d’�evaluation int�egr�ee pour �evaluer l’efficacit�e despratiques de pr�evention et de restauration, applicables dans le monde entier. Leprotocole d’�evaluation de PRACTICE consid�ere les interactions mutuelles entrel’homme et l’environnement. Le protocole d’�evaluation repr�esente �egalement uneapproche int�egr�ee consid�erant simultan�ement les deux attributs, biophysiques etsocio-�economiques. Le protocole repose sur : 1) les principaux indicateurs communsqui repr�esentent l’ensemble de l’�ecosyst�eme et le fonctionnement des syst�emeshomme-environnement ; 2) les indicateurs sp�ecifiques aux sites identifi�es par lesacteurs locaux qui sont pertinents pour les objectifs et les conditions du contexteparticulier ; et 3) les perspectives des acteurs locaux. Les indicateurs sont s�electionn�esdans le cadre des services des �ecosyst�emes d�evelopp�e par le « Millenium EcosystemAssessment 2005 », en se concentrant sur la contribution au bien-etre des populationset en essayant d’etre coh�erent avec les indicateurs d’impact s�electionn�es par laconvention des Nations unies pour combattre la d�esertification (CNULCD) et auxrecommandations de la convention sur la diversit�e biologique (CDB) et de laconvention cadre des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques (CCNUCC). Desmod�eles de d�ecision multicrit�eres seront utilis�es pour int�egrer les informations fourniespar les diff�erents indicateurs biophysiques et socio-�economiques et les perspectivesdes parties prenantes. Cet article pr�esente l’�etat du projet en juin 2011, lors dus�eminaire « Politiques, programmes et projets de lutte contre la d�esertification.Comment les �evaluer ? »

Mots cl�es : acteurs locaux, d�esertification, �evaluation, restauration.

5 Centro de estudios ambientalesdel Mediterraneo-CEAMParque Tecnol�ogicoC. Darwin 14Paterna46980 ValenciaEspa~na<vvallejo@ub.edu>

220 S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012

PRACTICE has been designed to meetthe scientific and technical requestsstated in the 10-year Strategic Planand Framework to enhance the imple-mentation of the United Nations Con-vention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD), especially to develop assess-ment tools of mitigation and restorationactions to support decision-making.

PRACTICE set of generic indicatorsfor the evaluation of desertificationmanagement and restoration projects

The MEA provides an adequate frame-work for common indicator selectionaimed to evaluate projects for ecosystemmanagement and restoration. Addition-ally, it is focussed on human well-being(Safriel and Adeel, 2005) and isconsistent with UNCCD provisionalset of desertification impact indicators.The selection of indicators relies onan ecosystem services approach andfollows the recommendations of theUnited Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC) andthe United Nations Convention onBiological Diversity (UNCBD). Table 2shows the MEA key dry-land ecosystemservices (MEA, 2005), used as aframework for PRACTICE generic indi-cators selection.Inside this framework, PRACTICE ExpertBoard has made a selection of common,generic, indicators to be used in all

test sites. These common indicators arepresented in table 3 jointly with somesite-specific indicators to be selected bya stakeholder platform from every testsite through participatory processes.Once MEA and UNCCD criteria areguaranteed, indicators and the metricsto characterize them have been selectedon each site with the main criteriaof relevancy and applicability with theminimum local resources and technolo-gy available (e.g., Tongway andHindley, 2004). Nevertheless, PRAC-TICE includes the option of remotesensing assessment where suitable andavailable (see for example, R€oder et al.,2010). PRACTICE has provided anddemonstrated the methods and proce-dures for the determination of the valuesof each indicator according to theavailable information of the site.

PRACTICE local indicators selection.Adoption of the final setof indicators. Establishmentof Multi-Stakeholder Platform (MSHP)and participatory evaluation

Local indicators are selected by thestakeholders of each particular projectof management or restoration. In addi-tion, local stakeholders define the indi-cators for the following generic criteria:income, personal wealth, landscapeand cultural heritage, referred in table 3.

As site specific, the MSHP may addcomplementary indicators and shouldalso establish the relative weight of theindicator selected. This is performed inan interactive and iterative processof communication in which scientists,technicians, policy makers, managers,local users (farmers, hunters, tourist localentrepreneurs, conservationists) andrepresentatives of any group of interestaffected by the project of restoration,exchange points of view and perspec-tives in a process of social learning. Thefinal result is a set of indicators, commonand local, weighed in relevancy to beapplied in the evaluation of the specificrestoration project.Procedures for MSHP constitution andworking methodology for indicator se-lection and weighing are establishedand described in detail in the PRACTICEProtocol (Bautista and Orr, 2011).The PRACTICE protocol for participatoryevaluation at present stage involves fourmain steps:1) stakeholder identification and en-gagement;2) baseline evaluation of actions andindicator selection;3) indicator weighting (linked to multi-criteria decision analysis);4) integrated evaluation of actions.Stakeholder identification and engage-ment aims toprovidea flexiblebut guidedapproach to involve a comprehensiveand representative set of stakeholders

Actions to combat land degradation

Participatoryand

integrated

Biophysical data

Socio-economic data

Key comonindicatorsscientists

Site-specificindicators

stakeholdersImproved actions

increased adoption

Know

ledge exchange

Figure 1. Framework for evaluation of actions and indicator selection established in PRACTICE project.Source : Bautista and Orr (2011).

S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012 221

who can contribute to the evalua-tion process. It consists of three mainelements: consent (for stakeholder partic-ipation in all information gathering/recording aspects of the process), guide-lines (for semi-structured interviews withexamples of questions) for assessing, andeventually engaging, potential stake-holders as part of each site-specificmulti-stakeholder platform, and contactdata.Baseline evaluation of actions and indi-cator selection aims at capturing thebaseline stakeholder perspectives onthe desertification mitigation/restorationactions applied (including no-action con-trol areas), and the baseline stakeholderviews on site-specific indicators forevaluation of actions. Both steps 1 and2 are meant to be implemented throughindividual semi-structured interviews.Indicatorweightingaims to establishbothindividual and integrated stakeholder

Table 1. Location, main land use, and prevention-restoration actions of the sites included in the PRACTICE Long Term Monitoring sites (LTEM)platform.

LTEM Country Main land use Prevention-restoration actions

Ayora Spain Woodland, shrubland Wildfire hazard management

Agost Spain Woodland, steppe grassland Dryland restoration

Albatera Spain Shrubland Dryland restoration

Lagadas Greece Woodland, shrubland Grazing and range management

Castro Verde Portugal Cereal steppes Soil conservation practices

Pula Italy Woodland, shrubland Wildfire hazard management

Ouled Dlim Morocco Shrubland Dryland restoration

Molopo S-Africa Grasslands Grazing and range management

Mier/Alpha (Kalahari) S-Africa Savanah Grazing and range management

Paulshoek/Remhoogte Namibia Shrubland Dryland restoration

Narais/Durchaus Namibia Savanah Dryland restoration

Nabaos/Gellap Ost Namibia Shrubland Dryland restoration

Yatir Forest Israel Woodland Wildfire hazard management

Changling China Steppe grassland Grazing and range management

El Castanon Mexico Grassland Grazing and range management

El Salado Mexico Grassland Dryland restoration

El Sauce Chile Grassland Grazing and range management

Las Canas Chile Woodland and shrubland Grazing and range management

San Simon USA Grassland and shrubland Soil conservation practices

Source : Adapted from PRACTICE web page.

Table 2. Framework for indicator selection.

Provisioning services Regulating services Cultural services

Goods producedor providedby ecosystems

Benefits obtainedfrom regulationof ecosystems processes

Nonmaterial benefitsobtained from ecosystems

Provisions derived from biologicalproductivity: food, fiber, forage,fuelwood, and biochemicalsFresh water

Water purification and regulationPollination and seed dispersalClimate regulation (local throughvegetation cover and global throughcarbon sequestration)

Recreation and tourismCultural identity and diversityCultural landscapes and heritage valuesIndigenous knowledge systemsSpiritual, aesthetic, and inspirationalservices

Supporting servicesServices that maintain the conditions for life on earth

Soil conservation development (conservation, formation)Primary productionNutrient cycling

Source : Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).

222 S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012

perspectives on the relative importanceofthe indicators selected. These collectiveweights will be incorporated into a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)(Figueira et al., 2005) applied to eachsite-specific field database on the select-ed indicators. The local stakeholders(including local researchers) will providean assessment on the relative importanceof the whole set of selected indicators,which will include indicators suggestedby other local stakeholders and thecommon indicators suggested byPRACTICE expert board. Therefore, thisstep 3 represents the first opportunitywithin PRACTICE participatory processfor both knowledge exchange/sociallearning and the integration of scientificand local knowledge. There are severalapproaches and methods availablefor the indicator weighting process. The‘‘Pack of Cards’’ revised method (Royand Bertier, 1973) was discussed,adopted and applied in the sites.

Table 3. PRACTICE common indicators.

Criteria Indicators/proxies

Economy

Income, personal wealth Site-specific

Provisioning services

Goods (food, fiber, timber, fuel wood...) ProductivityProductivity value

Regulating & supporting services

Water and soil conservation Plant cover & patternSoil surface condition

Carbon sequestration Soil organic carbonAbove-ground biomass

Cultural services

Landscape and cultural heritage Site-specific

Biodiversity Diversity of vascular plants

Source : Bautista and Orr (2011).

GovernmentalAdministration

20%

Governmentalagency expert

27%

Other peoplewith special

local knowledge13%

Local industries7%

Associations13%

Educators7%

EnvironmentalNGOs13%

Local Industries

Category : Subcategory

Gov. Administrations: Elected officials

Gov. Administrations: Civil servents with Knowledge

Govemamental agency experts: Forestry

Associations: Recreation

Associations: Cultural

Educators

Other people with special local knowledge

Environmental NGOs

Stakeholders involved

Agost major

Current environmental coordinator

Department of environment

Hunting association

Mirem per agost

Ecologistas en acción

Agost high school

Past environmental coordinator

Pottery industry owner

Figure 2. Stakeholder platform composition in AgostSource : Ocampo-Melgar et al. (2010).

S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012 223

Integrated evaluation of actions aims toencourage the sharing and discussing ofthe results from the site-specific MCDAanalysis performed, and a re-evaluationof the actions applied to combat land-degradation according to these results.This step also aims to promote dissemi-nation of what was learned amongstakeholders at each site, and ultimatelybetween PRACTICE sites and thelarger desertification community throughcollaborative tools provided on thePRACTICE public website (www.ceam.es/practice).Steps 3 & 4 can be implemented throughindividual interviews or during a collec-tive exercise, though a much greaterimpact is expected from a collaborativeprocess. Therefore, a collective exerciseis proposed to fully meet PRACTICE goalsof knowledge exchange and sociallearning.

Example of preliminary applicationof PRACTICE assessment protocol(Agost watershed, Alicante, Spain)

Agost (Vent�oswatershed) is located in theSouth East Spanish province of Alicanteand provides a good example of exten-sive restorations made in the semi-aridMediterranean in Spain along XX centu-ry. Its 1600 hectares comprises thefollowing five types of restoration actions:1) no action, alpha grass (Stipa tena-cissima L.) steppe in South-facing slopes;2) Aleppo pine plantation (Pinus hale-pensis L.) during several phases between1950 and 1965 in North-facing slopes;3) Aleppo pine plantation, in twophases (1975-1990) in South-facingslopes;4) recharge check-dam at the outlet ofthe watershed. A small acquifer, whichprovides water supply to Agost islocated under the watershed and theirlimits are coincident;5) check-dams on creek and gullies tolimit channel erosion andmitigate effectsof flash floods typical of the area.

The MSHP was constituted according tothe established procedures. The processstarted with the identification of 20 po-tential stakeholders. From them, ninestakeholders were finally selected andengaged. Fourteen additional potentialstakeholders were identified from thereferences provided by the initial group,so that 23 stakeholders constituted theplatform for Agost. The figure 2 describesthe composition of the MSHP, in fact acomprehensive set of stakeholders repre-senting all the interest groups affected bythe restoration actions. The next step 2aims at the baseline evaluation of actionsas well as indicator selection. The resultsof stakeholder baseline evaluation of therestoration actions applied in Agost arepresented in figure 3 and table 4. Figure3 illustrates the overall opinion of Agoststakeholders on the restoration actionsand table 4 provides an example ofidentification of positive and negativeoutcomes of two actions. The indicatorsfor the evaluation of restoration actions inAgost were selected by the MSHP takingthe PRACTICE common indicators

showed in table 3 as a basis. These basisof indicators covers MEA ecosystemservices. From this framework, the set ofcommon indicators is detailed andenriched by MSHP platform accordingto local factors like specific restorationactionsappliedandstakeholder interests,but also depending on the feasibility of itscharacterisation and estimation.The task of characterisation and estima-tion of indicator valueswas performed forevery action applied in Agost includedalpha grass steppe (no action). Table 5provides the criteria, indicators, units andvalues for two actions: Aleppo pineplantation in North-facing slopes andalpha grass steppe (no restoration).According to the indicator values provid-ed by table 5, the pine plantationcompared to grassland steppe enhancesmany ecosystem services like erosioncontrol, climate regulation and aestheticattractiveness but reduces other serviceslike richness of game species and waterretention. Here is the role of a Multi-criteria Analysis to assess the effective-ness of every restoration action

ReforestationN-facing

ReforestationS-facing

Alpha grass

Actions

% o

f re

spo

nse

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dam Recharge dam

Do you think this action has been a good choice?On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is “very bad choice” and 5 is “excellent choice”,

how would you rate this action?

Very bad Bad Moderate Very good Excellent

Figure 3. Agost stakeholders overall opinion on the actionsSource : Ocampo-Melgar et al. (2010).

Table 4. Examples of positive and negative outcomes of actions according to Agost MSHP.

Dams on creeks Forestation on south slopes

Positive Negative Positive Negative

Avoid floods Visual impact Stop erosion Low plan diversity

Labor ‘‘None’’ C sequestration Increase erosion (due to site preparation)

Avoid soil erosion Avoid losses of soil organic matter Fire risk

Acquifer recharge Acquifer damage

Source : Ocampo-Melgar et al. (2010).

224 S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012

according to its impact on theprovision ofecosystem services as a whole.Figure 4 illustrates the values of theindicator percentage of soil organiccarbon content (0-20 cm) for the repre-sentative landscapes of Agost, includingthose created by restoration actionsconsidered in the assessment. The tableshows that soil organic matter is en-hanced in grasslands and afforestationareas by vegetal residues contributionand reduced in crops areas because ofintensive use of soil.

PRACTICE assessment protocolin the context of desertificationpolicies and plans

PRACTICE is not developed nor fullytested. It is now in the half of the threeyears of project development. From this

starting point, some reflections couldnevertheless be made about the poten-tial role of this tool and the place it mightoccupy in the evaluation of policies,programmes and projects on combatingdesertification.Clearly it might complement the establish-ed objective methods of project evalua-tion from a new participatory subjectivepoint of view.Also it seems that PRACTICEmight have a role for the participatoryevaluationofplansandpolicies tocombatdesertification, provided that the structureof the assessment tool should be adaptedaccording to this change of scale. Allalong the philosophy of UNCCD devel-opment, the attribute of integration ofprojects, policies and plans is reiterated.The bottom-up approach in the design offeasible solutions targeted to the stake-holders is also repeated in UNCCD. Themain contribution of PRACTICE for theevaluationofpoliciesandplans tocombatdesertification might be its bottom-up

approach jointly with its architecturewhich assesses firstly environmental sus-tainability and secondly, under the frame-work of sustainability, social acceptanceand integration.Furthermore the potential to passfrom assessment to design is implicit.PRACTICE may constitute an elementfor the formulation of environmentallysoundand socio-economically integratedprojects and plans on desertificationmitigation. In this sense, the input of theparticipatory process could be easilyrelated to the assessment and adoptionof project alternatives playinga role of anefficient system for the public informationof projects.If the options above have to be explored,it should be done in parallel withPRACTICE development. The analysisof the results and performance of theapplication of themethodology in the testsites must run in parallel with communi-cation with potential users of this

Table 5. Values of 15 indicators describing the main ecosystems services in a restored landscape (Aleppo pine plantation) vs. non restoredlandscape (steppe grassland) in Agost watershed (Alicante, Spain).

Landscape Unit Data Base

Servicescategories

Criteria Indicator Units Aleppo pineplantation

Steppegrassland

Supporting services Soil organic contents Organic carbon % 2,00 1,80

Regulating services Sediment delivery Erosion rate Kg m�2 year�1 0.005 0.057

Climate regulation Phytomass volume m3 m�2 4.85 0.25

Biodiversity Richness of species (vascular plants) Total number of species in the inventory N 34 26

Endemic, rare and endangered plants Number of endemic, rare,and endangered plants by inventory

N 4,0 2

Game species Preference of habitat for game RU + ++

Provision services Total biomass Total biomass Kg ha�1 9,473 808

Forage production Forage production UF ha�1 year�1 253 97

Non-timber forest products Abundance of plants with artisanaland food forward, by inventory

% 1 21

Aromatic and medicinal plants Abundance of aromatic and medicinalplants, by inventory

% 20 4

Fresh water production Water retained % 11 32

Cultural services Attractive landscaping Aesthetic value RU 5.8 4.2

Relevance of traditional cultural Cultural value RU 4.4 4.2

Economic benefits Income from crops Income from crops sales in origin Euros ha�1 year�1 0 0

Employment Labour force Days ha�1 year�1 0.7 0

RU: relative unit; +: medium level of habitat preference; ++: high level of habitat preference; UF: forage unit = 1 kg of barley.Source : Derak (2011).

S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012 225

additional capacity as a tool for publicinformation of projects. Along thisline, the PRACTICE staff envisages thedevelopment of communicationmaterialsabout sites experiences fitted for discus-sion with managers and policy makers atnational level. &

References

Bautista S, Aronson J, Vallejo R, eds, 2009. Landrestoration to combat desertification. Innovativeapproaches, quality control and project evalua-tion. Valencia: Fundaci�on Centro de EstudiosAmbientales del Mediterr�aneo (CEAM).

Bautista S, Orr BJ, 2011. IAPro, PRACTICEIntegrated Assessment Protocol. PRACTICE Proj-ect Deliverable 2.3. Valencia: European Com-mission Research Area, Centro de EstudiosAmbientales del Mediterr�aneo (CEAM). URL :http//80.24.165.149/drupal/sites/default/files/D2_3_PRACTICE_IAPro.pdf

Brook RK, McLachlan SM, 2005. On usingexpert-based science to ‘‘test’’ local ecologicalknowledge. Ecology and Society 10 : 3 p. URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/resp3/

Derak M, 2011. Evaluaci�on de las acciones derestauraci�on ecol�ogica y de los servicios eco-sist�emicos en �ambitos semiaridos. Thesis Masterof Science, Instituto Agron�omicoMediterr�aneo deZaragoza, Espa~na.

Fern�andez-Ondo~no E, Rojo L, Jimenez MN,Navarro FB, Dıez M, Martın F, et al., 2010.Afforestation improves soil fertility in south-eastern Spain. European Journal of ForestResearch 129 : 707-17. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0376-1

Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M, 2005. Multiplecriteria decision analysis: state of the art survey.Springer International Series. New York :Springer Science+Business Media.

Geist H, 2005. The causes and progression ofdesertification. Ashgate Studies in Environmental

Policy and Practice. Aldershot (Great Britain):Ashgate Publishing House.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Eco-systems and human well-being: desertificationsynthesis. Washington (DC): World ResourcesInstitute.

Ocampo-Melgar A, Urgeghe A, Ortiz G, 2010.Participatory baseline evaluation and selection oflocal indicators in Spain. Workshop on Assess-ment Methods for Prevention and RestorationActions to Combat Desertification. Cagliari,Sardinia, 4-6 October 2010. Project document.

Orr BJ, 2011. Scientific review of the UNCCDprovisionally accepted set of impact indicators tomeasure the implementation of strategic objec-tives 1,2 and 3. White Paper version 1, January2011, UN Convention to Combat Desertification,Bonn.

Reed MS, Dougill AJ, Baker TR, 2008. Participa-tory indicator development: what can ecologistsand local communities learn from each other?Ecological Applications 18 : 1253-69.

R€oder A, Hubert S, Stellmes M, Scarth P, BautistaS, Cortina J, 2010. Characterizing land usechange in a complex semi-arid landscape bycombined assessment of land transformationsand modifications. In: Reuter R, ed. Proceedingsof the 30th EARSeL Symposium ‘‘Remote Sensingfor Science, Education and Natural and CulturalHeritage’’.

Rojo L, Vallejo R, Valdecantos A, 2008. Land carein desertification affected areas: from sciencetowards application (LUCINDA): Forest andnatural landscapes. Vol 1. Lisboa. UniversidadeNova de Lisboa. URL: http://geografia.fcsh.unl.pt/lucinda/booklets/Booklet%20C1%20EN.pdf.

Romany�a J, Rovira P, Vallejo R, 2007. An�alisisdel carbono en los suelos agrıcolas de Espa~na.Aspectos relevantes en relaci�on a la reconversi�ona la agricultura ecol�ogica en el �ambito medi-terr�aneo. Ecosistemas 16 : 50-7.

Roy B, Bertier P, 1973. La m�ethode ELECTRE II –Une application au m�edia planning. In: Ross M,ed. OR’72. Amsterdam: North-Holland PublishingCompany.

Safriel U, Adeel Z, 2005. Dryland systems. In :Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, eds. Ecosystemsand human well-being, current state and trends.Vol. 1. Washington: Island Press.

Tongway DJ, Hindley N, 2004. Landscapefunction analysis: procedures for monitoringand assessing landscapes. Brisbane: Common-wealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organi-sation (CSIRO).

Afforestation

0

1

2

3

4

5

Shrubland Sloppe Grassland

Landscape units

Soil organic carbon % (0-20 cm)

So

il o

rgan

ic c

arb

on

(%

)

Abandonedfields

Non irrigatedcrops

Irrigatedcrops

Figure 4. Organic carbon content (%) in the soils (%; 0-20 cm) in different landscape unitsof Agost watershed (Romany�a et al., 2007).Source : Adapted by Derak, 2011.

226 S�echeresse vol. 23, n8 3, juillet-aout-septembre 2012