Abstract: Stakeholder engagement in research projects can take a number of forms according to the scope of the project and the purpose of the interaction. L4.2. has focused on comparing different approaches to stakeholder engagement in collaborative projects. This report presents a synthesis of the experiences and lessons learnt through the stakeholder engagement activities of LiveM researchers within MACSUR, within an Italian (Oristano) case study, and within the SOLID (Sustainable, Organic and Low Input Dairying) project. An overview of these examples, and some of the lessons drawn from them, can also be found in the MACSUR paper on stakeholder engagement methods being developed by researchers from all three MACSUR themes (Koenig et al. under production). The first part of this report describes the stakeholder engagement strategy within the SOLID project. Stakeholder engagement methods are analysed through observations of activities and using semi-structured interviews with researchers and stakeholders. Two aspects of the SOLID approach are described – the stakeholder panel and the Future Dairying workshop. Transcripts of the workshop and the contribution of the stakeholder panel to the SOLID annual meeting in Helsinki are included (Appendices 1 and 2), as a contribution to the analysis of workshop outcomes being undertaken within the SOLID project. As part of a wider suite of stakeholder engagement activities, the SOLID stakeholder panel provided an example of how ongoing oversight of scientific outputs and direction by stakeholders can be effective in identifying weaknesses in approach and communication, and in suggesting relevant and effective directions for research activities. The stakeholder workshop demonstrated a useful structure for the exploration of stakeholder concerns, their view of ideal states and their solutions for reaching them. Low participation levels demonstrated the need to understand the motivations that drive stakeholders to engage in such projects, and highlighted the value of developing long-term relationships between stakeholders and researchers that allow scientific research to become an accepted part of practical problem-solving. The second part of the report describes stakeholder engagement activities carried out in the context of one of the MACSUR regional pilot studies (Oristanese case study in Sardinia, Italy). The Oristanese case study demonstrates the potentialities and constraints of participatory methodologies in relation to the different categories of stakeholder involved. It highlights the importance of creating new spaces for dialogue between farmers, researchers and policy makers in order to promote the generation of “hybrid knowledge” (Nguyen et al. 2013) for the emergence of more sustainable and longer-lasting strategies to adapt to CC. This would require the promotion of open knowledge generation platforms where multiple stakeholders are encouraged to participate and make their views heard. These approaches are designed in order to overcome the misalignment between scientists’ suggestions and policy implementation. In the third part of the report, the outcomes of a “learning event” held in Sassari (MACSUR mid-term meeting) with decision makers from different EU countries, are discussed. Finally, some reflections are presented on the importance of involving local stakeholders and decision makers in research projects, of sharing views and knowledge between scientists and stakeholders, and on the pros and cons of different methodologies at the different scales of stakeholder engagement, drawing on all three examples of practice. The research approach analysed includes two important components, which are represented by “transdisciplinarity” (to be included in the macro area of “scientific knowledge”) and “local knowledge”, as fundamental elements to fill the Science and Policy Gap. No Label

Abstract: Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ;

Abstract: • We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems.