Project Success Facilitator: Bea 1. ① Scale this for national purpose. 2. 1. What would success look like by the end of the project: 2. Having a tool that help Nigeria measure standing biomass which can be used by stakeholders to manage rangeland. 3. Awareness for all identified stakeholders successfully raised, indicated by the adoption of the tool. 3. PROJECT SUCCESS: • Sustainable grazing systems • Reduced degradation and resilient rangelands 4. A NETWORK OF USERS TAKING GRAZING DECISIONS (SUCCESS) 5. Project success → define an adaptable and reproducible placeholder for use by interested countries. 6. ODSS for grazing implemented in ~ 30 farms (ARG & UY) ① Usefulness of DSS assessed ↳ Hard data (biomass product) ↳ Opinions 7. Project success: • defensible method for biomass estimation • DSTs using that data tested w/ users — EMILY 8. Project Success: Seeing demonstration sites from targeted countries adopting our project data operationally. 9. Success: Users can access data easily to make decisions. 10. Every country has a functional network where they can implement their DSTs. (Project success) 11. Project Success: Grazing decisions are made based on near-real time data / information. 12. Project Success: - Time2Graze data effectively used in the 8 countries, for at least 5 stakeholders (each country) - Sustainability plan to scale up the Time2Graze solutions 13. 1. HIGHEST QUALITY BIOMASS ESTIMATION DATA TRANSLATED INTO ≠ FORMS ⇒ REACH ≠ PUBLICS • INFORM T2G • TRACK RECOVERY | EASY UPTAKE | 14. Having a biomass data that is accurate / relevant at different landscapes and context. 15. Project success: → There are clear understandings about the potentials and limitations; → Data is delivered in a way that reaches the end user and brings additional value for him/her. 16. @ Project Success: People really using the data to decision making at farm level, in a way to improve production and mitigate land degradation. 17. SUCCESS: COMMUNITIES HAVING A PRODUCTIVE RANGELAND THAT CAN SUSTAIN LIVESTOCK THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. 18. Project Success: A network of engaged users using a workable DST for grazing management. 19. The technical translation of key information to the DST developers. 20. PROJECT SUCCESS: Large group of farmers / participants in every country adopting T2G decision support tools for their daily operation. Key Themes Accurate & reliable data + understandable. Support of farmers and rural communities daily decisions. Local & national uptake / adoption. Awareness, what's the importance of this initiative? -------------------- Project Barriers Facilitator: Leandro 1. Community integration: Plan how to integrate the local community into the platform to empower smallholders to make better, data driven decision. (Pasto Legal) 2. (DELAY) → PRESENT → FAILURE TO FREQUENT ESTIMATIONS OF STANDING BIOMASS + COMPLEX SYSTEMS TO PICK UP FIELD DATA (BARRIERS) 3. How does the data make DST work? / How does DST become domesticated? 4. Project Barriers: Ground data collection methods (levels + types) & time. 5. Time assigned to this project. (BARRIER) 6. Project Barriers: Lack of feedback with concrete stakeholders about Time2Graze data and solutions. 7. Lack of a concrete action plan with a concrete timeline per country. (Project barriers) 8. Project barriers: 1. Tragedy of the commons 2. Farmer adoption 3. Inaccessibility of some areas 4. Conflicts with other projects e.g. Carbon credits 9. Project Barriers: To get hung up on the known differences between the current countries. 10. 2. Project Barriers: Level of engagement we have with intended users during development and after DST is delivered. 11. Community access and get people's trust. 12. PROJECT BARRIERS: ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE RANGELAND MANAGEMENT. 13. Project barriers: Limited outreach of outputs or not communicating the importance and power of the outputs to end-users. 14. Project barriers: • DST not inspectable, changeable, shareable / scalable • DST not useful to stakeholders — EMILY 15. Project barriers: RS data needs to be coupled with local knowledge; data is a proxy, never the landscape / ground truth reality. 16. PROJECT BARRIERS: Getting too demanding on data accuracy (and spending too much time on it) as opposed to user experience and adoption. -------------------- Workshop Questions Facilitator: Nathalia 1. 1) Adaptable protocol for my country / Data flow process. 2. Workshop Outcome: Global plan of Action on sustainable rangeland management and use. 3. Workshop Questions: - What kind of field data and knowledge we already have in the project? - How can we leverage on those? 4. Workshop Questions: The approach to get data from the field to the AF systems. 5. (Workshop Questions): - What are our indicators of success? - How do we scale up this project? Are there potential partners to do so? 6. Workshop Question: Who do we need to be in contact with in each country as a stakeholder to make this project's outcomes operational? 7. Workshop Questions: Focus on scenario based on each country and try to have separate principles based on each country's need. 8. 3. UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE ≠ MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, BUT 1ˢᵀ, HOW WE'LL GET INFORMATION ABOUT ≠ SPECIES, THEIR RESPONSE TO CALIBRATE SYSTEM. 9. Workshop questions: - What is the scope of the DST? - How can we improve interaction in a faster manner? 10. Workshop Questions: How can we holistically manage rangelands to ensure resilience and sustainability? 11. What's the main data question we must be able to answer in each country? 12. 3. Workshop Questions: The information that is going to be provided in the DST. 13. What do we need to clarify, learn or decide this week? - We need to identify and understand all the pieces of the puzzle. - National perspectives — Adaptable data mobilization strategy — DST development — Communication to stakeholders. 14. Workshop questions: • Bite sized "nuggets" or open questions to tackle e.g. LUE determination? • Where are there cross-team dependencies? esp. in time — EMILY 15. WORKSHOP QUESTIONS: Who will be in charge of translating the Google Earth Engine raw data into reliable biomass data for each in-country situation? 16. We need to decide on the roadmap and responsibilities for the next technical deliverables. 17. How does the integration between project components work? 18. W/shop Que: 1) DST we using as consortium AND ITS ADAPTABILITY. -------------------- Workshop Outcomes Facilitator: Emily 1. [Confidence in satellite data] 2) Integration of data to validate satellite data. 2. [Stakeholder ID] Workshop Outcomes: Map of stakeholders to be contacted with. 3. [Stakeholder ID] WORKSHOP OUTCOMES: A clear identification of target users by each country team. 4. [MISC] (WORKSHOP OUTCOMES) • 2-3 MAIN NEXT STEPS TO CONTINUE. 5. [MISC] - I'd like to leave with a clear overview of the potential success stories that can demonstrate impact on the ground. These success stories have to involve at least a prototype of DST. (Project / Workshop outcomes) 6. [Tools] What do you want to leave the workshop having accomplished: To have better clarity on the linkage between the field data → DST Tools (in ctry) → Translation to End Users. 7. [Tools] W/SHOP OUTCOMES: 1) To have a tangible tool that I own. 8. [Collaboration] 4. CONEXIONS: UNDERSTAND THE ROLES, THE NEEDS. How to Support EACH OTHER. 9. [Collaboration] - A common ground regarding project goals / roles - Expectation leveraged - Close and more dynamic interactions among groups 10. [Collaboration] 4. Outcomes: How can we leverage the work in other countries and Remote Sensing team to be applied in Colombia and Brazil. 11. [Collaboration] Workshop outcomes: • "Directory" of faces + roles across consortium → role + expertise • Mtgs. set for bilateral follow up • "Thematic" subgroup mtgs. at some cadence set — EMILY 12. [Team roles & expectations, linkages] Know people/groups better - needs & strengths. 13. [Team roles & expectations, linkages] Workshop Outcomes: A clear understanding of project Vision/Mission and how I can suggest adaptation to our Country project implementation. 14. [Team roles & expectations, linkages] WORKSHOP OUTCOMES: A clear understanding of what is expected from the Remote Sensing team to provide to country teams. 15. [Team roles & expectations, linkages] WORKSHOP OUTCOMES: A clear understanding of what is expected from country teams to support the Remote Sensing team. 16. [Team roles & expectations, linkages] Strengthening ties with all partners. 17. [Team roles & expectations, linkages] Clear understanding of possible interactions with project partners.