126
Conclusions
If we are to achieve improved project performance in the context of a new era in
dryland science and stewardship, use of an approach like ERIS is needed. The
ERIS perspective can also make a large contribution to promoting transdisciplinary
work to foster problem-solving for dryland social-ecological systems. Donors are
key to such efforts because ERIS-type projects must be longer in duration and
broader in scope than what has typically been supported in the past. This requires
greater donor patience and larger funding commitments to incentivize and sustain
the ERIS process. Similarly, institutions that contribute personnel to ERIS-type
efforts must recognize the value of community-based work and reward the adherents accordingly. An ERIS platform for inter-project coordination could easily be
part of a comprehensive Agadir platform (see Chapter 13, this volume). Successful
implementation of a multi-national ERIS requires visionary leadership and commitment to detail. The main way to institutionalize ERIS-type approaches starts at
regional or national levels with policies supporting changes in how government
agencies and their stakeholders work together.
Acknowledgements Special thanks to Elisabeth Huber-Sannwald and the editorial team for the
invitation to submit this chapter. Several illustrations (i.e., Table 7.2 and Figs. 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6)
have been reprinted from a paper by Coppock (2016) that has open-access status with Elsevier.
Brian Kartchner (Utah State University) assisted with producing the figures.
References
Birkland T (2016) An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public
policy making, 4th edn. Routledge, New York
Bonfil G (1970) La antropología social en México: Ensayo sobre sus nuevas perspectivas. An
Antropol 7:24–39
Cauvin T (2016) Public history: a textbook of practice, 1st edn. Routledge, New York
Cavalier D, Kennedy E (2016) The rightful place of science: citizen science. Consortium for
Science, Policy & Outcomes, Tempe, AZ
Chambers R (1983) Rural development: putting the last first. Longman, Harlow
Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22(7):
953–969
Coppock DL (2016) Cast off the shackles of academia! Use participatory approaches to tackle
real-world problems with underserved populations. Rangelands 38(1):5–13
Coppock DL, Desta S, Tezera S, Gebru G (2009) An innovation system in the rangelands: using
collective action to diversify livelihoods among settled pastoralists in Ethiopia. In: Sanginga P,
Waters-Bayer A, Kaaria S, Njuki J, Wettasinha C (eds) Innovation Africa: enriching farmer’s
livelihoods. Earthscan, London, pp 104–119
Coppock DL, Fernández-Giménez M, Hiernaux P, Huber-Sannwald E, Schloeder C, Valdivia
C, Arredondo JT, Jacobs M, Turin C, Turner M (2017) Rangelands in developing nations:
conceptual advances and societal implications. In: Briske D (ed) Rangeland systems: processes,
management, and challenges. Springer, Berlin, pp 569–641
De Silva G, Wignaraja P, Mehta N, Rahman M (1979) Bhoomi Sena, a struggle for people’s power.
Dev Dialogue 2:3–70
D. L. Coppock
Conclusions
If we are to achieve improved project performance in the context of a new era in
dryland science and stewardship, use of an approach like ERIS is needed. The
ERIS perspective can also make a large contribution to promoting transdisciplinary
work to foster problem-solving for dryland social-ecological systems. Donors are
key to such efforts because ERIS-type projects must be longer in duration and
broader in scope than what has typically been supported in the past. This requires
greater donor patience and larger funding commitments to incentivize and sustain
the ERIS process. Similarly, institutions that contribute personnel to ERIS-type
efforts must recognize the value of community-based work and reward the adherents accordingly. An ERIS platform for inter-project coordination could easily be
part of a comprehensive Agadir platform (see Chapter 13, this volume). Successful
implementation of a multi-national ERIS requires visionary leadership and commitment to detail. The main way to institutionalize ERIS-type approaches starts at
regional or national levels with policies supporting changes in how government
agencies and their stakeholders work together.
Acknowledgements Special thanks to Elisabeth Huber-Sannwald and the editorial team for the
invitation to submit this chapter. Several illustrations (i.e., Table 7.2 and Figs. 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6)
have been reprinted from a paper by Coppock (2016) that has open-access status with Elsevier.
Brian Kartchner (Utah State University) assisted with producing the figures.
References
Birkland T (2016) An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public
policy making, 4th edn. Routledge, New York
Bonfil G (1970) La antropología social en México: Ensayo sobre sus nuevas perspectivas. An
Antropol 7:24–39
Cauvin T (2016) Public history: a textbook of practice, 1st edn. Routledge, New York
Cavalier D, Kennedy E (2016) The rightful place of science: citizen science. Consortium for
Science, Policy & Outcomes, Tempe, AZ
Chambers R (1983) Rural development: putting the last first. Longman, Harlow
Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22(7):
953–969
Coppock DL (2016) Cast off the shackles of academia! Use participatory approaches to tackle
real-world problems with underserved populations. Rangelands 38(1):5–13
Coppock DL, Desta S, Tezera S, Gebru G (2009) An innovation system in the rangelands: using
collective action to diversify livelihoods among settled pastoralists in Ethiopia. In: Sanginga P,
Waters-Bayer A, Kaaria S, Njuki J, Wettasinha C (eds) Innovation Africa: enriching farmer’s
livelihoods. Earthscan, London, pp 104–119
Coppock DL, Fernández-Giménez M, Hiernaux P, Huber-Sannwald E, Schloeder C, Valdivia
C, Arredondo JT, Jacobs M, Turin C, Turner M (2017) Rangelands in developing nations:
conceptual advances and societal implications. In: Briske D (ed) Rangeland systems: processes,
management, and challenges. Springer, Berlin, pp 569–641
De Silva G, Wignaraja P, Mehta N, Rahman M (1979) Bhoomi Sena, a struggle for people’s power.
Dev Dialogue 2:3–70
D. L. Coppock