N2+Baseline+analysis+workshop

Strategies Project (N2) Baseline (Planning, Implementation, Innovation and Livelihoods) Analysis Workshop 9-11 May 2011

Reflections on the field work

**Fogera:** - expectation of payment from farmers (satisfied in the end with purchase of local beer and snacks) and especially DAs - some delays due to vehicle technical problems - budget was used up early in the fieldwork and team members are still awaiting some per diems - lengthy time spent in analysis and write up, suggestion of honorarium - interviews are long and not all DAs/woreda officials could spare enough time

- some issues within the team related to staff turnover in Bako and mismatched schedules of partners, now resolved - budget transfers take a long time to reach team in the field - again DAs expected payment --> project needs to come up with a strategy for working with DAs
 * Diga:**

Introduction to qualitative analysis - Josie Tucker




 * Storylines**


 * Complexity**


 * Sources of evidence**


 * Interviews
 * FGD's
 * Case studies
 * Documents
 * Community walks
 * Timelines


 * Reliability**

Interviews with KI's may not be reliable due to lack of experience, political reasons, pressure from outside. Need to look at reasons for false reporting. We may get different opinions from different sources - can relate to variation in perceptions from different groups. Focus group discussions may be more reliable since they are based more on consensual information. Sometimes different opinions withing FGD and no consensus was reached. Can get dominant voices. Women can play an important role in bringing consensus. Documents - reports may not always be reliable - can be biased for political reasons. Policy documents may give an impression of how things should be not, not how they are. Community walk provides a chance for informal conversations. Good for triangulation. Good to make sure you understand what you see. Also can get information from unidentified sources who may have an agenda.


 * Bias**

Sometimes difficult to get representation aimed at e.g. numbers of women in FGD's. Interviewers also bring bias based on background and experience. Bias can also be introduced by immediate local issues such as input price hikes. In this case the researcher needs to report what is said and then provide their own interpretation.


 * Triangulation**


 * Teamwork**

Important for cross-checking, challenging different interpretations and to generate ideas.

Analysis


 * Planning; Diga group - Dagnachew**




 * Question: To what extent is planning of RWM interventions evidence-based and/or participatory?**

Some RWM activities (incl. afforestation, terracing) are planned according to quotas received by the woreda, divided among kebeles and passed to DAs for implementation. Quotas are divided among kebeles according to potential and likelihood of implementation. There is some scope for negotiation between kebele and woreda, but no farmer participation in developing these plans. At the same time, DAs are meant to develop local plans with farmers which are fed up to the woreda and the zone, but it is not clear what happens to these plans. Team from Fogera commented that the reality is top-down planning.

Two ways of looking at planning: official and farmer-led. Some types of RWM practice are self-planned by farmers, e.g. crop production/management aspects, contour ploughing and other 'traditional practices', and not the subject of quotas. For farmer-led planning, farmers are solely involved. For official planning there are different views on who is involved. General sense is that planning is done at kebele level. Official plan are office-based take little account of evidence and are not participatory. Farmer-led planning is based on evidence (based on what has worked in the past) and is participatory in the sense that it is farmers planning for themselves.

Varies depending on activity - difficult to generalize.Picture is different for different types of activities.

Three different types of planning: participatory, instructional and enforced. Evidence suggest that for new technologies DA's are involved in planning. But for existing technologies to be applied at farm level, farmers tend to get on with it. Example of enforced planning would be a quota for 1000 trees to be planted on communal land - farmers would have no say in where these would be planted or the tree species. Instructional planning is used for irrigation development - DAs encourage irrigation and give technical support, but do not force adoption.

Farmers plan their own routine activities. NRM activities are planned from above. DA's are involved in planning of new technologies.

When it comes to official plans, what is planned is not necessarily fully implemented, but reporting tends to affirm that plans have been fully implemented. Incentives at all levels encourage this and there is little/no checking of what has been implemented.

Different sectors plan separately.

There is some consideration of upstream/downstream effects, e.g. the water balance is considered in irrigation development.

REFLAC (Research Extension Farmers' Linkage Advisory Council) is a forum for discussion for planning NR activities.

Different views of who plays the main role in planning: experts, DAs and farmers all said they are the main decision-maker. In Fogera, the kebele reported that the Kebele Council (?) has ultimate power to approve the kebele plan. At the same time woreda experts said that they send plans for the kebele.

Discussion: why are bottom-up plans not accepted and implemented? Relates to the very ambitious plans developed at higher levels of government. Woredas have to comply with this, and feel that if DAs plan themselves they will not be ambitious enough. The room for change is if DAs are able to convince woreda experts, and/or if woreda experts can convince zones to permit a chance - so it depends on the capacity of DAs and woreda experts.

There are sub-kebele structures: Shanes (5 HH), Gares and Zones (terms and structure vary between regions). Each has a leader who checks that farmers are doing what they should be and reports up. If farmers don't comply with plans, they might lose access to inputs and services. Government looms large in people's minds as very powerful and there are no alternative forms of services, input supply, etc.

Some feel that the high level plans and policies are good and are meant to improve livelihoods, but the translation at lower levels is not participatory and forced on farmers.

Need to weigh evidence depending on likelihood of accuracy - e.g. woreda experts are more likely to present the official view whereas farmers have less stake in doing so.

Human tendency to think the past was always better.

Extent to which DA's interact with farmers is being portrayed by farmers as being less than in the past but this is contrary to the ratios - DA's are much more numerous now than in the past. They could now be over-qualified which brings its own problems - they lack practical grounding and are always looking for their position at the woreda office.

Some variation among farmers about what they understand by "rainwater management". For example if crop rotations can be included as RWM that is something that farmers plan themselves. Things like gully rehabilitation and terracing might be planned at community level hence the kebele might have more involvement.

What do we mean by participatory planning? Participation of who, at what stages, extent. Participation ladder ([|www.tomwolff.com/ladder.jpg]) varies though stages of non-participation, tokenism and citizen power. We seem to be quite near the bottom of the ladder.

**Implementation; Fogera group** - Assefa


Question: Do all actors involved in RWM implementation have the necessary (a) skills/knowledge and (b) motivation/support to implement plans effectively? If not, why not?


 * Discussion**

Findings presented seem to mainly represent the views of experts and government officials - seems farmer views have not yet been taken into account. Seems to present the theory rather than the practice of what happens.

Question: does theoretical implementation cycle actually happen in practice?

Gp3: DA follow up varies between sites. Farmers indicate that experts are not responding to farmer problems transmitted via DA's. Farmers say expert visits are mostly to model areas. Gp2: Scheduling does not happen. As regards community mobilization - community were not involved rather told. Variation across kebeles in role of experts - in some no role but in others some involvement e.g. quality control. Gp1: Implementation cycle reflects team's observation on the ground. Not purely theoretical and not purely practical. There are variations between sites, might be instructive to consider why (e.g. different types of RWM implemented, different background/capacity/interest of actors?)

Question: What constraints are implementers (farmers and other actors) working under?

Gp1: Training is too short. Training not geared to local conditions and not very practical. Inadequate incentives and DA's get involved in side businesses leaving them insufficient time to do their jobs. Gp2: Some side-businesses may have wider benefits - e.g. DA's may get involved in hiring out water pumps. Conflicts over water use can act as a constraint. Upstream-downstream issues. Although DAs have a specialism, they are assigned zones of the kebele to work in and have to act as generalists which is difficult. Gp3: Women not greatly involved. Farmers say interventions tend to be located in accessible areas - close to the road. Farmers have given up on the ablity of DA's to solve their problems. Governance issues (e.g. conflict over irrigation water) outside remit of DA's, but what other support do communities have access to?

Livelihoods; Diga Group, Temesgen
Presentation by Diga team: What are the 5 most important livelihood constraints and can these be differentiated by gender, age or other groups?

How big a problem is water? Water shortage is not really a problem, but there is a lack of pumps for irrigation. Very few farmers irrigate, using traditional means.
 * Discussion**

//Deforestation//: overall pattern is reduction in tree cover due to expansion of agriculture, settlement, sale of firewood. But in some kebeles there are pockets of increased tree cover. Loss of cover most serious in Arjo and 1 other kebele where there are many settlers.

//Settlement//: Farmers categorised settlers into 3 waves of different ethnic groups. 1. those who were moved in officially 20ya from Wollo and adopted culture of the area. These value the trees. 2. Others came informally from Gojam, and are said to deforest and move on to other sites. Some cut trees to construct huts. Settlers brought knowledge on how to make charcoal, now adopted by local people. 3. Harari settlers came formally. Some settlers bought land illegally sold by locals who had been allocated land from an ex state farm. Wollo and Harari settlers limited in number. The most important settlers in terms of numbers and impacts on NR are the unofficial from Gojam.

Tree - planting to replace what is cut? An informal settler in an FGD said no, trees are not replanted to replace what is cut because 'the land is not mine'. Insecure land tenure of informal migrants. Eucalyptus is popular because fast-growing and easy to produce firewood and timber for construction. But may have negative effects on local water resources (?)

Will insecurity (esp around land) of informal settlers be a barrier to investment in permanent/long-term RWM structures?

Also local migration between kebeles in search of land, from densely populated highlands to lowlands.

What about governance issues relating to all this migration? Some migrants are reluctant to participate in local governance structures. Don't know how long they will be in the area and don't feel that they are residents of the kebele - shifting cultivation, some have moved between 4 kebeles in 20 years. Lack of community identity/cohesion.

//Land use and holdings//: No free land, though forest land is common. Expansion took place into forest land and noone can object as no ownership. But forests are used for grazing. Cultivation of forest land but no insecurity. Noone is responsible for this land, even local administrator. Department of Forestry may confiscate charcoal or timber but do not protect living forest.

Can we characterise these patterns spatially? Most deforestation and settlement is in the lower part of the catchment, with lack of security. There is movement from uplands and from other areas to these areas.

Where do people have landholdings? Some of those living in highlands have plots in lower areas - even seek land in other kebeles because of declining fertility in the uplands. May seek land for irrigation. But not a very significant pattern. But fear of settlers stealing livestock (e.g. taking oxen for a few days) mean that highland farmers are reluctant to go to the lowland areas.

Is forest owned by nobody or common property? Farmers do not know the meaning of common property. If there is no protection of forest and it is open access, why is there any left? That is why it is decreasing! Some forests in other areas are protected by government if valued for certain reasons e.g. coffee production areas.

//What are patterns on the slope:// - Coffee? Anecdotally people said forest cover is appreciated for coffee production. Some coffee in lowlands but it is near the houses under big trees, not in forest land. In other areas where these is large dense forest it is used for coffee production. - Size of landholdings? In lowland areas size of holdings is a bit larger than in highlands. But land shortage is now affecting lowland areas because of settlement. - Livestock holdings? High animal diseases in low areas and fewer livestock than in uplands. In dry season cattle go to the lowland areas, in turns. Good grass along the river. Free access to this land. - Labour? Outmigration to work at a mill. - Markets? Main markets are in Arjo and Diga, local market in Adugna for crops (far from Diga).

//Landlords and land renters:// Landlessness is a critical issue in all kebeles. The landless migrate out to search for land or for labour in sand mining, or rent out labour in sharecropping arrangements. There is not a lot of excess land for renting but people rent out land when they are lacking labour or draught power needed to cultivate it. Is there a gender dimension to this? Landless women would not seek land to rent out but would rent out labour. Women cannot rent land as culturally only men plough. Female-headed households who have land but lack labour for ploughing can rent in labour. Are there brokers (seem to be very important in Fogera)? Not formally, but some individuals in the kebele administration informally make a business out of brokering land rental, at least in some kebeles. But most rental arrangements are directly agreed and kebele administration is brought in if there is a problem/conflict.

//Gender:// What were differences in responses between men and women FGDs? Did they list the same problems? Most problems were similar. But different focus in terms of livestock - women focused on cows because they control milk production and hens, while men focused on oxen, (also donkeys, horses, shoats are responsibility of men). Generally men manage cash crops and women manage food crops. Women may sell crops but smaller amounts to support household consumption, compared with larger amounts sold by men for income-generation for fertiliser, clothing, etc. There is division of labour by gender and by age.

//Areas for further research:// What are the gaps in our knowledge or areas that need more exploration, to understand livelihoods better in partcular in relation to RWM? - Specific role of women in development and environment. Women have an important role/authority in HH decision making - if women adopt an idea, the household is likely to implement it. Competition between neighbours' homesteads - a lot of adoption due to seeing things in practice on other homesteads, e.g. vegetable production. This could be an important means of transferring ideas. - Local knowledge and coping mechanisms particularly around RWM, so interventions can capitalise on these. - Interaction between ethnic groups. FGDs indicate some conflicts, for various reasons (resources? ethnic?). - Market analysis (inputs and outputs), value chains, how they drive or don't drive people's decision making. e.g. Cattle fattening is a new livelihood activity - may be expanding. - Governance of open access/communal land - forests, grazing land, riverbanks, springs - Irrigation - is there a desire and opportunity to expand? (This will be linked to market prices of different crops) There are 45 streams and rivers in the woreda according to WWRDO. Few are utilised for local irrigation - why? Farmers in Bikila said constraint to irrigation there was shortage of labour to construct and maintain canals. - What are the current trends in crop, livestock and livelihoods? Can we link this to the trend in NR which we know about. - Labour: availability, patterns, preferences (e.g. young people often don't want to work on the farm) - Trees: uses, values, dynamics, indigenous vs exotic, forests, perceptions of trees on-farm


 * Fogera Discussion**

How would you characterise what is happening in Fogera at landscape level? Historically people from lowlands commonly moved up to higher land with their cattle due to wet season floods. This mobility has declined and limited. Some partnerships whereby people send livestock to relative in uplands. Landless people may rent out labour for looking after people's livestock, and take them to community woodlots for grazing. Also movement of livestock from highland to lowland in dry season because of feed availability. Why has previous movement from plains to highland declined? More constraints are placed on migration, noone feels they have land to accommodate people's cattle. Also, livestock holdings in lowlands are now smaller and decreasing (less pastoral, more agropastoral with rice production). Fogera livestock breed was in highland. When mixed with lowland breed, this caused a decline in productivity.

Community woodlots are protected from tree-cutting.

HH landholdings are fragmented within the kebele. People see this as an opportunity: diversification.

Flooding is now seen as an opportunity. It prompts movement.

//Labour:// Youths migrate out for daily labour especially in the highlands. What do they do with their cash? Mostly put it back into production e.g. buying livestock/oxen.

//Conflicts:// Over grazing land, farm land, water use. Because of limited resources and increased pressure. Conflicts have been difficult to resolve through the courts and there is a lack of effective mechanisms for dealing with them at kebele level. Lack of effective mechanism to resolve upstream/downstream conflicts over irrigation water.

//Landlessness:// An issue in all kebeles following land redistribution. Of the landless 10-30% are youth. Landlessness also seems to have a religiousand gender dimension (more landless Muslims and women). There was no mechanism to allocate land for youth in the government system - considered unfair, bureaucrats reported to be biased and women and Muslims marginalised.

//Changing cropping patterns:// Cropping patterns are a response to the ecological conditions. Chat is expanding in 2 kebeles. It consumes a lot of water. Conflict between chat growers and livestock owners as livestock may eat crops.

//Brokers:// Many brokers for land transactions, crop sales, input sales, moneylending, etc. Response to failure of previous agreements, to ensure agreements are kept. Mainly youth. There are also private moneylenders (arata) who are wealthy charging very high rates of interest, and group loan institutions (women, WUAs, credit associations). Those who cannot pay back loans to arata or credit associations may lose livestock or land for some time. Most people are borrowing for survival, not for investment in oxen, houses etc. (contrast with Diga, where people borrow from arata to buy fertiliser, oxen).

Are there more local groups and associations in Fogera than Diga? May be relevant for innovation.

Limited fertiliser use in Fogera. Economics are not favourable.

Area closure is not common, only for forest protection not for regeneration of vegetation/soil

There is a govt watershed management campaign in Fogera, and demonstration projects on grazing management.

//Problems identified:// Flooding and sand which reduces fertility NR degradation and erosion Marketing problems - everyone producing same thing leading to falling prices, no processing / value-adding locally Grazing land management: quality, carrying capacity, encroachment Weak enforcement of rules and regulations Conflict management Erratic rainfall Lack of inputs for well construction: can dig wells (water 3m down) but need materials to support walls. Very loose vertisols, cannot be constructed only with stones.

//Areas for further research on livelihoods, esp in relation to RWM adoption:// Scale of upstream/downstream NR issues - perceptions, conflicts, resolution mechanisms Perceptions of watershed management issues/ NR governance - costs/benefits, sustainability, private vs community interests, resource privatisation

**Innovation; Fogera Team, Yanie Chazie**

**Next Steps**

Teams to gather in Addis for 1 - 2 weeks for analysis and write up. Funds for this will be held back from second installment - Alemayehu to check this is acceptable to Dr Assefa. Teams to decide amongst themselves as to when they do this. First draft of report to be delivered by June 15th (June 21st for Fogera). Comments to come from us two weeks thereafter. Teams to bring field notes with them to Addis so that they can be copied.

Jeldu team aim to start week of May 23rd with support from Alemayehu and possibly either Katherine or Josie/Eva. Alan and Abeje both away that week.

=**Groupwork on Innovation**= There are informal institutions and also government-initiated formal associations. Community institutions are focused on social issues not development or NRM. Gare does include NRM in terms of formation of development teams to implement government activities. Why no more community-based action on NRM? - government action on NRM is weak - lack of sense of ownership of communal assets e.g. forests, grazing land and lack of incentive to invest there - no government or NGO uses existing social organisations for NRM
 * 1. Diga**

Community collective action again focuses on cultural and everyday issues not NRM. Meheber plant trees around churches but this is spiritually based rather than NRM focused. But they are highly valued insitutions for learning and sharing information. Why no community mobilisation around NRM problems? - Seen as government responsibility - No support/information for community groups to do this - Existing groups are long-established and traditional - people might find it hard to imagine starting a new one, might feel they needed government permission, etc - Not farmers' top priority At woread level there is the Farmer Research and Extension Group. Ideas come from research centres and are tested by farmers. If successful, other farmers are invited to demonstrations. Woreda experts are members. Ethio-Watlands is active in Fogera (in 2 kebeles, 2 watersheds). At woreda level there is a joint NRM plan document between all sectors and a meeting of all sectors. But they still mainly plan separately, then meet to defend plans and budgets, then compile the document, then implement separately.
 * 2. Fogera**

Skills in this context refers to soft skills not technical skills. Alan demonstrated an actor linkage matrix and actor linkage map as ways to visualise connections. How do institutions limit NRM enhancement? Here 'insitutions' refers to informal rules and norms and how these affect NRM. An example could be the free grazing culture which inhibits off-season crop production with irrigation. How do external factors affect NRM enhancement? E.g. markets, policy, interest rates What networks exist or have existed, and what are success factors? E.g. REFLAC, FREG
 * Discussion of innovation questions from the checklist**: for innovation write-up, focus on the higher level actors interviews, e.g. woreda experts, rather than farmer FGDs

Experience from the field is that all actors found it hard to answer these questions about collaboration and networks. That in itself suggests that there is not much culture of collaboration.

These questions are hard because they are quite abstract!

**Innovation Platforms**
Platforms was the second most reported word from the NBDC workshop! A lot of expectations. Ideas of innovation platforms is to have a forum to bring actors together in the sites, to discuss constraints and opportunities, build bridges between government sectors and between communities and government. Then agree some specific areas that will be a focus for action and develop rolling action plans.

Presentation of Innovation Platform concept - Alan Duncan

Various sources of knowledge will be brought into the platforms - NBDC research, research by others, knowledge of implementers, government departments, business knowledge, farmers' own knowledge. Some pilot activities could be resourced by NBDC but budget is limited. Need to build links with actors who have funds to invest - i.e. more sustainable sources of funds.

Platforms may form subgroups to work on specific areas with rolling action plans, with progress to be reported back at meetings.

Questions: Who should facilitate platforms? Where will resources come from for actions? How far should we predetermine the issues these platforms will deal with?

Zelalem explained RiPPLE's Learning and Practice Alliances and key differences. RIPPLE LPAs have full time facilitators/coordinators communicating with members and supporting and following up on actions. Might be hard to find someone at woreda level who could take this on and have enough time. One platform can deal with several issues of importance in the woreda, rather than dividing platforms across topics. RiPPLE has core LPA members (main actors in the sector) who meet frequently around actions, while the general assembly meets about 3 x per year. Could adopt a similar model.

LPAs did action research, came together to prioritise issues. 2-3 researchable topics were then identified and a research team created from the platform members, led and supported by a university to ensure quality of research. LPA members collect information, do write up workshops and present findings to the LPA. They learn by seeing and participating in the research themselves and they are the ones who would take up the findings. Also gain research capacity. RiPPLE has produced 21 working papers with this model. RiPPLE's question is now sustainability - who will take over facilitation and financing? Handover process in June 2011. Recommend a platform at woreda level highly, for people to learn and share experiences. A lot of NRM actions could be adopted by woreda experts.

NBDC cannot employ a facilitator. Would rather find a local actor and mentor them. More sustainable.

The NBDC platform is also less focused on research and more on practical actions on the ground. Could also be a research element.


 * Reactions from the site teams - is this a good idea?!**

Past project in Diga has used an individual from the Ministry of Agriculture to facilitate. Past IFAD projects have also delegated to the woreda administration.

Preferable to have a non-government facilitator if possible (e.g. NGOs) to avoid formalisation, communities might be more willing to engage with NGOs than with government. But may not be possible.

RWM encompasses both individual and landscape level interventions and a wide range of possible strategies. Not very targeted. How will we get people interested or is this too fuzzy? How should we present RWM to encourage people to engage? Need to address how RWM can help farmers improve livelihoods/production. Want to balance farmer-driven with landscape focus.

In the first year of RiPPLE it was hard to get people involved as it was a new approach. But now people want to continue the platforms. The first step needs to be selecting members and do some road-paving workshops. Introduce the platform idea to create awareness. Useful to have some kind of ToR agreed by all members - how many meetings per year, what is expected, etc. To avoid confusion. May take some time to build a strong platform. RWM is fuzzy but members could select their own themes to focus it down more closely and generate actions.

Must involve communities not only formal state organs. Who should be the community representatives with credibility in the community? Should we work with/establish farmer research groups. How do we balance voices? Representation from all 5 kebeles from baseline to give critical mass to voices from communities?

Need to learn from REFLAC which is effective. Innovation Platforms can also be effective.

Seems there is a lack of coordination among actors in Fogera and Diga. IPs can strengthen that. RiPPLE also had a national platform linked to regional and woreda ones which is an effective combination to show the importance of platforms and actions at higher levels. Can help build support in terms of financing for platforms.

NBDC is also establishing a national platform and is establishing a working group to develop this. Needs to be sustainable and embedded not just run by NBDC. Idea is to share experience of what is working on the ground and not and why, particularly institutional/policy constraints, and discuss how these can be addressed. Need local Innovation Platforms to do actions so the national platform has something to talk about. A lot of insitutional issues however need to be addressed at regional level, so later regional platforms may be developed.

Need to go out there and bring people together, hear their ideas for what the platform could look like and develop a ToR jointly. A one-page infosheet could be useful to communicate the idea.

Could Ethio-Wetlands be a facilitator? Care International? World Vision? (all in Fogera) Ethio-Wetlands would probably be interested and have capacity. Would need some training on facilitation.

No NGOs in Diga.

NB there can be high turnover of government staff, so there needs to be someone to sustain the platform.