Basin Development Challenges Stakeholder Consultation ...boru.pbworks.com/f/CPWF_Nile_Workshop_Report.pdfChallenge Program on Water and Food Basin Development Challenges Stakeholder

Challenge Program on Water and Food

Basin Development Challenges

Stakeholder Consultation Workshop Report

Nile River Basin

May 11th to 13th, 2009, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

By Sophie Alvarez with contributions from Boru Douthwaite, Larry Harrington, Sophie Nguyen Khoa and Kim Geheb

2

Basin Development Challenges - Stakeholder Consultation Workshop Report

Nile River Basin, 11-13 May 2009, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Content

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Workshop Objectives, Outputs and Process .................................................................................. 5

Workshop Language ........................................................................................................................ 6

Participation .................................................................................................................................... 7

Introductions ................................................................................................................................... 8

The PIPA Process ............................................................................................................................. 8

Day 1: Problem trees and opportunities ........................................................................................ 8

Day 2: Network mapping .............................................................................................................. 10

Day 3: CPWF BDC Proposed Research Program........................................................................... 12

Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 13

End of Workshop Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 14

List of Annexes

Annex 1: The CPWF Nile Basin Development Challenge ............................................................. 15

Annex 2: List of Participants BDC Nile River Basin Workshop ..................................................... 17

Annex 3: What is the BDC? What should it do? ........................................................................... 19

Annex 4: Combined impact pathways .......................................................................................... 20

Annex 5: Workshop Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................... 28

Annex 5a: Participants’ Expectations ........................................................................................... 28

Annex 5b: “Go-around” Day 2 (Tuesday 12th May 2009) ............................................................ 30

Annex 5d: End of Workshop Evaluation - Simplified After Action Review ................................. 31

Annex 6a: Group I Proposal for a Nile BDC Research Program ................................................... 32

Annex 6b: Group II Proposal for a Nile BDC Research Program ................................................ 325

List of Tables

Table 1: Steps the CPWF is taking to identify BDCs ....................................................................... 4

Table 2: Group composition for Problem Trees and Outcomes Logic Model............................... 8

Table 3: Outcomes Logic Model Exercise ..................................................................................... 10

Table 4: Group composition for Networks ................................................................................... 10

Table 5: Changes from the “Now”-Network to the future successful vision .............................. 12

Table 6: Suggestions for a Nile BDC research program ............................................................... 13

List of Figures

3



Figure 1: Workshop Road Map ....................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Workshop Participants .................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3a: Government group participants discussing their problem tree ................................... 9

Figure 3b: Explanation for participants of the problem tree and the way to identify opportunities ................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4a: Research Group drawing their map ............................................................................ 11

Figure 4b: Final map product of the government group ............................................................. 11

4



Background

The CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) is a research-for-development program that works to increase the productivity of water for food and livelihoods, in a manner that is environmentally sustainable, socially acceptable, and alleviates poverty for all disadvantaged groups. The First Phase of the CPWF ran from 2004-2008, while the Second Phase will run from 2009-2013. In its Second Phase the CPWF works in six river basins (Mekong, Ganges, Limpopo, Volta, Nile, and the Andean Basins System) in the developing world. More information about the CPWF can be obtained at www.waterandfood.org In Phase II the CPWF will support one or two development challenges (BDCs) per basin. The table below describes the steps the CPWF is taking to identify BDCs and design coherent basin research programs with high probability of making substantial contribution to tackling them.

Table 1: Steps the CPWF is taking to identify BDCs

Step Description Selection/ design criteria Sources of info / responsibility

1 Identify Basin Development Challenge

Broad stakeholder agreement on importance

Addresses food and water issues

Opportunity for the CPWF to contribute through its core principles (partnership, interdisciplinarity, capacity building, adaptive management)

High impact potential after 10 years, with measurable progress after 5 years

Comprehensive Assessment

Basin coordinator consultation

Basin expert consultations

Consultation at the International Food and Water Forum (IFWF 2) in Addis in Nov 2009

Basin Focal Projects

2 Identify opportunities for research to contribute

Build on Phase I research and new opportunities

Link and add value to existing research-for-development projects and networks

Outcomes likely after 5 years

Phase I project results

Basin expert consultations

Stakeholder consultation workshops

3 Design a coherent BDC research program

Research linked to impact through clearly defined and plausible pathways

To be contracted as 3 to 5 projects including a coordination function

CPWF MT responsibility, drawing on all other sources of insight and information

4 BDC research contracted and implementation begun

Projects awarded on merit and with their fit with each other

Coherence through agreement on common set of impact pathways at Inception Workshop; final implementation plans, budgets and contracts finalized after Inception Workshop

Inception Workshop

Steps 1 and 2 have been consultative. Step 3 relies on the CPWF Management Team to synthesize information and insight from the various sources to design BDC research programs in which a coherent research agenda is linked to expected impacts through causal chains. Causal chains, also called results-chains or impact pathways, consist of sets of hypotheses about how research, and the conduct of research, will lead to changes in

http://www.waterandfood.org/

5



stakeholder knowledge, attitude or skills that in turn lead to changes in stakeholder behavior, that in turn contribute to social, economic or environmental impacts. An example of an impact pathway identified in this workshop is: Research that identifies best extension/implementation practice matched to rain-water management (RWM) technologies and agro-ecological zones, involving Government and NGO planners and extension workers, leads to greater knowledge of the pros and cons of different approaches, the ability to adapt extension approaches to need and policy support with the result that more appropriate implementation/extension strategies are used for the promulgation of RWM technologies. BDC research programs consist of not one, but a set complementary and reinforcing impact pathways. Continuing with the example, it may well be that success of extension strategies also depends on the participation of local institutions which requires Government planners and extension staff to better understand how local institutions work and what they can offer. While identifying impact pathways is part of Step 2, and was a main objective of this workshop, the selection of a complementary and reinforcing set of impact pathways is part of program design and the responsibility of the CPWF Management Team in the first instance, drawing on all inputs. BDC research program design also involves packaging the research into projects. Once projects have been contracted, BDC Inception Workshops will be held to revisit and detail the impact pathways with researchers and key stakeholders responsible for implementation. The timeline for contracting the Nile BDC is given the Next Steps section at the end of this report. Workshop Objectives, Outputs and Process The objective of this workshop, as indicated above, was to consult key stakeholders knowledgeable about the proposed Nile BDC, how research can best contribute to tackling the BDC, while at the same time sharpening the focus of the BDC (i.e. refine Steps 1 and 2). In the Nile, the proposed BDC was better management of rainwater in the Ethiopian Highlands for livelihood improvement. To this end, participants worked together over three days to: 1) Scope out the BDC in terms of a problem and opportunity analysis 2) Identify the main actors involved in rainwater management and their attitudes towards

what the BDC would wish to achieve 3) Specify which actors need to be doing what differently to tackle the BDC 4) Identify research strategies to contribute to these changes 5) Provide advice on how the CPWF should design projects to carry out the research

identified. The workshop agenda followed the roadmap shown in Figure 1 to achieve the objectives. The main workshop output were suggested impact pathways for the BDC describing changes needed in stakeholder behavior, knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to tackle the BDC, and suggesting research that could help bring these changes about.

6



Figure 1: Workshop Road Map The Nile BDC on “Managing Rainwater in the Ethiopian Highlands for Improved Livelihoods” was shared with the participants prior to the meeting together with the invitation (see Annex 1: The Nile Basin Development Challenge). A disclaimer was given at the beginning of the workshop that “Participation in this workshop will not increase or decrease the chances of success in being awarded a Phase 2 project”. While the CPWF wishes to be fair to workshop participants – it also wishes to be fair to those who for one reason or another were unable to join in. Workshop Language English was the working language for the participants during the workshop.

1. Problem Tree

2. Outcomes Tree

3. Vision

6. BDC impact pathways

4. "Now" network

map

What the BDC should helpachieve

Current arrangement ofactors working onreservoirs in the Mekong

Helps understand BDC logic

Pro

ble

m a

naly

sis

Inte

gra

tion

5. Key network

changes required to

achieve Vision

Sta

kehold

er

analy

sis

The changes the project can help achieve, who will change andproject strategies to bring changes about

Introduction to BDC, Introductions, Expectations

Group discussion of potential BDC projects

PIPA Process to develop BDC impact pathways

Next Steps

Workshop Evaluation

Identifying opportunities

7



Participation The 26 participants in the workshop (see Annex 2: Participants) were staff from government agencies, (5) basin organizations (5), NGOs (5), and researchers (5), plus six (6) organizers- facilitators from CPWF-IWMI. Figure 2 shows some of the participants at work. In total 35 people were invited, 15 sent their regrets. Sophie Alvarez, Impact Specialist, facilitated the workshop. Larry Harrington, Research Director, Sophie Nguyen Khoa, Associate Director, and Boru Douthwaite, Impact and Innovation Director, represented the CPWF Management Team. Kim Geheb and Winta Tsegaye were the organizers and hosts on the ILRI-IWMI campus, where the workshop was held.

Figure 2: Workshop Participants

8



Introductions Larry Harrington gave an overview of the Challenge Program on Water and Food with its history and institutional framework. Kim Geheb explained the process of development of the CPWF Basin Development Challenges for Phase II and introduced the BDC for the Nile. Lastly, Boru Douthwaite introduced the CPWF approach to impact pathways and innovation management. As a part of this presentation, some ideas about what the Basin Development Challenges should be and do, as conceived by the workshop implementers. These were listed and made available to the participants throughout the workshop, to add their concepts. For the original ideas posted plus the ones proposed by participants, see Annex 3. After the technical introductions participants were given some time to get to know each other better through an introduction exercise. Participants then were asked to write their expectations on cards and these were shared with the group and clustered into three groups: expectations that can be met (YES), that might be met (MAYBE) and the ones that are not expected to be addressed in this workshop (NO). Most of the expectations (21) were grouped into the section that they can be met, especially with the help and contributions of the participants. 19 expectations voiced fell into the category that might be addressed and 2 into the category that did not fit with the workshop and would not be addressed: For detailed expectations see Annex 5a: Expectations. The PIPA Process Day 1: Problem trees and opportunities After the expectations were clarified, the participants were introduced to causal analysis through constructing problem trees. By asking several times (three to max. five times) why a problem (called “main problem”) is happening, each group arrives at the end at some possible entry points for the BDC to make a contribution to the solution of this main problem. In this case, the main problem to be developed in the causal analysis was pre- determined by the workshop team and shared with the groups: “Much of the rain that falls on the Ethiopian highlands is not used for productive purposes (crops, rangeland, livestock) in those highlands” (see figure 3a). The participants were then asked to separate into stakeholder groupings (representatives of government agencies, NGOs, and researchers) to begin developing their problem trees (see Table 2 for Group composition). Table 2: Group composition for Problem Trees and Outcomes Logic Model Researchers Government Agencies/ Research Aliye Hussen Desalegn Chemeda Holger Hoff Zebene Lakew Tilahun Amede Abera Mekonen Alex Oduor Yirga Ayele Seleshi Bekele Jane Nabunnya Tilahun Ordofa NGOs/Private Organizations Geremew Eticha Yibeltal Tirune Yibrah Hagos Feleke Tadele Tibebu Koji Addis Hailemichael

9



Figure 3a (left): Government group participants discussing their problem tree Figure 3b (below): Explanation for participants of the problem tree and the way to identify opportunities

Participants were then asked to identify opportunities for the last level of identified problems in their causal analysis, and to identify further opportunities by going on the other direction, asking why the main problem constitutes a problem- why is this problem happening? (see ovals and stars in figure 3b). Participants were then asked to fill in the outcomes logic model describing the opportunities in terms of who, from their collective perspective, needs to change behaviour to exploit the opportunity, what knowledge, attitude and skills (KAS) changes are necessary for that change to occur, and what strategies a BDC research program might employ to make these changes happen.

10



Table 3: Outcomes Logic Model Exercise

The day ended with a “go-around”, in which participants could share what they thought went well on this first day and what they would like to have improved for the next. Day 2: Network mapping The first activity of the second day consisted of having each working group present back in plenary a summary of their problem tree and the opportunities identified. They then presented potential BDC impact pathways for exploiting those opportunities (as described in their completed outcome logic models). Then, network concepts, network mapping and how to visualize networks were introduced to the participants. In new working groups (see Table 4), participants drew research, funding, coordination and scaling-out and scaling-up relationships between organizations working on rainwater management in the Ethiopian Highlands (see figures 5a and b). Table 4: Group composition for Networks Researchers Group Government Agencies/ Research Alex Oduor Desalegn Chemeda Holger Hoff Zebene Lakew Addis Hailemichael Abera Mekonen Tammo Steenhus Yirga Ayele Seleshi Bekele Jane Nabunnya Tilahun Amede Tilahun Ordofa Geremew Eticha Yibrah Hagos

11



Scaling-out is the spread of technology and knowledge from farmer to farmer, community to community, within the same stakeholder groups. Scaling-up is an institutional expansion, based largely on first-hand experience, word-of-mouth and positive feedback, from adopters and their grassroots organizations to policy makers, donors, development institutions, and the other stakeholders key to building a more enabling environment for the scaling-out process. In other words, scaling-up is the process by which policies and norms change in such a way as to support a scaling-out (adoption) process.

Figure 4a (left): Research Group drawing their map Figure 4b (below): final map product of the government group

Participants also indicated how influential they thought the organization was and flagged extremely positive or negative attitudes towards the BDC. The data from the network maps will be mapped using NetDraw software, which will allow for combining the maps drawn by the two groups to give a composite picture of actors involved in research and dissemination for the design and management of rain water in the Nile River Basin, with focus on the Ethiopian Highlands. This composite map will be included in a Nile PIPA workbook that will contain all workshop outputs. The participants then proceeded to identify the main network changes required to achieve positive change with respect to the BDC. The main changes required were captured in a table (see Table 5 below), which each group presented.

Table 5: Changes from the “Now”-Network to the future successful vision

Describe the most important changes in networks & influences?

Why is it important to make the change?

What are the project’s strategies for achieving these changes?

The day ended again with a “go-around” in which participants could share what part of the day’s exercises did they find most useful or most interesting, and if there was something they would like to change that did not go well for them (for detailed responses by participants see Annex 5c: “Go-around” Day 2).

Day 3: CPWF BDC Proposed Research Program

During day 2, it came up in discussion that a useful resource and input for further thinking about the Phase II Nile BDC would be other CPWF projects from Phase I, as well as other related projects currently being implemented or launched in Ethiopian Highlands. To this end four presentations were programmed to start off day 3.

The first set of results from Phase I were presented by Seleshi Bekele of IWMI and CPWF who spoke about projects CP 19, Improved water and land management in the Ethiopian highlands and the Nile Basin Focal Project, Identifying high potential water management interventions to reduce poverty and increase water productivity. For more on the CPWF BFPs, see http://cpwfbfp.pbworks.com/. Next Tilahun Amede presented Highlights from Phase I on Livestock Water Productivity. Finally Nadia Manning presented the Agricultural Water Management Landscape Analysis Project (otherwise known as AWM Solutions project, funded by BMGF). Nadia presented this project highlighting that, although both this project and the BDC will be focused on agricultural or rainwater management as a key element of improving agriculture and livelihoods, there are some gaps to consider as areas of potential joint effort. Examples of these gaps highlighted were that the AWM Solutions project is country- rather than basin-focused, and that the main AWM entry point to impact is influencing policymakers and investors—not so much direct work with extension or farmers.

The last exercise of day three and the workshop was then explained. As a synthesis and also further input mechanism, the participants were asked to work in groups again to give thought to a more concrete BDC design. Using as inputs the discussions, exercise products and insight gained during the first two days, the participants were asked to produce a suggested framework for the BDC research program (see table 6).

http://cpwfbfp.pbworks.com/

13



Table 6: Suggestions for a Nile BDC research program

Suggestions for a Nile BDC research program

Outline a research program that will cover the below points:

Develop innovations that feature technologies and/or policy change and/or institutional development and/or capacity strengthening, plus networking and communication – with a balance you feel to be appropriate

Build systematically on Phase I projects, the Nile BFP, and other relevant research and existing knowledge

Show the coherence between the different parts of the research program, how they support each other

At your discretion (optional) you may also consider or include in your research program one or more of the following points:

Decide which kinds of innovations should be targeted at which kinds of areas

Measure the consequences of innovations in Ethiopian highlands on downstream countries, water users, and ecosystems

Determine implications in landscapes and watersheds of scaling out innovations

Identify and estimate the effects of external drivers on research on rainwater management (examples of external drivers: population growth, farm fragmentation or changes in food demand due to urbanization)

Suggest project partnerships and pilot sites Recall that:

The geographical focus is on the Ethiopian highlands

The topic focus is on rainwater management, not just rainwater harvesting.

You should draw on workshop outputs (problem trees, impact pathways)

The CPWF principles are interdisciplinarity, partnership, capacity building and adaptive management

A participant from each of the two work groups then presented a summary of their proposed BDC Research Program Framework, followed by questions and short clarifying discussions. For the two frameworks proposed, see Annex 6 Next Steps The next steps are that a workshop report (this report) will be shared with the participants and people invited who could not attend the workshop themselves, encouraging them to give feedback or share comments. Key workshop results will be available on the CPWF website for everybody to access. As described in the Rationale and in Table 1, the CPWF Management Team and Basin Leader (yet to be appointed) will use the information and insights from this workshop, together with our sources, to design a research program to tackle the BDC.

14



The Nile BDC research program will be contracted considering different types of contracting mechanisms, depending on what is most appropriate for each project. The mechanisms are open competition, restricted competition and direct commissioning. Direct commissioning will only be used when a project can only be realistically implemented by a single, known organization. Calls for project proposals are expected to be sent out in July-August 2009 with projects awarded by October 2009 and the BDC inception workshop held by the end of the year. (It was discussed that towards the end of November 2009, a workshop will be held in Ethiopia, where research organizations working on rainwater management will be involved. If possible, the Basin Inception Workshop for the basin program will be held around the same time). End of Workshop Evaluation

Before the official closure participants were asked to do an end of workshop evaluation in form of a simplified after action review, by giving some suggestions and recommendation of what they liked and thought worked well and what they would like to do differently next time. For detailed feedback see Annex 5d: End-of-workshop Evaluation.

15



Annex 1: The CPWF Nile Basin Development Challenge

Nile BDC: Getting the most out of rainwater1 Livelihoods and food security in the East Africa uplands, for example those in Ethiopia, are heavily dependent on rainfall. Although rainfall amount and reliability vary across the landscape, rainfall water productivity is consistently low. A lot of work has been done on technologies for improving rainwater management. Most of this has, however, occurred at the field level. Landscape level rainfall management systems tailored to well-defined production environments are more likely to be effective. Such systems may focus on farm system intensification (in higher rainfall areas), risk reduction (in areas with highly variable rainfall), or crop-livestock integration (in lower rainfall environments) and are likely to feature strategies that integrate policy, institutional and technical innovations. These strategies may combine elements of stress-tolerant varieties, crop management, crop selection, and integration of livestock and fisheries, along with sustainable land and water resource use at the landscape level. In some instances, supplementary irrigation from landscape-based water harvesting may be feasible. In other instances, it may be possible to shape water systems to provide multiple services from multiple water sources. In all cases, however, it is important to fully understand the downstream, cross-scale consequences – especially those with transboundary connotations – of changes in upstream rainwater management. How can we get the most out of rainwater – for all water users – in the uplands of Ethiopia? In addressing this Basin Development Challenge (BDC), the CPWF and partners will engage in the following projects. Each project will seek to answer specific research questions. Project 1 - Rainwater management technologies and crop water productivity What rainwater management technologies work best for crops, and in which parts of

the Nile River Basin, given soil, topography and rainfall levels?

In terms of rainwater productivity, what are the most suitable land use systems for the

basin in terms of sustainability and income generation?

What additional soil and water conservation systems are needed in the study sites to

maximize water productivity?

What are the economic, livelihood and agricultural productivity potential of integrated

water, nutrient, fertility and seed technology management?

1 sent to participants prior to the meeting

16



Project 2 - Livestock water productivity How can livestock water productivity be mapped across the basin, and what practical

measures can be taken to improve its productivity?

What does improving livestock water productivity mean in practical terms? How can

such improvements be introduced into the study areas?

Project 3 - Targeting innovation and understanding its consequences If recommended rainwater harvesting technologies were adopted, what impact would it

have on the basin’s water flows?

What RWH technologies work best for crops, and in which parts of the Nile River Basin,

given soil, topography and rainfall levels?

How can livestock water productivity be mapped across the basin, and what practical

measures can be taken to improve its productivity?

What sort of RWM system would work best for [different areas in] the Ethiopian

Highlands, and what kinds of institutions are needed to support them?

Project 4 - Institutional and policy innovations What sort of rainwater management systems would work best for the Ethiopian

Highlands, and what kinds of institutions are needed to support them?

What are the social, institutional and political factors that can contribute to the

development, implementation and maintenance of the RWM system?

What kind of administrative and policy support do rainwater harvesting agricultural

systems need in order to improve adoption potential?

How can the positive benefits of RWM systems be successfully scaled up?

Project 5 - Coordination A project will be implemented to integrate and coordinate the above four projects in the context of a single impact pathway. This coordination project may be free-standing or combined with one of the projects described above.

17



Annex 2: List of Participants BDC Nile River Basin Workshop

Name Title Organization Email

1 Abera Mekonen Chief Engineer Ministry of Water Resources(MOWR) [email protected]

2 Addis Hailemichaell Director General

Organization for Relief and Development of Amhara Region (ORDA)

3 Alex Oduor

Program Officer, Water Harvesting Program ICRAF/ Nairobi [email protected]

4 Aliye Hussen

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute(OARI)

5 Desalegn Chemeda

Assistant Professor &University Registrar Haramaya University [email protected]

6 Feleke Tadele Country Director OXFAM Canada [email protected]

7 Geremew Eticha

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute(OARI)

8 Holger Hoff Stockholm Environment Institute [email protected]

9 Jane Nabunnya

National Project Coordinator NBI-Secretariat Entebbe [email protected]

10

Nadia Manning Thomas

IWMI Researcher/Outreach Coordinator- Project Leader of ICT-KM Knowledge Sharing in Research IWMI

[email protected]

11 Seleshi Bekele

Head of Regional Office IWMI

[email protected]

12 Tammo Steenhus

Professor, Biological and Environmental engineering Cornell University [email protected]

13 Tibebu Koji Africa Regional Direction Office OXFAM, USA

14 Tilahun Amede Scientist IWMI/ ILRI [email protected]

15 Tilahun Hordofa

Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research (EIAR)

16 Yassir Mohammed IWMI Researcher IWMI [email protected]

17 Yibeltal Tiruneh

FAO for Eastern Africa Office FAO

fao/[email protected]

18 Yibrah Hagos Office of the Executive Director Relief Society of Tigray (REST)

19 Yirga Ayele Bureau Head Bureau of Agriculture and Rural

18



Name Title Organization Email

Development (BoARD)

20 Zebene Lakew Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR)

21 Boru Douthwaite Impact and Innovations Director CPWF [email protected]

22 Kim Geheb Basin Impact Leader- Mekong CPWF k.geheb.cgiar.org

23 Larry Harrington Research Director CPWF [email protected]

24 Sophie Nguyen Khoa Associate Director CPWF

[email protected]

25 Sophie Alvarez Facilitator CPWF/CIAT [email protected]

26 Winta Tsegaye Logistics Support IWMI [email protected]

1. Not all participants were present each of the three days

19



Annex 3: What is the BDC? What should it do? Build on Phase I Build on what’s already there Complementing, not duplicating Adding value through forming and strengthening links: Between sectors Between disciplines Between scales Between organization Between basin; to out of basin research Flexible, responsible, open to opportunity Developed through stakeholder consultation Focused Research coherence through aiming at agreed outcomes and impact The research focus should give appropriate attention to the social dimension and innovation Should align the technical social and environmental components of the innovations it would generate properly

20



Annex 4: Combined outcomes logic models describing potential BDC impact pathways

Group Actor Change in practice Change in Knowledge, Attitudes or Skills

Suggested BDC strategies for achieving these changes

CHANGES IN POLICY AND GOVERNMENT

Group 1 Govt policy makers Consultative policy making (Bottom-up) and across sectors

Introducing integrated land, livestock and water management in to Universities curricula

Create stable institutions

Harmonize policies on RWM (resources) management

Learn how to integrate across sectors and scales

Avoid interference of mandate

Build on long term planning capacity

Policy to support I LLWM

Policy to enhance institutions

Land use and tenure policy

Implementation of IWSM policies

MUS intervention policies

Group 1 Local government Facilitate and bring RWM, MUS and Livestock-water interventions to communities to enable farmers to use them

Integrated mangt of interventions

Appreciate the benefits of integrated interventions

Institutional implementation capacity

Human capacity

??

Group 1 Government Avoid blanket recommendations

Sustainable support to research (finance and capacity)

Increased recognition of extension services and research

Look into the future

Intervention like above

21





Long term action plan / sustainable support

Develop incentive mechanisms for extension and researchers

Scaling out strategies

Use of DDS

Better understanding of niches (what works where)

Learn to use DDS tools

Awareness of the need for improved and appropriate technologies

Group 1 Government Development of policy framework for capacity building of all actors

Support capacity building development at all levels

Increased knowledge on RWM for food and ecosystem systems

Capacity building

MORE RESEARCH ON RWM

Group 2 Researchers and research policy makers

Carry out more research on RWM See RWM as a priority research area

Encourage more research in RWM

Demonstrate benefit of integrated research linking agriculture to water to markets

Group 1 Research institutions Focus on RWM research on impact

Knowledge products that better

Broaden scope of research

More problem solving

Capacity building

22





inform policy makers

Improved dissemination and outreach research strategies

research

Develop gender sensitive technicians

IMPROVED RESEARCH AND EXTENSION LINKAGES AND METHODS

Group 3 Agricultural and NRM policy implementers in government agencies (extension)

Undertake more appropriate planning, design and implementation of WH structures

Consider use of measures that do not take up a lot of land, e.g., under/above ground, contour, cover plants

Know where to appropriately situate WH structures

Awareness creation

Capacity building of development agencies

Identifying and sharing best practices; understand what is working where

Develop more specific guidelines for siting (blanket recommendations exist)

Group 3 Agricultural and NRM policy implementers in government agencies (extension)

Government planning and implementation is carried out with participation of local institutions

Appreciate the role and value of informal institutions

Identify the role and value of informal institutions

Group 2 Government and NGO extension workers

Selection and use of appropriate WH technologies (rain+ river+ ground water)

Improve skills in implementing RWM technologies

Identify gaps in RW capacity

Training, demonstration, experience sharing across

23





Approach communities in ways that make adoption of appropriate RWM technologies more likely, that increase water productivity

basin

Group 2 Government and NGO

Using appropriate implementation/extension strategies and approaches for RWM

Know how to apply the approach and benefits of doing so

Survey of existing extension approaches

Identify best practices disaggregated by agro-ecological zones

Design of appropriate implementation (extension) strategy and approach

Group 2 Researchers and extension workers

Extension using more research output, research using feedback from extension

Valuing and ability to carry out on-farm participatory research with extension, farmers, researchers

Establish joint research and extension committee

Group 1 Extension services On Job training

Outreach, work on interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral groups

Focus on agricultural water management, crop and livestock, ES

Update knowledge on new tools and technologies

Master the use of new technologies (RWH, LW, ..)

Learn DS tools

Better link extension services so as to benefit from new knowledge being generated in research (see research impact pathway above)

24





SPECIFICALLY

Identify high impact technologies

Develop / promote AWM technologies and tools

Develop / promote soil health interventions

Promote increased storage capacity

Promote MUS technologies

Increase RWH interventions

Integration of technologies (AWM< livestock, seeds...)

Awareness of need for improved and adequate technologies

Group 1 Communities Participate and contribute to Capacity building programmes

Encourage women to participate and be trained

Group 1 Technicians and artisans

Adhere to standards, guidelines

Local governance support

Trained on quick to respond to demands

PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

Group 1 Research institutes Participatory technology Cross disciplinary and cross Identify high impact

25





development

Access to range of technology options

Focus more on problem oriented high impact technologies

Develop/ promote technologies with multiple benefits

(e.g. MPT)

Develop DSS tools

sectoral technology / knowledge development to demands

Learn how to optimize for multiple uses / users (trade-offs)

technologies

Develop / promote AWM technologies and tools

Develop / promote soil health interventions

Develop / promote Livestock WP interventions

Increased storage capacity

MUS technologies

Increase RWH interventions

Integrate ion of technologies (AWM< livestock, seeds...)

Group 1 Communities Willingness to participate to and contribute to participatory technology development

Feel ownership of the techniques

Leadership skills in developing and implementing interventions

RESULT OF IMPROVED RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

26





Group 3 Farmers Making more use of training opportunities

Improved knowledge of agricultural inputs (use of fertilizer, water…)

Documentation of appropriate use of agricultural inputs, manuals

Group 3 Farmers Using more credit On-farm training and demonstration

Group 3 Farmers Adopting more improved technologies

Conduct policy analysis in areas of land access/ use, microfinance, land tenure system, land titling

COLLECTIVE ACTION

Group 3 Farmers Establish cooperative societies Know that communal use of WH works, is profitable

Piloting communal use of WH structures

Group 1 Farmers Collective action in managing land, water, livestock, crop enterprises

(Within and between communities)

Strengthened negotiation power

Understand landscape and watershed resources, beyond their farms

Learn how to organize effective local institutions (Water users, pasture users associations)

Learn how to manage communal resources (within

Integrated LLWM policies

MUS policies

27





and between)

Community empowerment for policy dialogue

Aware of policies

28



Annex 5: Workshop Monitoring and Evaluation

Annex 5a: Participants’ Expectations

YES, particularly with the help and input form participants:

1. Explore and establish linkages with other projects 2. Potential BDC projects shall be identified 3. Achieve better understanding of real opportunities to improve rainwater management

and implications for the BDC projects 4. The impact, outcomes, outputs and problems identified 5. Challenges and opportunities for BDC shall be identified 6. Learn more about the linkages between research and water management 7. To be informed on the challenges of the Nile Basin development 8. Better understanding of the Impact Pathways approach 9. Learn more about stakeholders and their relationships 10. Participatory engagement- no top-down! 11. Open for enrichment and modification 12. Better understanding of the main issues in the Nile basin and their root causes 13. What are the key research areas that the BDC can address? 14. How to implement the BDC in the Nile and with whom? 15. In Phase II- do you deal with crop research that is water efficient? 16. Establish clear IP for NBDC 17. Problem Trees analyzed for RWM in the Nile basin and important problems identified 18. Enhance the BDC program and projects 19. Guidance for forming (initial) consortia 20. Clear understanding on PIPA (Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis) 21. Learn about PIPA- what it is and how it works

MAYBE, depending strongly on the participants:

1. Mechanisms to capture rain water 2. What infrastructures to capture rainwater 3. Detailed plan for Phase II 4. Specification of expertise required for participating in Phase II 5. To get more information on the 2nd phase program 6. Develop network and partnerships with participants 7. Clarification on state of knowledge (phase I) 8. Open exchange of ideas, we really listen 9. Modeling of water productivity 10. Conservation based rainwater harvesting 11. Who are the relevant stakeholders who would express their views on the BDC and how

would impacts be mitigated? The workshop could answer these questions 12. Would be a basis for establishing appropriate innovations implying novel ways of

coordination within the network and interrelated actors 13. PIPA is understood by all participants

29



14. Preliminary framework on interdisciplinary integration for the BDC 15. Identification of criteria/ parameters necessary for the BDC study 16. How participants contribute to the BDC program 17. The purpose and what has been done so far by the BDC 18. Would be a basis for effective network member collaboration 19. Aligning Nile BDC with the government and public agenda

NO, is beyond the workshop:

1. The partners are identified 2. Full report of Phase I

30



Annex 5b: “Go-around” Day 2 (Tuesday 12th May 2009)

Time management not so good – lunch was at 1pm should have been at 1230

Exhausting day, liked that we were guided where to go by facilitators, attendance not so good, getting fewer and fewer

Enjoyed the problem tree presentations and discussion. Interesting ideas can see where we are going

Good to see networks – complex

Group is getting more cohesive

Loved the groups, exciting to interact with government people and scientists, who are unpredictable

Could have used more time on networks in terms of identifying the real key actors and unpacking in terms of how to engage with them, how to engage, so many, very hard

Enjoyed today

Feel jelling, groups coming together

Couldn’t contribute too much on actors

Yesterday, felt it was set in concrete. Today, more openness to discuss, seems to going further. Appreciate opportunity to discuss content more than seemed possible yesterday

Appreciate support given by facilitator, liked network

Good day, good to demark the limits, on rainwater management, bring up issues

Afternoon – enjoyed mapping actors

Happy yesterday, happy today

Good energy before lunch

Good to hear inputs, happy to be hear

31



Annex 5c: End of Workshop Evaluation - Simplified After Action Review

WHAT TO IMPROVE WHAT WORKED WELL

– Time management – More information on phase I should

have been sent to the participants before the workshop (summaries)

– Enhance attendance of employees – Poor attendance from participants-

was bad

– Research priorities are distilled, good ones – Participatory engagement – The attempt made to involve many

stakeholders was good – The results of the workshop helped to:

o Debate the BDC o Refine the issues and potential

projects – The workshop was successful:

o Achieved objectives o Intensive interaction o Good facilitation

– Good work was well planned and encouraged participation

– Choice of ILRI as venue was very appropriate- gave the workshop a learning environment

32



Annex 6a: Group I Proposal for a Nile BDC Research Program

RESEARCH PROGRAM

1. TECHNOLOGY 2. POLICY 3. INSTITUTIONS 4. CAPACITY BUILDING

1. TECHNOLOGY OBJECTIVES

identification,

prioritization

evaluation of impacts. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: 1.1 AWM Technologies What AWM technologies are available? Where are these useful?

Farming systems Agro-ecology Institutional arrangements Socio-cultural setting

What are the criteria to prioritize, select? What impacts on:

Productivity? Poverty? Conservation?

What implications on Hydrology? METHODS:

Synthesis of past work

Piloting

Synergy with other projects

Partnership with development actors 1.2 Integration

What existing complementary projects?

What technologies are available?

Where?

How to integrate?

33



1.3. Enterprises

What crops, livestock and fish and other water demands in Rainfed systems?

How to quantify and qualify?

What benefits can be gained from MUS/ cost-benefit analysis? 1.4. Integrated Water Shed Management

What are the characteristics of watersheds?

What are the degradations levels?

What are the appropriate watershed management measures (PN 19 has done some)

What is the scope of GW recharge and use of GW?

What are the implications on US/ DS

Benefits of PES? Could this kind of issue be up-scaled? 1.5. Drainage water logging

What is the extent of the problem (in-depth soil mapping, production systems?

What are the available technologies- where are they?

How effective are the technologies?

What are the gains in the water balance? 2. POLICY Objectives: enabling policy environment for technology generation and implementation , effective policy implementation Research Questions:

What are existing policies (at different levels)?

What are the policy gaps?

What are the innovative policies to close the gaps in AWM, IWSM, market, trades, incentives, etc.?

Who are the actors in policy advocacy, dialogue on how to enhance? 3. INSTITUTIONS To understand existing RWM, AWM, IWSM, institutions, formal and informal To improve effectiveness of institutions Research Questions:

Which institutions exist?

What are their roles and mandates?

What are their formal and informal by-laws, governance mechanisms?

34



SWOT analysis of existing institutions Cross-challenges of formal and informal institutions

What institutional arrangements and institutional changes are needed to uptake recommended options?

What institutions and capacities are needed to enhance O and M of interventions?

How are successful institutions scaled out?

What innovative partnerships can be adopted?

How to maintain sustainability of institutions? (instability, poor linkages, mandate, etc.)

What dissemination mechanisms for enhanced uptake?

How and what are the AWM extension approaches?

What are the necessary support systems (input linkage, market access, linkage, credit, etc.)?

CAPACITY BUILDING: Objectives: Enhance the capacities of various actors in RWM programs Research Questions: What are existing capacities for RWM programs? What are the capacity gaps? Who needs capacity building? What are the options for capacity building programs (FTC, TOT, DA, MSc…)? How to mainstream in existing capacity building programs and curricula?

35



Annex 6b: Group II Proposal for a Nile BDC Research Program

Research challenge: Poor livestock integration leads to inefficient water use, poverty and resources degradation

Understanding challenges from the crop side

Understanding challenges from the livestock side

Low crop yield /residue Livestock feed

Causes of crop failure (water related)

Understanding the linkages between these

Livestock mortality

Labor efficiency Livestock irrigation

Soil fertility management Water depletion

Markets Markets

Competition - complementarities Competition for biomass Competition for water / nutrients Inefficient integration (nutrients) Opportunities Technologies Policies Institutions Organizations Research questions: What are the spatial and temporal water variability across enterprises, landscape positions, land uses, Seasons? What are the interventions strategies for increasing WP of these different niches? Increasing resilience, and decreasing vulnerability in these variable niches, systems, building on the existing experiences? What are the entry points (technologies, institutions) to intensify these crop- livestock systems? How does WP improve across these? How do we enable the national, local government and community institutions to innovate, operate across sectors, adapt bottom up approaches and benefit women, the poor? What are the capacity needs for implementation? 2. Improving agro-pastoral/ pastoral productivity Livestock, major livelihood strategy

36



Wide grassland, savannah Commonly mobile Technologies- e.g. watering points Type and quantity Mapping/ location Management/ maintenance Ownership Institutions Water conflicts Whose decisions? By-laws, regulations? What additional policies are required (e.g. land use planning)? Research questions How is the resource (water) spatially distributed? What type of technologies is required? What is the impact of interventions (e.g. watering points) on water productivity, land degradation, labor? What are the conflict resolution strategies that would improve water management efficiency? Implementation strategy

1. Synthesis of available knowledge 2. Identify research gaps, where RWM will bring positive impact? 3. Developing/ identifying and targeting interventions for various temporal, spatial and

socio-economic niches 4. Develop DSS, guides policy recommendations for further scaling beyond Ethiopia.

Documents

Basin Development Challenges Stakeholder Consultation ...boru.pbworks.com/f/CPWF_Nile_Workshop_Report.pdfChallenge Program on Water and Food Basin Development Challenges Stakeholder