Proceedings of Improving Water Productivity of Crop ...of... · Web viewDr. Tilahun gave a presentation on Rain Water Management Systems as attached to NBDC. Full version of the presentation

PROCEEDINGSof

CPWF NILE BASIN DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE PROGRAM:SCIENCE WORKSHOP

May 04-06, 2011

ILRI Campus, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Table of Contents

Title PageList of Abbreviations 3List of Annexes 4

Day 1: NBDC in Brief: Tilahun Amede 5CPWF in Brief: Boru Douthwaite 5Workshop Themes: Shirley Tarawali 5Workshop Process: Peter Ballantyne 5

68

Theme 1: Rainwater Management Systems: Dr. Deborah BossioHard Seat: RMS in India: Dr. Bharat Sharma with Dr. Alan DuncanTheme 2: Processes 9

Day 2: Theme 3: Livelihood Impacts 14Theme 4: Water Productivity Impacts 18Hard Seat: CPWF Developments: Dr. Larry Harington with Dr. Shirley Tarawali 21Theme 5: Environment & Ecosystems Impacts 23

Day 3: Project Planning and ReflectionCross Theme Reflection 25Hard Seat: Dr. Boru Douthwaite with Dr. Matthew McCartney 26

Agenda iList of Participants ii

CPWF Nile Basin Development Challenge Program 2

List of Abbreviation

CGIARCPRCPWF Challenge Program for Water and FoodCRP Consortium Research ProgramECOSAUTES Eco SystemGIS Geo Information ScienceHH House HoldILRI International Livestock Research InstituteIPIWMI International Water Management InstituteKASKMIS Knowledge Management and Information SharingLHMoA Ministry of AgricultureNBDC Nile Basin Development ChallengeNGO Non Governmental OrganizationsNPKNRM Natural Resource ManagementNWFFRMS Rain Water Management SystemsRWM Rain Water ManagementSLM Sustainable Land ManagementSWATSWCWEAP


List of Annexes

Annex I NBDC in BriefAnnex II CPWF in BriefAnnex III Rainwater Management Strategies for the NBDC: Concepts and Analytical

Framework by Dr. Deborah BossioAnnex IV Rainwater Management Systems in the NBDC: Emerging Menu of Alternatives by

Drs. Birhanu Zemadim, Teklu Erkossa, Amare H/Selassie and Fergus SinclairAnnex V Resources, Practices and Community Based Rainwater Management Strategies:

Insights from the NBDC Sites by Dr. Bharat SharmaAnnex VI Planning, implementation and innovation related to rainwater management - what

we've learned so far - an update from the baselining exercise by Josie TuckerAnnex VII Innovation platforms - what we envisage for national and local platforms, what

we've done to develop these already and how they will link by Dr. Kees SwaansAnnex VIII Linking innovation platforms with action to improve rainwater management -

what mechanisms do we foresee? by Dr. Alan DuncanAnnex IX Policy - what could we be doing to understand policy environment and how could

we go about influencing policy by Dr. Ranjitha PuskurAnnex X Engagement with partners by Dr. Tilahun AmedeAnnex XI Addressing Livelihoods within the Landscape in the Nile Basin by Dr. Katherine

SnyderAnnex XII Gender in the NBDC by Jemimah NjukiAnnex XIII Livelihood and Poverty Impacts of RWMs: Analysis using Indexing Approach by

Dr. Kindie GetnetAnnex XIV Livelihood impacts in the NBDC by Nancy JohnsonAnnex XV Water and Productivity Impacts by theme 4 membersAnnex XVI Concepts, definitions and framework and some preliminary findings by Dr.

Mulugeta LeminihAnnex XVII Case example: RMS to build resilience from AHI by Dr. Tilahun AmedeAnnex XVIII Ecosystems and livelihoods: understanding co-production by Dr. Katherine

SnyderAnnex XX Modeling ecosystem services supply & trade-off: Polyscape by Dr. Fergus SinclairAnnex XXI The concept of scenarios by Dr. Deborah BossioAnnex XXII Reflection Wall Summary by Dr. Shirley TarawaliAnnex XXIII Theme Reflection detailsAnnex XXIV Ideas from Storage JarAnnex XXV Workshop AgendaAnnex XXVI List of Participants


Day 1: May 04, 2011

Nile Basin Development Challenge in Brief: Dr. Tilahun Amede, NBDC Project Leader, ILRI/IWMI

Dr. Tilahun gave a presentation on Rain Water Management Systems as attached to NBDC. Full version of the presentation is attached as Annex I.

Challenge Program for Water and Food in Brief:Dr. Boru Douthwaite, CPWF

Dr. Boru presented on the essence of NBDC as it stands alone and as it is seen in CPWF. He also related the whole perception to the importance of the workshop. Full version of the presentation is attached as Annex II.

Workshop ThemesDr. Shirley Tarawali, Theme Leader, ILRI

An introduction was given to the different themes to be discussed in the upcoming sessions of the workshop. Accordingly the event was organized in 5 thematic blocks respectively:Theme 1: Rainwater Management SystemsTheme 2: ProcessesTheme 3: Livelihood ImpactsTheme 4: Water Productivity ImpactsTheme 5: Environment & Ecosystem Impacts

Workshop ProcessPeter Ballantyne, KMIS Manager, ILRI

A round of one-by-one participants’ introduction and statement of their expectations from the workshop was made. The process with which the workshop is intended to proceed was briefed. The following points were made during the briefing:

each theme addresses all three objectives each theme conversation is self-organizing (with a leader); engaging and participatory, no

long presentations each theme draws on and integrates cross-project experiences each theme has a leader Process, presentations and discussions can be 'messy' - this is a working discussion with

as open and critical discussions among participants. We are not 'presenting' to outsiders. we address 'science' and 'reflection' in each theme all participants will, somewhere in the program, 'present' something or have some other

role Each theme conversation should appoint a 'rapporteur' to capture main discussion points

(on the NBDC wiki). We will complement this with other 'social' reporting/communication.


Theme 1: Rainwater Management SystemsDr. Deborah Bossio, Theme Leader, IWMI

The goal of this session is to develop common understanding of RMS, concepts and impacts, which will guide other areas of work. Thus this session will present an analytical framework as an introduction to the conversation, and then focus on RMS how we define it, what we know already, and where we take it next.

The landscape of options in four areas will be presented that will give the background on various component areas (land use and crops, water, livestock and trees) and provide the ‘legend’ of practice options available as the framework is applied to study landscapes and to the basin.

Zooming in a brief tour of study landscapes will give everyone an idea of what we know about the selected landscapes, current status, trends, challenges, and needs, leading to preliminary RMS recommendations. A step back will be taken to view the basin and what is already learnt about similarities and hear proposals for methods of mapping suitability.

Three presentations were made on this session. 1. Rainwater Management Strategies for the NBDC: Concepts and Analytical Framework

by Dr. Deborah Bossio2. Rainwater Management Systems in the NBDC: Emerging Menu of Alternatives by Drs.

Birhanu Zemadim, Teklu Erkossa, Amare H/Selassie and Fergus Sinclair3. Resources, Practices and Community Based Rainwater Management Strategies: Insights

from the NBDC Sites by Dr. Bharat Sharma

See Annexes III, IV and V.

Following was a group discussion on major issues like where the conception of RMS will work or not work, how it will be seen with regard to the sites, different processes, interms of analysis and modeling?

Findings of the groups’ discussion on Operationalising rainwater management strategies and concepts in the Nile BDC were presented.

Group I: Presenter: Dr. An Notenbaert, ILRI Options of water sources like ground water must be seen rain being the major one Discussion was made on policy, end users, practices, combination of practices, goals and

trade offs Conflict resolution was also raised as an issue The concept would work on water scarce areas

Group II: Presenter: Josephine Tucker, ODI Strategic usefulness of rainwater management was discussed Importance of simple but meaningful synergy of the highland and lowland


Question was raised if there would be enough water for irrigation and also if the market intended is natural resource based. Also if the livelihood and demand linkage is well developed

Lessons from previous projects that have failed perhaps because they were not based on local demand must be noted

The upstream-downstream linkage is well appreciated How to use strategies into models and the importance of catchment areas was discussed Ways of implementation and scaling up need to be addressed Issues of capacity building, innovation platforms and discussion with partners was looked

at The necessity to put down the elements on paper was seen as modeling can be

complicated

Group III Presenter Mathew McCartney Assessment might be needed on areas where rainwater management and interventions are

implemented, how it would be possible to know and judge the impact Extent of farmers’ involvement in strategy designing, setting tradeoffs, identifying

exclusions and practices must be looked at as water is the main issue for them Discussion was made on ways of taking the strategy forward and implementing by

involving farmers more

Group IV Presenter Lisa Rebello Issues of high rainfall variability and land degradation were noted Discussion was made on where the concept would not work, less interms of basin

location and more interms of strategies Need for the strategies to encompass all the three sites was stressed Emphasis was given to tradeoffs; not only tradeoffs between practices but also between

the three different sites particularly for cases like ensuring that the increase in production in the upland does not result in decrease in existing ecosystem services in the lowland

Challenges such as lack of enabling environment like water users’ association, water conflicts, financial capability and stakeholder adoption of the process

Group V Presenter Deborah Bossio Essence of integration of the strategies was pointed out. Nevertheless fully integrated

strategies could be difficult to model Clear questions need to be stated to outline what needs to be modeled since it is

impossible to expect the models to capture all the complexity of the strategies even though the strategies are desired to have the complexity to evaluate at a local level

Types of materials gathered (lessons, practices, strategies) was also noted as they will serve as a toolbox to communicate and inform farmers

How to avail this information and to whom was also looked at More work is said to be expected on integration issues like methodologies of land

classification to take the simple landscape to the next sophisticated level and have more value chain perspective

Group VI Presenter Tilahun Amede


Question of Legitimacy was raised: whose strategy is this strategy (where it emerged from) and how fluid it is for adoption

If the strategy is applicable, how can it be used, reaching end users Issues on how to separate strategies from the process was raised How to get things done, the process, is what is going to be replicable Role of the validity of the strategy from end-users’ perspective (how to involve farmers

in the solving of such a huge problem when they have many individual problems to solve)

Group VII Presenter Alan Duncan The question of ownership of strategies with stakeholders was raised given that the

situation is to address them with readymade strategies Is it the community or the strategy that comes first? How to link end product of the modeling with community conversation Define community: is it to refer to farmers or representative of farmers and also

representatives of high level stakeholders in the landscape

Group VIII Presenter Amare H/Selassie Discussed the list of practices and challenges from crop and livestock for a specific site

as RMSs are site specific. The conclusion driven is that the integration is very essential.

Hard Seat: RMS in India: Dr. Alan Duncan, Livestock Scientist, ILRI with Dr. Bharat Sharma, Principal Researcher, IWMI Alan Duncan interviewed Bharat Sharma about research on integrated watershed management in India and its relevance for Ethiopia and the Nile BDC.

The questions in general were: What does integrated watershed management mean? What are some of the successes, and the key factors leading to them? Can any of these be transferred to other countries? How relevant are they for Ethiopia?

Bharat briefed that the concept of integrated watershed management was initially about soil and water conservation. Later practices scaled up largely and reached a stage where many benefits of water can be practice. He cited the Sukkoma Project that was first started by IWMI as one of the oldest and most successful projects on the area. The project foot printed many lessons on involving communities, institutionalization, ecosystem and etc. Bharat emphasized the essence of transparency and involvement of all stakeholders (community, Government, etc) in the initiatives. In addition innovation of the civil society who critically faces the problem is a big asset for the success of the projects. Other factors like authorities’ accountability, bringing the voice of the rural community, institutionalization, and system sustainability were also noted.

In responding to if practices and models from India can be replicated to Ethiopia, Bharat said that it is possible to do so as the two counties have many common factors like similar concerns, community type, livelihood and the like. The fact that he is leading one component of NBDC will help share experiences. He however marked some contextual differences like the demand force of the civil society which is strong in India and also demonstration of innovation.Theme 2: Process


Dr. Alan Duncan, Livestock Scientist, ILRI

The session was initiated through five short overview presentations covering the themes of:(1) Planning; (2) Innovative Platforms; (3) Linking innovative platforms with action;(4) Contributing to evidence based policy and (5) Engagement with partners.

The presentations made were:1. Planning, implementation and innovation related to rainwater management - what we've learned so far - an update from the baselining exercise by Josie Tucker 2. Innovation platforms - what we envisage for national and local platforms, what we've done to develop these already and how they will link by Dr. Kees Swaans 3. Linking innovation platforms with action to improve rainwater management - what mechanisms do we foresee? by Dr. Alan Duncan 4. Policy - what could we be doing to understand policy environment and how could we go about influencing policy by Dr. Ranjitha Puskur 5. Engagement with partners by Dr. Tilahun Amede

Each of the presentations concluded with a series of questions that were to be addressed in the following group discussion. See Annexes VI, VII, VIII, IX and X respectively.

Results of group discussions were captured as below.

Group I: Supporting local planning and innovation in the Nile BDCPresenter: Josephine Tucker

Deliberation Questions: How can NBDC support more flexible and participatory implementation of RWM, and

support innovation, given that the planning process seems to be top-down and rigid? How can CPWF take account of the rapidly changing situation in some woredas in its

models? How will CPWF deal with pressing local issues which may be outside the remit of RWM

but which are likely to constrain adoption or benefits of RWM?

Findings It is essential to create synergy with the existing system and work in it plus learn from

others’ experience not to repeat the same mistake Investigation must be done to find out where decision is made and how planning is done,

working more strongly with Regional Government Consider different scenarios in strategy development Involve people through the who could predict upcoming changes change process Accept, deal and capitalize on the unpredictable changes

Group II: Developing national and local innovation platforms in the NIle BDCPresenter: Dr. Kees Swaans


Deliberation Questions Who should facilitate such platforms? Where will resources for any proposed actions come from? Should we set out to establish IP’s around different themes e.g. “markets”, “NRM” etc Or should we look at strategies to make the link between NRM and markets at the local

innovation platform? How do you manage difference in power between different actors?

FindingsLinkage

Platforms should be participatory and should extend down in the community division hierarchy to enable catch experience of all levels including grass root ones

Institutionalization is critically important; it will also make communication/feeding to the national level possible

Finding out opportunities and processes involving community members like extension workers may enhance facilitation of the platforms

More work is needed to improve communication Balance between the different actors in the platforms is essential Involvement of civil society association will be crucial

Role of NBDC Provide guides and tools Facilitation between local and national platforms Identify research ideas and design how to use research outputs, provide input to

local/national platforms (at what stage and in what form) Design strategic plan in a manner that links research finding with platform processes

Sustainability Provide market incentives to make farmers more committed Sort on short term and long term benefits for farmers Institutional structure where communication is considered as one part Plan for finding resources, research to plan beyond the project

Group III: Building effective partnerships in the NBDC Presenter: Dr. Tilahun Amede

Deliberation Questions What lessons have we learned so far about partnership building? What went well? What

didn’t go well? What do partners want out of collaboration with NBDC? When to engage?

How should we identify partners? Based on trust? Competency? Power balance? Resources? Recognition for delivery? Who is joining who?

How do we organize our Nile projects in communicating with partners? Individual Ns? Demand-based? Through N5?


How do we best communicate with partners? What are the best channels for interacting with wider actors?

FindingsBriefing on Partnership

Different partners are essential to meet different objectives Partners can be divided as: Immediate that are easier to influence, Out boundary that are more difficult to influence, but working in the same area Potential: about whom the project does not know much. They could be reached over time.

Lessons Resource is a vital element in forming partnership, though there could be some

organizations that are more interested in the engagement who could even have better resource capacity

Communication is an essential strategy where amendments are expected to be made depending on the partnership, target and the subject

For a partnership to work, there needs to be common goals and objectives Partnership has to be dynamic; depending on the target, phase and other factors, partners

may change Partnership should be strengthened by being involved with many organizations Different partners may be involved at the same time to work on different lines Using platforms is necessary

Group IV: Contributing to evidence-based policy making in the NBDCPresenter: Dr. Ranjitha Puskur

Deliberation Questions How do we ensure our evidence is credible, relevant. practical and operationally useful? How and what kind of feedback processes and networks should we develop to

communicate our messages? What kind of communication vehicles would be most appropriate for communicating

research to policy makers in the Ethiopian NBDC context? How do we go about understanding policy better? Are we aware of key decision

moments?

Findings Discussion is made on how to build networks and linkages so that policy messages can be

communicated, understand the process and justify that policy is better Opportunities should be identified to influence the process Who are policy makers: those who the technical expertise, or experts’ advice,

consultants, advisory committee’s service but not politicians while decision makers are those who approve the end result

Policy is usually made at the Federal and Regional level while implementation goes down to the Woreda level

Networking with policy people is necessary: capitalizing on the existing social capital and design how to take that forward


Work out how and at what stage to engage with policy makers for planning How to effectively communicate policy research must be studied

Either for a platform and hold large meetings etc Target specific individuals of organizations who could do take the message in a

much more effective manner like agricultural transformation agencies, advisory groups or local champion

Group V: How Actions Should Emerge from Innovation PlatformsPresenter: Dr. Alan Duncan

Deliberation Questions Who should facilitate such platforms? Where will resources for any proposed actions come from? Should we set out to establish IP’s around different themes e.g. “markets”, “NRM” etc Or should we look at strategies to make the link between NRM and markets at the local


Findings Innovation platforms shall be started/ established by the project to be transferred later to

more permanent stakeholders Resource to fund actions that may emerge from innovation platforms can be used from

existing allocation of CPWF. But this will only serve as an initial capital but later it should be shifted to more permanent sources

Themes can be decided by farmers, as one suggestion, however, it is necessary to find a way to deal with farmers’ possibly immediate issues and the need for addressing broader perspective and also balance between short term and long term objectives related to RWM and landscape

Managing power relations in the platforms ensuring that all voices are equally heard is also an issue. Subjects of gender, women in particular and enabling farmers express their issues are also crucial.

Group VI: Innovation platforms to improve rainwater management in the NBDCPresenter: Jemimah Njuki

Deliberation Questions Who should facilitate such platforms? Where will resources for any proposed actions come from? Should we set out to establish IP’s around different themes e.g. “markets”, “NRM” etc Or should we look at strategies to Make the link between NRM and markets at the local


FindingsFacilitation


Platforms should be facilitated by the Woreda to ensure closer sustainability and with a lead from local champions

It is important to learn the on-going process and provide incentive to facilitate A clear direction must be taken how to join the Woreda/MoA agenda and influence the

process of RWM, if it is already being practiced

Entry Point Combining short term benefits and long term objectives of landscape and ecosystem must

be give priority. There should be a process that intensifies both. How to use market as an entry point ensuring productivity which in return will sustain

rain water management

Resource Tapping into existing resource will be required to kick off the initiative. However more

investment from different directions might flow in depending on the performance of the process, people’s involvement and how far the outlined agenda is met.

Power Relations The basic question that needs to be addressed will be if it is better to start with

community relation leading to innovation platform or rather with the innovation platform itself.

Incase of community engagement there will be a benefit of farmers representing farmers in the platforms promoting community agenda.

A mechanism should be devised to use the existing networks, cooperative, users’ associations etc to have a wide and proper representation

Capacity building must be given for farmers to enable them interact in the process

Day 2: May 05, 2011

Theme 3: Livelihood ImpactsDr. Katherine Snyder, Social Scientist, IWMI

This session started with an overview of how livelihoods are defined, discuss the sustainable livelihoods framework, some of its weaknesses and ways to advance work on livelihoods by


focusing on specific analytical issues. Discussion is made on the sub-themes and thorny issues - such as how to integrate the livelihoods work well throughout the projects.

The session introduced the concept of livelihoods noted that livelihoods are multi-faceted and dynamic, mediated by context in terms of institutions, resource access patterns, politics and power. Remark was made to differentiate between the livelihoods of different people within a community and household, particularly with respect to gender. Any intervention which NBDC might make will have different impacts on different households and on men and women. The challenge for is said to be to capture this complexity, and translate it into analysis that can be used at landscape as well as local scale in shaping RMS.

Evaluating livelihood impacts of RMS or of the project as a whole was looked in depth. Questions were raised if an index of livelihood and poverty impacts should be used to allow comparison of before/after RMS piloting or implementation, and between sites? Will the projects implement at sufficient scale within the project timeframe to undertake impact assessment of the RMS, or should the focus be on monitoring outcomes rather than livelihood impacts?

Group discussions focused on practical issues relating to how NBDC as a whole could take on board livelihood and gender issues, and what kind of livelihood impacts can be foreseen. Fruitful discussion took place to identify the areas where livelihoods and gender need to be brought into both the development of RMS (by ensuring the strategies which are used as inputs to models are based on good livelihood understanding) and project processes such as innovation platforms, and how livelihood impacts can be maximized. Now NBDC needs to turn these ideas into concrete plans for integration of the project components.

The following presentations were made:1. Addressing Livelihoods within the Landscape in the Nile Basin by Dr. Katherine Snyder2. Gender in the NBDC by Jemimah Njuki3. Livelihood and Poverty Impacts of RWMs: Analysis using Indexing Approach by Dr.

Kindie Getnet4. Livelihood impacts in the NBDC by Nancy Johnson

See Annex XI, XII, XIII and XIV respectively

Discussion was directed towards key questions and issues such as:

How to include long-term environmental and agrarian change in our analyses? How and whom to target for interventions? How to integrate the livelihoods work with work being done in other projects outside of

N2.

Questions for Discussion

Question No. 1

Who should we target for interventions and what criteria should we use to identify them (land size, vulnerability, gender etc?)


Understanding the system o Poor, rich vulnerable, resiliento Understand the interaction, resource flowo Understand what linkage to strengthen (market)

Looking for some commonly owned resource (CPR) o Increasing the productivityo Equalityo Capacitating

Multiple livelihood and finding niches for the different common with different livelihood Integration is not only bio-physical we need to have social Innovation platform – Intervention specialized combined with targeting

Question No. 2

How do we integrate (sequencing issues, indicators, data needs) the livelihoods work with the rest of the project (and modelers, mappers, process people)?

There are good models but most of them have a disciplinary approach The hydrological model has to include some of the livelihood issues Integration of livelihood issues might need prioritization of the livelihood indicators

based on social needs e.g. crop productivity or key ecosystem service can be taken as an indicator

Linkage between the biophysical models and the social models can be achieved by: o Incorporating new modules into modelso Coupling models oro By transferring from hydrology grid models into social models or vice versa

Integration should also exist between the project ideas with the stakeholder needs. The group argued that it shouldn’t be a top down approach

Resource and vulnerability mapping should be continuous and the project aims and processes should be updated continuously

Question No. 3

What are the key gender issues (access to land, division of labor, etc) to consider to achieve the goal of improved livelihoods and environmental sustainability?

Women involvement in decision making on the management of HH assets. Recognition of women contribution in the management and production (agricultural)

activities Distribution of benefits arising from HH activities – women have little contribution Recognition of workloads among the gender segments With respect to RM – some activities like water harvesting are labor intensive that they

have to be done by men Balance must be ensured in income distribution arising from farm-based activities Access to land – on-going policy reforms taking cognizance of gender Women usually tend to be left in having access to knowledge and skill building


Decision- making hierarchy on adoption of RWM innovations Water sources, storage and distribution Seasonality of RWM particularly on labor demands Water scarcity has implications on gender segments. In the effort to cope with the

situation focus must be given to domestic supply of water Location HH plots in respect to strategic water source points Irrigation patterns are seasonal, particularly in search of livestock pasture that has

implications on labor input during the farming time Perceptions, culture and norms e.g. culturally defined roles creates sensitization on

benefits of equitable distribution of labor Access to information: extension agents tend to talk to men while women tend to get

information from neighbors/secondary sources Representation of women and men in conservation/development committees varies Location of water investment facilities matter critically

Question No. 4

How do we integrate gender into the innovation platforms, the action research, the modeling and the mapping?

Innovation Plat Forms o Involving women in the Plat Forms – getting the voices, training, skill

development, facilitationo Considering local level farmer women development agents in the field – baseline

survey needs to be doneo On how to bring the voice of women in the planning of the innovationo Basing on databases literature disaggregated into gender

Action o Involving women in the research systemo Training activitieso Facilitation role

Modeling o Disaggregation the variables by gendero Employing backward analysiso Scenario developmento Modeling impacts intervention of RWM on men/women * suitable more for

qualitative management Mapping:

o Census data is for targeting employed o aggregation to gendero On data generated in the impact assessment disaggregated into gender at

landscape scaleo Influence of gender on uptake/adoption technologies of RWM

The following note was made from participants reflecting on the work of the group work.


The first point is that we need to be careful not to be slavish about incorporating gender into each area unless it is necessary. There is certainly a need to deal with gender issues in the establishment and functioning of innovation platforms. We need to find ways to make sure all voices are heard: women, men, marginalized, youth etc. This might involve some training on facilitation of groups to make sure dominant actors don’t hijack the agenda. There could also be scope for having sub-groups e.g. women’s groups, youth groups etc to meet outside main innovation platform to allow articulation of their views. Coming to action research, different actions are likely to emerge from innovation platforms. Here again, gender is a key issue. Different actions will benefit women and men differently and will be more or less attractive to different groups. Here there is scope for some positive selection of actions which benefit women and which are favored by women (or other groups). For modeling and mapping there may be less need for a gender perspective. This depends on the extent to which there is variation across the basin in gender elements. We need to know more about how gender roles vary across the basin to help us work this out. For example, mapping is meant to help with targeting of RMS – is the influence of gender on uptake of RMS relatively similar across the basin – if so do we therefore need to have a gender component for the mapping work? For modeling the issues are more complex. One approach could be to consider gender in the development of scenarios e.g. by developing scenarios separately with men and women or by considering the impact of different scenarios on women and men. These could then be modeled. There could certainly be a role for modeling the impacts of different RMS on labor for women and men. The key overall issue in my mind is the role of gender in uptake of RMS and the way in which different elements of RMS differentially benefit the livelihoods of women and men.

Question No. 5

What changes do you think the project will achieve at the landscape, farm scale and what are the implications for household livelihoods within the time frame of the project?

Livelihood impacts will depend on scale of platform 2 – 4 kebeles Establishing scope

o Longer term impacts – other projects, ex-anteo Changes in practice of RWM planners – will be doneo This was really about changes in the KAS and practice of farmers

Outcome Narrative o Using water resources more efficiently, developing new resources, sharing more,

converting resource into livelihood benefits.o Bring people on common platform, to improve access to water, collective

thinking is converted into action to improve the situation.o Improve access and use of water.

Livelihood impacts will depend on what platform will do o Foster common actiono Remove constraintso Market analysis and linkageso Provide information through exiting channels, already happeningo Critical gaps, quick wins


o Change will happen anyway – road coming – ensure change has livelihood benefits for our target groups

Livelihood impacts will depend on scale of platform 2 – 4 kebeles o Scaling out will be kebele to kebele not Woreda to Woreda

Will start in June – sense of urgency Measuring changes – establish existing trajectories

Question No. 6

What should the project do to increase its impact at the landscape, farm and household level within the time frame of the project?

Experience sharing from successful RWM practices area Capacity building Understanding and prioritizing grass root problems 1. SWC 2. Erosion Learning from past experiences successes and failures Linking the NBDC project with national SLM activities, Universities Programs, Research

Centers Providing incentives like institutional support, market access, getting community

facilitators and rewarding Value chains to bring actors together and items in volume resulting price increase Offering evidence based on output to national policy Minimizing negative impacts of RWM interventions like tree species, ponds killing cattle

and creating malaria Performance evaluation of impacts

Theme 4: Water and Productivity ImpactsDr. Charlotte MacAlister, , IWMI

A combined presentation by the team members was given. See Annex XV.

The presentation dealt with introducing the subject, outline the field monitoring and mention NPK-Sediment collection, how water use efficiencies and RMS are integral to crop and livestock productivity and set the scene for Kinde who will show how improved productivity can be translated to economic values in ECOSAUT, The what how why of SWAT at different scales and some ideas on how to incorporate RMS, how WEAP is used for the up-scaling of demands and allocations, Green-Blue water, How remote sensed data could complement green blue water, How ECOSAUT brings together SWAT, productivity and can be used to understand tradeoffs in different scenarios between upstream and downstream communities and possible challenges

Significant core discussion points (Challenges) were summarized and brought to group discussion. Outcomes of the group discussion that comprises issues and possible scenarios respective to each challenge are bulleted as below.


Challenge 1: How do we deal with data gaps at field and basin scale, validating the model outputs?

Biophysical data:• Data can be obtained from hydrology, stream flow + meteorology• Other data like Crop productivity, Runoff sediment, & Nutrient availability and loss were also mentioned.Other data related constrains:• Hydrology data not always measured where it is needed• Delay to access to data for modelers• Coverage varies from place to place• Quality of data varies and also it is dispersed between institutions

**HH level livelihood data: like family size, plot size, number of livestock, income sources, food security status, access to market, credit, inputs, etc, should be tested at sub-basin, and basin level.

Socio-economic data:• Economic model – needs cost and benefit data.• Lots of secondary data but always not what is needed /irrelevancy/• Easy to collect if resource is available for specific locationsSource: secondary data CSA-Agriculture surveys & other national institutions + field survey believed to strengthen validation of the modelOther impression and suggested solutions:• Data exist but is not shared. There should be willingness to share data among different parts.• Look possibility for phase I data that is not consolidated so need to harmonize and consolidate data• National institutions /agency /should be approached or considered for data ( like from ministry of Water Resource, Agriculture, Nile Basin Initiative, Meteorology agency, national research system and other national agencies).• Necessity of Central data coordination raised for which N2 denoted• Lack of centrally facilitating GIS to harmonize different data also remarked.• Raw data released in 6 months and advised only to release official data• Correlate data between locations/the 3 sites/• Run sensitivity analysis – identify which data is more important• Calibration of model and establishment of links has to be done before we have data.

Challenge 2: How do we characterize/aggregate/ and prioritize RMS scenarios especially when we don’t have actual data for measuring the impact of any specific RMS?

• Impact = economic + environmental.• Prioritize RMS scenarios in to long vs short term suggested vital.• Scenario is important for some kinds of combination of practices /intervention targeted to different areas in the basinHow to build the scenario is raised. Alternatives suggested:


• Involving the community through different process• By considering components of scenarios – institutional environment and social aspects, practices and how they change. However, which aspect to be considered is raised as not easy task.Assumptions: Similarity analysis is suggested important to look at.

Challenge 3: What alternative exists to address scaling out RMS practices and process/impacts to a basin level?

• Site of Scaling out agreed up on to be take place within the Ethiopian part of the Nile basin• Consider the bio-physical and socio-economic criteria in the suitability analysis at landscape and then up to the basin scale• Linking the biophysical with LH requires biophysical data like sediment, crop productivity and access to the feedback information• Use secondary data and combine it with the survey• Identify parameters in the landscapes where the RMS worked and use those as indicators.• Focus on spatial pattern of farming system• Linking RWM changes with productivity and level of adoption• Adoption Vs similarity/suitability/ analysis• The impact should focus on temporal variability• Scaling out RWM should built up on existing indigenous practices at landscape/district level-start by modeling existing practices (spatial characteristics)• Innovation process and community conversation on adoption of RWM• The change in practices should link to productivity gain• Scaling out come with good level of adaptation• The adaptation itself comes from innovation process• Using experiences of others• Variability impact is important

Challenge 4: What alternative options do we have to link biophysical and Livelihood issues?

• Possible to link biophysical with socio-economic data- here the extent of data flexibility is important• Community discussion is also important to bring back the feedback from these data.• RWM scenarios make sure that livelihood consideration are taken in to account• Link model results to community level could generate two way feedbacks: -innovation platform and beyond.• Livelihood data input into scenarios/RMS/options• Run different Livelihood scenarios• Couple models (eco-hydrological + water management)• Cannot incorporate all social /economic data in to models but can be part of:

Developing scenarios that input into models Critical review of strategies generated by WEAP

• Can maybe ‘represent’ factors indirectly e.g. price/production• Link models to qualitative information


• Need to have a bottom-up process• Disaggregate results of WEAP as much as possible. E.g. men’s + women’s employment• Use scenarios/ outputs of WEAP (optimal RMS) as a basis for discussion with stakeholders /communities including:

Trade-off e.g. practicing Conservation Agriculture in the upstream area and evaluate the trade-off livelihood downstream

Other values beyond economic• Combine model quantitative + qualitative information (perceptions, access to resources) to identify actions• Agent-based modeling linked to innovation platform- IP provides local perspectives.• IPs should feed in to modeling in terms of identifying likely/ realistic combinations of interventions• Need some way of getting Livelihood/qualitative information beyond the IP sites + discussing scenarios/options to identify options + validate basin-wide strategies.

Hard Seat: CPWF Development: Dr. Shirley Tarawali, Director of People, Livestock and the Environment Theme, ILRI with Dr. Larry Harrington, Research Director, CPWF

Shirley Tarawali interviewed Larry Harrington, CPWF Research Director about the role of research and science in the Challenge Program on Water and Food.

The questions of discussion in general were: What’s the research focus and approach of the CPWF? How do the projects learn across basins? What’s the balance between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ science in the Program? How does research on sustainable intensification and markets fit in? How do you see the notion of resilience? What does the future hold for the CPWF in the new CGIAR? How important are the difference in reflection processes between the Basins?

Larry as directed by the questions started with defining some of the responsibilities of a Research Director in the CPWF. He said major roles are focused on designing, evaluating and controlling the science side of the program. In his response to where exactly science is placed among the CPWF principles, Larry said the principles are guides that should lead the general procedures as the program engages in the design and implementation of research and innovation. He also elaborated on the type of science the CPWF is involved in. It is a problem solving type that follows an integrated approach involving technology, policies, and institutions for defined challenge in a defined area. This shall also combine new science as in institutional innovation for instance. Therefore CPWF deals with both existing and new science.

Divulging on the issue sustainable intensification with respect to market, Larry explained that when one works on water, livelihood and food strategies shall be either stabilizing rainy season harvesting or increasing off-season production like livestock or fisheries etc. The result of which will be market driven as observed in all basins. Another point of focus was Resilience and how it fits in the work of CPWF as a goal, especially when farmers are more worried today’s food on the table. Larry described the notion behind incorporating the subject in the program. He said that the idea emerged from the worry as to what can be done about it. Then CPWF became


acquainted with people working on resilience and keen to get opportunity/lively situation to apply it especially in the 3rd world county. The lesson that can be taken from the initiative is that the analysis needed to be made to anticipate critical points in advance and also how to integrate such a concept into the research program.

Brief explanation was made on the topic working groups establishment and operation. The working groups, which are established following the problem faced in Phase I of the program, are intended to promote cross basin learning and sharing. The working groups are on Resilience, Learning to Innovate, Global Drivers and Modeling & Spatial Analysis. If anyone comes across any new topic where there would be a need to establish a working group, the procedure shall be to contact CPWF, discuss with those that are interested in joining and perhaps leading the group, write up a small proposal and request for a budget.

Regarding the new CGIAR program, CPWF is going to be fully integrated in the CRP 5, Water, Land and Ecosystem which will be led by IWMI. Larry detailed on what this means to CPWF. He said that in the structure of the CRP 5, there will be strategic platforms of research on particular topics as well as regionalization. The regional/basin level dimension of the program could end up similar to the basin development challenges. So the prospect is that there will be a future for the CPWF in the context of CRP 5. He continued on the constraint of clear direction on how it would be possible to link with other CRPs dealing with similar issues. There has not been enough fact give across CRPs even with the CG secretariat to outline linkage. However Larry said that it would be important to establish collaboration between different CRPs that has similar regional dimension and other common feature and content. This issue should have been addressed during the proposal development which is very much unfolded in the context of individual CRPs. Scientists especially leaders of the CRPs will have to find opportunities to negotiate complimentairsm, mutual assistance to stream line the regional work taking advantage of all tools/weapons to improve things from all of the CRPs towards establishing a coherent research program at a regional/basin/global level.

Finally Larry talked about the two reflection workshop at Andes and Mekong that were described as successful with yet different structure. He elaborated that Andes focus was on making each project working on the basin know each other while Mekong addressed a brief reflection workshop after having many important conferences in advance enabling flow of feedback and communication smooth. This in relation to what is being held at NBDC holds similar fact, that the NBDC has once again its own structure aiming at cross project dialogue and creating idea sharing, which Larry deemed as also successful.

Theme 5: Environment and Ecosystem ImpactsDr. Mulugeta Lemenih, Agro-Ecosystem Specialist Post-Doc, IWMI


This session provided highlights of what is intended to be done and what has already been done to link RMS to broader environmental health and ecosystem functions (i.e. ecosystem services supply and possible or probable trade-offs following various RWM practices and interventions). Along this it introduced the concept of resilience and showed links between resilience-SLM-ecosystem functions. Focus was given to how a logical link between these aspects can be established and how NBDC intends to accomplish it (i.e. proposals of methodologies).

The following series of presentations were made.1. Concepts, definitions and framework and some preliminary findings by Dr. Mulugeta

Leminih2. Case example: RMS to build resilience from AHI by Dr. Tilahun Amede3. Ecosystems and livelihoods: understanding co-production by Dr. Katherine Snyder4. Modeling ecosystem services supply & trade-off: Polyscape by Dr. Fergus Sinclair5. The concept of scenarios by Dr. Deborah Bossio

See Annex XVI, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXI respectively.

About five discussion issues were raised and elaborated.

1. Ecosystem services: is assessing ESs an appropriate proxy for environmental impacts of RWM as presented? If so which ESs to consider and at what scale? Which ESs are sensitive enough to be affected within the project period or shortly after so that we may focus on these? Are they too biological or include also socio-economic aspects through the provisioning services? Which services should represent socio-economic aspects?

Assessing ES appropriate proxy, yes but in what framework? MA? Fisher (intermediate and final benefits)

Which ES? Provisioning: crop livestock asset + products livestock ( milk, meat, trees/wood, NWFFRegulation: water quality, supporting: water quantity, soil moisture

Nutrient cycling, carbon sequeleration , , cultural: spiritual, EG spring tourism + biodiversity

Sensitive ES due to RWMs + crop(yield) + livestock productivity + water quantity + soil fertility + nutrient cycling

Socio – economic , through, market value , livestock production + asset, crop productivity, tourism

Scale ES analysis, intensification, level depend on value , that people attached , landscape

2. Ecosystem supply evaluation (trade-offs and synergies): whose trade-offs and/or synergies? Which tools? Why?

Do ES need to be valued ($) to be trade-off? Between provisioning services (food production) & often ES depended on design of

food production and innovation Sharing of benefits the ESs at the landscape level through innovative institutional

mechanisms ( Diga –example)


Off – setting the trade – offs by bringing the synergies of ESs and commercial benefits Who would be co-investors? Difficult in Ethiopian context many NGOs

3. LH: Does strengthening the adaptive capacity of those most vulnerable, lead to resilience of the overall system or does it threaten resilience? How do we distinguish between coping and adaptive strategies? What are the most important environmental factors that livelihoods have to be adapted to? Do we have enough knowledge currently on the dynamics of those factors and livelihoods?

What are livelihoods tipping points? Public good translated into private goods – governance? Adaptation at on scale for example market engagement too many tomatoes or too

much irrigation – no water Markets + adaptation, how do markets promote adaptation or collapse? Coping us struggling Coping – reactive , adaptive – anticipating pro – active

4. Resilience: Is the concept that links RWM-SLM-Resilience logical, appropriate & clear? Resilience of what & to what should we investigate? How is this defined spatially and temporally?

**Spatial scale: Watershed scale? Landscape scale? Farming system scale? District scale? Or?**Temporal scale? As far as what in the past? And as far as what in the future?

Project life time is too short, scenario + modeling SEs of metoscale (catchment – woreda) Remote sensing changes from past to present, trends and trajectories Resilience = sustainability depends on data + context Production ( crop + livestock) , food (fiber/feed nutrient flow carbon sequestration ,

solid quality , hydrological flow

5. Scenarios: discussion

How to develop a coherent Nile BDC scenarios Need credible multi-scale story lines participatory Gap- exploratory scenarios What to do with results of scenarios process, vision, work, validation integrated Sequence of nesting guidelines, working group, share input Use scenarios to connect projects, purpose w/r/t end users

Day 3: May 06, 2011

Cross Theme Synthesis, Reflection

I. NBDC coordination update


Brief presentation was given by Tilahun Amede on capacity building and Peter Ballantyne on Communication. The below are the points captured from participants reflections on the 2 issues:

Capacity Building:

1. How to communicate and facilitate training to woreda people should be focused on.2. Strong facilities needed for capacity building of MSC and PHD student and technical

training at the ground level.3. Capacity building at the ground level and how to collect data with communities could be

capacitated at woreda and Kebele level.4. There should be strategies for the technicians to let them know the data is very essential

as well as to farmers.5. As more students are coming to NBDC, some mechanisms have to be in place to build

the capacity of those students and build innovation platforms.6. The capacity building should be prioritized starting from institutions to farmers to be

sustainable and also to combine the two.7. Capacity building also includes in flow of information , it is necessary to have a strong

link between the NBDC and the mass8. Capacity building should focus on woredas and extension workers using provided

resources9. Who needs the capacity building and why, look for impact pathways what capacity

building needed to whom and when? What skills are required10. Capacity building with regards to NBDC has to focus on training for sustainable water

shade.11. Capacity building should respond to policy and decision makers12. Lots of students are getting fund from NBDC but there is no link between the partners

and the project

Communication:

1. Communication should focus how to integrate the research technicians with the community

2. A lot has already been done on the internal communications with a project, but the communication between partners and the project is yet to be reworked on.

3. The communication is going to contribute to the project growth and also to the data contribution

4. The communications tools developed so far are not accessible to woreda level we should also focus on translating documents to extension workers as well

5. It is not enough to generate knowledge but also to have demonstration sites for farmers to see and replicate.

6. Communication with grass root level has is not yet done, it might be a good idea to use radio and video communication.

7. How to build the knowledge and the data within the institute must be looked at8. Knowledge and skills at the institute level are very good but attention must be given to

the grass root level too, gender should be addressed at the ground level.


II. Workshop Synthesis

Dr. Shirley Tarawali gave a summary of all the reflection on the various themes addressed on the last two days of the workshop. See Annex XXII for the presentation and Annex XXIII for the detailed points captured from the reflection walls. More ideas of interaction had been collected from the storage jar set aside for partners to give their views and express ideas. See Annex XXIV for details of ideas.

Hard Seat: IFIW 3: Dr. Matthew McCartney, Principal Researcher, IWMI with Dr. Boru Douthwaite, Impact Leader, CPWF

The interview was held on what IFIW in general is, its aim, possible format and lessons to be derived.

Boru detailed that IFIW 3 is the third International Forum for Water and Food to be held on 14-17 November 2011 in South Africa. It is planned to bring the global program together, interact/share ideas, and motivate research. The first forum was held in 2006 intending to build the CPWF community and create a flavor to the program. The second one was held at the end of phase of the program which targeted at looking the results of the 1st phase and developing the proposal for the 2nd one.

It is expected that about 20 participants from each basin will take part in the forum. Promising results and progress of research will be shared among participants. It will be an opportunity to identify the key message that can be articulated as a program and also discuss emerging global agenda. The forum will provide with the chance to mix people with new ideas, promote cross-basin learning and also interact with the idea of CRP.

Boru said the event is worth the enormous investment interms of money as it is extremely valuable toward realizing the above objectives and add on social capital which can be expressed in monetary terms. He also mentioned that effort will be made to invite high profile key note speaker who may address global issues and particularly African Challenges. The Forum will be divided into basic sessions, topic working groups and share fair. Expectations are high that much learning and sharing will happen on the Forum as intended.

The workshop closed at this junction and project members and partners have dispersed into individual project meetings.


NILE BASIN DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE (NBDC)SCIENCE WORKSHOP AGENDA

MAY 04-06, 2011WEDNESDAY, MAY 04, 2011

TIME ACTIVITY LEAD PERSON VENUE8:30 Registration & coffee In front of Large Auditorium

Opening Large AuditoriumNBDC in Brief Tilahun Amede Large AuditoriumCPWF in Brief Boru Douthwaite Large Auditorium

9:00 Workshop themes Shirley Tarawali Large AuditoriumWorkshop Process Peter Ballantyne Large AuditoriumParticipants’ introduction and expectation Large Auditorium

10:30 Coffee In front of the Cafeteria11:00 Theme 1: Rainwater Management Systems Debbie Bossio Large Auditorium13:00 Lunch Cafeteria14:15 Hard Seat: ‘RMS in India’

Bharat Sharma in conversation with Alan DuncanLarge Auditorium

14:30 Theme 2: Processes Alan Duncan Large Auditorium15:30 Coffee In front of the Cafeteria16:00 Theme 2: Process Cont’d Large Auditorium17:00 End

Thursday, MAY 05, 2011

TIME ACTIVITY LEAD PERSON VENUE8:30 Theme 3: Livelihood Impacts Katherine Snyder Large Auditorium10:30 Coffee In front of the Cafeteria11:00 Theme 4: Water Productivity Impacts Charlotte

MacAlisterLarge Auditorium

13:00 Lunch Cafeteria14:15 Hard Seat: Larry Harrington in conversation with Shirley Tarawali on

CPWF DevelopmentsLarge Auditorium

14:30 Theme 5: Environment & Ecosystem Impacts Mulugeta Lemenih Large Auditorium15:30 Coffee In front of the Cafeteria16:00 Theme 5 cont’d Large Auditorium

17:00 End18:45 Depart for Dinner Zebu Club19:00 Traditional Dinner Hebir Restaurant

Friday, MAY 06, 2011

TIME ACTIVITY LEAD PERSON VENUE8:30 Cross Theme Reflections:

1. NBDC Coordination Update2. Workshop Synthesis

The Reflection Wall: what we learned in the 5 sessionsStorage tank: issues & topics for further discussion & actionCPWF Reflectors: observations on the issues discussed in relation to wider CPWFVolta Perspectives on this meeting: take away messagesProject leaders: any changes needed for our ongoing project planning

3. Workshop Close

Tilahun AmedeLarge Auditorium

10:30 Coffee In front of the Cafeteria11:00 Project Team Meeting:

Nile 2: Break out room no. 13Nile 3: PLE Break out room Nile 4: Break out room no. 14Nile 5: Large auditorium

13:00 Lunch Cafeteria14:15 Hard Seat: Boru Douthwaite in conversation with Matthew

McCartney on IFWF314:30 Project Team Meeting cont’d15:30 Coffee In front of the Cafeteria

CPWF Nile Basin Development Challenge Program ii

16:00 Project Team Meeting Cont’d17:00 END

Nile Basin Development Challenge Program Science WorkshopMay 04-06, 2011

No Title Name Position Organization TEL E-mail1 Dr. Abebe Fanta Director, Pastoral & Agropastoral Haromaya University 255530044/915320373 [email protected] Mr. Aberra Adie Research Technician ILRI 116172226 [email protected] Dr. Abera Debello Country Director SASAKAWA Global 115528510 [email protected] Abisalom Omolo GIS Analyst ILRI [email protected]

5 Dr.Ahmed Khalid Eldaw Executive Director, ENTRO 116461130 [email protected]

6 Dr. Alan Duncan Livestock Scientist/Coordinator, IFAD Fodder Project ILRI 116172000 [email protected]

7 Mr. Alemayehu Belay Research Assistant ILRI 116172228 [email protected] Dr. Amare H/Selassie ILRI [email protected]

9 Amy Collick Bahir Dar University/Cornell Uni. 912284502

[email protected]

10 Dr. An Notenbaert GIS Expert ILRI, Nairobi [email protected] Dr. Asefa Taa Deputy Director General ORARI 115507299/0911840466 [email protected] 12 Dr. Assefa Admassie President EEA 116453200 [email protected]/[email protected]

13 Dr.Augustine Ayantunde Animal Scientist in West Africa ILRI, Mali [email protected]

14 Mr. Bekele AbaireWater & Sanitation Program Manager CRS 112788800/0911420375 [email protected]

15 Dr. Berhanu Zemedam Post Doctorall Fellow/ Hydrologist IWMI 116172000 [email protected] Mr. Birhanu Ayana M.Sc Student Ambo University 913306208 [email protected] Dr. Birru Yitaferu Director, Natural Resource ARARI 918160775 [email protected]

18 Mr. Biruck Kebede Focal personMinistry of Water and Energy 911056178 [email protected]

19 Dr. Boru Douthwaite Impact Leader CPWF [email protected]/ [email protected]

20 Dr. Catherine Pfiefer Post Doc ILRI 21 Mr. Dan Fuka Graduate Student Cornell University [email protected]

CPWF Nile Basin Development Challenge Program iii

mailto:[email protected]








mailto:[email protected]/[email protected]











22 Dr. Deborah Bossio Theme Leader ILRI 116172000 [email protected]

23 Mr. Dejene HabeshaNational Project Coordinator, Participatory SSI Dev't MoARD 911246267 [email protected]

No Title Name Position Organization TEL E-mail24 Mr. Dejene Sahlu Agro-meteorology researcher ARARI 582207808/918 705982 [email protected]

25 Mr. Essayas Kaba Blue Nile Research Center Director Bahir Dar University 582202236/[email protected] / [email protected]

26 Mr. Fergus Sinclair ICRAF [email protected]

27 Mr. Fred KitzoResearcher -- Soil/Water Resources Management IWMI + 233 21 784 753/4 [email protected]

28 Dr. Gizaw DestaSenior researcher in soil and water management ARARI 912860328 [email protected]

29 Mr. Gerba Letta Research Assistant ILRI 116172228 [email protected] Dr. Hezron Mogaka Program Manager ASARECA 254722325500.00 [email protected] Dr. Holger Hoff Research Fellow SEI 49179 /8429497 [email protected]

32 Jemimah NjukiTeam Leader, Poverty Gender and Impact ILRI Nairobi 254 20 422 3000 [email protected]

33 Josephine Tucker Research Officer ODI 442079220338/44780427704 [email protected] Mr. J.P. Venot Researcher IWMI [email protected]

35 Julia Tecklenburg,

PhD student

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research [email protected]

36 Dr. Kathrine Snyder Social Scientist IWMI 116172000 [email protected]

37 Dr. Kees SwaansScientist, Innovations in Livestock Systems ILRI 116172000 [email protected]

38 Mr. Kidane Assefa Director GeneralNational Meterological Agency 911208025 [email protected]

39 Mr. Kifle Abegaz CRS 911619936 [email protected] Dr. Larry Harrington Scientist CPWF [email protected] Dr. Lisa Maria Rebelo Researcher IWMI 116172000 [email protected] Dr. Mathew McCartney Senior Researcher IWMI 116172000 [email protected]

43 Dr. Mekuria BeyeneRegional Water Resources Modeler NBI 116467011 [email protected]

44 Mr. Mulugeta H/Micheal Research Technician ILRI 116172226 [email protected] Dr. Nancy Johnson ILRI [email protected] Pamela George Program Manager CPWF [email protected] Prof. Paschal Mhiyo Executive Director CPWF 111239484 [email protected]/ [email protected]

CPWF Nile Basin Development Challenge Program iv

























48 Mr Peter Ballantyne KMIS Manager ILRI 116172000 [email protected] Dr. Ranjitha Puskur Theme Leader ILRI 116172000 [email protected]

No Title Name Position Organization TEL E-mail

50 Dr. Robert DelveSenior Technical Advisor - Agriculture and Environment CRS

[email protected]

51 Dr. Semu AyalewChair of Hydrology and Water Resources Systems AAU 921606078/111232437 [email protected]

52 Sabine Douxchamps Post Doctorall FellowILRI/IWMI, Burkinafaso [email protected]

53 Mrs. Semunesh Golla Head of Hydrology DepartmentMinistry of Water & Energy 911123708 [email protected]

54 Mr. Seifu TilahunLecturer at BDU and PhD student at Cornell University Bahir Dar University 911647689 /918760910 [email protected]

55 Silvia SilvestriScientist – Environment and livelihoods ILRI Nairobi +254 20 422 3085 [email protected]

56 Dr. Simon Lagan Catchment Management Group The Macaulay Institute 44 (0) 1224 395154 [email protected]

57 Dr. Sharma Bharat Principal Researcher IWMI [email protected]

58 Dr. Shirley Tarawali Director, People, Livestock and Environment ILRI 116172000 [email protected]

59 Dr. Solomon Seyoum Researcher IWMI 116172000 [email protected] Prof. Tammo Steenhuis Cornell University [email protected] Tenaw Hailu Program Manager SLUF 115157656 [email protected] Mr. Tewodros Taffesse M.Sc Student Bahir Dar University 912100610 [email protected] Dr. Tilahun Amede NBDC Leader IWMI 116172000 [email protected] Mr. Tolerra Megersa M.Sc Student Ambo University 911771871 [email protected] Mr. Yihun Dile PhD Candidate SEI 46-704611097 [email protected]

67 Dr. Yosif IbrahimSenior Water Resources Planner/Head of WRP Unit ENTRO Addis Ababa [email protected]

CPWF Nile Basin Development Challenge Program v



















Documents

Proceedings of Improving Water Productivity of Crop ...of... · Web viewDr. Tilahun gave a presentation on Rain Water Management Systems as attached to NBDC. Full version of the presentation