experience from piloting the consultation workshop in two ethiopian communities
TRANSCRIPT
Experience from piloting the Consultation Workshop in two Ethiopian communities
Roundtable on Building Resilience to Climate Change through Community Dialogues
September 20, 2016, Addis Ababa
Test site locations in Ethiopia
Emba-hasti watershed, Enda-mehoni, Tigray 5-6/05/2016 (Maichew town)
Yanda watershed, Dirashe, SNNPR 31/06-01/07/2016 (Gidole town)
Photos: Liza Debevec / IWMI
Site selection process and methodological differences
• Tigray site was selected because of its links to existing projects by IWMI and USAID (Africa Rising, WLE funded post-doc Comprehensive assessment of watersheds in Ethiopia)
• SNNPR site was selected for comparative purposes and was intentionally selected from sites that get less attention from donors
• Baseline information about the bio-physical aspects of the two watersheds suggested several large challenges to the resilience of social-ecological system
• During the piloting phase quantitative data based on preexisting studies were collected only for Emba-hasti watershed.
• In Yanda (SNNPR) watershed only the qualitative part of the protocol was piloted
Socio-economic/socio-political site characteristics
Embahasti
• 3 kebeles in the watershed
• One ethnic group/language (Tigrinya)
• Orthodox religion
• Schooling in native language
Yanda
• 4 kebeles in the watershed
• 4 ethno-linguistic groups (all part of Kushitic language group )
• Orthodox, Protestant and traditional religious groups
• Schooling in Amharic language
Participant selection process
• Based on the guiding principles presented earlier, the workshop includes participants from the farming communities and relevant government offices
• The aim is to have equal numbers of male and female representatives across the whole group
• While not a pre-requisite, it is good to select participants that will be more or less comfortable to speak in front of a group and engage in active discussion and be able to report back to their peers after the workshop
• In order to keep the participant numbers under 40, in Yanda watershed smaller number of participants per kebele was selected.
General observations about the workshop
• Overall the workshop process went smoothly in both locations
• Participants were involved actively in the process
• Each of the modules’ success was evaluated post the two workshops and main challenges identified
• Comments from the participants throughout the workshop were very positive
• Women in both communities expressed particular appreciation of being allowed to speak freely and in equal measure to men
Challenges to module implementation
Protocol/Workshop outline
• Day 1:
• Module 1: Identifying ecosystem services within the watershed
• Module 2: Mapping landscape components affecting ecosystem services
• Module 3: Describing relationship of ecosystems services to livelihoods
• Day 2:
• Module 4: Creating timeline of major events and their effects on ecosystem services
• Module 5: Describing coping/adaptive strategies for sustaining ecosystem services
• Module 6: Developing a watershed action plan for sustaining ecosystem services
Workshop module 1
• Identifying ecosystem services within watershed
Lessons learned for best practice
• Participants struggle with the concept of ecosystems services, especially as facilitation is translated from English into local languages.
• Training of facilitators/trainers is key here to ensure true understanding of the concept and objective of the exercise.
Workshop module 2
• Mapping landscape components affecting ecosystem services
Lessons learned for best practice• 1) the conflict between what needs to be mapped
(ecosystem and NR) for the purpose of the workshop and what the participants would like to map (government and church infrastructure)
• 2) type of map used (in areas where community/administrative borders change regularly & officially available maps may not be accurate mapping on blank paper may be a better option, but that makes geo-referencing a challenge).
• 3) There is also a challenge in the post-workshop analysis of the data: transcription and translation of all the discussion requires highly digital recording, detailed data collection and excellent transcription and translation which is not as simple as it seems. This is very time consuming and somewhat costly.
Workshop module 3
• Describing relationships of ecosystem services to livelihoods
Lessons learned for best practice
• The challenge is related to challenges raised in Module 1 and also to the concept of livelihoods.
• These concepts must be well explained to guarantee a good outcome.
Workshop module 4
• Creating timeline of major events and their effects on ecosystem services
Lessons learned for best practice
• Selection of participants is key. Elders can provide some of the historical data, however in some cases it has been observed the oldest participants don't take a very active role.
• Data should be triangulated with historical records as some times the participants are not sure about exact dates.
Perceived key shocks vs. rainfall data in Embahasti
Workshop module 5
• Describing coping /adaptive strategies for sustaining ecosystem services
Lessons learned for best practice
• It is always good to make clear to participants that this exercise is focused only on ecosystem and livelihoods, as some participants tends to discuss about other social problems such as abduction, harmful traditional practices etc.
Workshop module 6
• Developing a watershed action plan for sustaining ecosystem services
Lessons learned for best practice
• Community leadership and participants must understand that the focus here is on resources available in the communities, not from outside donors.
• Workshop organisers must not give false hope about external funding to the participants.
Examples from the piloting of the workshop in 2 woredas in Ethiopia
Photos: Liza Debevec / IWMI
Hizba Teklehaymanot kebele six-month action planMeichew, Tigray region
S/n Activities Unit Quantity Equipment required Responsible
1 Rehabilitating the
watershed
1.1 Construct dip trench Km 15 Hammer, gabion and other
material
Wereda, Kebele and
community
1.2 Construct bench
traces
Km 20 ‘’ ‘’
1.3 Stone check dams m3 600 ‘’ ‘’
1.4 Construct gabion
check dams
m3 400 ‘’ ‘’
2 Construct water
holding tranches
‘’ ‘’
2.1 Construct half moon No 8,000 ‘’ ‘’
3 Construct recharge
pits and ponds
No 30,000 ‘’ ‘’
4 Planting preparation No 33,000 ‘’ ‘’
5 Planting No 31,400 ‘’ ‘’
Total ‘’
Kola Mashile kebele nine-month action planGidole, SNNP region
No Activities Time Required resources Available resources Responsible agents
1. Identifying areas for watershed July –August Farmers and experts from
government offices
2. Soil and water conservation works November –December Sickle, shovel ,dejeno for stone,
information and budget
Shodra, Ikaslabour Farmers and experts from
government offices
3. Establish Nursery July- September Budget and labor Land around water source Farmers and experts from
government offices
4. Collecting tree seeds and buying
fodder
September-October Budget, Indigenous seed Farmers and experts from
government offices
5. Dig land for planting seedling January –February Sickle and dejeno Labor, shodra and lkas Farmer
6. Planting the seedlings April Seedling Seedling Farmers
7. Looking after the plants July –June Labor Labor Farmers
8. Road construction January –March Budget from government, sickle,
shovel, dejeno, Grinder for stones,
and tubes
Labor and tools Farmers and government offices
The presence of key stakeholders and their role in supporting resilience strengthening activities
Type of stakeholder Emba-Hasti watershed Yanda watershed
Community x x
Local government x x
Regional/National government x x
R4D projects x
NGOS x x
Development aid organisation x
Future challenges
Photo: Liza Debevec / IWMI
Conclusions and recommendations• For a smooth implementation of the workshop in the rural communities,
documentation should be translated into local languages and facilitated bymembers of the community or those familiar with the local cultural setting
• Time should be set aside for post-workshop FGDs and follow up surveys
• Practical obstacles to active participation, such as distance of communities fromthe meeting place and provision of childcare for women participants should betaken into consideration
• The qualitative modules of the protocol/workshop need to be preceded by therelevant socio-economic and bio-physical data collection to help triangulate theresults of the workshop
• With any application of the protocol, the local watershed committees together with local authorities should be leading the practical implementation of the all workshop and planning activities. NGOs and other development agencies must build on existing practices.
Thank you for your attention.
For more information, please contact:
Dr Liza Debevec, IWMI Ethiopia