Rhetoric versus Realities An assessment of rainwater management planning and

implementation modalities

in Oromiya and Amhara Region, Ethiopia

Eva Ludi

Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9–10 July 2013

Rainwater Management

• Ethiopia has invested extensively in RWM interventions, in particular soil and water conservation and afforestation over the last 40 years, but in many areas with disappointing impact

• A new approach is obviously needed, but what should it be?

4

Ludi, 2012

Rainwater management

• Rainwater management refers to interventions which enable smallholder farmers to sustainably increase agricultural production – focusing on livestock, trees, fish as well as crops – by making better use of available rainwater

• These interventions may be at plot, farm, community, district or watershed level.

• A rainwater management system (RWMS) includes technologies and practices for managing water for production, and the policy, institutional and social dynamics and support systems necessary to optimize the benefits of such technologies and practices

Merrey & Gebreselassie

Nile 2

• On integrated RWM strategies – technologies, institutions and policies

• Baseline research on RWM planning and implementation and how this intersects with livelihoods and innovation

• Fieldwork in the three NBDC learning sites Jeldu and Diga (Oromiya) and Fogera (Amhara)

• Five KAs per site representing different agro-ecologies (highland – midland – lowland), presence / absence of RWM, high / low levels of degradation

• Broad suite of methods and tools for data collection

9

Findings – past RWM

• Limited success of past RWM interventions

– Top-down planning & implementation

– Standardised intervention packages

– Quote system

– Lack of integrated watershed approach

– Limited consideration of variations in agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions

– Coerced participation with limited regard to people’s views and preferences

– Focus on SWC instead of RWM as a means to increase productivity resulted in limited or no benefits to farmers

Planning of RWM today

Cell

Development Team

Sub-Kebele

Kebele

Woreda

Zone / Region Targets/ funding

Targets/ funding

Targets/ funding

Targets/ funding

Targets/ funding

Targets/ funding

Theoretical planning cycle - Following the budget cycle

• Dilemma for woreda experts:

– reconciling plans with available budgets, government policy and strategic plans / directives whilst also taking account of local issues and priorities as formulated in kebele plans.

• Considerable tension at the woreda level as bottom-up planning – focusing on needs and priorities as formulated by kebeles – collides with top-down planning, i.e. implementation plans received from higher levels that reflect regional and national priorities, in the form of quotas that woredas must achieve.

Conclusions - Planning

• Discrepancy policy planning: participation vs quota

• Notion of participation: mobilising labour vs incentivising collective action

• Incentive systems for DAs: quota vs local needs

• Failure to anticipate conflicts: quota vs local needs

• Missed opportunities for sustainability: insufficient participation vs taping into local practices and institutions

Central dilemma

• This needs to be resolved if RWM interventions are to be owned by farmers, be sustainable, and make a meaningful contribution to improved environmental management and better livelihoods.

National plan

Output targets

Top-down planning focus

Devolution

Decentralisation

Participation in planning

Co-development of innovations at the lowest

possible level

Implementation

Action plan developed by

WoARD Community

mobilisation by KA

administration

Identification of required labour and other resources,

organising farmers into teams by DAs

Training farmers by DAs and

woreda experts

Scheduling of activities

Establishing quality control

team

Carrying out work

Establishing follow-up structures (e.g. Water User

Committee)

Follow-up and reporting

Reasons for poor sustainability

• Lack of relevance to local priorities

• Weak technical design

• Lack of voluntary collective action

• Lack of clear governance structures for interventions on communal land

• Poor follow-up and monitoring

• Focus on isolated technical interventions

Livelihoods

• To achieve better fit of RWM interventions, specific livelihood context and institutional environment needs to guide RWM selection, planning and implementation process

• Interdisciplinary communication and transdisciplinary collaboration required to identify best RWM strategies in a given locality:

– multidisciplinary research

– research partnerships

– genuine collaboration between researchers and local societies to

Conclusions

• Insights from baseline research on planning and implementation process shaped innovation platforms at local, regional and national levels and innovation fund

• Recommendations formulated in view of contributing to improve RMW planning and implementation to achieve impact, sustainability, and local ownership, foster meaningful collaboration between farmers, government agencies and research community, and increase opportunity for genuine innovation at all levels.

Recommendations

1. Shift the focus of targets from outputs to outcomes

2. Enhance monitoring and evidence collection on RWM with a focus on impact and sustainability

3. Revitalise and capitalise on the DA system

4. Strengthen local institutions’ roles in RWM

5. Move towards more meaningful participation

6. Open lines of communication to foster innovative capacity

ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on

international development and humanitarian issues.

We aim to inspire and inform policy and practice to

reduce poverty by locking together high-quality

applied research and practical policy advice.

The views presented here are those of the speaker,

and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or

our partners.

Overseas Development Institute

203 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ

T: +44 207 9220 300

www.odi.org.uk

e.ludi@odi.org.uk