Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation

Ethiopian Highlands Project

Technical report, 1 April 2013 – 30 September 2013

Submitted to:

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Contact Person:

Dr Peter Thorne Project Coordinator

December 2013

The Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) program comprises three research-for-development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development as part of the U.S. government’s Feed the Future (FtF) initiative.

Through action research and development partnerships, Africa RISING will create opportunities for smallholder farm households to move out of hunger and poverty through sustainably intensified farming systems that improve food, nutrition, and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base.

The three projects are led by the International Livestock Research Institute (in the Ethiopian Highlands) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (in West Africa and East and Southern Africa). The International Food Policy Research Institute leads an associated project on monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment.

This document is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial- Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

This document was made possible with support from the American people delivered through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the US Government’s Feed the Future Initiative. The contents are the responsibility of the producing organization and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of USAID or the U.S. Government.

Contents Summary ...... 2 Introduction ...... 3 Implementation highlights ...... 4 Sustainable Livelihoods Asset Evaluation (SLATE): Partner training and site evaluations ...... 4 SLATE tool training for Africa RISING partners ...... 4 Reflection on the SLATE tool ...... 6 SLATE field work ...... 7 Analysis of the SLATE data ...... 7 Participatory Community Assessments (PCA): Partner training and site evaluations ...... 8 Indigenous knowledge acquisition and interpretation (AKT5) ...... 11 AKT5 introductory and refresher training week ...... 11 Endamahoni woreda ...... 11 Limu woreda ...... 12 Indigenous knowledge acquisition ...... 14 Quantitative data collection for household characterization and ex ante modeling of impacts ..... 16 IMPACT Lite training ...... 16 On-farm demonstrations ...... 16 Communications and knowledge...... 20 Staff ...... 22 Annex 1: SLATE implementation reports ...... 23 Slate implementation in Maychew, South Tigray ...... 23 SLATE implementation in Lemo, SNNPR ...... 25 SLATE implementation in Basona Werana, Amhara ...... 27 SLATE implementation in Sinana, Oromia ...... 29 Annex 2: Summary from SLATE analysis for Goshe Bado Kebele, Amhara ...... 36 Stratification by Livelihood Benchmarks...... 36 Statistical Typology ...... 36 Annex 3: IMPACT Lite survey questionnaire ...... 39

Summary This reporting period saw the near completion of the basic diagnostic activities undertaken by the Ethiopian Highlands project. These included:

 SLATE (Sustainable Livelihoods Asset Evaluation). A training of trainers was organized from 1-5 April 2013 with the objectives of a) Familiarizing Africa RISING project sites team members and Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Innovation Platform (IP) facilitators with the SLATE tool, and b) Identifying household typologies based on the five livelihood assets (human, physical, social, natural and financial capitals) for some trial NBDC kebeles. Subsequently, the SLATE exercises were implemented across all eight Africa RISING kebeles and the data are now being analysed for basic community characterisations and typology extraction.  PCA (Particpatory Community Analyses. PCAs were undertaken at the eight Africa RISING kebeles after a two-day training workshop held in Addis Ababa over the period 17-18 June. A number of possible interventions for the project to engage in were identified. These included the introduction of a number of improved sustainable crop and livestock management practices supported with training not only in production, utilisation and processing skills but also leadership, marketing and communication skills to encourage farmer-to-farmer learning and extension. Shortages of improved varieties of most crops indicate a need for encouraging community-based seed production.  Indigenous Knowledge Acquisition and Interpretation. A training course in the use of the AKT5 indigenous knowledge software and approaches was convened at ILRI, Addis Ababa from 12 – 15 August 2013. This training was designed to support the implementation of the research on indigenous agro-ecological knowledge. Following the training, research teams implemented the process at the Africa RISING kebeles (to be reported in the next semi- annual report).  Quantitative Data collection. In order to implement the ex ante impact assessment activities defined in the Africa RISING Research Framework, the project has implemented collection of quantitative household data at the project sites using the IMPACT Lite survey instrument. Project participants undertook training supported by ILRI from 26 – 30 August, 2013. Data collection is now on-going.

In addition, a series of on-farm demonstrations of improved management practices for food and fodder crops (rainfed and irrigated) were implemented. The key objectives of these field activities were to

 Build trust & confidence between involved stakeholders.  Demonstrate some “best bet” component technologies in terms of new crop varieties & fodder species; use of quality seed; improved crop management practices and production of off-season high value crops.  Provide a platform for information exchange between farmers, researchers and extension staff to develop more focused and integrated R&D interventions for the coming Belg season.  Provide a basis for future, system-oriented on-farm research approach, possibly leading to fully integrated on-farm research activities based on farmer interest and local development opportunities.

Indications from these on-farm activities will also be reported in the next semi-annual report.

Introduction

Over a four year period to 2016, Africa RISING aims to contribute to Feed the Future goals of reducing hunger, poverty and under-nutrition by delivering high quality research outputs that are relevant to these goals.

In Ethiopia, the main aim of the project is to identify and validate solutions to the problems experienced by smallholder crop-livestock farmers in the Highlands. Some of these problems arise from the difficulties that farmers face in managing the resources that they have and in capitalising on the efficiencies that managing crops and livestock together can introduce into a farming system. However, realising these potentials is often influenced by other factors such as cost effective access to inputs and the reliability of markets for saleable produce.

To address these complexities, Africa RISING will take an integrated approach to strengthen the farming systems of the Ethiopian highlands. It will conduct research that, from a strong participatory base, identifies technologies and management practices that work for farmers whilst accounting for the wider contexts in which these must operate. These contexts include the nature and effectiveness of markets for inputs and outputs, of community and other institutions and of the policy environments that influence farm households.

So! What will a successful Africa RISING in Ethiopia look like in 2016? Knowledge and skills in farming communities will have been strengthened equitably, allowing all family members to benefit. We will see farmers operating systems that are ‘sustainably intensified’- that is, levels of production and productive efficiency have increased in ways that can be maintained both environmentally and economically over the longer term. Improved partnerships among farmers, support services and other value chain actors will have reduced uncertainties about market function; more reliable input supplies will support more resilient production that will ensure a more consistent profit from produce sold at market.

Africa RISING in Ethiopia is led by scientists from the International Livestock Research Institute in partnership with scientists from other CGIAR centres and the Ethiopian national agricultural research system.

Implementation highlights The major activities during this reporting period focused on the various diagnostic studies that would deliver outputs under Research Component 1 (RC1) in the implementation framework. Given the timing of the main growing season (June – November), these activities, which were designed to feed directly into the on-farm action research were only partly able to do so which restricted the scope of our on-farm program. With the benefit of hind-sight this might actually prove beneficial in the longer-term as it allowed for a period of trust building in our local communities without over-facing our participants and causing them to withdraw from the project. Sustainable Livelihoods Asset Evaluation (SLATE): Partner training and site evaluations Capacity building on various research approaches and survey tools can be an entry point to enhance the knowledge of local partners, and helps to build partnerships with different institutions. The Sustainable Livelihoods Asset Evaluation (SLATE) tool, developed by ILRI, is one diagnostic tool that can help to integrate biophysical and social issues, and facilitate household characterisations and the identification of farm typologies that require various interventions.

SLATE tool training for Africa RISING partners A training of trainers (ToT) was organized from 1-5 April 2013 with the objectives of a) Familiarizing Africa RISING project sites team members and Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Innovation Platform (IP) facilitators with the SLATE tool, and b) Identifying household typologies based on the five livelihood assets (human, physical, social, natural and financial capitals) for some trial NBDC kebeles.

The training was organized by Africa RISING and NBDC. As a result, the training participants were from both Africa RISING (four sites) and NBDC (three sites). The number and affiliations of the participants is shown below in Table 1.

Peter Thorne, Africa RISING project coordinator, welcomed the training participants. Following the welcoming address, participants introduced themselves and clarified their expectations based on a river of life approach presented by facilitators (Appendix 2). Thorne and Zelalem Lema from ILRI then presented the background of the Africa RISING and NBDC (IP) projects, respectively. Amare Haileslassie (ICRISAT/ILRI) also shared experiences and findings from a previous SLATE exercise conducted by Africa RISING at Bekoji in Arsi Zone (see event wiki page for details: http://africa- rising.wikispaces.com/SLATE_TOT_apr2013). Lastly, the resource persons gave a demonstration of the SLATE software tool and the trainees gained some hands-on experience with it.

Table 1. Composition of trainees from Africa RISING and NBDC sites

Projects Sites No. of Participants institution participants NBDC Diga 2 Bako Research Center and Diga Woreda Agri Office Fogera 2 Andassa Research Center and Fogera Woreda Livestock Agency Jeldu 2 Holetta Research Center and Jeldu Woreda Agri Office Africa RISING Amhara 3 D/ Birhan Research Center and Basona Worena Woreda Agri Office South 3 Areka and Worabe Research Centers, and Hadiya Zone Agricultrual Department Oromia 3 Sinana Research Center and Sinana Woreda Agri Office Tigray 3 TARI and Alamata Research Center, and Endamehoni Woreda Agri Office Others 10 ILRI/IWMI, ICRAF, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT

The training organisers identified and selected Seriti, Chelanko and Kulu Gelan kebeles from Jeldu woreda as sites for the field training based on consultations from NBDC team members and IP facilitators.

A total of 70 farm households were selected in each Kebele based on the previous survey experiences of the early win project of Africa RISING in Bekoji. Out of the 70 farm households, the interviewers used 20 in each Kebele as key informants and 50 as household survey respondents. The interviewee households were stratified into female and male groups for the identification of livelihood assets indicators. Each of the three trainee groups (one assigned to each kebele) merged indicators identified from the men’s and women’s groups to produce the final household questionnaires that could be printed using the SLATE software and applied in each of the three Kebeles. The households considered for the survey were diverse in terms of gender, wealth and age composition. On completion of the householder interviews, the trainees entered the household data from their respective Kebele using SLATE tool.

Photo 1: Discussion with farmers in Chelanko Kebele (photo: ILRI/Simret Yasabu)

A trainee group representative was appointed by each Kebele team to present feedback in relation to training facilitation, field survey and SLATE tool (http://africa-

rising.wikispaces.com/SLATE_TOT_apr2013). These presentation summarize the key experiences (summarized below) of the trainees in applying the SLATE methodology that will help us to improve the tool in future.

Reflections on facilitation and methodological issues that need further actions/interventions . Determination of sampling size of key informants and household size need to be based on logical justifications. . Criteria need to be set for selection of key informants and households so that they are properly representative in terms of social criteria, and geographical distribution. This approach would help to avoid bias in the selection of key informants and household respondents. . Adequate time allocation is necessary for identification and evaluation of indicators. . Slightly different approaches in the three Kebeles – some included key informants in survey, some excluded. Which is best? Does it matter? . There were some inconsistencies in the questionnaires for each Kebele especially for key basic information across sites. Some lists are more detailed than others. Merging indicators from the three Kebeles would be convenient for analysis but lists of indicators could be exhaustive. Reducing list could exclude key incomes/ niche assets. Africa RISING wants to capture all typologies rather than excluding any of the typologies. . Methods need to be designed to capture notes while interacting with key informants and household respondents. . Discussion of indicators, weight and score, and pre-testing the questionnaire together with the enumerators/interviewers is relevant to have a consensus on approach, an equal level of understanding and more reliable information. Provision of relative weights for each indicator can be difficult for the farmers if there are long list of indicators. Similarly, the relationships between scores and weights are complex. There were some issues with a lack of negative scores. In some cases the data may not have adequately captured differences between rich and poor farmers and their relative dependence on different sources of capital. Enumerators’ skill to challenge and question the farmers’ was variable. . Demonstration of indicators with pictures and use of grains for weighting can help to improve interactive process and minimise enumerators’ bias and incorporate participatory process. . Incentive mechanisms for the farmers that participate during interview should be in line with the local system. . Enumerators need to understand the local language to avoid language barriers during the survey work. . There should be a standard for household characteristics information collection while producing household questionnaires of each Kebele. . The meeting place for the data collection need to be decided in consultation with the DAs or the community ahead of the survey work. . Material and equipment such as field bag, binder, camera and stationeries (a SLATE implementation kit) should be available during the field work.

Reflection on the SLATE tool By trainees: . The tool brings full message of the livelihoods asset of the household . It is a good tool and we can practice it in our areas . It gives a chance for community to learn from one another (experience sharing) . It is good but it doesn’t look at the economic level of household: inputs and outputs . It is good and broad addressing all livelihoods issues . It is good if we make it more user friendly . The tool is good but it requires more time for data entering

By resource persons:  The tool is used for identifying indicators and it depends on how we develop the indicators  The report of the tool depends on the weight and the score which requires us to carefully get the real weight and score. This requires good understanding of the data collectors and the farmers.  We need to be very careful in identifying and categorizing data, for instance, on natural indicators do we put rented land and shared lands as natural or in the other asset categories.

SLATE field work The SLATE exercises for each of the eight kebeles were actually carried out between 19 and 25 May 2013, in the following locations:

Region / Woreda Kebeles Facilitators

South Tigray / Endamehoni Tsibet and Embahasti Zelalem Lema SNNPR / Lemo Jawe and Upper Gana Kindu Mekonnen Amhara / Basona Werana Goshe Bado and Gudo Beret Simret Yasabu / Martha Cronin Oromia / Sinana Ilu Sanbitu and Selka Gerba Leta

These exercises were effectively the first occasion on which our multi-partner teams operated in project mode in the field together. We were pleased to achieve strong participation from particularly from ILRI, CIP and ICRAF as well as all the woreda administration / regional research / university site teams. Summary reports for the SLATE implementation are available at Annex 1.

Analysis of the SLATE data The analysis of the SLATE data from each of the eight kebeles is on-going at the time of reporting. During the development of the tool (conducted under an Africa RISING quick win project in Bekoji) the indications were that the approach could be used to generate a broad-based livelihoods characterization of households across the community. It was also evident that this characterization could form a basis for a robust and interpretable farm household typology for that community. Initial indications from current analysis are that this capacity will be repeatable. A summary of the SLATE analysis for Goshe Bado kebele in Amhara region is presented at Annex 2.

Participatory Community Assessments (PCA): Partner training and site evaluations The Africa RISING project in Ethiopia has embarked on a participatory research and extension approach1 (PREA), which encompasses four principle stages. The first involves community engagement and social mobilization, requiring a facilitation process for communities’ own analysis of their existing situation. This is the focus of the PCAs. The remaining phases include: community level action planning based on the opportunities identified; implementation through trying out new ideas involving farmer experimentation; and importantly monitoring the process through sharing experiences and lesson learning. This includes an assessment of the PREA process, allowing modification for repeating in the second and subsequent years.

PREA entails involving farmers in a continuous process from definition of a R&D agenda, conduct of research, evaluation of results and promotion of findings. PREA requires facilitation of local communities in an analysis of their farming systems, identification of constraints and the search for solutions and new opportunities. It also importantly requires the building of strong links between stakeholders, with local communities, extension agents, researchers and the private sector working as partners, and encouraging farmer to farmer extension of appropriate technologies and new knowledge. The partnerships established during the PREA process can be regarded as innovation platform (IP), where initially R&D agents provide leadership with active participation of local communities and the private sector. In time ownership and leadership should be transferred to local communities with the R&D organisations continuing to provide back-up support services. Ongoing participation by the private sector will largely depend on commercial opportunity. Such partnerships or platforms should survive beyond the life of the project and contribute to sustainability of project achievements.

Participatory Community Analyses were undertaken after a two-day training workshop held in Addis Ababa over the period 17-18 June. During the workshop agreement was reached on the use of appropriate methods and tools. Thereafter, PCAs were undertaken over the period 20 June to 6 July 2012, in the eight kebeles across four Woredas in the Amhara, Oromia, SNNP and Tigray Regions. This involved discussions over a two or three day period taking 3-4 hours per day. The PCAs were facilitated by multi-disciplinary teams from Research Centres, Universities and Departments of Agriculture. The PCAs were the first phase in a participatory research and extension process, including community engagement and social mobilization providing each community opportunity for their own analysis of the challenges facing them and opportunities for overcoming them.

1 Ellis-Jones, J., S. Shultz, D. Chikoye, N. de Haan, P. Kormawa, and D. Adedzwa (2005). Participatory research and extension approaches. A guide for researchers and extension workers for involving farmers in research and development. IITA Ibadan, Nigeria and Silsoe Research Institute, UK, 52pp. Hagmann J., E. Chuma, K. Murwira and M. Connelly (1999). Putting process into practice; operationalising participatory extension. In: ODI Agricultural Research and Extension (AGREN) Network Paper No. 94. Overseas Development Institute, London. http://www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agrenpaper_94.pdf

Photo 2: Participants of the training workshop (Credit: CIP-Ethiopia\ Frezer Asfaw)

Each kebele is dominated by an integrated crop-livestock system providing important sources of food and cash. Major crop production challenges include a lack of improved seed, low and declining soil fertility, problems of pests, disease and weeds, a lack of draft power and equipment and the high cost or non-availability of agri-inputs associated with each. These are compounded by increasingly erratic rainfall, drought, floods and land degradation. At the same time local communities raised concerns about lack of crop storage facilities, post-harvest pest and disease problems, lack of knowledge about processing with little or no processing equipment, compounded by low market prices, inadequate access roads and poor transport facilities. With regards livestock, community raised problems included lack of feed, pests and diseases, poor access to veterinary services leading to high mortality rates, compounded by a lack of improved breeds and inadequate watering points in many areas. Marketing challenges included low prices, having to sell when prices are low and a general lack of market information.

The major trend across the four regions with regards crops is mixed some increasing due to increased market. These include wheat, lentil and some vegetable crops. Other crops such as barley, enset and potatoes are decreasing due to low prices or disease problems. With regards livestock, a severe lack of grazing and fodder resources is leading to a decline in most livestock numbers, although poultry production is increasing some kebeles.

A limited range of research and development (R&D) agencies and community-based organizations (CBOs) were identified dominated by Government (kebele and woreda administrations), kebele cooperatives and unions and recent government development initiatives. There were a few non- governmental organizations (NGOs) but few private organisations. A number of CBOs including men’s, women’s, mixed gender and youth groups were identified, some operating independently but many requiring on-going support and capacity building. This includes the recent government 1:5 initiative, whereby small groups of farmers have been encouraged to form, with lead farmers adopting five followers to support. This fits with Africa RISING initial interventions of faba bean, potatoes and wheat with nine farmers testing improved varieties and management practices in each kebele.

Further possible interventions for the way forward were identified. These include the introduction of a number of improved sustainable crop and livestock management practices supported with training not only in production, utilisation and processing skills but also leadership, marketing and communication skills to encourage farmer-to-farmer learning and extension. Shortages of improved varieties of most crops indicate a need for encouraging community-based seed production.

Shortages of agro-chemicals and veterinary products for crop disease and pest control and animal health require links to be built between farmers, suppliers and existing animal health facilities to ensure this important part of the value chain is improved. Opportunities for sprayer contractors, community-based pest doctors and community animal health workers (paravets) were identified. An urgent need to improve animal feed through better use of existing crop residues would compliment such initiatives. Governments initiatives on improving watershed management provide opportunity to provide additional support and capacity building at both woreda and kebele level. At the same time advocacy to promote improved policies to reduce land degradation, improve market infrastructure and build partnerships will be required.

All these options require further discussion with soon to be established kebele innovation platforms (IPs). These will provide opportunity for community and local leadership involvement in: planning appropriate interventions; trying out new ideas through farmer experimentation; and importantly monitoring the process through lesson learning and experience sharing. The establishment of kebele IPs bringing together different stakeholders was identified as complimenting Government-led initiatives for promoting agricultural development and ensuring coordination. Meetings for IP formation were tentatively scheduled for early August, providing opportunity for report backs to the community on the PCAs and further discussion on priorities for future intervention. It will be important that kebele IPs are the initial contact point for Africa-Rising interventions.

The full report of the PCA is available at http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33789

Indigenous knowledge acquisition and interpretation (AKT5)

AKT5 introductory and refresher training week The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and Bangor University jointly convened a training course at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) campus in Addis Ababa from 12 – 15 August 2013. This training was designed to support the implementation of the research on indigenous agro- ecological knowledge within the context of the USAID funded, ILRI led Africa RISING project. Participants came from a range of universities and research centres in the target regions. The course was run by Genevieve Lamond, a Teaching Associate at Bangor University.

The first two days of training were designed as an introduction to the Agro-ecological Knowledge Toolkit (AKT5) for new users and showed participants how to explore the current Africa RISING project knowledge bases developed by Anne Kuria and Martha Cronin (researchers from Science Domain 1 at ICRAF-Nairobi) in the Limu and Endamahoni sites. As part of the course, Anne and Martha presented their initial findings from the field which generated a good discussion with project partners and showed areas that needed further development.

Some feedback from participants:

“The course clearly […] helps to identify different entry points for research and development works.”

“I will definitely use the skills I have learnt to improve future work – I have more insight into local knowledge hence future research will be more enriched.”

“I could apply in my area for identifying knowledge of the local farmers to create a best solution during research making in mandate area by combining with scientific knowledge.”

“I have learned more from AKT training about knowledge extraction methods from farmers and how to link it with scientist’s view/findings.”

The discussion also allowed project partners to see the added value which AKT5 gives to the previous characterization research conducted in the sites, especially as a tool able to formalize and analyze qualitative information given by farmers. The possibility of triangulating findings from the range of approaches led by other CGIAR centres, including the SLATE and FEAST tools and Participatory Community Assessment, was also discussed.

The initial findings presented included the main drivers of land use change, the farming systems and main livelihood strategies in practice, and opportunities and constraints to tree based interventions in each of the research areas.

Endamahoni woreda Preliminary findings suggest that intensification of both private and community land is important in Endamahoni woreda. The major constraints to production identified by farmers were livestock feed shortages, insufficient fuel sources, declining soil fertility, and water security issues in the lower catchment. There were clear constraints for intercropping trees and fodder grasses with crops because of the small field sizes, unknown effects on crop growth, and free grazing practices on fields in the early dry-season. However farmers recognized opportunities for intercropping on irrigated land which is already protected from livestock and newly distributed land which has increased inputs from local development agents; they were also aware of some of the regulating services these trees could provide for terrace stabilization.

Plate 1. (a) Farmers feeding livestock weeds from their crop fields and (b) a fenced-off demonstration site at a farmer training centre showing intercropping of leguminous fodder trees with rain-fed crops. Photographs by Martha Cronin, August 2013.

Resource poor farmers in Endamahoni woreda were more dependent on community land to supplement their livestock feed and fuel requirements, but these resources were susceptible to degradation and exhaustion because of overgrazing and repression of natural regeneration. Community by-laws also constrained farmers’ extraction of live tree resources of any kind from community land (including pruning branches for fodder and fuel).

Plate 2. (a) A female farmer collecting dead woody biomass from community forest land and (b) & (c) Two forms of community forest (cypress plantation and mixed eucalyptus/ cypress and juniper forest). Photographs by Martha Cronin, August 2013.

Limu woreda In Limu woreda, Southern Ethiopia, the main drivers of land use/tree cover change identified by farmers, mainly dating from the transition period of the Derg regime (1974-1991) to the EPDF regime (1991 – 2001/present) included: deforestation to provide timber for construction and fuelwood; and conversion of forestland and communal grazing land into cropland and settlements as human population increased. The result of this was decreased household land holding, which has resulted in challenges such as: fodder scarcity, low crop yields due to loss of soil fertility as a result of continuous cropping with no fallows, soil erosion (especially in the upper catchment areas) due to

massive deforestation and low soil cover, water scarcity (spring numbers decreased, river flow reduced, and low rainfall intensity, unreliable and uneven distribution), and fuelwood scarcity. Other challenges currently facing farmers in Limu woreda include: enset bacterial wilt (aloiya) disease, lack of improved crop varieties and animal breeds, and slow maturity rate of temperate fruits. With the Upper Gana kebele having no communal grazing land and only a small portion remaining in Jawe kebele, fodder sources currently utilized include: crop residues, grasses from crop land, front yard grass, private grazing enclosures, planted grasses, and tree fodder; with tree fodder and crop residue playing a key role in fodder provisioning during the critical dry period (January-February) when there are no other fodder sources.

Plate 3. (a) Cows feeding on enset which is the main perennial crop - a very important food and income source for farmers in Limu, and (b) trees positioned in the landscape, along field boundaries and on cropland. Photographs by Anne Kuria, July-August 2013.

Only a few tree species perceived to be compatible with crops, mainly native, were retained in the cropland and pollarded in June, before the crop planting period (July), to avoid competition for sunlight with crops, and their leaves used as mulch. A majority of other tree species were planted along the boundaries and in the home compounds, and woodlots (eucalyptus). Findings show that there is a great opportunity for tree-livestock-crop intensification, with farmers expressing keen interest in planting trees for various purposes namely: improved fruit varieties, timber, income, fodder, soil fertility replenishment, and multi-purpose trees. However, some stated reasons for not planting trees were: lack of seedlings/ propagative materials, water scarcity which discourages nursery establishment, lack of adequate knowledge about tree utilities, services and tree-crop interactions, especially for the unfamiliar trees; and slow maturity of fruit trees discourages farmers from planting fruit trees. Land scarcity discourages some farmers from planting trees, but they did show willingness to plant multi-purpose, crop-compatible trees.

Plate 4. (a) A partially pollarded Ekbergia capensis tree on cropland and (b) boundary planting of trees (in line with the live fence) due to land shortage. Photographs by Anne Kuria, July-August 2013.

Following on from the introductory sessions, there was a refresher training course designed for researchers who had previously completed a full two week AKT5 training course. This three day training was spent with participants learning how to make knowledge bases consistent and how to analyze them and present results using the inbuilt tools. The focus was on making the current Africa RISING knowledge bases as consistent as possible for cross-analysis and generating useful output.

After attending the training courses and critically evaluating the work done so far with project partners, Anne and Martha are continuing local knowledge research in collaboration with local partners in the remaining project sites in Debre Birhan and Sinana. For more information on the AKT5 software, please visit the website: http://akt5.bangor.ac.uk and Wiki: http://akt5.wikispaces.com/.

Indigenous knowledge acquisition Acquisition activities have been implemented at all Africa RISING sites by participants in the training and results will be reported in due course.

Introductory training course participants pictured with their certificates (from l-r): Yohannes Horamo, Anne Kuria, Zerihun Kebebew, Aklilu Agide, Kidane Welde, Sultan Ousman, Diriba Nigusie, Salim Silim, Girmay Gebru, Habtamu Degefa, Martha Cronin and Aynalem Mamo.

Refresher training course participants on the last day (pictured from l-r): Habtamu Degefa, Anne Kuria, Aynalem Mamo, Girmay Gebru and Diriba Nigusie, August 2013.

Quantitative data collection for household characterization and ex ante modeling of impacts

IMPACT Lite training In order to implement the ex ante impact assessment activities defined in the Africa RISING Research Framework, the project has implemented collection of quantitative household data at the project sites using the IMPACT Lite survey instrument. Project participants undertook training supported by ILRI’s Carlos Quiros from 26 – 30 August, 2013. The program included:

1. Introduction to IMPACT Lite and its different sections 2. Field visit to Basona Werana to test the questionnaire including implement of the draft survey by two groups. There was also a follow-up discussion of problems and challenges experiences. 3. Discussion of possible changes and data entry and revision of the questionnaire. 4. Second visit to initiate implementation of the questionnaire. 5. Final discussion.

Photo 3: Pre testing exercise in progress in Goshe Bado kebele (image credit: ILRI/Simret Yasabu)

As a result of these activities, a revised survey instrument was developed to meet the specific needs of Africa RISING in the Ethiopian Highlands. This is presented at Annexe ?

Data collection with the IMPACT Lite survey instrument is now complete and data entry and analysis are ongoing. On-farm demonstrations Africa RISING identified 8 kebeles (2 each in Amhara, Oromia, Tigray and SNNP regions) for on-farm R&D work in 2013. Field work started in June 2013 with three main activities aimed at demonstrating promising component technologies. If found acceptable and successful, these component technologies could then be combined and integrated into more comprehensive livelihood strategies in subsequent years.

The key objectives of the field activities in 2013 were to

 Build trust & confidence between involved stakeholders

 Demonstrate some “best bet” component technologies in terms of new crop varieties & fodder species; use of quality seed; improved crop management practices and production of off-season high value crops.  Provide a platform for information exchange between farmers, researchers and extension staff to develop more focused and integrated R&D interventions for the coming Belg season  Provide a basis for future, system-oriented on-farm research approach, possibly leading to fully integrated on-farm research activities based on farmer interest and local development opportunities

The technologies demonstrated in 2013 were:

1. High value crops with irrigation

Small scale irrigation at kitchen garden level. The water would be used to produce vegetable / high value crops during the off-season (if temperatures allow). This component included the establishment of water delivery techniques (pump-based) to provide a cohort of farmers in Lemo woreda with whom the project could test crop production options under irrigation.

During the 2013 Meher season, IWMI / ILRI carried out assessments on water sources / availability for water harvesting and developed protocols (including irrigated fodder production for market- oriented, high value sheep production). Demonstrations on the use of harvested water for small scale irrigation will be implemented during the coming dry season (Belg 2014).

2. Fodder production

Introduction of fodder crops and trees. Farmers might be reluctant to grow fodder crops / trees on their agricultural land. For this reason the project established one fodder / tree crop demonstration in each kebele, including three promising fodder / dual purpose crops and at least one fodder tree species.

Fodder crops included in 2013 were: Vetch, Oats and Lucerne or Clover. In each kebele, Three plots of 100 m-2 each were identified either in a farmer’s field, marginal land, common land or the land of an FTC / school. It was important that the plots were protected from roaming animals! The Africa RISING project has provided labour, seed and fertilizer for the establishment of these plots. The owner of the plots all agreed that field days could be held to expose other farmers to these fodder crops.

3. Increasing crop yields

This activity includes both the demonstration of new crop varieties and improved crop management. It was designed to build on the locally most important crop rotation (wheat, faba bean and potato). Emphasis was also on including crops whose residues have a high feed value. In each kebele, nine farmers were identified who were practicing the predominant cereal-legume-potato rotation during the Meher season. In the cereal field of three farmers, demonstrations plots (50 m-2 to 100 m-2 each) of three improved cereal varieties (IV), combined with improved management practices (IM) were established. The remaining farmer plot served as a control. Similar demonstration plots were established in three legume fields of three farmers and three potato fields of three farmers, giving a total of nine farmers and 27 plots in each Kebele (Figure 1). These demonstrations provided the setting for farmer field school type of trainings on crop, pest and soil fertility management. They also provided an entry point to discuss value chains and post-harvest issues.

Figure 1: Demonstration plot layouts for activity 3

Wheat Fababean Potato

Variety Variety Variety Variety Variety Variety Variety Variety Variety 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 IV & IV & IV & IV & IV & IV & IV & IV & IV & IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM IM

Farmer Practice & Farmer Practice & Farmer Practice & Farmer Variety. This Farmer Variety. This Farmer Variety. This section of the field will section of the field will section of the field will serve as Control serve as Control serve as Control

Note: “IV” refers to Improved Variety, “IM” to Improved Crop, Soil & Pest Management

The demonstration plots were inserted into the farmer’s field which then served as a Control plot. The conditions for the demonstration plots were as follows: Farmers provided the land and labour, Africa RISING provided seed, fertilizer, chemicals (where required). In addition, the farmer allowed that field days are being conducted to demonstrate the new technologies to other farmers.

Farmers’ selection criteria were as follows

 Volunteer farmers and that have land and are respected members of their community  The farmers need to be committed and able to demonstrate success stories to the others  If possible, select farmers that have been involved in the recent livelihood survey activities. If not we will need to follow up with the livelihoods questionnaire for all farmers who have not been subjected to it already.  The plots of the selected farmers need to be accessible for demonstration purposes  If possible, get farmers that can integrate and practice some of our on-farm research activities such as crops vs forages, forages vs water harvesting techniques  The selected farmers should agree to pass on improved seeds for other farmers by next year, to allow at least 2 field days to be conducted on their plots  Farmers should be willing to participate in later group discussions / work with other farmers who have not been involved directly in this exercise.  Ensure that at least 2 women farmers per kebele are included

Observations taken:

 Farmer preferences and feedback during growing season and at harvest  Yields, including residue yields  Digestibility of residues  Animal feed preferences

 For each crop, 2 field days were conducted (at flowering and at harvest) to elucidate farmer feedback on the demonstrated crops / technologies (the methodology to be developed) and to allow other farmers from the kebele to assess the technologies being demonstrated.

Crops and varieties included:

Bread Wheat: Two varieties from Federal Research (Digalu, Danda’s) and one variety from Regional Research

Seed rate: 150 kg/ha; 2400 m-2 per variety, 36 kg per variety needed for 24 farmers (each farmer 3 plots of 100 m-2 with 3 different Wheat varieties

Fertilizer Rate: 100 kg DAP/ha & 50 kg Urea/ha; 72 kg of DAP and 36 kg of Urea needed for 24 farmers @ 300 m-2 of wheat per farmer

Row planting: 0.2 to 0.3 m row to row distance

Potato: Two varieties from Federal Research (Gudene, Belete) & one variety from Regional Research if available

Seed rate: 2,000 kg/ha; 2,400 sqm per variety i.e. 480 kg per variety for 24 farmers, each 3 plots of 100 m-2 with 3 different potato varieties

Fertilizer Rate: 195 kg DAP/ha & 165 kg Urea/ha; 140 kg of DAP and 120 kg of Urea needed for 24 farmers @ 300 sqm of potato per farmer

Row planting: 0.75 to 0.25 m row to row distance

Double Cropping if possible: Attempt to follow potato crop with early maturing chickpea (or grasspea, vetch) which is planted immediately after potato harvest to use residual soil moisture

Fababean: Two varieties from Federal Research & one variety from Regional Research

Attempt to relay or early maturing chickpea (or grasspea, vetch) into maturing fababean crop to use residual soil moisture.

Seed rate: 200 kg/ha; 2400 m-2 per variety, 48 kg per variety needed for 24 farmers (each farmer 3 plots of 100 m-2 with 3 different fababean varieties

Fertilizer Rate: 100 kg DAP/ha, 72 kg of DAP needed for 24 farmers @ 300 m-2 of fababean per farmer. The indicated quantities of fertilizers are all applied during planting time.

Row planting: 0.4 m row to row distance and 5-10 cm between plants (7 cm is optimal plant spacing distance).

Attempt to relay or early maturing chickpea (or grasspea, vetch) into maturing fababean crop to use residual soil moisture.

Communications and knowledge Simret Yasabu has Joined Africa RISING as the new research communication specialist as of March 11 2013. She does 50% for the Ethiopia Project and 50% for the program. This section focuses on the activities for the Ethiopia project.

In terms of knowledge sharing and learning, the main communication channels supported are:

 Wiki page(africa-rising.wikispaces.com)  Project updates on the program website (africa-rising.net) o Africa RISING Ethiopia project completes livelihoods survey for eight sites: http://africa-rising.net/2013/06/10/survey/ o Africa RISING initiates market and value chain studies in Ethiopia: http://africa- rising.net/2013/09/06/market-studies/ o ICRAF team visit Africa RISING sites to assess progress on the local knowledge field work http://africa-rising.net/2013/08/30/icraf-team/ o Photofilm training to better document and communicate agricultural research in Ethiopia: http://africa-rising.net/2013/07/30/photofilms/ o “I really like to plough, though I get tired afterwards” – Worknesh Gurmesa: http://africa-rising.net/2013/04/20/worknesh-gurmesa/ o Africa RISING trainers in Ethiopia learn to use the SLATE sustainable livelihoods asset evaluation tool: http://africa-rising.net/2013/04/10/slate/ o Africa RISING uses IMPACT-Lite survey tool to document baseline data in Ethiopia: http://africa-rising.net/2013/09/08/impactlite/  The project was represented at the ILRI annual planning meetings (May) and the FARA Africa Science Week (July).

In terms of publishing, various reports and outputs have been published on cgspace (cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/16498 ) and Slideshare (slideshare.net/africa-rising)

Publications(reports, brochures ,newsletters ) Posters Recognizing local agro-ecological knowledge in Africa RISING in the Ethiopian Highlands: Improving sustainable intensification of tree-crop-livestock farming food security and farm incomes through systems: cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33559 sustainable intensification of crop-livestock systems: cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33269

Challenges and opportunities identified with local communities: Intensification of farming systems in the highlands of Ethiopia: cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33789

An introduction to the sustainable livelihoods framework: cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/27934

Piloting SLATE in the Ethiopian Highlands: Process and key lessons: cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/27933

In addition to these, a generic power point presentation was finalized for the project in the Ethiopian highlands. This will help to have a consistence in presenting the project.

In terms of internal collaboration, the team organized and supported various meetings and workshops including:

 A monthly partners meeting: it has always been mentioned that there is a need and a mechanism for internal collaboration for all the CG partners involved in the Africa RISING project in the Ethiopian highlands. In line with this the communication team has set up a monthly meeting where by all the partners meet every month face to face (those who can’t joins in through online) to update progress , share challenges and plans.  Yammer network: this web based tool is a professional Facebook page where by staffs and partners share what they are up to the rest of the member in the network. The communication team also share new information coming out of the project as well as invite new member to join the group and share what they have.

In terms of project documentation, the communication team helped in capturing, documenting, organizing and sharing the outputs in the form of reports, pictures and blog posts

 SLATE training: the communication team helped in organizing as well as facilitating, documenting this training which was conducted from 1-5 April 2013. Simret also facilitated the Survey work which took place from 19-25 May 2013 in Amhara Region  Market and Value chain team meeting: the communication team participated in this meeting , contributed in designing the questionarie as well as writing and posting a blog post  Photos from the field were captured and shared at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/africa- rising/sets/72157635258726404/

Alongside more classical research communication, the project explored multimedia formats like video and photographs as tools to enrich multi-way communication. As part of this Africa RISING in the Ethiopian highlands organised photofilm (digital stories) training for selected staff from the ILRI Addis Ababa campus to advance their skills. The four day training was provided by Duckrabbit . The training covered the basics of photo filming, including defining the story itself, audio recording, interviewing, photos, and editing software.

Staff Annet Mulema joined ILRI in August 2013 with a 50 per cent time allocation to Africa RISING. Annet is a gender specialist who will support the development and implementation of a gender plan for the Ethiopian Highlands that will mainstream gender in our research. Annet will also conduct her own research on gender issues in relation to sustainable intensification that will contribute to the Africa RISING research outputs.

The project also appointed site coordinators for each of the four participating regions:

Region / woreda/Kebele Coordinator Amhara / Basona Werana/ Goshe Bado and Gudo Beret Temesgen Alene Oromia/Sinana/ Salka and Ilu-Sanbitu Adissu Asfaw South Tigray/ Endamekoni/ Emba-Hazti and Tsibet Mohammed Ebrahim SNNPR/ Lemo/ Jawe and Upper-Gana Workneh Dubale

The coordinators took up their responsibilities in late September / early October. These revolve mainly around the facilitation of researcher partner interactions at their sites both in terms of logistic and budgetary support.

Annex 1: SLATE implementation reports Slate implementation in Maychew, South Tigray The survey was undertaken in Tigray Region in Maychew Zone. The woreda is Endamehoni and we have conducted the Sustainable Livelihood AsseT Evaluation – SLATE assessment in two kebeles Tsibet and Embahasti.

19 May 2013 – Zelalem travel from Addis and arrived Makele in the morning and met some of the resource person in Mekele. On the same day a team from Mekele and another team from Alamata Agricultural Research Centre traveled to Maychew and met each other. In the evening we made a short meeting for introducing each other and also a brief explanation of what is planned for each day that the team is going to work on the survey and a good understanding was created through question and answer. The draft manual was copied and given for all for further reading and preparation of the survey.

The team is composed of twelve resource persons. Two females are from Mekele University, one from TARI, one from CIP, two from Endamehoni Woreda and six from Alamata Agricultural Research Centre. The team was then divided in to two by making sure that each team has a woreda resource person for guiding in the kebele and again each team is also having at least two or three trained resource person for helping the others when required.

We have also discussed the issue of paying per-diem or giving in kind for farmers interviewed. We discussed that Africa RAISING/ILRI is more interested to give it in kind to compensate their time and also we would like to also keep an eye on not to spoil the per-diem environment or the existing trend of the woreda. The woreda level participant as resource persons were explained to us about the current trend of the per-diem issue for farmers and they said that there are a lot of NGOs operating in the site who are paying per-diem for farmers. They suggested that paying the per-diem which rate is 35 Birr per day is better to keep the current trend otherwise the farmers might not be interested in taking it in kind. All the team members agreed to pay the per-diem for farmers.

20 May 2013 – all the team members meet early morning and have had breakfast. We have two car rent and one CIP pick up. Both team traveled to each kebele and did focus group discussion with 15 farmers selected for the livelihood indicator identification. They were selected in advance by DAs using selection criteria including gender and different wealth category of SLATE. It was facilitated by Tesfaye from TARI in one kebele and Gebrehiwote from CIP in another kebele using local language- Tigrigna. We face a problem of road to access Tsibet kebele and we were communicating the DAs by phone and finally we decided to walk about an hour to reach the farmers. The farmers and the DAs also walking to us and we met in the middle to do the identification of the indicator. The road was under construction by rural road authority. The road authority head was by motor bike and he found us we stack in the middle and he was briefed us that the road was damaged by the big rain and that killed also farmers’ livestock.

The community livelihood indicators were identified by the communities in both kebeles. The community identified the indicators easily but the time taking was the ranking. Finally we traveled back to Maychew and we met in the evening to plan for the next day activities.

21 May 2013 – we met early morning as usual and both team from both kebeles met to discuss on each indicators and merge it to develop similar questionnaire. Almost all were found similar indicators and when we found one indicator not found in the other we have added it. Then we have developed the questionnaire and print it for testing it. Then the team members were trying to ask each other by being pair and check it if there is a problem with the questionnaire. After a brief discussion on the pre-test then we collected the necessary feedbacks and together adjusted the

questionnaire. After a consensus was reached then we have printed 26 questionnaires for each team and make ready for the survey in the next day.

Gebrehiwote and Zelalem with a resource person from the woreda called Hagos met the woreda Adminstrator to discuss the issue of the road to Tsibet kebele. We shared what we faced on the first day when we travel to Tsibet. He has also the information about the road which was damaged by big rain which also affects the farm lands of the farmers. He said he didn’t have any information that the team of Africa RAISING is going to be in the woreda to do survey. In the future he said if Gebrehiwote in advance told me if there is this kind of work he will organize communities through food for work to rehabilitate the road. Currently the Rural Road Authority is in charge of constructing the road and according to the plan it will be completed within two month. He promised that because of the road issue any development issue won’t be stack and they will take immediate measures to rehabilitate.

22 May 2013 - both team traveled to each kebele for the household survey. The DAs brought all the farmers in the morning and we interviewed those households who are women who are in a hurry first. Both team managed to interview the entire questionnaire planned for the day. The problem we face here was that the drivers for the car rented refused to go to Tsibet on the damaged gravel road and we manage to use the CIP car to take all the team to Tsibet.

23 May 2013- the household survey continued and both teams in both kebeles manage to interview the planned number of farmers for the day. All the team members were committed including the women to do the survey and complete the planned even without having lunch.

24 May 2013 – the household survey was completed in the morning and we manage to have a meeting at the end to get their feed backs on the survey tool and also their participation. Before the discussion they were interested to see how the tool I working in their laptop

All the team members discussed and there general feedbacks on their future participation and the current survey are given below.

Feedbacks:

- The partnership should be formal. The resource persons from research centres shows their big interest to collaborate with Africa RAISING in a consistent way that they can be of useful to the project as well as also getting capacity building and knowledge from the project too. In order to happen this they suggested that Africa RAISING project should partner with their research centers in formal way so that the participation of these resource persons will be acknowledged and get supported. - They have also commented on the ranking of the indicators which is time taking for farmers to understand and rank it. It is better to make it simple and use different ranking method. - They would love to get the report of the survey - They appreciated the team work and all the commitments from all side - The facilitation was good and all the arrangements made in advance make things simple - The woreda administrators and the communities were supportive and committed

We have also discussed with the team about the on-farm activity plans and they have the following feed backs to mainly involve research centers on the activity:

Points:

- The partnership should be official for their involvement in the on-farm activities - Since the farmers have already allocated their lands for the current season planting we should do it very quickly the farmer selection, the variety selection and other preparation

- The partners like ALamata ARC should take the responsibility of their roles (variety selection and allocation) - It is nice to have the approved varieties for scaling up - They have commented on the land size allocated for the on-farm is verl less and Gebrehiwote explained that the land size indicated for the on-farm is a minimum - Focal persons should be identified for the project representing different institutions/partners in Tigray including the existing ones. Tesfaye for TARI, Kidane for Alamata ARC, Gebrehiwote for CIP Tigray, and Mikinay for Mekele University

SLATE implementation in Lemo, SNNPR Objectives and approaches of the survey:

. The objective of the livelihood survey was to identify farm typologies that would enable targeting of interventions at AR research sites. . A total of 75 households per kebele were targeted for the survey. Out of the 75 households, 15 households per kebele were used for the identification of livelihood indicators and 60 households for the household survey activities. The composition of the sample households was diverse in terms of wealth (low, intermediate and better off households), sex (male and female), age, leadership of the household (male headed and female headed) and location within the Kebele.

Processes of the survey:

Day 1 - Resource persons from ILRI, Areka and Worabe Research Centers, Wachamo University, Lemo Wereda and Hadiya Zone Office of Agriculture, and CIP met in Hosahina town (Table 1). The resource persons raised several issues in relation to survey procedures, selection of farmers, SLATE tool, group formation, formulation of indicators and incentives to be given for farmers that would participate in the survey. The issue of incentive for farmers was debated and finally the resource persons decided to provide some soft drinks and bread. The resource persons discouraged incentives in terms of money and other materials as these approaches believed to have negative impact on the local system and create dependency. The 12 resource persons divided into 2 groups to cover the identification of indicators and survey in the two kebeles.

Day 2 and 3 - The two groups of the resource persons went to their respective kebeles. The group members met the farmers that were selected for the identification of indictors. Introduction among farmers, researchers and DAs were made. The resource persons briefed the objectives of the survey and the upcoming collaborative research agendas and approaches to the farmers. A total of 15 farm households per Kebele were identified. The 15 farm households were grouped into male and female categories. Each group identified livelihood indicators representing their sex groups of the respective kebeles. The groups from the two kebeles tried to merge and produce consolidate indicators. The consolidated indicators were discussed thoroughly and used for the preparation of the household questionnaire. Finally, the household questionnaire was pre-tested, improved and printed.

Day 4, 5 and 6 - A total of 60 households per kebele were interviewed within three days’ time. On average a resource person managed to interview 4 households per day. A number of approaches were used during the survey to simplify and make sure farmers understand the indicators. Drawing pictures that represent indicators, translating the indicators in to Amharic and writing them on flipcharts, use of maize seeds for weighting, and reading indicators repeatedly were some of the approaches used depending on the level of understanding of the interviewed farm households.

Reflection and discussion after the survey:

At the end of the survey, the resource persons met to reflect the challenges and opportunities and observations from the livelihood survey exercises, discuss on how to strengthen communications among resource persons, share information on the plan concerning the upcoming on-farm research activities.

Feedbacks/observations from the resource persons on the livelihood survey:

. Have we managed to use the indicators in standardized ways? . The indicators were very many and it was difficult for farmers to capture all and give weight. . Indictors of the human and social capital were difficult for farmers to understand. There should be an attempt to make the indicators easy so that the farmers relate them to their current livelihood . Some farmers could not express their ideas. As a result, much time was used to get information from these types of farmers. . The composition of female households seems less as compared to the male household heads. . There are some cases where the wife rather than the husband participated in the household interview. There are also cases where some farmers have two wives and one of the wives invited for the interview. It may be important to revisit and define the term “household head”. . Some selected farmers could not join the survey at the planned date and time due to social reasons. . The understanding of some of the resource persons on the slate tool (survey instrument) should be improved as the household survey work requires time and talent of the interviewer. . “Weight” in the slate tool need to be seen and re-designed in a simpler way. . The selection of farmers for the livelihood survey requires participation of most of the project partners to make sure having good representation of households. . The location for interviewing farmers should not necessarily be at a central place. It should be in a place that is accessible and closer to the interviewee farmers. . Some work should be done on slate tool (data entry or input and output) to make it workable and flexible.

On-farm research:

The facilitator from ILRI presented the objectives and proposed experimental set up of the upcoming on-farm research that will be conducted at all AR sites. The resource persons of the different institutions suggested the following issues for consideration while designing and implementing the on-farm research activities:

. Care on farmers and plots selection for the on-farm research . Arrangements on seed revolving system . The issue of compensation in case crop loss because of introduced technologies . Training for famers on the management of the on-farm research . Farmers need assessment on the on-farm interventions . Introduction of improved beehives technologies and poultry breeds . Milk and Enset processing technologies . Development of M&E on-farm research protocol

SLATE implementation in Basona Werana, Amhara Background: Africa RISING livelihoods survey was conducted from 19 -25 May 2013 in all the eight Africa RISING research sites/kebels. This short and brief report presents the one which was conducted in Goshe Bado and Gudo Beret of Basona Worena woreda in Amhara region.

Team composition: a total of 12 resource person from Debre Berhan Agricultural Research Canter, Basona Worena Agriculture office and Debre Berhan University and three people from Africa RISING took part in the survey.

Preparation: based on the criteria developed by Africa RISING , 75 farmers were selected among which 15 participated in the livelihood indicator identification and the remaining 60 participated in the household survey.

Gender balance: in both Kebels the Development Agents tried to include both men and women for the livelihood indicator identification as well as the household survey. However, the number of men by far exceeded the number of women.

Weekdays break down based on activities:

 Sunday (19 /09/2013): Martha, Simret and Beliyou arrived in Debre Berhan, had a short discussion with the resource person how the selection of farmers went and how to do the work on Monday and the days ahead  Monday(20/09/2013): all the resource person and the facilitators meet around 7:30 and split in two group and went to the two kebels  Monday (20/09/2013): before lunch time livelihood assets indicators identification was conducted in each Keble with the selected farmers  Monday (20/09/2013): after lunch all the resource person and facilitators came together in one office which our resource person from Debre Berhan University provided. There was debriefing about how the morning went with the farmers while identifying livelihood indicators, and discussed how to merge the two Kebels indicators in one list.  Tuesday (21/09/2013): all the resource persons and facilitators came together in the morning. They then split into their respective kebels to merge the livelihood indicators of the kebels identified by the men and women groups. Later the two kebels were merged as one list which served as livelihood asset indicators for both Kebels(for the woreda). The same day the indicators were entered in the SLATE software and then people were selected to do a role play to exercise how they handle the interview with individual farmers.  Wednesday (22/09/2013): before lunch time the resource person in each Keble conducted the individual household interviews with selected farmers. Though it was planned to do 24 farmers in each Kebels, in one of the kebels the group did 28 and in the other 14.  Wednesday (22/09/2013): on Wednesday afternoon all the resource person got together and discussed what went well and what didn’t went well.  Thursday (23/09/2013): the individual household interview continued in each of the kebels  Friday (24/09/2013): the final day of the survey work where by all the remaining farmers were interviewed in both kebels.  Friday (24/09/2013): late afternoon all the resource person and facilitator got together and did a reflection session and reviewed the whole process, the survey, the tool and the challenges.

Outputs:

 Livelihoods asset indicators where identified in both Kebels

 A total of 120 survey questionnaires where completed based on the household survey conducted

Challenges:

 Incentive for the farmers: what to give,  Time punctuality,  Unavailability of farmers : some days were working days,  At some point some farmers were leaving not to wait too long to be interviewed,  Some confusion in understanding the difference between weighting and scoring.

Feedbacks from Resource Person:

 There were some un clarity when we started however things got clearer as we go on,  We were worried that we may not finish by the end of the week  There was good team spirit and commitment,  The facilitators were sociable/easy to talk to and supportive,  There were some concerns about time punctuality,  We learnt from each other,  On the questionnaire the scoring and the weighting was a bit difficult at the beginning,  There was lots of discussion, debate which were very helpful,  We have learnt that social and human assets being considers as contributors for sustainable livelihood  We have learnt a new software,  It would have been good to get the manual ahead of the actual survey ,  Some words where a bit confusing e.g Gender of the household. Which we thought should have been sex of the household,  It would be good to have the name of the interviewer at the first page of the questionnaire,  Going house to house to get all those farmers who were not able to come to the center were a good solution,  The role play was good, it helped all the resource person to learn and improve on how to handle the interview with farmer ,  The incentive for the farmers was good,  It would be good to have a proper training before the actual work(for those people who were not part of the SLATE training),  We appreciated how the questionnaire was developed ,that is, we went to the selected farmers and got the indicators in a participatory way and developed the questions based on that  It would be helpful if a certificate is issued for all the resource person showing that they participated in the survey  Refreshment needs to be available during the field work, bottled water, candies and chewing gums

SLATE implementation in Sinana, Oromia Itinerary:

Date Time Activities 05.19.2013 Travel to Bale Robe 05.20.2013 Morning Briefing the resource persons about indicators development and then travel to Ilu-Sanbitu and Selka kebeles and develop Livelihood Asset indicators Late afternoon Compilation and merging of the men and women groups indicators for respective sites 05.21.2013 Morning Discussion and enrichment of the compiled indicators and explain how to weight and score the indicators. Afternoon Pre-testing the questionnaire at Hora-Boka kebele 05.22.2013 Full day Day I. conduct household survey at both kebeles 05.23.2013 Morning Day II. Household surveying continued Afternoon Debriefing on the progress and modifying what went wrong 05.24.2013 Morning Day III. Finalizing the survey exercise Afternoon Update the resource persons regarding the follow up actions and rap up of the survey exercise 05.25.2013 Travel back to home

Process followed/approaches/ and Achievement:

Process followed in the course of indicators development and conducting the SLATE household level survey for Selka and Ilu-Sanbitu kebeles are presented below:

1. Orientation:

In order to enable the resource persons internalize the essence of Livelihood capital assessment and conduct respective activities in the best way, brief highlight and discussion was made on how they can brief the key informant and respondent farmers in turn for the indicators development and HH survey. We took some moments on briefing and debriefing so as to make sure everybody understood well. Therefore, we were convinced that the facilitation could effectively be done, farmers fully engaged and reliable information can be generated.

In such a way, the importance of introducing ourselves and the purpose of SLATE survey and how to get knowing each other and the follow up actions like splitting the key informants in to men and women groups and how to probe for indicators based on the type of topics were clarified well before deploying the resource persons to the actual work. We were confident that the conversation we have made among ourselves would certainly help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the resource persons. Besides, the enumerators/resource persons were advised to let the key informants air their views/ perception about the five Livelihood Capital Assets to make sure they understood the terms explained to them so that the objective of the exercise can easily be addressed.

2. Tips for the SLATE exercise:

Tips on how to generate indicators and other necessary/relevant information were succinctly explained to all resource persons. The following were some of the points remarked to adhere in to it during the indicators development and household survey work:

 Clearly explain the essence and purpose of the SLATE exercise to key informants/respondents,  Continue probing until you get precise answer,  Engage farmers to speak out by giving chance to all than relying only on few farmers,  Make the questions clear and precise,  Avoid wrong question and ask the farmers for unclear issues/points,  Try to remain neutral during interviewing, pay close attention and avoid imposition,  Explain to the key informant farmers about the follow up actions, and  Thanks for their time. 3. Group formation:

Eventually, the eleven resource persons drawn from Sinana Agricultural Research Center, Mada Walabu University, Sinana district livestock agency and Woreda office of agriculture were split in to two groups: the Selka and Ilu-Sanbitu. As follow up, selection of two facilitator and two rapporteurs for men and women group was made for both sites. Accordingly, the following categories with their respective roles were made for the indicator development.

Group I- Ilu-Sanbitu kebele

1. Sultan Usman: from Sinana ARC- men group facilitator 2. Alemayehu Wudineh: from Mada Walabu University – men group rapporteur 3. Shure Soboka: from Sinana ARC- women group facilitator 4. Dereje Deresso: from M/W University – rapporteur 5. Eshetu Adugna: from Sinana woreda livestock agency office and 6. Chimdessa Buchou: from Sinana woreda OA group member and participant

Group II-Selka kebeles

1. Dawit Habate: from Sinana ARC – men group facilitator 2. Ahmed Aliyi: from M/W/University- men group rapporteur 3. Mohammed Abinasa: from Sinana ARC – women group facilitator 4. Tamiru Ketema from Sinana woreda Office of Agriculture-rapporteur and 5. Gezahegn Tefera from Sinana woreda OA participant

Accordingly, indicators for the livelihood capital assets for both sites were identified and compilation for the men and women groups was finalized late in the afternoon on day I based on the guideline provided to each group. Cross checking for the similarity of the men and women group was made for respective sites. Ultimately, unfocussed issues in one group were made to be reconsidered in the new list developed by respective sites. Then site based compilation was done overnight for the follow-up actions.

Figure 1 Indicators developing exercise for men and women group at Ilu-Sanbitu kebele

4. Reviewing the indicators:

We have thoroughly assessed the developed indicators, enriched it including the basic data and strictly focused on how to give weight and score to the indicators. The team has paid much attention to digest each indicator well so that common understanding on how to score the indicators could be reached. The review session was very productive and useful to get everyone at the same level/understanding.

Figure 2 Reviewing and enriching the indicators

5. Pre-testing the questionnaire:

The pretesting was organized at Hora-Boka kebele about 5 km away from Zonal town. We arranged one farmer for two resource person each so that they could learn not only from the feedback from the respondent but also from one another on how to forward the questions. It is with the intention that the two enumerators were complementing each other while forwarding questions and has ultimately come back with productive comments and queries for further clarification. Major comments from the pretest are:

 Importance of time management,  As indicators were listed in order of their importance, weighting/scoring has to follow similar trends (important to contrast indicators with in the same family, the lower with the upper one),  Necessity to use gesture in addition to wording to elaborate the distinction between the negative vs. positive scores

 Improve clarity of the questions while forwarding so that it would be possible to generate relevant and reliable information, and  Resource persons faced difficulties on weighting and scoring that requires more clarification and consensus reaching mainly in relation to facilitation efficiency.

Figure 3 Pretesting exercise at Hora-Boka kebele

6. Conducting the household survey:

On 22 May 2013, the household survey carried out at both kebeles. Accordingly, Ilu-Sanbitu group conducted 38 HH survey, whereas the Selka group accomplished 29 HH survey. As the next day (Thursday) is the market day especially for Sanbitu resident, more respondent came for the interview on the first day.

Figure 4 Household survey

7. Evaluation of filled questionnaires:

After the first round interview exercise, rapid assessment of the filled questionnaire was made. The following points that need correction were identified to make minor adjustments according to the comments. I believed that listing and updating each indicator with ambiguity and flaws back to the resource persons would help for future follow up while supervising/mentoring the enumerators on job.

 Under “financial capital assets” indicators like “sale of milk and milk product” and “Crop residue”, the weight and score column received zero-zero but the reason was not indicated.

In that case it would be good to suggest/reason out. Since a given family can entirely consume the product or feed the CR to their animal. This shouldn’t mean that they didn’t have the product from both the cows and crops even though they didn’t convert in to money.  Again under “financial capital indicator”, if the enumerators gave weight for “fattening” and “handicrafts” they are supposed to name the type of animals or the specific handicrafts either in the brace or under suggestion column.  Under “physical capital indicators” if access to certain institutions is weighted/scored (in our case like Sinana ARC, Mada Walabu University and the Bank) the benefit obtained from each institute should be explained clearly to avoid the expected potential benefit and come up with the actual one.  Under “social capital indicator”, the so called “Idir” is a kind of social institution whereby multiple benefits can be obtained from it. In some other places, it is established only to offer funeral services. Therefore, after weighting/scoring, it would also be good to suggest the benefit they could access than leaving the suggestion column blank.  Not appropriate to score for natural forest, where there is no forest. This information helps to avoid the potential evaluation made by one /two persons.  If somebody has received the so called social support/gift from certain groups in the community. It is advisable to mention its type (may be in kind or cash…) & how s/he benefited from.  “Social support” and “responsiveness to emergency” were weighted /scored by some both for the recipient and the giver. It was suggested to focus on the beneficiary/the recipient only.  Weight and score for some crop species were given as zero-zero. This doesn’t reveal whether the crop is neither produced nor sold to generate income under “the financial capital indicator”. In that case it is good to reason out than leaving the suggestion box/column blank as there is big difference between not produced and not sold.  It was also suggested to mention the benefit of possessing the cellphone than only scoring  Some person oversight converting the local unit in to the SI unit, this was corrected.  There was mix up of access to a given “physical assets” with the possession of that asset itself. This was also corrected and  On weight/score column some use dash for zero, so were advised to convert to zero

Overall, meticulous supervision would help to mitigate possible emergence of flaws that might be tedious to correct it later. We have found that the suggestion made were very important to avoid mistakes. Therefore, some issues which are implicit need great cautions and clarity to the enumerators before set out for the action. We as the team agreed more to focus collecting suggestion more on indicator that needs extraordinary explanation to avoid an oversight. Otherwise, capturing suggestion/reasons on each and every one of the indicators might be time intensive. Accordingly, productive comments were captured to enable generation of important information from the hh survey exercises.

8. Update of the Africa RISING project immediate agendas:

The follow up actions intended to be conducted by the project explained to the resource persons drawn from Sinana Agricultural research, M/W University, woreda livestock agency and office of Agriculture. The intention to pilot three different crops (bread wheat, faba bean and Irish potato) and three different new varieties each on 9 innovative (volunteer) farmers for each kebele was updated. The introduction of packages of relevant practices along with the varieties was deliberated. In addition, introduction and intensification of fodder/forage and Multipurpose trees (MPTs) was also another issue that supposed to integrate with the newly introduced varieties of crops. Water

harvesting structure/shallow wells/ and the use of rope and washer for off season irrigation practice for vegetable production is another point addressed during the course of discussion.

Alongside with these, the presence of vibrant and functional Farmers Training Center (FTC) and committed DAs and innovative (volunteer) farmers are the basic to take forward the new technologies plus effective indigenous management practices. Innovative farmers will also serve as potential seed source for future scale up/out of successful and adaptable technologies. Therefore, integration of these multiple activities on the selected farmers would be appreciated for good impact as it could play key role for dissemination of intensified and successful system.

In the end, partners were told to be fair enough during farmers’ selection including the gender balance, possession of adequate land like 500m2 to demonstrate a given variety. Eventually, the DAs and all other stakeholders have to stay contemplating in mind whom to involve and where to start before disclosing the agenda to the community. Partners were advised to keep on in contact with the project staff for further information and actions. Hence, what to be done? when, where and the how to do will be informed in meantime.

9. Final Reflection and feedback to the update:

All participants were happy about the joint SLATE survey exercises. They were positively reflect on the interactive nature of the exercise which they called it more engaging and demand oriented as it entails the farmers and other partners from indicator identification to the realization of the survey. The resource persons anticipate some potentials and threats on the planned future intervention.

The potentials:

 Sinana ARC has released two new varieties of potato, last year. The intervention would be a nice opportunity to popularize the locally released varieties than introducing the new one from different agro ecology that might requires further adaptation trials,  There are also diverse forage and MPTs with Sinana ARC. Notably, two recently released fodder oats; they have also Napier grass, fodder vetch, perennial grass and MPTs like (Sesbania and Tree Lucerne).  There is functional FTC in one of the site. In the other one (Selka), even if, the existing FTC is not functional, the farmers were reported as vanguard to uptake and adapt technologies

Concerns/possible threats/:

 Develop suspect on whether the project can sources/supplies the intended varieties within short period of time  They suspect whether some varieties released elsewhere can easily fit/adapt to the area. In case of failure they anticipate whether there are mitigation strategy/options.  In Ilu-Sanbitu kebele red ant is dangerous pest that infest and cause failure to potato production  Suggested that planting potato during short rain (Belg) would have been good to reduce risk of late blight that commonly happen during the long rain;  They are happy to see/get farmers selection criteria for DAs, if available,  Chocolate spot is also another possible limitation to Faba bean in the woreda  Predetermination of the potential and constraints by base lining or other rapid assessment helps to preclude some uncertainties

Observations:

 State farm has been known as very important institution that supplies farmers with improved crop varieties/seeds. Unfortunately, it has escaped the key informants’ attention

while developing the indicators. I suggested pointing out the benefit obtained as “footnote” or under the suggestion column.

Challenges:

 Female farmers were not selected for the household survey as a result, it demanded us huge effort to get them involved  DAs who were involved in selection of farmers were deployed for over week long training away from the district. It has created some inconvenience on mobilizing and working together.

Conclusions:

Overall, the discussion and revision made for indicator development, continuous follow up of the process and readjustment efforts have helped to successfully complete the household survey. The final update of the Africa RISING project plan and partners feedback on the update went well and related information documented. It was generally very productive trip on which balancing of gender virtually addressed as sample frame for t study sample selection. Besides, the exercise gave the opportunity for partners to learn from and it has built their perception on Sustainable Livelihood Capital Asset assessments.

Annex 2: Summary from SLATE analysis for Goshe Bado Kebele, Amhara

Stratification by Livelihood Benchmarks The top and bottom 25% of households on the basis of their average livelihood capital asset score are identified. These two strata can be used as a basis for further community diagnostics using other tools (e.g. the PCA or more specific tools such as FEAST / Techfit). The key characteristics of the two strata are summarised below.

Summary of Differences in Capital Asset Scores amongst Benchmarking Groups Benchmarking Financial Natural Social Human Physical Mean group Top 25% 17.1 19.4 38.1 33.3 26.7 21.8 Middle 11.1 15.4 21.4 24.0 16.2 14.8 Bottom 25% 5.1 9.7 13.0 15.3 10.0 9.0

Summary of Differences in Household Structures amongst Benchmarking Groups Benchmarking group Family size Ratio of males : Proportion of active females family members Top 25% 5.6 1.3 0.62 Middle 5.8 1.1 0.55 Bottom 25% 5.2 0.9 0.63

Summary of Differences in Land Holdings amongst Benchmarking Groups Benchmarking group Total land area Area of non-crop land People per ha of cropped (ha) (ha) cropped land Top 25% 1.05 0.63 7.3 Middle 1.23 0.43 6.0 Bottom 25% 1.18 0.43 4.7

Summary of Livestock Populations and Densities amongst Benchmarking Groups Benchmarking Livestock Livestock units Livestock units Ratio of Livestock groups population / ha land / ha non-crop large : small units / person (TLU) holding land stock Top 25% 3.3 4.3 6.4 0.45 0.67 Middle 3.7 3.8 10.4 0.32 0.76 Bottom 25% 2.7 2.5 8.4 0.48 0.68

Statistical Typology Four strata extracted by a cluster analysis on the principal components of the livelihood capital assets data. The key characteristics of the four strata are summarised below.

Summary of Differences in Capital Asset Scores amongst Cluster Groups Cluster Financial Natural Social Human Physical Mean

group 1 4.4 8.3 11.2 15.0 7.2 7.7 2 9.7 13.6 19.0 20.1 13.7 12.2 3 15.2 17.7 25.7 29.7 20.9 18.2 4 11.0 16.7 37.4 29.1 25.4 20.0

Financial

1. Resource poor Physical Natural 2. Labour constrained 3. Livestock specialists (?) 4. Intensifying

Human Social

Summary of Differences in Household Demographics amongst Cluster Groups Cluster group Family size Males : Females Economically active : inactive 1 4.7 1.22 0.67 2 5.8 0.90 0.52 3 5.8 1.25 0.66 4 5.1 1.33 0.59

Summary of Differences in Land Holdings amongst Cluster Groups Benchmarking group Total land area Area of non-crop land People per ha of cropped (ha) (ha) cropped land 1 1.15 0.54 3.8 2 1.16 0.43 5.7 3 1.26 0.52 5.0 4 1.05 0.53 9.8

Summary of Livestock Populations and Densities amongst Cluster Groups Cluster Livestock Livestock units Livestock units Ratio of Livestock units groups population / ha land / ha non-crop large : small / person (TLU) holding land stock 1 2.8 2.0 6.4 0.22 0.64 2 3.3 3.3 9.1 0.43 0.59 3 3.4 3.1 10.0 0.43 0.68 4 3.6 6.1 7.3 0.33 0.96

Summary of Livestock Holding Structures amongst Cluster Groups Cluster Cattle Draught oxen Small ruminants Donkeys Chickens group 1 0.8 1.7 9.8 0.7 4.2 2 1.8 1.4 8.3 1.0 3.8 3 1.8 1.5 13.2 0.7 4.1 4 1.7 1.6 10.0 0.7 5.1

Interpretation of Cluster Groups Cluster Interpretation group 1 A relatively small group of the really resource poor, constrained by just about everything. 2 Relatively labour constrained but not especially resource poor. 3 Relatively resource rich and financially secure. Some indications of a specialisation in livestock. 4 Larger, “intensifying” families relatively unconstrained by labour, in this community, these appear to be the most prosperous households. Livestock appear to play a role here. Benefit strongly from social capital.

All farmers in Goshe Bado clearly face numerous issues that are likely to compromise their ability to intensify. Foremost amongst these would appear to be stable access to NRs. There are also problems with input supply and market information / access. Livestock are highly valued in the community (appearing strongly in the principal components analysis) but many households do not appear to be deriving great benefits from them. Whilst there appears to be a good awareness in the community of the value of water management, it is not clear to what extent they are currently benefiting from innovation in this area. Overall, households in Goshe Bado are probably less differentiated than those we worked with in Bekoji but there are still quite clearly defined groups whose needs are likely to differ significantly. As the basic aim of this exercise was to identify such groups then I think it has given us a solid base to work from.

Annex 3: IMPACT Lite survey questionnaire