proceeding of the workshop on cbpwdg and pastoral area …€¦ · web view · 2018-02-19update...

Proceedings of the Consultation Workshop on Community Based Participatory Watershed Development and Pastoral Area Guidelines

Revision,&

Integrated Watershed Development Strategy and Establishment of Multi-Stakeholder Platform

Executive Hotel, Adama, EthiopiaFebruary 1 - 3, 2018

Workshop Proceeding - NRMD Feb. 1 -3, 2018

Ministry of agriculture and Natural ResourcesNatural Resource Management Directorate

ContentsAcronyms and Abbreviations...............................................................................................................3

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................4

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................5

Opening Speech....................................................................................................................................10

Summaries of Presentations................................................................................................................11

Part I: Guideline Revisions and Updating.........................................................................................11

1. Overview on CBPWD and Pastoral Area PW Guidelines.........................................................11

2. Preliminary Gap assessment of the CBPWD and Pastoral PW Guidelines...............................13

2.1 Community Based Participatory Watershed Development Guideline..................................13

2.1.1 Policy Issues:.....................................................................................................................13

2.1.2 Institutional Issues:............................................................................................................13

2.1.3 Local Knowledge, Values and Practices...........................................................................14

2.1.4 Technology........................................................................................................................14

2.1.5 Socio-Economic.................................................................................................................17

2.1.6 Environmental and Climate Change..................................................................................17

2.1.7 Sustainability.....................................................................................................................18

2.1.8 Watershed Management Approach....................................................................................18

2.1.9 Gender Related Issues:......................................................................................................19

2.1.10 Guideline Comprehensiveness/Ease of Application..........................................................19

2.2 Pastoral Area Public Works Guideline..................................................................................20

2.3 Summaries of Discussions on Preliminary Gaps Assessment on Guidelines........................21

3. CSI input in to the Community Based Participatory Watershed Development Guideline........25

4. The Draft TOR for Updating the Guidelines.............................................................................28

5. Thought Exercise.......................................................................................................................35

Part II: Integrated Watershed Development Strategy, Agro-forestry and Establishment of Multi Stakeholders Platform.........................................................................................................................39

1. Integrated Watershed Development Strategy............................................................................39

2. Agro forestry situation for development in Ethiopia.................................................................41

3. Establishing Multi-Stakeholders Watershed Platform...............................................................43

6. Conclusions, Next Steps............................................................................................................46

Closing Remarks..................................................................................................................................47

Annexes:................................................................................................................................................48

Annex 1: Workshop Participants.......................................................................................................48


Acronyms and AbbreviationsCBPWD Community Based Participatory Watershed Development

GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance

CVCA Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment

CRGE Climate Reselience Green Economy

EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

FCA Federal Cooperative Agency

GIZ SURED Giz - Sustainable Utilization of Resources for Economic Development

GTP Growth and Transformation Plan

CSI Climate Smart Initiative

IWSD Integrated Watershed Strategy Development

MoFECC Ministry of Forest Environment and Climate Change

MoWIE Ministry of Water Irrigation and Electricity

MoLF Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries

MoANR Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations

NRMD Natural Resources Management Directorate

SLMP Sustainable Land Management Project

TOR Terms of Reference

PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme

PW Public Works


AcknowledgementsThis proceeding is the result of a three day consultation workshop organized by the NRMD of the MoANRs on the update of the Community based participatory watershed guidelines, watershed strategy and establishment of platform. The workshop is held with a cost sharing by the SLMP of the MoANRs and the GIZ-SURED, as well as development partners covering their own DSA and transportation.

The Natural Resource Management Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture acknowledges, with appreciation, all individuals and development partner representatives of the workshop participants for the efforts and contributions towards the success of this workshop.

We also offer our appreciation to all development partner institutions for representing your staffs in the workshop, and specially the GIZ-SURED for cost sharing. Last, but not least we would also like to acknowledge Ato Lakew Desta, Ato Amare Mugoro and Ato Hailu Hunde, for their willingness to join us from private sector.


Executive SummaryMinistry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Natural Resources Management Directorate convened a meeting on updating of the Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) and Pastoral Area Guidelines Revision and Integrated Watershed Development (IWSD) Strategy and Establishment of multi-stakeholders Platform on February 1-3, 2018 at the Executive Hotel, in Adama town.

The purpose of the workshop was to consult and agree on how to update the existing CBPWD and Pastoral Area Guidelines, and also discuss on IWSD Strategy and establishment of multi-stakeholders Platform.

Nearly 46 leading experts on natural resources management from federal, Regions, NGOs, private firms, development partners participated in the meeting. It was spearheaded by natural resource management directorate and supported by the SLMP and GIZ-SURED.

The existing guidelines have contributed to the development of watersheds and rangelands successfully for several Years; (The CBPWD guideline since 2005 and the Pastoral PW guideline since 2013). Since then, there are much advancement in development thinking particularly in connection with climate change adaptation and mitigation. Thus, the types of technologies and standards incorporated in the guidelines should respond to climate shocks for enabling communities to build resilience. In addition, it has been found very important to define the scope of these guidelines with new needs identified, approach determined; landscape vs watershed, set clear objectives, and look at polices and legal frameworks that support planning and implmentation.

As to the updating of the guidelines, four presentations were made; (i) Overview of the pervious guidelines (ii) Preliminary gaps assessment, (iii) Climate Smart Intiative (CSI) input in to the revision of these guidelines and (iv) Draft TOR for revision of the guidelines.

These presentations shed light in to the content of pervious guidelines, and the gaps thereof to be captured in the updating process to meet future expectations. The gap assessment report indicated policy, institutional, local knowledge, climate change, gender, technology, approach and ease of applications, etc. issues. It was also pointed by the CSI pilot project that the guidelines should be revised in the climate lens. In fact, as it might not be simple to incorporate all the climate change concepts in to these documents, it is pos to review planning steps 3, 4 and 6 with this respect. The TOR was developed to guide the updating process, and indicate areas of partnership and collaborations need to exist for the revision/updating to happen in a shorter period of time.

During a plenary discussion a lot of helpful ideas for the guidelines update work were generated by workshop participants. Among others, the following key strategic issues can be mentioned:-

1) Defining the objectives of these guidelines;2) Determining the scope of the guideline update; 3) The need to review literatures both theoretical and empirical;


4) Identifying and clearly setting the policies and strategies which these guidelines implement;

5) Watershed graduation, including exist strategy; 6) The necessity of including livelihoods options in the guidelines; both farm and non-

farm based livelihoods; 7) The need to update the guideline in line with climate change adaptation and

mitigation. etc., and8) Identification of thematic areas of technological packages.

These comments were used as a spring board for discussions intended to identify efforts needed to address the identified gaps in order to improve or update the guideline.

The 2nd part of the presentation were focused on (1) Integrated Watershed Development Strategy, (2) Agro-forestry situation for development in Ethiopia, and 3) Establishment of Multi-Stakeholders Watershed Platform.

The meeting was designed to be interactive and to stimulate conversation and exchange across disciplines. Panel discussions and thought exercises were conducted to suggest ways to address the spotted gaps on the guidelines and all other strategic issues mentioned above. Session participants were encouraged to pose solutions and identify the next steps forward.

Conclusions and Next Steps

1. Guidelines Updating A general understanding was reached to update the existing watershed and pastoral development guidelines in terms of the identified areas that need improvements. The agreed up on activities and ideas include:-

One national guideline has to be developed, but it has to consider all settings (pastoral, non-pastoral and agro-pastoral). In addition, it should be backed by different modules based on identified thematic areas and a pocket size infotech for Development Agents (DAs). The idea of including CSA as stand alone infotech contradicts with the countries climate resilient green economy strategy. Also, the experiences of CSI and GCCA, as well as the Fast Track Projects (FTP) implementations indicated that CSA should be mainstreamed across the board. Thus, the updating should take this in to account. The mandates of MoANR was raised as a bases in technology selections, mentioning rangeland management as an example. Rangeland as one of the technologies for NRM in pastoral areas, it has nothing to do with mandate of other institutions. The same is true for small scale irrigation activities. It was agreed that technology selections in a watershed development canot be linked to mandate. However, the revision of the guidelines should involve all responsible sectors such as water, livestock, and environment, etc. so that ideas clearly captured and technologies properly identified. Equitable distribution of resources generated within the watersheds need to be strengthened by legal frameworks. Thus, creation of legally backed institutions at grass roots level should be considered; i.e. the establishment of watershed users association widely proposed. The experience from Tigray Region also shown as the


same. For example, the idea of the government is creation of jobs for youths and women, though in practice this was challenged by farmers as they are not willing to hand over rehabilitated lands through their labour contribution. In contrast, they suggest that let us give degraded land to youths, support them to engage in rehabilitation works as we did and have their own. The current strategic approach to watershed development, community mass mobilization or free contribution of their labour, might not continue in to the future. Thus, some form of mechanization, i.e support to the community using machines might be needed. Currently, we are mobilizing over 15 million people for watershed development, but whether we continue to mobilize this much people in the future or not is not clear. Thus, there should be some form of technologies introduced in the sub-sector that will help our farmers. Most importantly, it was agreed to update the guidelines jointly with development partners, but as the update work needs much time a formal letter of communication be written to different stakeholders identified to participate in this assignment, and also at the same time a discussion be held with organization heads to release the required staff time for the assignment.

2. Integrated Watershed Management Strategy If up scaling is one of the strategies we adopted so far, we need to clearly indicate what successful technologies, best practices, livelihoods options that benefited the farmers and pastoralists and that we have scaled up. We have to ask ourselves questions such as ‘have we scaled up Humbo NRM practices?’ Simply, we need to have tools for scaling up. The issue of whether we have an IWDS or not was raised during this workshop, but it was agreed that we have the document with a need for revision or updating. The strategy should include ways for livelihoods based interventions both farm and nonfarm based activities One of the plausible strategies so far is that of zero-grazing though still a lot remain to be done. There should also be farming system oriented strategies for example in large range management areas controlled grazing should be applied. Also, the strategy should consider the different socio-economic setting including mountains development, and per-urban watershed development. The strategy has to show its link with the extension system. Thus, the link between crop, livestock and natural resource management should be clearly indicated. The strategy need to have clear objectives focused around water security, food security and pollution (for per-urban watershed development). It needs to have clearly set objectives that need to be addressed in this sub-sector. The strategy for different stakeholders’ participation and partnership including the involvements and roles of research institutions should be described. As a strategy we have been mobilizing over 4.5 million people per day, but the results on the ground do not adequately justify this. The management system adopted with this respect is adhoc; not systematic. Hence, it minimized the benefits that we would have gained from mass mobilization. For the future, the strategy should design a


systematic approach on how to effectively use the communities for quality natural resources management.

Dilution of the watershed committees by 1-5 working cell and 20-30 development group was mentioned by participants which they stressed that the strategy should design methods for making such structures effective or creating new stronger structure at the grass roots level.

3. Agro-forestry Practices This is one of the areas we have been talking about for many Years, but without any significant changes. Traditionally it may exist in Oromia and SNNPR, but it may not be available in other areas. Thus, the traditional agricultural system that occupied our mind setting, crop-crop system, should have to integrate within itself tree plantation. We have to adopt business oriented farming system. Agro forestry was recognized by participants as a set of activities that can ensure productivity and sustainability. It brings the intensification within the watersheds. However, the current agro forestry practices in the country are traditional, which need to be further researched. The researching should come up with modern agro-forestry technology that can be upscaled. There are high technical experts gaps on this specific area that needs the attention of the government for building capacity buildingAt the moment, institution responsible for leading agro-forestry in the country is not there. But it was discussed and also informed by the MoANR that already such unit was re-grouped and established under the NRMD. To promote agroforestry, it was recommended that there should be agro forestry based eco-system payment that gives value for the environment and actors within such sectors

4. Establishment of Multi-Stakeholders Platform The platform should be considered as a strategic tool to address strategic level issues and bottlenecks affecting the sub-sector. Thus, it should be a multi stakeholders platform that included many institutions that have not mentioned so far such as basin director, land rehabilitation board etc Some of the participants insisted that the formation of such platform should reach the grass roots level. It should not only be strategic issues addressed at the higher level that matters, but also platform for fostering knowledge and addressing operational issues at grass roots level is equally important. The objectives of the plat form have to be clearly identified. However, understanding was created during this workshop that the main objectives of the platform is to ensure Paris declaration on aid effectiveness. Accordingly, it revolves around efficient resource mobilization and avoidance of duplication of efforts/resources in the sustainable management and utilization of natural resources in the country. To foster partnership, there should be a dedicated staff working on this; at least one to two staff required, because the work involves setting agendas, identifying discussion areas and bringing partners together.


A watershed platform under which several thematic areas such as watershed, capacity building system, best practices be considered should be formed.It was also noted that the platform should pave ways for non-natural resource management actors such as the urban areas and profit oriented organizations to pay for eco-system management. There should be regional participation in the platform. The meeting at the federal level should convene twice annually, and that of Regions on quarterly basis.

Opening SpeechWorkshop Opening Speech by: Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MOANR)Natural Resources Management Directorate, Director- Mr. Tefera Tedesse


Dear invited Federal, Regional official and experts,Development partners, NGO representatives, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure to welcome you to this important consultation workshop “Review of Community Based Participatory Watershed Development and Pastoral Area Guidelines; and Intensification of Integrated Watershed Development Strategy and Establishment of Multi-Stakeholder Platform”.

As you know, since the 1980s, various approaches had been used and different guidelines were developed for planning and implementation of natural resource development (SWC) activities. Local Level Participatory Planning Approach (LLPPA) in 1993, a SWC guideline for DAs in Ethiopia in 1986 (revised in 2016), the CBPWD guideline in 2005, and pastoral area guideline in 2012 (by the PSNP, intended for PWs) are some of the key guidelines.

The existing CBPWD guideline has been in use for more than a decade, while the pastoral guideline for about five years. Intensive use of the former guideline for such a longer time and the specificity nature of the later guideline; developed only in the context of PSNP, coupled with the modifications made in some technologies and introduction of new practices the need for updating has been emerged.

Considering this, the NRMD of the MoANR’s has initiated gap identifications to collect preliminary information from regional, zonal and Woreda level stakeholders, and decided to update the guidelines through involvement of different stakeholders including our development partners.

At the same time, it was also envisioned to establish a multi stakeholder’s platform responsible for integrated natural resource development and management in coordinated and disciplined manner. Integrated natural resources development and management can’t be successful with one institution delivery; by its very nature such development through watershed development and management needs integration and coordination. Since it incorporate all socioeconomic and environmental dimensions then institutions that are arranged for these dimensions could be directly or indirectly affect the success.

Though in the past years watershed development massively exercised, most actors have been using separate implementation that leads to duplication effort and for the community, confusion were created to implement sustainably. The need of institutionalized coordination and integration is very important to have benefit from the resources, like the rehabilitated lands, and to arrange the payment for watershed services (payment for environmental services). Weakness to accommodate emerging issues of the current watershed development strategy is also one of the problems for the sub-sector achievement which demands review of the existing strategy.

Therefore, this workshop is expected to:


(i) identify contributors to the revision of the guideline based on identified thematic areas and 4-6 editors and establish a working committee that follow-up and monitor the progress of the guideline revision,

(ii) make concrete recommendations on the country-level implementation of watershed development through well-arranged institution for integration and coordinating efforts, and

(iii) review the existing watershed development strategy.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Given the tasks ahead, I would like to call up on all of you to provide all types of assistance (financial and technical) required for developing strong national document that can be easily used both in highland and pastoral areas.

Lastly, I would like to extend my deepest thanks to GIZ-SLM for their financial support to this important workshop.

Honored guests, ladies and gentlemen, I wish you a very fruitful workshop.

Summaries of Presentations

Part I: Guideline Revisions and Updating

1. Overview on CBPWD and Pastoral Area PW GuidelinesWorkshop participants were introduced with an overview of these guidelines. The existing guidelines provide sets of procedures and hands on tools for planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of activities in the areas of natural resources management. The CBPWDG has been in use in non-pastoral areas, while the PW guideline developed by PSNP for PW planning and implementation in pastoral areas. The former was issued in 2005 and the latter in 2012.

The CBPWDG has two parts; Part I: Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (rationale, objectives, ---), part II annexes. The overall objective of PWD is to improve the livelihood of community/households in rural Ethiopia through comprehensive and integrated natural resource development. It aims at productivity enhancement measures for improved income generation opportunities, enhanced livelihood support systems and high resilience to shocks, and optimize the use of existing natural resources and untapped potentials in both already degraded areas and in the remaining potential areas in the country.

The specific objectives of the guideline includes:-


Conserving soil, rainwater and vegetation effectively for productive uses; Harvesting surplus water to create water sources in addition to ground water recharge; Promoting sustainable farming and stabilize crop yields by adopting suitable soil,

water, nutrient and crop management practices; Rehabilitating and reclaim marginal lands through appropriate conservation measures

and mix of trees, shrubs and grasses, based on land potential; Enhancing the income of individuals by the diversified agriculture produce, increased

employment opportunities and cottage enterprises. The Guideline aims to build upon existing community-based participatory watershed

efforts to harmonize and consolidate planning procedures at the grass-roots level. The intent is to provide DAs and rural communities with a workable and adaptable

planning tool To provide practical guidance on the correct selection of technologies under different

conditions and their sequentially correct implementation.The guideline consists of four major topics, (i) review of policies and strategies related to watershed development, (ii) concepts and principles of PWDP, (iii) planning procedures and steps and (vi) infotechs on technologies for WS and NRM.

Part II: Annexes presents additional explanation on how the activities and procedures can be implemented. Major topics covered in the annex include:- participatory mapping and understanding of the target area , participatory planning and socio-economic survey, biophysical survey and mapping, interventions and their suitability, summary of national work norms, list of useful plant species and planning formats – samples

The second guideline which is Pastoral was developed for natural resource management and public works implementation in pastoral areas. The design of the document at the time was justified based on (i) use of CBPWD guideline designed for the highlands with little adaptation to the realities of these areas or knowledge, experience and interest of those involved in the process, (ii) the guideline was prepared at a time when there were a number of unknowns about the complex physical and socio-economic settings in pastoral areas.

The overall objective of the guideline is to provide sets of procedures and hands-on tools for use in planning, implementation, and monitoring & evaluation of PSNP-PWs in the context of physical and social conditions of pastoral areas. It is organized in to six chapter consisting of (i) Background to the guideline, (ii) Outline of the broader considerations underlying the guideline, (iii) unifying concepts, principles, and approaches of PSNP-PW in pastoral areas, (iv) The guidance for planning, implementation and monitoring PSNP-PW activities, (v) cross-cutting issues (ESMF, Gender, conflict issues etc), and (vi) planning procedures, info-techs and work norms for selected PW activities

2. Preliminary Gap assessment of the CBPWD and Pastoral PW Guidelines

The NRMD of MoANR has made a preliminary gap assessment on CBPWDG and Pastoral PW guideline. The preliminary gap assessment findings were included gaps with the


recommendations/suggestions given based on the views of experts and community watershed team members at all levels. However, only ;Gaps Identified' are presented in the consultation workshop. Hence, the gaps identified in are presented uner each assessment issues for both the guidelines.

2.1 Community Based Participatory Watershed Development Guideline

2.1.1 Policy Issues: The guideline did not fitted with new policies and strategies, like Climate Resilience

Green Economy (CRGE), Nutrition, Disaster Risk Management (DRM), Rural Job Opportunity & Creation (RJOC) strategies, etc.;

Non-inclusion of local bylaws to manage the rehabilitated areas. For instance, no mechanism in place for post rehabilitation management of area closures and other NRM rehabilitated areas

Non-inclusion of how communities could benefit from the carbon trade The guideline does not consider policies related to EIA or it does not put in place the

mechanism to address the EIA requirements. For example, organization of user groups on mineral lands without proper EIA procedures in place

Policies and legal framework for transferring rehabilitated communal lands and gullies should be formulated and issued

The guideline has not sufficiently recognized the country’s forest and land use policies. For example, there is no mechanism to protect cutting of indigenous trees, agricultural expansion in to non-agricultural lands (cultivation of lands above 30% slope), clearing of forest lands for agricultural expansion, re-occupation of rehabilitated lands for settlement and farming

The guideline does not indicate mechanisms on how conflicts in the watershed management can be resolved

The guideline does not incorporate strategies of capacity development Issues related to settlement of people were not properly considered in the guideline

2.1.2 Institutional Issues: Non complementarily of the guideline with the existing institutional structures due to

government structural changes - inconsistency of the existing institutional structure outlined in the guideline;

Duties and responsibilities presented for different actors in the guideline has limitations to address/encourage all stakeholders engagement in implementation of the guideline;

Nonalignment of the institutional arrangements with the existing local level setups and networks, like 1 to 5 networks and other committees;

Absence of systematic institutional capacity building mechanism in place, ex. watershed committee;

The guideline is developed and focused for rural area watershed development only; the rural-urban watershed link have not been considered in the guideline

Roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, and the integration between them not well defined. Even, some sectors such as roads are completely not considered, and


there is no mechanism on how the road sector can be integrated with the institutions involved in the watershed development interventions. In some in stances, institutional responsibility on watershed planning not clearly demarked; controversies between Bureau’s of land administration and Agriculture and Natural Resources. Moreover, the guideline does not clearly give specific tasks for each institution mentioned as members of TC and implementers

Lack of ownership of the guideline by other sectors and sub sectors except by NRM. Roles of NGOs and Media’s not defined Lack of strong feedback mechanism The guideline requires establishing watershed committees at Woreda level only. Structures that do not currently exist like home economics are mentioned in the

guideline. It is better to substitute such structures by other similar or relevant structures for example health, environmental protection, etc.

Little has been done to make other institutions use the guideline. Due to this some sectors of the ministry itself do not know the guideline.

The guideline does oblige institutions to discharge their responsibilities to the extent they are expected to do. There is no mechanism for accountability

Scope of the mandates and responsibilities of the watershed committees are not clearly indicated in the guideline.

2.1.3 Local Knowledge, Values and Practices The guideline acknowledges the local knowledge, values and practices. However, it

has not shown their strengths and weaknesses. More focus has been given for conventional practices.

Local irrigation management mechanisms are not well incorporated in the guideline; Limited flexibility in community discussion during planning, ex: women group

discussion; Lack of up scaling best local knowledge to other similar areas.

2.1.4 TechnologySome new technologies not considered in the guideline:

GIS technology for watershed mapping & analysis. The surveying technologies which are mentioned in the guideline like compass are currently outdated.There are technologies/interventions that are not included in the guideline but have been practiced in watershed development by different projects and programmes, ex: nutrition and health sensitive activities: like pit latrine, shower, child care centers, health post; social infrastructures, like school and education; etc.; The trench being constructed at the head of crop land is not included in the guidelineSuck well (percolation pit) is new technology introduced in different parts of the country. This technology should be included in the guidelinePond design given in the guideline is not clear.


Technologies for coffee and fruit productivity improvement are not included in the guideline. For example coffee micro-basin, coffee docking, etcBamboo development technologies are not included in the guideline.

Some technologies needs further technical clarities, examples include: Disposal structures such as cut of drain, water ways etcHalf-moon, large half-moon, and micro-basin are somehow confusing and therefore the guideline should clarify these technologiesConversion of one unit to the other for different terraces was not explained well Only scientific names of useful trees and shrubs are given in the guideline. Local names of the plants should be also included There are different types of bench terraces. The guideline is short of giving explanation on different options of constructing bench terraces. In addition to this the standards and specifications given are not clearly described.How to utilize topographic maps for watershed development plan preparation is not well described in the manualSome technologies have no info-techs, ex. Check dam ponds, Dip trench, Sandbag check dams etc. For others, limited description of the importance/benefits of technologies in the info-tech. For example, the contributions of different technologies for climate change adaptation/mitigation, livelihoods, etc.Gully reshaping and plantation techniques are not well describedTechnologies are not described according to their suitability to each agro-climatic zones of the countryIt is advisable to include nursery design and how to establish the nursery in the guideline.Specifications and standards of biological measures especially forage development should be described in detail

Most technologies need work norm revisions due to the following reasons Less attention was given in deciding work norm for practices that required hard works and different activities for completion. ex: SSD constructions require site clearing, excavation, water fetching, compaction, stone reshaping,Work norm for stone collection and transportation is presented without defining transportation distance and reshaping of stones; Use of uniform PD for some technologies, like: Pond & HDW construction in different depths, that require high labour with depth; PD for Bench Terrace are uniform in km unit, require labour based on ground slope, i.e. high slope - small width require less labor for cut & fill than low slope - wide width; Some work norms are determined uniformly without specific types, size and/or details of activities required, ex: work norm for Spring development is indicated 1700PD/spring; for seedling production (15PD/1000seedlings) did not considered the type of seedling/time required for production and the different list of activities required; Some existing and new activities/practices have been planned and implemented in watershed development without defined set of work norms, ex.


Some technologies have been modified through time due to environmental variability and/or local community preferences, for example:- Size of trench construction to harvest/collect more water or for different purposes;Integration of Trench with percolation pit, bunds, gullies, etc.;Sediment storage Dam (SSD) with spillway in two sides due to watershed generated high run-off, and height of Dam used beyond the recommended height in the guideline;Modification of Fruit - agro-forestry - using locally known practices; Adoption of same work norm for technologies with different characteristics (depth, width etc). Examples are given as follows:-

o Single, Double and Triple brush wood dam o different check damso For different width size of bench terrace o different types of trench o for ponds with different depth sizeo for ponds constructed in light and heavy soil sites o for seedling collection and plantation for different plant species

Work norm /the PD required for plantation is exaggerated and it should be differentiated for bare rooted seedlings and potted seedlings. As there are different activities like transporting and removing of pot from seedlings the time required for planting potted and bare rooted seedlings vary.Work norm for pitting should put options according to the situationWork norm for stone collection and stone breaking should be separated. The work norm for stone collection seams that it does not well consider the distance traveled for stone transportation to collection point.The vertical interval of hillside terrace should be flexible according to the conditions other than slope of the land for example vegetation coverThe guideline does not provide work norms which are harmonized with work norms being used by other institutions like water and energy, road sector, etc.The guideline does not provide sufficient explanation on work norm, specification and standards of road construction. There is clarity problem on how to implement this technologyThe guideline has no work norm and specification for geo-membraneThe work norm for micro-basin and trench should be revisedThere is no work norm for forage seed sowing on bundsWork norm (required PD) for herring bone is too low. It should be revisedCurrently it is becoming customary to water seedlings out planted in the field. As this activity has no work norm in the guideline DAs are facing difficulties to plan and implement such activity.Tending operations like pruning and thinning of forest has no work norm in the guidelineThe emphasis given to moisture harvesting is not as much as required


Flood diversion to farm land has no work norm and technical specification in the guidelineWork norm for stone faced soil bund should be revisedThe guideline has not sufficiently incorporated experiences of other countriesAlthough stone bund construction involves many activities, the work norm set in the guideline seems to be only for construction.Family and community ponds are not included in the guideline. Pond design given in the guideline is not clear.Work norm and design gabion for gully rehabilitation not included in the guidelineThe unit for bench terrace is given in linear meter. As there is variation in width of bench terrace constructed it should be reported in volumetric unitThe guide line does not provide work norm for maintenance of some technologies

Some technologies have to be omitted from the guideline Stone bund is a technology that takes much space and becoming a place for multiplication of rodents. Therefore this technology should be avoided from the guideline

2.1.5 Socio-Economic The socio-economic format is bulky and redundant - repetition of some ideas in the

survey; Bulkiness of the socioeconomic data collection sheet. It should be explanatory. The

data collection sheet has too much redundancy. It has no space to collect information related to watershed resource utilization, and the

benefits generated as a result of watershed management. The livelihoods dimension and the benefits it generates should be included in the socio-economy survey part.

The socioeconomic survey sheet allows collecting information from the individual perception. It does not have mechanisms for analysis. It is better to introduce surveying tools like PRA and others.

2.1.6 Environmental and Climate Change The guideline has limitations in description of a technology contributions on reducing

GHG emission, climate change adaptation/mitigation, disaster reduction, etc. and Limitation in illustrating and describing climate smart agricultural practices; The guideline has no safeguard mechanism Issues of climate change completely misses from the guideline Environmental and social safeguard tools like ESMF are not included in the guideline Although some of the conservation agriculture technologies have been mentioned in

the guideline the description is not sufficient. The guideline does not have exhaustive list of climate smart technologies and tools to

make watershed management plans climate smart. As watershed development should be integrated, technologies that can contribute to

climate change adaptation and mitigation like energy should have been incorporated in the guideline


2.1.7 Sustainability The guideline has limitations on consideration of environmental screening for planned

measures; by-laws and O&M mechanisms; handing over completed measures or created assets and exit strategy;

Lack guidance on management plan consideration during planning; Limitation in maintenance mechanisms for technologies in different landscapes, land

use or land ownership; Lack comprehensible watershed linkage between bordering woreda/regions; The current strategy for ownership of rehabilitated areas stipulates that youths and

women should benefit from such lands for certain periods through temporary land certification process after which they handover to other landless and jobless youths and women which has significant repercussions for sustainability

No legal mechanisms to punish the re-degradation of the rehabilitated lands The guideline lacks explanation on how user groups can be organized on the

watershed

2.1.8 Watershed Management Approach Detail M&E and Verification methods are missing; Doesn’t include the need for comprehensive NRM database system Lack comprehensible watershed linkage across Woreda/Regions, how to consider

upstream vs. downstream effects of watersheds consideration; The watershed planning section did not capture Environmental Screening as a parallel

planning stage; The guideline does not have mechanism for information exchange The role of leadership has not been well explained The watershed committee should be structured and institutionalized at all levels. The approach limited itself to physical conservation The types of approach for natural resources management and conservation in

perennial crops occupied areas not included in the guideline In some areas, watersheds below 200ha and above 500ha are not treated because the

guideline limits the watershed size at 200ha up to 500ha The guideline has no mechanism for impact evaluation. The planning process is lengthy

2.1.9 Gender Related Issues: Except mentioning gender sensitivity as a principle, indicating women work burden

and their involvement in watershed, the guideline doesn’t included specific activities to address this principle

Specific activities for women are unidentified; There is no consideration of workload reduction for women Gender and social development provisions are not included in the guideline. Similar work norms adopted for both men and women


Although the guideline indicates that watershed development should be gender sensitive, no special technologies that are suitable for women have been mentioned there.

Detail GSD provisions not included in the guideline

2.1.10 Guideline Comprehensiveness/Ease of ApplicationEven though, the guideline has been used more than a decade by SLM implementers, some weak areas related to the guideline application/use are raised for consideration during revision of the guideline. Some of the comments indicated to be considered during the revision of the guideline are categorized as publishing and technical usability. Technical usability gaps are:

Lack of clear description in some technologies, specially for local level implementers: to use the guideline at field level by DAs and local surveyors; ex. Community roads are presented with detail engineering drawing and without practical implementation guidance notes/steps; diversion weirs without detail construction steps; Some sketches, pictures and illustrations presented in the info-tech are difficult to understand, etc;

The planning guide is obtained or presented in the two parts - the steps in part 1 and participatory mapping and problem identification in part 2 (annex);

Printing/publishing gaps are: Font size used in the guideline info-tech are small and difficult to read; The guideline having two parts (both with A4 size) is hard to Handling at site

level; Poor printing paper and cover quality of the guidelines;

The guideline is not easily accessible It is also not easily available It is not user friendly Absence of locally translated version of the document The guideline is bulky and not handy especially for DAs The diagrams and pictorial representations are not clear in the guideline Even though the watershed development should be integrated and multidisciplinary in

nature the guideline mainly focuses on agriculture and natural resources management Translation of the guideline was not made properly. Mixture of Amharic and English

words are appearing in the guideline that creates confusion for the users.

2.2 Pastoral Area Public Works Guideline2.2.1 Policy Issues:

The guideline did not fit into new policies and strategies, like Rural land use & environmental policies; land use policy, CRGE, DRM and Nutrition strategies, etc.

The guideline lack Pastoral coping mechanisms, local bylaws and customary laws that are related to pastoral livelihoods;

2.2.2 Institutional Issues: The few institutional changes that are existed in the region are missed, ex.

biodiversity, environment and land use agency;


Some SLM implementing NGOs have been used similar work norm but different wage rates;

The guideline did not vitalized a required human resource power and utilization of resources - lack system development;

The guideline lack clear compliant mechanism; Less use of environmental screening mechanism and design of management plan

during planning; Membership of a traditional/customary leader or elder having Woreda‐wide influence

in the Woreda PW team is unrealistic; The guideline lack to state duties and responsibilities of the different sectors involved

in pastoral development; 2.2.3 Local Knowledge, Values and Practices

Local knowledge's, values and practices are touched little - not exhibited in detail; The guideline did not fitted with some local technologies/knowledge's, ex. stream

water harvesting; seedling planting material (Afanbo); flood harvesting technologies - spate irrigation (Kuneba); local roof water harvesting practices; 'Baska' a local cistern like structures; etc.;

2.2.4 Technology Newly practiced water harvesting technologies in the region, like water spreading

weirs, community ponds, etc. are not included in the guideline; Some technologies are adopted directly from the highland without modification in

pastoral context; ex. design of trenches; Range Land Management technologies, like control of invasive tree/weed species has

been focused on usual/familiar control measures (cut & burying) and implementation norms are uniform without consideration of labour required despite density of trees/weeds;

Social infrastructures has no work-norm; 2.2.5 Socio-Economic

The pastoral guideline did not have sufficient tools to conduct socio-economic in pastoral context and can't show detail information for preparing and implementing pastoral plans;

The socio-economic format is not in line with the pastoral context; 2.2.6 Environmental and Climate Change

Environmental and climate change issues are limited in the guideline;2.2.7 Sustainability

The O&M guideline prepared by the MoA/NRMD, to support sustainability, is more of highland than pastoral specific;

2.2.8 Watershed Management Approach Possibility of using watershed approach in some pastoral areas not well elaborated in

the guideline Conflict resolution mechanisms outlined in the guideline are not exhaustive;

2.2.9 Gender Related Issues: The guideline incorporates tools and instruments to address gender and social

development issues but may need further explanation, ex. Participation of women in


pastoral development works is different from the highlands, but it was not considered in the guideline in detail;

The guideline did not fitted with Behavioral Change & Communication and nutrition to address the social issues of the pastoral community;

2.2.10 Guideline Comprehensibility/Ease of Application The guideline binding material is weak - not durable and fit with the pastoral

environment; Procedural steps are not clear specially for grass root DA's;

2.3 Summaries of Discussions on Preliminary Gaps Assessment on Guidelines

The workshop participants made a detailed and long discussion on the preliminary gaps assessments. Summaries of the discussion are as follows:-1. The envisioned guideline should consider the varied agro, socio-economic setting of

pastoral, agro pastoral and agricultural areas of the country. The cultural, economic, social and livelihoods of these areas varies significantly indicating the need to develop the guide considering these and all other factors that might entail differences among them.

2. The watershed planning should allow for results based monitoring and evaluation. To date, the guidelines a limited to activities planning and reporting which doesn’t provide rooms for outcome and impacts measurement of integrated watershed interventions. Thus, the new guideline has to indicate objectively verifiable indicators which do have reliable baseline and targets. It should also include a simple planning tool that adequately captures baseline data on the defined indicators, biophysical and socio-economic conditions of the watersheds and households with in watersheds.

3. The existing institutional structure responsible for planning, monitoring and technical support for watershed management at grassroots level, i.e the CWT, are at times outshone by government structure of 1-5 groups and 20-30 members development groups. It was also noted that in some instances, it had only be the ideas of dominant people within the CWT that was heard.

4. There is a need to clearly identify which policies/strategies the new guideline implements. 5. The scope the guideline needs to be determined. So far, the focus is on agriculture. Thus,

could we go beyond, or works with the same intent as before. 6. The level at which the guideline is required need to be defined. The need for general

guiding document is indubitable, but for quality planning and implementation, it is needed to aid development planning at grass roots level for DAs and farmers. Thus, there is a dire need to classify the level of such guidelines and prepared with the level of simplicity required to meet at each level. Also mentioned what type of guideline to be produced; is it a written or interactive tool? For DAs to conceptualize in to its context interactive tool was suggested, though at the same time we can also have the written tool. So the envisioned guideline be (ii) simpler for DAs and (iii) technical document for Regional and Woreda experts.

7. Another contentious area emerged around the management approach to be applied for natural resources management in the country. There is a general agreement that the


ministry should continue with the watershed approach as it is within its mandate, but others they have a feeling that landscape approach be considered in parallel if need arises. Increasing the minimum size of the watershed up to 1000ha and even more has been suggested within a sense that such size will have a better effect on communities’ livelihoods and income. However, it continued to be one areas of debate because others suggested that if we increase the watershed size it will not be manageable. So it is good that the size be around 500ha.

8. While reviewing the guidelines reliance on field level gaps assessment is not adequate. Thus, it was suggested that different literatures be consulted; both theoretical and empirical. In connection with this, different researches on watershed management and watershed guidelines of other countries such as India and Philippines be considered. For example, in the latter watershed development approach separately developed for highland, coastal ad low land areas.

9. The loss of rehabilitated land due to land use planning problem was seriously underlined. It indicates that investments in the NRM sub-sector have been lost due to in proper land use system. Thus, it was suggested that local land use planning should be incorporated in to the guidelines.

10. The need for strong local level institutional structure in the form of watershed users association was highly emphasized. The existing NRM structures at grass root levels lack a legally binding background. If watersheds have to bring tangible benefits to the communities sustainably, the establishment of such institution has to be taken forward and strong action should be taken. It has to be backed by proclamation. The commonly used bylaws by the community to manage rehabilitated areas were not been binding, and have not resulted in sustainable use of the benefits generated.

11. The revision of work norm should start as soon as possible. Some activities such as ponds are not planned and implemented due to work norm problem, because grass root level implementers feel that quality and desired standards cannot achieved with the current work norm. Also, with the changing environment due to climate changes the new work norms should respond to such realities as well. Payment for eco-system service should also be considered.

12. Continued exploitation of rehabilitated and regenerated watersheds must be halted somewhere. Thus, the new guideline should provide different livelihoods options to be considered both farm and nonfarm based activities. As there are developments over time from what we had been some 15 Years ago, i.e rehabilitation of degraded lands, the focus should have to shift forwards to more of livelihoods based interventions.

13. It is known that watersheds can pass through a series of development stages which need to be clearly defined. Particularly, a point at which a watershed can graduate be defined. Two thoughts were emerged ; (i) is it really possible for watersheds to graduate in a sense that watersheds continue to be rehabilitated, generate benefit, continue to be managed, maintained etc (ii) is it the households that graduate or the watershed; basically it should be the communities who should graduate. In this sense, it was agreed that the one that graduate are households through improvement of their livelihoods by benefiting from rehabilitated watersheds and other means. But, they should only look at the benefits from watersheds when it reached a point of full rehabilitation as defined by the guideline,


and also continue to contribute for its management and sustainable generation of benefits from the watershed.

14. Any resources without proper ownership will be unsustainable. As the current scenario indicates it is the government who is leading and engaging communities in rehabilitation works. Thus, the guideline has to come up with a better mechanism that creates community ownership of watersheds including self financing. To this end the establishment of watershed development fund to which everyone in the watershed contributes proposed to be established.

15. It was noted that the NRM sub-sector has no clear capacity building system. Thus, the guideline should indicate systematic capacity building approach for the sub-sector. It should include site specific, time bound training activities.

16. The eight planning steps stipulated in the CBPWDG might not be easy to apply by communities and grassroots levels implementers. Thus, simplifying these steps should be considered.

17. Methods for assessing the cost benefits of watersheds intervention need to be determined. Unless otherwise we show the communities that the benefits they derive from rehabilitating the watersheds outweigh the cost they might not continue to provide their labour and the sustainability of development efforts put under question.

18. The previous guidelines has not adequately captured all factors need to be considered for technology selection. The selection criteria’s are limited to land use, slope and soil texture. Thus, is it really practical by missing out several other factors such as socio-economy, layout, spacing, design etc? Thus, the new document should contain a technology selection aid tool.

19. There might be a need to re-define the objectives of the guideline with new elements and changes considered during updating.

20. The water conserved through natural resources should be converted in to community improving technology packages. The possibility of improving farmers and pastoralists livelihoods underlined but only if intensification and diversification activities put in place. Particularly, these ideas need to be well defined and explained in the guideline.

21. Maintenance and upgrading of NRM activities should be included in the guidelines. It should take 1/3 of the annual time.

22. The legal gaps hindering the implementation of NRM based on the existing guidelines should be addressed. Particularly, lack of land use planning and management including enforcement mechanism is one limiting factor in natural resource management and utilization. There was a need to also identify policies that need to be designed in the future and has positive ramifications for the guidelines implementation.

23. Payment for eco-system service should be considered. Many cases were witnessed that the downstream people benefiting from natural resource managements of the upper stream people without any significant contributions made by downward stream people. Thus, the guideline has to come up with methods for addressing payments for eco-system balance.

24. In terms of pastoral guideline, the question is whether we have used the guideline itself or not. But, at the same time the guideline is suffering from being some of its elements borrowed from the CBPWDG. The low land high land dichotomy is important because


differences in institutional setup, settlement arrangement, livelihoods base, re-current drought and mobility issues. As a result, a separate guideline was proposed, but it was finally agreed that one national document will be prepared taking in to account these differences in settings.

25. The integration of different actors within the watersheds and those at policy and strategy implementation levels should be clearly considered. The new guideline should consider multi-sectoral integration mechanism. Thus, analysis of partners and new institutions should be made while preparing the documents.

26. While preparing the guidelines, the effects of different factors on natural resources management such as population growth should be considered.

3. CSI input in to the Community Based Participatory Watershed Development Guideline

The CSI has taken in to consideration five approaches that can simplify methods for integrating climate change related issues in to the guidelines. These include:(i) applying a climate-smart lens to existing processes, (ii) integrating climate issues in existing guidance documents, (iii) Focusing on strategic entry points, (v) focusing on climate-smart approaches to analysis and planning that will lead to the identification of the best options for reducing vulnerability and achieving mitigation co-benefits in particular watersheds, and (v) providing simple, practical tools for experts at Kebele and Woreda level.One of the entry points identified is the planning steps to which climate related issues integrated. Particularly, step 3 (Biophysical and socio-economic survey), 4 (Identification and prioritization of interventions that bring change) and 6 (Developing the community watershed action plan) from the current CBPWD Guidelines was identified for possible climate mainstreaming.


The CSI pilot project developed four key tools to guide integration of climate-smart approaches in to CBPWDG. These include:

1. Watershed Climate Analysis2. Matching Interventions to the Watershed Climate Analysis3. Climate-Smart Prioritization of Interventions4. Climate-Smart Screening of the Community Watershed Plan

The 1st deals with comprehensive analysis process that informs the development of the Community Watershed Plan. To integrate climate-smart approaches, a climate ‘lens’ should be applied to this analysis, adding additional steps to existing tools to explore climate issues, as well as incorporating new tools that explicitly focus on climate hazards. It provides an overview of the suggested changes to the existing biophysical assessment and socio-economic survey process.

The 2nd tool, Matching Interventions to the Watershed Climate Analysis, is designed to be used during Step 4: Identification and prioritization of interventions that bring change. It should be used alongside the considerations for integration and sequencing of activities using watershed logic (CBPWD Guideline Section 6.4.3), as well as new tools to select livelihood options. The tool can be included as part of the Technical Annexes to the guideline. The Watershed Climate Analysis is a key input to the application of this tool.

The 3rd (Climate-Smart Prioritization of Interventions) is designed to be used in Step 4: Identification and prioritization of interventions that bring change. It enables prioritization of interventions that reduce vulnerability to climate change to be included in the Community Watershed Plan. The tool can be included as part of the Technical Annexes to the guideline and should be used alongside the existing tools for selection and design of physical measures (CBPWD Guideline Section 6.4.4).The key inputs to this tool are the Watershed Climate Analysis Summary Report and the list of proposed NRM and livelihood interventions for the watershed.

The 4th, (Climate Screening for the Community Watershed Action Plan) is designed to be used as a final check on the Community Watershed Plan, before it is finalized. Because each plan will be unique to the biophysical, socio-economic and climatic context of the watershed, the screening consists of a simple set of questions to consider in relation to the Watershed Climate Analysis as well as the knowledge gained through the planning process.

The Climate Screening is a final check on the Community Watershed Action Plan, to ensure that the climate-smart priorities have not been lost when combined with other priorities, and to look at the plan in its entirety to ensure it is addressing different dimensions of vulnerability to climate change, achieves mitigation co-benefits if possible and is gender-sensitive. Process diagram for integrating climate-smart approaches in Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development is given in figure 1 infra.


Step 3:AnalysisBiophysical assessment of watershed

Socio-economic surveyWatershed climate analysis

Step 4: Identification of interventionsIdentification of interventions based on analysis in Step 3

Prioritization of interventions

Step 6: Developing the community watershed action planESMF screening on prioritized interventions

Finalization of action plan

CBPWD Steps

Climate-Sm

art Tools

Facilitation Guides for Climate Analysis Tools

Annex: Matching Interventions to the Watershed Climate Analysis

Annex: Climate-Smart Prioritization of Interventions

Annex: Climate Screening for Community Watershed Action Plans

Watershed Climate Analysis Summary

Report

List of Priority Interventions

Climate-Smart Community

Watershed Action Plan

Outputs

Figure 1: Process Diagram for Integrating Climate-Smart Approaches in Community-Based Participatory Watershed Development

The CSI pilot summarized how to mainstream climate smart planning in to CBPWDG in the below diagram format.


Discussions on CSI input to the Guideline

1. The technology design should respond to climate change, the business as usual scenario might not work

2. Complete mainstreaming of the climate change issues in to the guideline might not be feasible and easy. For example, to complete the climate vulnerability and capacity assessment (CVCA) it will take 1 and ½ month. Thus, the suggestion was to be selective and review the document in climate lens.

3. The climate change analysis should involve analysis of technologies so that design standards respond to the changing climatic situation.

4. The Draft TOR for Updating the Guidelines 4.1 Background

The CBPWD guideline, published in 2005, has been in use by regional, zonal, Woreda and Kebele staff, including Development Agents, and NGOs for more than a decade. The guideline has been used for planning, implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), and management of natural resource conservation and development in the country. Similar to the CBPWD guideline, a Public Work Pastoral guideline tailored specifically to the agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions of the pastoral areas of Ethiopia was prepared in 2012 by the PSNP, and has been in use for about five years.

The two guidelines have been effectively providing practical guidance on proper site and technology selection, hands-on design standards and construction procedures of technologies under different conditions. They have also served as basis of planning tool for watershed and rangeland management interventions. After so long periods of utilization, and changes in the environmental conditions and living situation in the country coupled with many practical challenges at grassroots level, it has been found to revise the two guidelines. Thus, a TOR subject to comments from the workshop participants developed, and the main contents are given as follows:-

4.2 Objectives

The main objective is to update the existing CBPWD and Pastoral area guidelines and prepare a set of guidelines to be used for the planning, implementation, and monitoring & evaluation of the natural resource development in pastoral, agro-pastoral and farming areas by involving subject matter specialists established from the government, NGOs and other development stakeholders. It has the following specific objectives:-

1) Conduct desk review of policies and strategies related to the guidelines; preliminary gap assessment reports; Climate Smart Initiative (CSI) input to CBPWDG and other documents to identify key/important areas for revision, and consult on references required for the updates of the guidelines;

CONSULTATION WORKSHOP Feb. 1 - 3,2018

2) Conduct field level technical investigations (as required) to:a. Collect additional information on the identified new and/or modified

technologies; b. Gather best practices and approaches during a stakeholder consultation

workshop to enrich input to the revision of the guidelines; and c. Verify Work Norm requirements or other additional information;

3) Identify thematic areas vital to review the guidelines with range of interventions appropriate to the guidelines, and recommend grouping of technologies as a basis for the development of InfoTech's;

4) Organize consultation meetings, as necessary, and national level verification workshop; 5) Incorporate feedbacks and comments and finalize the guidelines for edition.

4.3 SCOPE OF THE WORKThe intention is to prepare comprehensive sets of guideline revisions (for each pastoral and non-pastoral area) by updating existing CBPWD and pastoral guidelines. The guidelines will be updated considering the identified gaps, including new technologies and verified modifications in some technologies, work norm revisions as required, mainstreaming of climate smart approaches for planning and implementing, monitoring and evaluation of natural resources development. The updated guidelines are expected to be used by Federal, regional, zonal, Woreda, Kebele staff and all other stakeholders’. The review/update of the guideline will be done jointly with the government and development partners, in fact previous guideline contributors’ will participate.

4.4 APPROACH FOR THE GUIDELINE REVISION

The Guideline revision will be facilitated by teams of technical editors and contributors that will be appointed from key development partners, the previous guideline contributor's, and staffs from the NRMD under the leadership of the director of the NRMD. Contributor(s) will be assigned for a thematic area to update a specific group of technologies that will be identified for the development of Info Tech's, and other thematic areas. Editors are responsible to collect works of contributors and compile the guideline manual.

The guideline revision will be done following the time frame indicated in this ToR. The review process is planned to be completed during this EFY. Review of relevant documents; field works (if needed), facilitation of consultation meetings and report writing, etc. will be done by the technical teams, editors and contributors), led by the director of the NRMD. The final updated guideline is expected to be ready for print at the end of EFY 2010.

4.5 ORGANIZATION FOR REVIEW

Updating of the guidelines shall be carried out by an ad hoc editors and contributors that will be formed from interested and volunteer previous guideline authors; nominated potential


expertise from local and international development partners; and relevant expertise from the MoANR/NRMD. The proposed international development partner institutions expected to involve in the revision of the guidelines by assigning their key technical staff(s) and resources are FAO, GIZ (SLM, SDR), WFP, World Bank, USAID, and others as deem necessary. Local development institutions are also expected to involve.

The editors’ team will compose of multidisciplinary professionals, at least four to six key experts, and overall coordination will be the responsibility of the director of the NRMD. The editors will be proposed by the NRMD to handle this assignment. Contributors will be assigned after identification and grouping of technologies during a consultation workshop. A maximum of two professional experts will be nominated to work on one InfoTech (set of technologies) identified as thematic area. In addition, a contributor might be formed for planning, reporting, M&E, ESMF, etc., based on the consultation workshop feedback.

4.6 PROCESS FOR THE GUIDELINE REVISION The process of the guidelines revision works will follow a sequence of activities from the preliminary gap assessment up to the preparation of the guideline for editorial. As indicated in the previous sections, the gap assessment on the existed guidelines was conducted by the NRMD staff by meeting regional, zonal and Woreda level staff in all representative agro ecologies: non-pastoral, pastoral and agro-pastoral areas. The following sequence of work/task streams will guide the review teams:1) Conduct a consultation workshop with stakeholders: The consultation will be held with

experienced professionals nominated from government staffs, development partners, and invited key professionals. The proposed organizations are: GIZ-SLM, GIZ-SDR, WFP, FAO, USAID, WB, ILIR, IWMI, etc. from Development Partners; and MoFECC, MoWEI, MoLF, EIAR, and projects of the MoANRs, from the government side. The preliminary gap assessment conducted by the NRMD, the existing CBPWD and Pastoral area guidelines (including annexes); study documents: such as Climate Smart Initiative (CSI) studies, best practice documents, and other identified relevant documents will be reviewed during a consultation workshop. Identification of new technologies and approaches; field work (as required); and identification of thematic areas to assign specific contributors will be done, and a compiled summary report will be prepared as a workshop proceeding.

2) Identify and assign Editors: The guideline review process should have editors in order to ensure stake engagement and to have greater technical leverage and guidance in delivering the review output by contributors. The editors will be formed from key development partners, key professionals, government staffs that include a diverse range of professionals with a wide experience in the sector. The editors will be responsible to support thematic contributors in the guideline revision, and ensure the technical as well as academic formalities are respected.


3) Identify and assign thematic Contributors: The contributors will be identified after identification of the thematic areas/topics (info techs). The contributors, with the support of the editors, will be responsible for specific thematic areas.

4) Conduct field review (if necessary) and verification on identified technologies; detail review of thematic documents/studies, and prepare a compiled report: The contributors with the consult of the editors will be responsible for the field work and compilation of reports. The compiled reports will be summarized and prepared as a zero-draft document for a technical review professional workshop.

5) Organize workshop with professionals delegated from key stakeholders: The consultation will be held with key representative professionals from government (federal & regional states), development partners, and invited professionals to consult on the zero-drafted guideline documents. The editors and the contributors will facilitate the workshop, together with the director of the NRMD, to collect information and prepare a compiled workshop report for input.

6) Preparation of a draft guideline reports using workshop inputs: The editors and the contributors will prepare the first draft of the guidelines, and organize the report for a mini professional consultation workshop.

7) Conduct a mini consultation workshop with competent professionals delegated from key stakeholders: The consultation workshop will be conducted with a mini group selected from the previous consultation participant1. The editors and the contributors will consolidate feedbacks and use inputs to prepare the second draft guidelines.

8) Organize a national verification workshop with regional and other key stakeholders: This will be the final national verification workshop in the course of the guidelines revision process. Every aspect of the guideline will be presented; detail discussions in each new technologies and thematic areas, as well as guideline format will be consulted, until consensus is reached. The editors and the contributors will collect as much as possible all information and feedbacks as final input for the guidelines.

9) Preparation of the final guidelines by incorporating inputs from the workshop: The review teams will conduct the final write-up of the guideline, including annexes and essential formats, and present the final guideline for editorial team.

10) Preparation of the guidelines for editorial: After completion of the final guidelines, an editorial team will be established (might be formed from the editors and contributors, and external resource persons as required) or outsourced to prepare the guideline with a standard graphics, include pictures, drawings, illustrations, etc. and setup the final guidelines in the required printable format. The final updated guidelines will be hand over to the NRMD for publication process.

4.7 DURATION1 Will be selected from the list of participants attended the first professional workshop indicated under task 5. .


The duration of the guideline revision work will be 6 months.2 The work is proposed to be started in February 2018, and expected to be finalized at the end of July 2018, assuming all assigned editors and contributors would offered much of their time for this work. The final printable documents in hard and soft copies are expected to be available on July 30, 2018.

4.8 BUDGET SOURCE AND ESTIMATION The total budget estimated for the revision of the guidelines is EBR 1.77 million. This budget is estimated for the costs required for all activities in the process of the review. The budget will be used to cover the costs of review team’s field work, for the different workshops in the process of the work and stationary and miscellaneous costs. The budget is supposed to be covered by the different projects and programmes in the Ministry, as well as development partners. The detail budget requirement is indicated in table 1 below.

2 Excluding the preliminary gap assessment which was conducted by the NRMD.


Table 1: Detail Plan of Action for Major Tasks

S/N Main Tasks Responsible

Party

Proposed Estimated Budget in

ETBRemarkTime Place of Work Budget Source

1 Conduct a consultation workshop with stakeholders NRMD Feb 1 - 4, 2018

TBD NRMDRepresenting institutions

500,000.00 80 participants DSA, Transportation, Hotel service,Fuel, etc

2 Identify and assign Editors NRMD Feb 5 - 8, 2017

-- -- -- Identification, writing letter, Meeting

3 Identify and assign Contributors TAG/NRMD Feb 5 - 8, 2017

-- -- -- Identification, writing letter, Meeting

4 Conduct field review (if necessary) and verification on identified technologies; detail review of thematic documents/studies, and prepare a compiled report

TAG/TWG Feb 12 - Mar 04 , 2018

Selected region/wored

a

TBD 150,000.00 3 groups: 1 for pastoral & 2 for highland areas,

3 experts per group=12,

2 vehicle for each group=6

5 Organize workshop with professionals delegated from key stakeholders

TAG/TWG/NRMD

Mar 15 - 16, 2018

TBD 200,000.00 30 participants DSA, Transportation, Hotel service, Fuel, etc

6 Preparation of a draft guideline reports using workshop inputs

TAG/TWG Mar 19 - Apr 13, 2018

TBD TBD 150,000.00 20 - 25 experts

7 Conduct a mini consultation workshop with competent professionals delegated from key stakeholders

TAG/TWG/NRMD

Apr 25 - 27, 2018

TBD TBD 70,000.00 15 - 20 participants


8 Organize a national verification workshop with regional and other key stakeholders

TAG/TWG/NRMD

May 16 - 18, 2018

TBD TBD 500,000.00 50 - 60 participants including review teams,

9 Preparation of the final guidelines by incorporating inputs from the workshop

TAG/TWG May 21 - June 25, 2018

TBD TBD 100,000.00

10 Preparation of the guidelines for editorial TAG/TWG July 02 - 30, 2018

TBD TBD 100,000.00

Total 1,770,000.00


Discussions Summaries on the Draft TOR The TOR is good and a necessary step towards the revision of guidelines for

watersheds development both in pastoral and non-pastoral areas. The scope of the assignments contained in the TOR should be clearly defined and has

to show to whom it was stated. The revision of the guideline should indicate adequate time allocation for experts

instead of much focus on workshops Modality of execution need to be defined whether it should be done by consultants or

not, and as to who supervises its execution. It was agreed that it will be updated by own forces (government staff) with the support of different organizations mainly development partners supervised by technical committee or steering committee as deemed necessary.

All relevant sectors in watershed and rangeland management should be involved from the beginning starting from the formulation of the TOR

The TOR should be seriously reviewed and its objectives be clearly defined.

5. Thought ExerciseParticipants were engaged in a thought exercise that was designed to pave ways for the next steps of guideline revision and updating. Particularly it meant to determine focus areas of updating and suggest on the overall frameworks.

Participants were divided into two major groups. The groups’ thematic areas and discussion results are summarized as follows:-

Group I: Discussion Points1. Watershed approach vs landscape approaches;2. The institutional setup in the guideline vs the current institutional setup ; how to

make uniform, or which setup is important3. Watershed planning process, planning unit and process, and how the watershed

phases lead to graduation.4. Climate Change in watersheds

1. Watershed approach vs landscape approachesIn the Ethiopian context the watershed approach proposed to be the most suitable approach for integrated watershed management. It was found easy to mobilize the community, simple for extension work, size can be manageable, and can easily be aligned within the government developmental implementation arrangements. In case of pastoral areas, it was proposed by the team that decisions should be made taking in to account detail information on pastoral settings including factors such as wind erosion. The planning unit should be kebele in contrast to the highland areas. The team had not arrived on a common conclusion as to adopt landscape approaches or to continue with watershed approach. There was a suggestion to use both side by side by giving


prime focus to the watershed approach and in case the wide nature of the problem covers several watersheds restoring to the landscape approach. The team suggested a flexible watershed size setting the minimum at 500ha, but confronted by workshop participants so that the maximum watershed side be decided, which expected to be addressed during the updating time.

2. The institutional setup in the guideline vs the current institutional setup; how to make uniform, or which setup is important

The team suggested strengthening the existing structural arrangements with a need for some restructuring at grassroots level and inclusion of additional structures at Regional and Zonal levels. The federal institutions such as the MoANR need to be strengthened, watershed team be established at Regional and Zonal levels and the community watershed team at grassroots levels be replaced by strong watershed users association. A clear responsibility and duties need to be assigned to the various institutions with proper mechanism of accountability (strong M&E system). There should also be link this with the land use planning and administration project at federal level-master land use plan. To this end, the inclusion of Regional and Zonal structures in to step 1 of the guideline is recommended.

As to the existing institutions, the team posed a question whether these institutions have been really well exercised as per see the guideline or not? In fact in areas where there were strong community watershed teams’ very remarkable achievements in natural resources management was achieved, but where they are weak results are not as such promising. It was observed that there were burden on kebele leaders, DAs and multiple committee approach. However, it was stressed by the audience that there is no room for which we talk about DA burden because the three of them at the Kebele level should be responsible for integrated watershed planning using the CBPWDG. Otherwise, development will be in jeopardy. Lack of strong M&E system persisted and also, customary institutions: specially in regional and local level were not considered properly.

3. Watershed planning process, planning unit and process, and how the watershed phases lead to graduation.

The planning process should base community as identifier of problems and solutions to the problem. At the center of any development, the contributions and involvement of stakeholders has a significant role; even nothing can happen without their involvement. Thus, the team suggested the planning process to be inclusive. Towards this the need for establishing a strong partnership among actors of natural resources management suggested.

The integrated natural resources management needs to have a strong M&E system in place that clearly shows phases of watershed development and gradual link with graduation system. A clear theory of change based on identified problems in the subsector and future desired outcome has to be included in the guideline. Graduation should be clearly defined; who/what is going to be graduated? In this regard it is important to make results measurable, and link graduation with ownership which in the findings of this workshop mean establishment of strong watershed users association at community level.


4. Climate Change in watershedsThe team concurred with the ideas of CSI-pilot project findings that the idea of climate change should be incorporated in to the planning steps stipulated in the previous guidelines, selectively indicating Step 3: Biophysical and socio-economic survey including population integration analysis; Step 4: Identification and prioritization of interventions that bring change), and Step 6: Development map, inputs and action plan) as an entry point. Despite this the team also took a relaxed position by proposing that it can be included in all the steps if necessary.

Group II: Discussion Points5. Discuss and propose the likely guideline organization and feature, options for the

guideline volume and size, etc.6. Technologies - identify and propose thematic areas (including InfoTech categories

with specific technologies) 7. Discuss and improve the TOR8. Watershed Users Association

5. Scope The team suggested one national umbrella Pastoral and non-Pastoral watershed Development guideline, with different volumes. It may be presented as part I and Part II. As the identified thematic areas might cover wide range of topics a set of modules focusing on the mandate of the MoANR is developed. While developing one unified national Guideline the socio-economic, political, environmental and livelihoods differences between pastoral, agro-pastoral and non-pastoral areas should be properly taken in to account. There should be a separate pocket size info techs for DAs

6. Technology The technology packages should include livelihood component (Human, NRs, LS, LHs,, Value chain and marketing), climate smart agriculture (CSA), CSI in all technologies as a cross cutting, range land management (bush encroachment and make use of the by, seasonal closure in pastoral areas), water harvesting focused in Pastoral areas, farmland closure as a technology, tillage and mechanization, soil organic matter management /enhancement, and technologies for intensification /diversification. It was also suggested to include wind erosion protecting technologies, pastoral areas and within the Rift Valley system.

While updating the info-techs, clear format of presentation should be selected. It was also suggested to include missing technologies.

The management and use concept for the varied technologies should be incorporated in the guideline. As each technology has its own nature the management system be defined and how communities use them without jeopardizing their sustainability determined. There should also be an exit strategy for watershed development. Last but not least the work norms for the varied technologies need to be updated.

7. Terms of Reference for Guideline Revision


The scope of the TOR be clearly defined. It has to have clear objectives by setting the main output/outcome to be achieved. More time should be allocated for experts who involve in the updating than the workshops. It has to show how and when others other stakeholders (MoLF, Extension, etc.) involve in this assignment. As to the experts who involve in this, it should be a full time engagement not a part time assignment. Thus, it needs writing a formal letter to different organizations, and discussions with them so that they can release experts for some time to fully engage in this important assignment. The modality of execution of the task should be defined; whether it be led by technical committee or/and steering committee.

8. Watershed Users Association Watershed development at grass roots level need to have strong institution which is legal and stronger than the current arrangement, i.e watershed committee. It is the most important framework for sustainability and reaping economic benefits from rehabilitated watersheds. Watershed Communities have their bylaws /constitution for the management, maintenance, and benefit; they can be a recognized legal entity. Reference should be made to WUAs Proclamation (in Amhara Region) - the example of irrigation users’ Association. Such proclamation should be approved by higher level and accommodate both pastoral and highland situations.

Conclusions

1. The idea of developing one national guideline was agreed, but it has to consider all settings (pastoral, non-pastoral and agro-pastoral). In addition to this general guideline, different models based on identified thematic areas developed and also a pocket size info tech need to be developed for DAs

2. The idea of including CSA as standalone info tech contradicts with the countries climate resilient green economy strategy. Our experiences from CSI and GCCA and Fast track projects implementation also indicated that CSA should be mainstreamed across the board. Thus, the same approach will be adopted in the updating of the guideline.

3. Rangeland can be seen as one of the technologies for NRM in pastoral areas. It has nothing to do with mandate of other institutions. But, our revision of the guideline will involve all responsible sectors water, livestock, and environment etc so that ideas clearly captured and technologies properly identified. The same works with irrigation related activities, NRMD will not go beyond its mandate.

4. Equitable distribution of resources generated within the watersheds need to be checked by legal backgrounds. For that to happen creation of legally backed institutions at grass roots level should be considered; i.e the establishment of watershed users association widely proposed. The experience from Tigray Region also shown as the same. For example, the idea of the government is the creation of jobs for youths and women, though in practical this was challenged by farmers as they are not willing to hand over rehabilitated lands through their labour contribution. In contrast, they suggested that let us give them our land, and engage in rehabilitation works as we did and have their own.

5. Some form of mechanization in the future might be needed. We are mobilizing over 15 million people for watershed development, but whether we continue to mobilize this much


people in the future or not is not clear. Thus, there should be some form of technologies introduced in the sub-sector that will help our farmers.

6. It was agreed to prepare the guideline using own force, but as it needs much time a formal letter of communication be written to different stakeholders identified to participate in this assignment, and also at the same time a discussion be held with organization heads to release some time of staff for the assignment.

Part II: Integrated Watershed Development Strategy, Agro-

forestry and Establishment of Multi Stakeholders Platform

1. Integrated Watershed Development Strategy

The integrated watershed development approach has been developed taking in to account the country’s vision to reach a middle income by 2025. The strategy in this sub-sector is aligned with government implementation mechanisms to attain GTP objectives and targets.

There are a set of indicators and targets indicated in the GTP to be achieved by this sub-sector. This can be shown in table below:-

Activities units GTP ache. TargetIncrease Community watersheds with a development plan

No 19,748 93,713

Increase area of land rehabilitated through area closure Million Ha

10.86 22.54

Increase area of watersheds supported with physical soil and water conservation structures

Million Ha

8.12 27.23

Jobs created for citizens through watershed management.

Million 1.5

To achieve these indicators the strategy that has been put in use is the “Scaling-Up Strategy”. It is scaling up of best technologies or proven agricultural technologies and reach all farmers within a very short period of time.

The dissemination of proven technologies and up scaling happen through institutional arrangements created at grass root levels called (i) development groups (20-30 people) and (ii) 1-5 groups. Each year the community is mobilized to construct soil and water conservation activities. Currently the community is voluntarily contributing its labor. The change army in the NRM is achieved.

So far, due to implementation of bio-physical soil and water conservation through these mechanisms the GTP I performance has surpassed targets by a significant margin in the area of natural resource conservation and management, and particularly, community based watershed developments has led to rehabilitation of large hectares of degraded lands.


The rehabilitated watersheds have been transforming in to benefits generation such as source of fodder, employment opportunities for youths and hills are now sources of wealth. However, ownership and sustainability is a major concern in most areas (needs further effort).

There are some notable challenges in natural resources management in the country. These are:-

In pastoral area, problem of invasion species (Prosopis juliflora, Water Haicin,…) etc has posed threats.

CC effects/hazardous (drought, flood, frost …) The need for integration and diversification The need to integrate payment for ecosystem service New developments (rail way, large scale farms, sugar industries etc) Lack of proper reporting, M&E

Can the scaling up approach be sustainable? Especially in potential Woredas farmers’ income is increasing and labor is becoming a scarce resource. Hence, the need to support the construction of some of the technologies with machinery might be important in the future. So, this part of the report end up by questioning do we need to revise the existing strategy?

Discussions and next steps

Summaries of discussions and next steps forward on the integrated Watershed Development Strategy are summarized as follows:-

The idea of integrated watershed development strategy was taken as an inspiring and motivating one. That mean, there is a strong interest to have one by upgrading the existing document or develop new one if it does not exist.

If up scaling is one of the strategies we adopted so far, we need to clearly indicate what successful technologies, best practices, livelihoods options that benefited the farmers and pastoralists and that we have scaled up. We have to ask ourselves questions such as ‘have we scaled up Humbo NRM practices?’ Simply, we need to have tools for scaling up.

The issue of whether we have an IWDS or not was raised during this workshop, but it was agreed that we the document with a need for revision or updating.

The strategy should include ways for livelihoods based interventions both farm and nonfarm based activities

One of the plausible strategies so far is that of zero-grazing though still a lot to be done with this regards. There should also be farming system oriented strategies for example in large range management areas controlled grazing should be applied. Also, the strategy should consider the different socio-economic setting including mountains development, and per-urban watershed development.

The strategy has to show its link with the extension system. Thus, the link between crop, livestock and natural resource management should be clearly indicated.


The strategy need to have clear objectives focused around water security, food security and pollution (for per-urban watershed development). It needs to have clearly set objectives that need to be addressed in this sub-sector.

The strategy for different stakeholders’ participation and partnership including the involvements and roles of research institutions should be described.

As a strategy we have been mobilizing over 4.5 million people per day, but the results on the ground do not adequately justify this. The management system we adopted with this respect is adhoc, which is not systematic. Hence, minimizing the benefit we would have gained from such mass mobilization. For the future, the strategy should design a systematic approach on how to effectively use the communities for quality natural resources management.

Dilution of the watershed committees by 1-5 working cell and 20-30 development group was mentioned by participants which they stressed that the strategy should design methods for making such structures effective or creating new stronger structure at the grass roots level.

2. Agro forestry situation for development in Ethiopia

Agro-forestry will suffice the three dimensions of sustainable development (Ecological, Economical &social). Almost half the world’s agricultural lands has at least a 10 percent tree cover, suggesting that agro forestry, an integrated system of trees, crops and/or livestock within a managed farm or agricultural landscape, is widespread and critical to the livelihoods of millions of people. It has multi-dimensional benefits such as:-

protect and sustain agricultural productive capacity; ensures food diversity and seasonal nutritional security; diversifies rural incomes; strengthens resilience to climatic fluctuations; helps perpetuate local knowledge and social and cultural values.

There are a set of policy and strategic frameworks that can promote agro-forestry in the country. These policies include:- (i) the Environmental Policy (1997), (ii) the Rural Development Policy and Strategy (2001), (iii) Proclamation No. 456/2005 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Rural Land Administration and Land Use Proclamation, (iv)Forest Conservation and Utilization Policy (2007), (v) the GTP I & II and (vi) the 2011 CRGE Strategy.

There are a number of opportunities for agro-forestry in the country, among which the following can be mentioned:-

Policy makers and members of the public are increasingly aware of the role that trees can play in watershed management, land rehabilitation and climate change mitigation.

Reducing Emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) activities will create new opportunities to support agro forestry. In the case of climate change


mitigation, opportunities for compensation for agro foresters for carbon sequestration are emerging and may increase substantially from REDD initiative.

Several non-governmental organizations – including the World Agro forestry Centre (ICRAF) and some projects in tertiary education and research institutions – are already promoting agro forestry in Ethiopia.

There is a high demand for tree products, including wood, fodder and other non-timber forestry products

There is increasing number of university graduates with experience in natural resource management, forestry, and agro forestry.

Recent improvements in land tenure security for farmers will encourage them to invest in strategies such as agro forestry that pay off in the long term.

Agro forestry is placed as case team in NRM directorate in MoANR and established national Agro forestry stakeholder platform,

There are successful indigenous agro forestry practices throughout the country. Urbanization and industrialization drive increasing market demand for a wide range of

fruit, timber, oils, and other agro forestry products. government would implement a Faidherbia programme that seeks to establish 100

million Faidherbiaalbida trees on smallholder cereal croplands across the country within the next three years to improve food production and livelihoods of smallholder farmers

Though opportunities exist, it was untapped due to many challenges in the sector. Particularly the following challenges are identified as limiting the implementation of agro-forestry practices in the country.

Weak inter-sectoral linkages: This is expected to improve the governance, research and coordinate the haphazardly scattered activities of agro forestry under different institutions.

Lack of data about AF coverage in the country Gaps in the research–extension–farmer continuum Shortage of improved planting materials; and Poor access to tree seed and germplasm The continued existence of open grazing. Lack of market access and limited value addition, Underdevelopment of markets for

agro forestry products; The market linkage for the agro forestry products is weak and not organized

Limited availability of adoptable technologies. Ignorance of the advantages of agro forestry Absence of focused national strategy፡-Agro forestry has not gained the desired

importance as a resource development tool due to various factors.

The main areas of discussions under this session focused on how to tap the opportunities and widely implement agro forestry activities within Ethiopian economy.

Discussions and ways forward


This is one of the areas we have been talking about for many Years, but without any significant changes. Traditionally it may exist in Oromia and SNNPR, but it may not be available in other areas. Thus, the traditional agricultural system that occupied our mind setting, crop-crop system, should have to integrate within itself tree plantation. We have to adopt business oriented farming system.

Agro forestry was recognized by participants as a set of activities that can ensure productivity and sustainability. It brings the intensification within the watersheds. However, the current agro forestry practices in the country are traditional, which need to be further researched. The researching should come up with modern agro-forestry technology that can be up scaled.

There are high technical experts gaps on this specific area that needs the attention of the government for building capacity building

At the moment institution responsible for leading agro-forestry in the country is not there. Thus, someone has to take the lead particularly a body within the MoANR.

There should be agro forestry based eco-system payment.

3. Establishing Multi-Stakeholders Watershed Platform

Natural resource development has been practiced for the last four decades in the country. A lot of stakeholders have been involved in the implementation of watershed management. Sustainable Natural Resource Development and Management need integration of multi-stakeholder actors; hence there is a need to have a comprehensive and integrated approach involving different sectorial agencies and other stakeholders.

But there is no integration and coordination modality focusing in the implementation of Watershed Management. Integration and coordination can minimizes duplication of effort, creates common understanding among stakeholders, lessons can be learnt from one another, good to bring synergetic effect at national level, and important to have maximum benefit from the limited resources, etc. Under the leadership of MOANR, there was a need to coordinate line ministries, NGO, development partners, and other stakeholders to create common understanding and unified direction for NRM in the country. The need to establish the platform has been a paramount importance to address the below key questions:-

• Who is involved in the implementation of watershed development activity?

• Where are they working?

• What are they doing?

• What type of implementation approach are they following?

– Watershed approach Vs Landscape approach

– Scale of implementation, Micro-watershed, critical, Basin …

• What type of problems are they facing during implementation?


• What should be done to solve the problem?

• What type of support do they need?

Thus, it has been proposed to establish a multi stakeholder forum [ or platforms] in which stakeholders :

I. work collectively towards an understanding of the resource base;

II. cooperate in solving social dilemmas associated with collective resource use; and

III. undertake joint actions with respect to the perceived problems

The proposed structure of the platform is given in figure 1 below:-

Figure 1: Proposed structure of the platform

The platform will be chaired by the NRM state minister. The members comprises of Directors or Senior experts from key concerned line Ministries, MoANR (directorates + Projects/programmes, MoEFCC, MoWIE, MoLF, FCA, EIAR, ….), development partners, NGOs, academia and research institutions. It will have the following roles and responsibilities:-

Review and adopt the Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures of the platform Ensure harmonization, coordination, and alignment of watershed development

activities in the country and also play a strong watershed development advocacy role. Ensure synergy and coordination with key stakeholders and other working on related

programs at the country level to avoid duplication of efforts. Prepare strategy and policy dialogue forums among stakeholders and professionals in

the area of Watershed Management


Facilitating and supporting policy and strategy development processes for promoting, adoption and scaling up of watershed development at a national level

Identify gaps & provide recommendation on the institutional arrangement for Watershed development

Generate recommendations to the SLM TC for consideration and approval Procedures for meeting

The platform will meet bi- annually (every six month)

Discussions and ways forward

The platform should be considered as a strategic tool to address strategic level issues and bottlenecks affecting the sub-sector. Thus, it should be a multi stakeholders platform that included many institutions that have not mentioned so far such basin director, land rehabilitation board etc

The establishment of the platform should be from the federal up to the grass roots level

The objectives of the plat form have to be clearly identified. However, understanding was created the main objectives such platform is based on Paris declaration on aid effectiveness. Accordingly, the objectives will revolve around efficient resource mobilization and avoidance duplication of efforts/resources.

To foster partnership, there should be a dedicated staff working on this; at least one to two staff required, because the work involves setting agendas, identifying discussion areas and bringing partners together.

A watershed platform under which several issues such as watershed, capacity building system, best practices should be formed.

The platform should pave ways for non-natural resource management actors such as the urban areas and profit oriented organizations to pay for eco-system management. In some instances, it has been observed that those who dedicated their time and energy for watershed rehabilitation, i.e farmers are not beneficiaries of their efforts. For instance, instead of farmers who involved in rehabilitation works, it is urban areas who benefited from the water generated from the rehabilitated lake Haromaya. Thus, the term voluntary as indicated to define the platform is not appropriate, hence private sectors has to be included and participate in the natural resources management of the country.

There should be regional participation in the platform. The meeting at the federal level should convene twice annually, and that of Regions on quarterly basis.

6. Conclusions, Next StepsThe workshop has drawn renowned practitioners, experts and researchers in the areas of natural resource management to discuss on updating of CBPWDG and pastoral PW guideline, integrated watershed development strategy, agro forestry practices, and establishment of multi-stakeholders platform. The workshop successfully discussed and agreed as follows:-


1. Updating of the guideline should start as soon as possible. The MoANR and all stakeholders attendee to the workshop agreed to participate in the revision of the guideline. For this, the NRMD should take lead role to discuss with different partners, secure strong technical staff and create a good working environment for the updating to start.

2. The NRMD has to update and prepare national integrated watershed management strategy document in consultation with different stakeholders’

3. The agro forestry case team established under NRMD should be strengthened, and strategy for identifying, modernizing and scaling up successful agro forestry practices be designed. It was also agreed that tangible actions need to be done in this area.

4. The establishment of platform well accepted by all stakeholders. It was suggested to be well crafted, inclusive of all partners with clearly defined objectives and structural frame work.

Closing Remarks Workshop Closing RemarksMinistry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MOANR)Natural Resources Management Directorate, Director- Mr. Tefera Tedesse

Dear invited Federal, Regional official and experts,


Development partners, NGO representatives, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure to thank you to the dedication and commitment you have shown during three days of consultation workshop on “Reviewing of Community Based Participatory Watershed Development and Pastoral Area Guidelines; and Intensification of Integrated Watershed Development Strategy and Establishment of Multi-Stakeholder Platform”.

At this workshop we have discussed and agreed on a number of key issues such as the immediate updating of the guidelines based on the gaps assessment and additional info to be collected according to this workshop recommendations. My directorate should also draft out the integrated watershed management strategy and system for the establishment of multi-stakeholders platform in support with you all.

As you all witnessed, we have huge tasks waiting ahead of us which we could believe to overcome, but the same dedication and enthusiasm you have shown us during the workshop should continue to encourage us for the unforeseen future. As promised, we seek for your expertise, financial and technical support to kick off the assignments agreed up on during this workshop.

I think you have made the same observations with me the fact that the number of participants to this workshop increased from day one to the end. This showed us the extent to which you are looking for dynamic changes in the natural resource management sector, and I again urge the same commitment to continue in to the future until our aspirations come true.

Lastly, I would like to thank all of you who attended this workshop, but also don’t forget that our communication and partnership will continue. Also, I extend my deepest thanks to GIZ-SURED for their financial support to this important workshop.


Annexes:

Annex 1: Workshop ParticipantsS/No Name of participant sex Organization Position Region/Woreda Cell phone E-mail

1 Sileshi Lemma M Oromia 0984733076 [email protected] Tsegaye Boyissa M Oromia 0911005332 3 Abdi Oumer M Harari 0920016752 4 kun wiyual M BoANR Expert Gambela 0934091525 [email protected] Kassu Kebede M WFP program Officers A.A 0911339116 6 Messele Gebreegziabher M WFP AssocialProgrmar A.A 0911623183 7 Begashaw Wakew M WB SP Specialist A.A 094645102 8 Amare Mengiste M FAO NRM &Risilence

TLA.A 0911202029 [email protected]

9 Endashew Mogessie M PHEEC M &E Coordinator A.A 0911940930 [email protected]

10 Getachew Debalkie M FAO CCIM Officers A.A 0911345738 [email protected] Ambachew Worku M CRS NRM & CC specia A.A 0911308646 [email protected] Belayneh Adugna M GIZ NRM Advisor A.A 0918783821 [email protected] Tariku Alemu M WFP NRM officers A.A 0911654139 [email protected] Arega Yirga M WFP PO A.A 09113546 [email protected] Halake Bante M WFP PO A.A 0911671494 [email protected] Moges Werku M USIAD PSWP Advisor A.A 0930364030 [email protected] Gizaw Desta M WLRC ILM director A.A 0912860328 [email protected] Bedasa Eba M ILRI Researcher A.A 0913205384 [email protected] Betru Nedesso M MoANR NPC A.A 0911210771 [email protected] Abenet Mengistu M NRMD PWCU Coord. 0926638685 [email protected] Fekede Adane M MoANR NRMD A.A 0911914849 22 Nesredin Rube M MoANR NRMD A.A 0911869319 23 Aklilu Mesfin M MoANR NRMD A.A 091335272728 24 Bogale Terefe M MoANR MoANR,RLAND A.A 0911629175 [email protected] Yosef Assefa M MoANR Senior Expert A.A 0911089362 26 Tefera Tadesse M MoANR Director A.A 0911373582

B-48

27 Hailu Hundie M MoANR Wat/esh, Expert A.A 0910685682 [email protected] Legesse Gemeda M MoANR Wat/esh, Expert A.A 0966798204 [email protected] Shimelis Zewdu M MoANR Agronomist A.A 0914321744 30 Aderajew Molla M MoLF Range Land Spec. A.A 0914718179 [email protected] Dawit Zewde M MoIWE Expert A.A 0935337063 [email protected] Ian Campbell M Wbank Public PSNP A.A 0911843831 [email protected] Lakew Desta M Private Bone Consulting A.A 0911401459 [email protected] Abebe Seifu M MEFCC Director & DL A.A 0925629045 [email protected] Amare Mugoro M Weng Natio. Coord. A.A 0911762498 [email protected] Tigist Mengistu F MoANR Organ.Fert.Exper A.A 0913864270 37 Shanko Teso M MoANR Agroforestry Exp. A.A 0921173839 38 Melese Mena M South Deputy &H.Be. South 0911035788 39 Mohammed Seid M Afar PW coordination Afar 0914142068 [email protected] Getachew Mekuria M DU-ATA STAS A.A 0912048741 getachew.mekuria@ata41 Tefera Solomon M MoANR Soil Fertility

DirectorA.A 0911035582

42 Sintayehu Demissie F MoANR FSCD

LHCU coord A.A 0911911407 [email protected]

43 Elias Awoel M MoANR SSID Diretore44 Nuradin Hasaro M MoANR PASIDP Coord.45 Dejene Abesha M MoANR REDFS Coord.46 Tewdros M WB47 Melaku Tadesse M GIZ-SURED

B-49

proceeding of the workshop on cbpwdg and pastoral area …€¦ · web view · 2018-02-19update...

Documents