12 Feb 2013 Addis Ababa Community level issues and interventions Aster Gebrekirstos, et al. World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi

Major development challenges in Ethiopia? Land degradation low and erratic rainfall Deforestation Scarcity of fuel wood compels farm households to burn manure and crop residues for household energy, decreasing yields and limiting the supply of animal feed Limited access to external inputs (fertilizer, seed, pesticides, specialized machinery and appropriate technologies)Introduction

Overcoming the challenges Can sustainable intensification overcome some of the development challenges? YES! Sustainable intensification of mixed tree-crop-livestock systems on farms and within farming landscapes can reverse land degradation, and improve crop productivity, livestock feed availability and food security (Garrity et al., 2010).  Transform key production systems through sustainable intensification

The challenge Fine grained variation in: – soil (biota) – climate (altitude) – farming practices – household characteristics – market opportunities – social capital – policy and its implementation

The requirements It requires making effective use of a combination of local ecological knowledge, farmer preferences, market opportunities and science-based understanding of component interactions Community mobilization is key for success It also requires strong partnership (among CG centers, partners...)

RC2 will focus on exploiting the potential for peer-to-peer knowledge exchange within communities and on opportunities for strengthening and augmenting existing practises with external innovation. The three key deliverables are: Bio-physical and socio-economic benchmarks Community knowledge exchange groups (CKEGs) Opportunities for scaling innovation (endogenous and exogenous) Based on the out come of RC1 exsisting functional CKEGs and/or establish new Main objectives of RC2

Research Questions What benchmarks are appropriate for meeting the needs of monitoring progress towards AR-EH / FtF development outcomes at the household level? How can CKEGs be constituted to make the best use of knowledge that already exists within communities and to act as a platform for the acquisition and application of new knowledge (intervention options)? How can gender equity be properly ensured in the formation and operation of CKEGs. How can communities be organised to capitalise on a range of opportunities for scaling innovation in ways that are both equitably targeted and cost effective?

Hypotheses Based on proper characterisation and stratification (RC1), it is possible to constructs cost-effective suites of benchmarks that are effective sources of knowledge for communities, they can underpin meaningful M and E and do not require exhaustive and expensive household surveys. Effective sharing of existing knowledge within communities through CKEGs can be effective in generating development outcomes before exogenous innovation is brought into play. CKEGs can also form a strong platform for the introduction and integration of exogenous technologies. A balanced analysis of endogenous and exogenous opportunities that focus on bottom-up integration rather than top-down introduction is a more effective mechanism for implementing sustainable intensification at a household level.

Approach Bio-physical and socio-economic benchmarks Collate all the benchmarking data gathered under RC1 and develop a suite of benchmarks that addresses the needs of monitoring progress towards AR-EH / FtF development outcomes. Develop and test approaches for actively using benchmarks to inform discussion in CKEGs. Establish monitoring processes based on the suite of benchmarks selected. Community knowledge exchange groups Establish CKEGs based on equitable gender participation and the opportunities for knowledge transfer amongst strata. Develop and test participatory approaches for peer-to-peer benchmarking as a driver of knowledge transfer. Develop and test approaches that would allow CKEGs to participate in driving research priorities for AR-EH. Opportunities for scaling innovation Identification of barriers to wider adoption of current practises within the community. Identification of solutions for lifting these barriers where feasible. Identification of entry points for exogenous technologies and management practices.

A knowledge based systems approach (The AKT5 software)- will be employed (Sinclair and Walker, 1998) Four stages of the knowledge elicitation process (Dixon et al., 2001) Approach: Local ecological knowledge process

The process contd Stakeholder analysis (to establish system boundaries and determine the different strata of people who had an influence on the functioning of the system e.g farmers, Development Agents, Extension officers and village leaders etc) Scoping, ( different PRA methods will be used such as social mapping and modelling, seasonality maps, participatory linkage diagrams and focus group discussions. Definition(objectives will be redefined and then semi structured interviews will be prepared ) Stratified random sampling to select informants of equal number of male and female Compilation phase involved repeated interaction with key informants, Knowledge representation and evaluation of emerging knowledge base

Participatory resource mapping: integrating trees in fields, farms and landscapes

Participatory resource mapping of the farming system:

What do farmers know and explain well? Drivers and challenges Why do farmers do the way they do (e.g positioning of trees on farms) Source of exsisting technologies (Endogenous and exogenous) processes of change (what works well)- (strong community leader, existing CKEGs, Model farmers?) Identify knowledge gaps and  Demand driven Intervention options (build on what we have (entry point) and/or introduce new technologies) Compilation and generalisation The process contd

Farmers attending a feedback session evaluated for coherence and consistency of the information-Build trust The process contd

Forms of intervention Intervention = target practice + associated practices + enabling environment controlled grazing trees in other farm niches trees in crop fields social capital that enables collective grazing management Secure user right or tenure land and tree quality seed / seedling supply or encouragement of FMNR

The training team discussing with local administrators and extension workers of Abreha We Atsibha village (12 th of June, 2012) Training for two weeks (class, field, interview and feedback) AKT5 local knowledge acusition Capacity building of seven local experts One MSc student defended her thesis ongoing training in Melkassa Local knowledge training using the AKT5 software and methodology Capacity develpment

Characterize variation across scaling domain – acquire local knowledge – identify strengths and weaknesses (knowledge gaps) Design scaling so that promising options are tested across sufficient range to refine our understanding of what works where and for whom – measure performance of options – Fit options to sites and farmer circumstances Establish participatory approach with farmers in which uncertainty and risk are understood, acknowledged and progressively reduced – leave to farmers what they do best but – learn collectively and systematically from experience conclusions The approach

Contributors ICRAF Dr Aster Gebrekirstos Dr. Kiros Hadgu Dr Fergus Sinclair Dr Ermias Aynekulu Mrs Martha Cronin ILRI National partners Our thanks to USAID/ILRI and all our partners Thank you for your attention!!! Amesegenaleu!