1. Approaches followed & lessons learned – Group Feedback -Seriti Keble SLATE Training for Africa RISING / NBDC Addis Ababa / Jeldu. 1 - 5 April 2013

2. Lessons drawn from field Process  Training:  Shortage of time  Not common understanding reached on weighting and scoreing as well as description of the indicators  Not explanatory guideline  Community indicators identification  Sampling should represent the diversity (elders, women Headed households, youth, poor, medium and rich…gender)  Different livelihood system: agro-ecology

3. Lessons drawn from field Process (Cont’d….)  Questionnaire Development  Screening of irrelevant indicators (like moon, sun, air….)  Indicator description should be understood clearly (is it Access, Availability, ownership etc)  Timing and resource like printer needs to be available during the field  Household Interviews  Sampling should represent the diversity  Different livelihood system: agro-ecology  positive and negative impacts of giving incentives to the farmers (concerns for contributing in missing our targets)  Translation barriers/gap

4. Lessons drawn from field Process (Cont’d….)  Household characteristics  Addressing the relationship between household head and interviewee should be taken into consideration  They need to be reviewed in the context of the kebelle  Land size (Owned and rent in, shared out), Grazing land was not well addressed  The unit of the land size should be carefully addressed (Local measurements should be standardized e.g. 1ha=8 kerte/Timad in Seriti kebelle, 1ha=4 timad other areas etc.  Livestock: Cattle was not well specified (Heifers, Steer, Calf), Poultry and Beekeeping was not included

5. Lessons drawn from field Process (Cont’d….)  Weight and Score (Impact)  Whether Weight is the Relevant vs. Adequacy of the indicator needs to be consider (e.g. Rain fall….) Lack of consistency  With in one capital Asset many indicators get similar weight (e.g. Ranking vs Similar weight)  Score impact vs Contribution to livelihood  Vunerability was not considered during the data collection  Weighting as compare to other indicators was difficult to farmers

6. Lessons drawn from field Process (Cont’d….)  Facilitation  Language Translation was barrier and might have contributed to message distortion  The Facilitator should have good Knowledge of the area and language  Data collection location should be at FTC or House to house interview  Field facilities avaialbility (field bag, Binder, other stationary material, camera for documentation etc….

7. Lessons drawn from field Process (Cont’d….)  Data Feed and Interpretation  The software was not user friendly (difficulties on data merging from different computer)  Result interpretation problem in the Benchmarking  It would have been good to understand the software final output and how to make conclusions and recommendations

12. Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation africa-rising.net