1. 3.1 Participatory Design

2. WHY PARTICIPATORY DESIGN?  To understand and agree priorities and make the best design for the system accordingly  To tap into long-time farmers knowledge on floods, slope of the land, sedimentation, etc..  Because it is (and will remain) the farmers system after all

3. Participatory Design: Two Stages  Agree on the priorities – what are the main issues and priorities in the area, how should the system be improved  Agree on the specific designs – what structures, where and what design

4. Set up farmers representative group, like a Farmers Design Committee Discuss specific issues and problems and set and rank priorities Walk through survey Evalution of priorities and common agreement on design concept Design meeting – agree on scope of works Agree on cost sharing Detailed designs Work agreement and initiation of the physical works AGREE ON PRIORITIES AGREE ON DESIGN STEPS

5. STEP 1 SET UP A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP

6. Discussion on the design should not be a loose discussion with ‘the farmers’ Participatory design is the negotiation with a representative and mandated group, such as a Farmers Design Committee

7. Project Staff Project DirectorTraditional Farmer Leaders Local Steering Committee, Sheeb (Eritrea): All project decisions – including design and timing – discussed and agreed between project staff and traditionally elected farmer leaders

8. STEP 2 SYSTEMATICALLY DISCUSS PROBLEMS AND PRIORITIES

10. It is important to understand and come to terms with farmers priorities:  Farmers may have a different risk assessment than engineers:  If the river changes course they may be able to ‘catch’ it  They may be keen to capture all flood water and be willing to except some erosion In many cases scour sluices are closed so as not to loose any water even if it causes sedimentation of canal bed or river

11. It is important to understand and come to terms with farmers priorities:  Farmers may have a different appreciation of the value of sediment then engineers for instance  They may want to exclude only the very coarse sediment or sediment from certain parts of the catchment, but otherwise appreciate its fertilizing value Childrens drawing showing great concern that sedimentation pond in modernized system in Wadi Laba is intercepting all nutrients

12. STEP 3 JOINT WALK THROUGH SURVEYS TO ASSESS FIELD SITUATION

13. JOINT WALK THROUGH SURVEYS Systematically walk the entire system

14. Engineer taking notes Discussion and explanation JOINT WALK THROUGH SURVEYS Pinpoint what needs to be done

15. STEP 4 COMMON AGREEMENT ON PRIORITIES AND SCOPE OF WORK

16. USE PAPER, DRAWINGS, MODELS INVOLVE FARMERS DESIGN GROUP OR ANY AUTHORIZED GROUP

18. STEP 5 DESIGN MEETINGS

19. Understanding and consensus required of the larger group

20. Agreement should come after - not before discussion

21. Proposed design: Gated Flood Channel Intake Example

22. No gate provided Because farmers do not want the Irrigation Agency (TDA) to control their intake Final construction: Ungated Intake

23. STEP 6 AGREEMENT ON COST SHARING

24. WHY COST SHARING? PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLE TO AVOID ‘WISH LISTS’ AND INSTEAD HAVE REALISTIC SCOPE OF WORKS REQUIRES FARMERS TO BE INTERNALLY ORGANIZED

25. DIFFERENT TYPES OF COST SHARING IN CASH MONEY BY PROVIDING LAND BY PROVIDING LABOUR BY DOING PART OF THE WORK

26. Agreement on cost sharing

28. STEP 7 AND 8 AGREEMENT ON DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

29. MAKE SURE FARMERS CONTRIBUTION ORGANIZED THROUGH FARMERS GIVE FARMERS COMMITTEE ROLE IN ASSESSING EVEN SUPERVISING OVERALL WORKS

30. FINAL POINT…

31. ALTERNATIVE TO PARTICIPATORY DESIGN IS FARMERS MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS AND DESIGNS THIS DROP STRUCTURE IN WADI ZABID FOR EXAMPLE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY FARMERS THEMSELVES FARMERS ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF SUBSTANTIAL CIVIL WORKS