nbdc local innovation platforms: progress so far

NBDC local Innovation Platforms: Progress so far...

Beth Cullen, Alemayehu Belay, Alan Duncan, Katherine SnyderAberra Adie, Zelalem Lemma, Kebebe Ergano, and Josephine Tucker

14th June 2012ILRI Addis Ababa

Why Innovation Platforms?

Or...

How does NDBC IPs differ from FAP IPs?Pre-defined entry point and value chain

approach

Joint identification of common NRM issue to ensure collective action

Takes time!

Fodder

NRMIssue?

Meetings so far...

Community engagement

Stakeholder Capacity Building

A lot of talk about ‘participation’ but little knowledge about how to put it into action.

WAT-A-GAME- Participatory planning for NRM(www.watagame.info)

Issues

Fodder interventions have been selected by stakeholders in all three sites to address these issues

Site Main IssueRelated Issues

Fogera Unrestricted grazing

Land degradation

Diga Land degradation

Termite infestation *

Jeldu Soil erosion Deforestation

* Interventions in Diga linked to CPWF Termite Action Research Project

IP Fodder interventions to complement SLM campaign

• 80,000 ETB to be allocated to platforms to fund activities which address RWM issues

• Proposals and action plans currently being developed by stakeholders according to defined criteria

• Actions should be cross-sectoral, participatory, designed to address RWM issues and targeted to suitable area

• Sites have been selected in kebeles within the designated NBDC watersheds

• Action to take place at household level, farmland and communal land

• Action has already started in Diga and Fogera

Innovation Fund

1111

Future activities • ODI work on political economy and equity analysis of RWM interventions

• Qualitative work on adoption to complement N3 survey work

• Continued work on scenario development in collaboration with N3 and N4 work (perhaps use of Happy Strategies Game) as well as AfroMaison work

• Cross-basin collaboration (Volta ComMod)

• Hand over facilitation to partners for long term sustainability (partnership agreements currently being drafted)

• Formation of stronger links to national platform activities

• Formation of stronger links with GIZ SLM through coordinated activities

12

Challenges so far...• Facilitation of IPs is time and resource consuming

• Good facilitation is essential

• Facilitation occurring from a distance

• Platforms have been driven by NBDC agenda

• Problems with incentives (issues over per diems etc.)

• Platform participants inconsistent attendance at meetings

• Stakeholders often play dual roles which can affect the process

• How to incorporate existing knowledge and experience (e.g. RIPPLE, IPMS, African Highlands Initiative etc.)

• Design of M&E processes which do not rely on researchers (participatory video to perhaps play a role in this)

• Lack of adequate funds and high expectations!

13

Potential Risks• Action on the ground may not meet our timetable or expectations.

Conflict between allowing the process to develop at the pace of the stakeholders versus the need for 'outcomes'. A problem with externally driven platform processes.

• Lack of collaboration with other NBDC groups could be problematic, integrating biophysical information will be important to inform action on the ground

• Partner organizations willingness and ability to facilitate the platforms will impact the long term success and sustainability of activities.

• Process as important as outcomes! But developing a good process doesn’t necessarily ensure impact... other factors play a role too.

Research outputs

Information on:

•Livelihood strategies and constraints

•Factors influencing adoption/lack of adoption

•Social, economic and political drivers of landscape change

•Development of research/implementation processes

•Experiences, lessons, best practice

Inform policy

•Concrete outcomes that can be fed to national level platform

•Suggestions for alternatives to current practices

•Piloted processes that can be tested and replicated for use in planning and implementation

Learning so far