Approaches followed & lessons learned – Group Feedback -Seriti

Keble

SLATE Training for Africa RISING / NBDCAddis Ababa / Jeldu. 1 - 5 April 2013

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

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

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

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

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….

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

Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation

africa-rising.net