Jeldu</li></li></ul><li>Data Collection Activities<br />Research training by ILRI, IWMI, ODI in Nov 2010<br />In two of the three sites, data collection has been undertaken beginning March 07, 2011<br /><ul><li>March 7, 2011 – Diga research site
March 13, 2011 – Fogera research site</li></ul>A team of researchers from ILRI and IWMI visited each research site and joined research teams in launching the data collection <br />Another visit to each of the two research sites was made by the consultant to see the progress of the data collection <br />At this stage, 95% of the data collection is completed in the 2 sites<br />The Fogera team has submitted preliminary results of the livelihood data<br />
Significant issues: Diga (Bikila kebele)<br />Food insecurity is a major concern – majority of HH cannot support their families throughout the year:<br /><ul><li>Termite infestation damaging crops
Presence of baboons in large numbers destroying crops
Soil erosion is a serious problem - rugged landscape & steep slopes
Limited use of extension inputs – fertilizers and seeds
Limited opportunity for diversification of income sources
Land issues have not been given due attention – some people own more land and the landless constitute up to 30% of the households
Some parts of the kebele are suitable for irrigation but farmers complained about shortage of labor due to children attending school </li></ul>Pressing issues include RWM aspects, but there are other serious factors affecting food security which will limit benefits of improved RWM.<br />
Significant issues: Fogera<br />Food security has improved in recent years because of:<br /><ul><li>New irrrigation (government and traditional)
Introduction of cash crops e.g. rice, onions</li></ul>But some problems:<br /><ul><li>Overproduction of onions and tomatoes
Conflicts over irrigation water</li></ul>Irrigation has reduced land available for grazing. HHs have reduced livestock number and cattle are increasingly reliant on crop residue<br />Some farmers practice retreat cultivation.<br />Farmers report that the situation has been changing very fast in recent years, with new production methods being introduced. For example SWC currently being implemented.<br />
Preliminary findings: RWM planning & implementation<br /><ul><li>RWM planning is based on a top-down quota system... with some perverse incentives affecting woreda officials and DAs
Woreda offices have an incentive to increase woreda targets to win resources, leading to pressure on implementaters at kebele level
DAs’ performance assessment is based on how far targets are met --> limited opportunity / incentive to innovate or listen to farmers.
Farmers report that they have very little say in where and how RWM is implemented, and some feel that government imposes on them.</li></li></ul><li>Questions for discussion<br /><ul><li>How can NBDC support more flexible and participatory implementation of RWM, and support innovation, given that the planning process seems to be top-down and rigid?
How can CPWF take account of the rapidly changing situation in some woredas in its models?
How will CPWF deal with pressing local issues which may be outside the remit of RWM but which are likely to constrain adoption or benefits of RWM?</li>