The document summarizes a workshop on bringing evidence to bear on negotiating ecosystem service and livelihood trade-offs in sustainable agricultural intensification. The workshop introduced participants to the Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Research for Livelihoods and Agro-ecosystem Resilience in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Zambia (SAIRLA) project in Ethiopia. Participants engaged in activities to define key concepts, review SAIRLA Ethiopia data and tools like a dashboard, and conduct participatory trade-off analyses of SAI practices using the available evidence. The goal was to enhance capacity for evidence-based trade-off assessments to inform cross-sectoral agricultural and environmental planning and decision-making.

1. 1
Bringing Evidence to Bear on Negotiating
Ecosystem Service and Livelihoods Trade-offs in
Sustainable Agricultural Intensification
Mieke Bourne and Leigh Ann Winowiecki
World Agroforestry Center(ICRAF)
Stakeholder Approach to Risk Informed and Evidence Based Decision Making
The SHARED workshop for the SAIRLA project ‘ Bringing Evidence to Bear on
Negotiating Ecosystem Service and Livelihood Trade-offs in Sustainable Agricultural
Intensification in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Zambia, ILRI Addis, 12 February 2019

2. 2
Introductions
• National Government
• Regional and Woreda Level Government
• Bilateral Donor/ Intergovernmental Organization/ International
Financial Organizations
• CBO/NGO/INGO or Project Representative
• Research or Academia
Share your name and affiliation

3. 3
Gathering Perspectives

4. 4
When you decided to come here
today…
1 . What did you hope to gain?
(pink card)
2. What did you give up? (green
card)

5. 5
At your tables, talk with colleagues…
1. What is your definition of a trade-
off? (yellow card)
2. What is your definition of a
synergy? (blue card)

6. 6What is Sustainable Agricultural
Intensification (SAI)?
The concept of SAI developed due to the need for approaches that
increase food production in response to the demand of a growing
population while conserving critical ecosystem services. A key
premise is that increased food production should not lead to encroachment
into protected biodiversity hotspots.

7. 7
When planning SAI interventions, we have
a structured process to assess trade-offs.

8. 8
We have the available data to assess the
trade-offs associated with SAI
interventions.

9. 9
Objectives of the workshop
•Enhance awareness of and capacity for
conducting socio-ecological trade-offs in
assessing SAI interventions
•Introduce the SAIRLA Dashboard for
Ethiopia and promote interaction with SAI
evidence
•Raise awareness on bringing trade-off
analyses into cross-sectoral planning
and decision making processes for SAI
interventions

10. 10Principles of engagement
Share views, openly,
honestly, respectively
Share the airspace; make
concise interventions
Show up on time and present in allocated time
Be present
It’s a working workshop - be
comfortable
Learn from each other; Enjoy our time
together

11. 11
Flow of Workshop
Opening,
Introductions,
Perspectives
Definitions and
reactions
Objectives, Flow
of Events,
SAIRLA Ethiopia
Review
Participatory
Trade-off
Analyses,
Demonstration
results
Next Steps,
Evaluation and
Closing
Bringing Data in
to Participatory
Trade-Off
Analyses
Identifying Trade-
off indicators
Scenarios and
implications at
national level
Closing Coffee/Tea
SAIRLA Ethiopia
Dashboard Review
Group Photo and coffee
Lunch

12. 12
The Stakeholder Approach
to Risk Informed and
Evidence Based Decision
Making (SHARED) method
is a tailored process that
builds interaction between
people and accessible
evidence for improved
decisions towards
sustainable impact.

13. 13
Review of the SAIRLA
Project in Ethiopia
Leigh Winowiecki

14. 14

15. 15
A interdisciplinary research programme to increase the
uptake of context-appropriate SAI innovations in
East and Southern Africa through evidence
generation, data analytics and the development
of innovative tools for stakeholder engagement
with evidence.
The change we have sought to contribute to:

16. 16Project Action Sites

17. 17SimplifiedConceptualFramework

18. 18
• Stakeholder workshop in Ziway Woreda, September
2016
– Identified SAI practices, barriers to adoption and root causes,
stakeholders
• Developed a guide and implemented Stakeholder
Mapping using SHARED approach (Ziway and national
2016)
• Baseline survey on SAI evidence access and use (Ziway
and national 2016)
Project Activities

19. 19
Baseline result: Access to and use of
evidence on SAI
55% 53%
36%
10%
General
background
information on
SAI
Information on
specific SAI
practices
relevant for
specific areas of
country
Evidence on the
effectiveness of
one or more
specific SAI
interventions
Other
Figure 8: Types of Information Accessed on
SAI (N = 83)

20. 20
Social network for SAI information -
national

21. 21
• Initial collation of appropriate data for socio-ecological trade-off analysis on SAI
interventions (2017)
• Participatory farmer identification of prioritized SAI practices and indicators of
success in February 2017
• 1st National SHARED workshop for sharing SAI experiences, indicators of
successful SAI, SAI practices, mechanisms for scaling, root causes and barriers
to scaling, baseline results, trade-off themes and available data and relevant
policies, March 2017
• Dashboard Development Ongoing since 2017
• Presentation at NLA meetings
• Participatory trade-off analyses at the national level 2018
• Field demonstration / SAI Trials
• Socio-ecological modeling of trade-offs (ongoing)
Project Activities continued

22. 22
Group Photo
Then Tea!

23. 23
Definitions
Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI): approaches that
aim to increase food production while conserving the critical
ecosystem services
Trade-offs: To gain a positive effect toward your desired outcome,
you have to give up something (win-lose)
Synergies: When two positive effects combine to have a greater
impact toward the desired outcome than they would individually
(win-win) Trade-offs and synergies can vary by scale
At your table discuss:
• Are these three definitions clear?
• Do you have a specific example or experience with trade-offs
related to agriculture?

24. 24
On a scale of 0-5 (5 is very good), how would you
rate yourself in terms of these activities in the last
24 hours? Place a mark on each arm
Exercise
Sleep
Healthy Meals
Relaxation
Family Time

25. 25

26. 26
Objectives of the Participatory Tradeoff
Activity
• To gather perspectives from various stakeholder
groups on the influence of Sustainable Agricultural
Intensification (SAI) practices on socio-ecological
domains.
• To identify key investments needed to minimize
negative influence.
• To identify key data needs to assess the tradeoffs
and synergies.
• To explore tradeoffs and synergies of the SAI
practices.
Introduction to Participatory Trade-off Assessment

27. 27
1 – Agricultural
productivity
• Crop productivity _______
• Plant residue
productivity____________
• Livestock productivity_____
• Consistent season
production ___
• Production during wet or
dry years _______
• Capacity to produce
surplus for the
market_________
Adapted Participatory Tradeoff Activity Part One
Step One. Identify the SAI Practice: _____________________________________________
Step Two. Specify the Context:________________________________________________________
Step Three. Identify how the SAI practice influences the indicators by scoring the level of impact.
Score -5 to -1 for negative impact (where -1 is a less negative impact and -5 is high negative impact) ,
0 for no influence and 1 to 5 for positive influence (where 1 is less positive impact and 5 is
high positive impact). Write down the score next to each indicator.
5 -Social
• Participation of the
youth________
• Participation of women______
• Participation of marginalized
groups_________
• Participation in farmer
groups/women’s’ groups/youth
group_______
• Access to credit________
• Access to governing
institutions___
• Access to information_______
3 – Land health
• Vegetative cover
________
• Plant biodiversity
_________
• Fuel security
_____________
• Insect biodiversity
________
• Water availability
_________
• Water quality
____________
• Soil health
______________
2 – Income
• Profitability
_____________
• Consistent profit from
each cropping season
________
• Income diversification
_____
• Input use intensity
_______
• Labor requirement
_______
• Capacity to sell
agricultural
4-Human Condition
• Nutrition _______
• Food security _________
• Human health ________
• Access to education_____
Group:
______________________
_

28. 28
Participatory trade-off activity in
Ethiopia

29. 42
Review the available data
• Dashboard: www.landscapeportal.org/SairlaEthiopia/
• Data packs at the table
• Your experience and data

30. 43Bringing data into the trade-off analysis
1 - Discuss how you would bring
data to inform a revised radar
graph. Where possible, score the
influence of agroforestry practice
on each domain (5 to -5)
2 - Based on your discussions,
identify 1 of the indicators per
domain that would be of greatest
use in understanding SAI
practice trade-offs. Then write
who in the country is responsible
for having that information.
3 - Discuss any negative scores,
could they be overcome with
investment? (write group answer
on a card)

31. 44
Report Back from table groups:
What was one interesting discussion point or
observation by your group while doing the
exercise?
Was the available data sufficient to complete the
trade-off exercise?
What did you agree in terms of indicators?

32. 45
Lunch Break

33. 46
At what scale/level can a trade-off
approach to agricultural and
environmental planning be most
effective?

34. 47
How do we scale up the use of evidence based
trade-off assessments?
What needs to happen to integrate trade-off assessments
(using evidence and working across sectors)?
• Identify key actions and the institution that should lead the
action (put one action and associated lead per card)

35. 48
SAIRLA Dashboard
www.landscapeportal.org/SairlaEthiopia/

36. 49SAIRLA Ethiopia Dashboard
www.landscapeportal.org/SairlaEthiopia/

37. 50

38. 51

39. 52

40. 53

41. 54

42. 55

43. 56

44. 57
SAIRLA Dashboard engagement process
and feedback
Leigh Winowiecki, Hussein Uregesa from Ziway agricultural office and Hadia Seid from ICRAF-Ethiopia, discussing the prototype of the Ethiopia dashboards.

45. 59
Getting to know the SAIRLA Ethiopia
Dashboard
Station 1
Station 3
Station 2
Station 4

46. 60
SAIRLA Dashboard Sustainability and Use
•How can we improve the dashboard so that it
supports the Trade-Off Assessment process?
•What are the options to increase the use and of
the dashboard?
•How can we enhance the utility of the dashboard
and include more data? (please add suggestions
to the feedback form)

47. 61
Next steps
• Trade-off modeling incorporated into the dashboard
• Dashboard presentation at Woreda and Zonal levels
• NLA engagement
• Identify opportunities to enhance utility and sustainability of
the dashboard

48. 62