Presented by Eva Ludi at the Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9–10 July 2013

1. Rhetoric versus Realities
An assessment of rainwater management planning and
implementation modalities
in Oromiya and Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Eva Ludi
Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9–10 July 2013

3. Rainwater Management
• Ethiopia has invested extensively in RWM
interventions, in particular soil and water conservation
and afforestation over the last 40 years, but in many
areas with disappointing impact
• A new approach is obviously needed, but what should
it be?
4

4. Ludi, 2012

5. Rainwater management
• Rainwater management refers to interventions which
enable smallholder farmers to sustainably increase
agricultural production – focusing on livestock, trees,
fish as well as crops – by making better use of
available rainwater
• These interventions may be at plot, farm, community,
district or watershed level.
• A rainwater management system (RWMS) includes
technologies and practices for managing water for
production, and the policy, institutional and social
dynamics and support systems necessary to optimize
the benefits of such technologies and practices
Merrey & Gebreselassie

7. Nile 2
• On integrated RWM strategies – technologies,
institutions and policies
• Baseline research on RWM planning and
implementation and how this intersects with
livelihoods and innovation
• Fieldwork in the three NBDC learning sites Jeldu and
Diga (Oromiya) and Fogera (Amhara)
• Five KAs per site representing different agro-ecologies
(highland – midland – lowland), presence / absence of
RWM, high / low levels of degradation
• Broad suite of methods and tools for data collection
9

8. Findings – past RWM
• Limited success of past RWM interventions
– Top-down planning & implementation
– Standardised intervention packages
– Quote system
– Lack of integrated watershed approach
– Limited consideration of variations in agro-ecological and
socio-economic conditions
– Coerced participation with limited regard to people’s
views and preferences
– Focus on SWC instead of RWM as a means to increase
productivity resulted in limited or no benefits to farmers

10. Planning of RWM today
Cell
Development
Team
Sub-Kebele
Kebele
Woreda
Zone / Region
Targets/
funding
Targets/
funding
Targets/
funding
Targets/
funding
Targets/
funding
Targets/
funding
Theoretical
planning cycle
- Following the
budget cycle

11. • Dilemma for woreda experts:
– reconciling plans with available budgets,
government policy and strategic plans / directives
whilst also taking account of local issues and
priorities as formulated in kebele plans.
• Considerable tension at the woreda level as bottom-
up planning – focusing on needs and priorities as
formulated by kebeles – collides with top-down
planning, i.e. implementation plans received from
higher levels that reflect regional and national
priorities, in the form of quotas that woredas must
achieve.

12. Conclusions - Planning
• Discrepancy policy planning: participation vs quota
• Notion of participation: mobilising labour vs
incentivising collective action
• Incentive systems for DAs: quota vs local needs
• Failure to anticipate conflicts: quota vs local needs
• Missed opportunities for sustainability: insufficient
participation vs taping into local practices and
institutions

13. Central dilemma
• This needs to be resolved if RWM interventions are to
be owned by farmers, be sustainable, and make a
meaningful contribution to improved environmental
management and better livelihoods.
National plan
Output targets
Top-down planning
focus
Devolution
Decentralisation
Participation in planning
Co-development of
innovations at the lowest
possible level

15. Implementation
Action plan
developed by
WoARD
Community
mobilisation by
KA
administration
Identification of required
labour and other resources,
organising farmers into teams
by DAs
Training farmers
by DAs and
woreda experts
Scheduling of
activities
Establishing
quality control
team
Carrying out
work
Establishing follow-up
structures (e.g. Water User
Committee)
Follow-up and
reporting

16. Reasons for poor sustainability
• Lack of relevance to local priorities
• Weak technical design
• Lack of voluntary collective action
• Lack of clear governance structures for interventions
on communal land
• Poor follow-up and monitoring
• Focus on isolated technical interventions

18. Livelihoods
• To achieve better fit of RWM interventions, specific
livelihood context and institutional environment needs
to guide RWM selection, planning and implementation
process
• Interdisciplinary communication and transdisciplinary
collaboration required to identify best RWM strategies
in a given locality:
– multidisciplinary research
– research partnerships
– genuine collaboration between researchers and
local societies to

19. Conclusions
• Insights from baseline research on planning and
implementation process shaped innovation platforms
at local, regional and national levels and innovation
fund
• Recommendations formulated in view of contributing
to improve RMW planning and implementation to
achieve impact, sustainability, and local ownership,
foster meaningful collaboration between farmers,
government agencies and research community, and
increase opportunity for genuine innovation at all
levels.

20. Recommendations
1. Shift the focus of targets from outputs to outcomes
2. Enhance monitoring and evidence collection on RWM
with a focus on impact and sustainability
3. Revitalise and capitalise on the DA system
4. Strengthen local institutions’ roles in RWM
5. Move towards more meaningful participation
6. Open lines of communication to foster innovative
capacity

22. ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on
international development and humanitarian issues.
We aim to inspire and inform policy and practice to
reduce poverty by locking together high-quality
applied research and practical policy advice.
The views presented here are those of the speaker,
and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or
our partners.
Overseas Development Institute
203 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8NJ
T: +44 207 9220 300
www.odi.org.uk
e.ludi@odi.org.uk