Presented by Beth Cullen, Zelalem Lema, Aberra Adie, Gerba Leta at the Innovation Platform Capacity Building Event, ILRI Addis Ababa, 18th March 2013

1. NBDC Action Research &
Innovation Platforms
Beth Cullen,
Zelalem Lema, Aberra Adie, Gerba Leta
Innovation Platform Capacity Building Event
ILRI, Addis Ababa, 18 March 2013

2. What is participatory action research?
Participatory action research is not a method, it is an approach to research.
Action + research
Involves people who are concerned about or affected by an issue taking a leading
role in producing and using knowledge about it.
•Driven by participants who have a stake in the issue being researched
•Democratic knowledge sharing: all participants can contribute, produce, own
and use knowledge,
•Collaborative at every stage, involving discussion, pooling skills and working
together
•Intended to result in action, change or improvement
•Cyclical- action and critical reflection takes place throughout.

3. Why Action Research?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Weaknesses of conventional research approaches:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benefits of action research:
Focused on problems identified by stakeholders
Flexible- not necessarily designed in detail from the start
Inputs from a range of disciplines – interdisciplinary
Accepting of multiple sources of evidence and “data”
Process can be used to empower participants
Complex problems/situations are not easily addressed
Does not respond adequately to demand (researcher driven)
Outputs not timely or in right formats for use
Fails to reflect or accommodate reality
Capacity not up-scaled and often lost after project close

4. Pre-conditions for Action Research
•
•
•
•
•
Genuine desire for change/improvement
Openness – ability to listen, see things differently and
willingness to share knowledge
Willingness to be wrong, appear ignorant
Resources (time, knowledge, materials, transport)
Commitment to the process

5. Why has NBDC taken PAR approach?
Base-line research conducted in three NBDC sites at the start of the project
identified the following issues with NRM planning and implementation:
•Weak cross-sector collaboration and coordination
•Lack of relevance to local priorities
•Limited community participation in planning processes
•No voluntary collective action
•Poor follow up and monitoring
Research shows it is essential that NRM interventions take into account local
community knowledge, needs and aspirations for them to be successful. This
includes a range of local stakeholders as well as farmers.
But as the implementers of interventions it’s particularly important to
understand why farmers do what they do... often have very good reasons, not
simply ‘lacking awareness’.

6. NBDC community engagement methods
Transect walks
Participatory mapping
Focus group discussions
Problem identification & ranking
Participatory Video
What information did these methods produce?

7. Fogera
Actors
Main issue
Related issue
IP members
Unrestricted
grazing
Land degradation
Community
Restricting
grazing
Shortage of
grazing/fodder
Water
scarcity
Seasonal water
shortages
Soil
conservation
Organization of
campaign work
Fodder development chosen for pilot interventions due to
common concerns around the issue of unrestricted grazing and
the impact on SWC structures.

8. Fogera case study
Agreement between IP members and community members about restricting free
grazing, but different views about how this should be done.
IP members would like grazing to be restricted but farmers are concerned about a
number of issues:
•HH without livestock unable to collect dung for fuel if livestock are restricted
•Inability for livestock to breed without AI services
•Insufficient fodder production to meet livestock needs, particularly for those with less
land
•Greater burden of labour on women with cut and carry system
•Limited access to communal areas for funerals/wedding etc due to enclosures
Range of interventions are needed over longer time frame to address these issues.
Restricting grazing can’t be addressed over night!

9. Diga
Actors
Main issue
Related issue
IP members
Soil Erosion
Land degradation
Community
Termite
infestation
Land degradation &
deforestation
Crop damage:
baboons
Deforestation
Crop disease
Land degradation &
climatic changes
Fodder development chosen for pilot interventions due to
common concerns around land degradation, particularly
termite infestation and deterioration of communal grazing
lands.

10. Diga case study
Agreement between IP members and community members about problem of land
degradation, but IP members prioritized problems with soil conservation whereas
community members prioritized termite infestation because of the impact on
livelihoods- potential conflict.
Important to align interests of IP members and community members by linking issues
of land degradation, termite infestation and fodder interventions. Termite infestation
linked to broader issues of land and water management.
To ensure both issues were taken into account NBDC initiated termite ‘research
into use’ project which is linked to the fodder interventions. This has been
appreciated by both community members and IP members.

11. Jeldu
Actors
IP members
Community
Main issue
Related issue
Soil Erosion
Land degradation
Feed shortage
Deforestation &
degradation of
grazing lands
Land degradation &
Crop Disease
climatic change
Landlessness
Land fragmentation
& livelihood
deterioration
Fodder development chosen for pilot interventions due to the
common concerns around soil erosion and land degradation.

12. Jeldu case study
Overall agreement between IP members and community members, perhaps
because soil erosion and land degradation issues are more severe in Jeldu? Topography
leads to soil erosion, severe problems with overpopulation and deforestation.
Farmers very conscious of issues with SWC. ‘Awareness raising’ occurred at the same
time as community engagement exercises which may have stopped them
expressing other concerns.
Need to make sure that farmer issues are taken into account. For example, how do
we ensure that pilot interventions address the needs of farmers with no land or
livestock?

13. Other PAR methods...
Participatory Photography for M&E
Digital Stories
WAT-A-GAME
These will be used for participatory M&E and upscaling.
We hope to use them in all the three sites over the next year.

14. Importance of ensuring genuine community
participation...
NRM activities in Ethiopia have had limited success because of top-down approach.
Farmers often destroyed NRM work undertaken under previous regimes. Major
repercussions for environment and farmer livelihoods
Similar problems can be seen in the IP activities. Reports of ‘good farmer participation’
in planning of pilot interventions, but problems with ‘lack of awareness’, ‘lack of trust’,
‘lack of engagement’ in implementation of pilot interventions... Why is this?
Still issues with how decision makers engage with local communities and bring them
into the process. A lot of talk about ‘participation’ but little knowledge about how to
put it into action.
Stakeholder capacity building needed.

15. Dangers...
We can undertake participatory approaches and use PRA methods in our action
research but it’s important to listen to the results and make sure they are taken
into account in project design...
In Fogera we undertook a Participatory Video exercise, but even when the
video was screened to IP members the community concerns were not included
in the design of pilot interventions.
This resulted in the failure of first pilot intervention site... community members
refused to participate and the pilot interventions had to be moved to another
site.

16. Implications for NBDC
& national NRM objectives
Community participation and stakeholder involvement is critical to achieving
improved RWM. If we don’t take community knowledge and concerns into account
our interventions are unlikely to succeed.
There is a danger that we enforce inappropriate interventions thereby adding to
environmental and livelihood deterioration.
OR