report - swedbio · representing a diversity of knowledges and perspectives on rural development....

MULTIPLE EVIDENCE BASE APPROACH

Stockholm Resilience Centre

November 2016

Report

CO-PRODUCED BY:

Participatory mapping as a tool for mobilisation of indigenous and local knowledge and enhanced ecosystem governance in Ginderberet, Oroma region, EthiopiaA contribution to the Piloting of the Multiple Evidence Base Approach

Community of Haroberbabo, Ethiopia

2


This report is part of the outcomes of a collaborative partnership for piloting a Multiple Evidence Base approach1 to cogenerate knowledge and methods for mutual learning across knowledge systems. The project partners are: African Biodiversity Network2 with Institute for Cultural Ecology (ICE)3, Kenya and MELCA, Ethiopia4; Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)5 with Fundación para la Promoción de Conocimiento Indígena (FPCI); Pgakenyaw Association for Sustainable Development (PASD)6, Thailand; Tebtebba Foundation, Philippines7; and SwedBio8 at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Sweden9.

The collaborative partnership emerged from an ongoing dialogue across knowledge systems, involving SwedBio and partners among indigenous peoples and local community organisations (e.g. International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity10, IIFB) and networks of experts from different knowledge systems. All participants are committed to valuing diversity and are engaged in biodiversity management and its links to policy processes from local to global, such as in the Conventions on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The starting point was the window of opportunity emerging from the possible inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge in IPBES, during the years before IPBES was established. See for example the Guna Yala Dialogue from 2012 at www.dialogueseminars.net/Panama, held back to back with the founding plenary of the IPBES. One of the outcomes of the ongoing dialogue has been the envisioning

1 http://swed.bio/focal-areas/themes/biocultural-diversity/a-multiple- evidence-base-approach-for-equity-across-knowledge-systems/

2 http://africanbiodiversity.org/3 http://www.icekenya.org/4 http://www.melcaethiopia.org/5 http://www.forestpeoples.org/6 http://www.pasdthailand.org/7 http://www.tebtebba.org/8 http://swed.bio/9 http://www.stockholmresilience.org10 The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity is the Caucus for

Indigenous peoples and local communities and their organisations actively engaging in the CBD. See: http://iifb.indigenousportal.com/

Foreword about the background to the collaborative partnership: Piloting the Multiple Evidence Base approach: Connecting across knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance

of The Multiple Evidence Base (MEB) approach that sees indigenous, local and scientific knowledge systems as different manifestations of valid and useful knowledge that generate complementary evidence for sustainable use of biodiversity. MEB emphasizes the importance of equitable and transparent processes for mobilizing knowledge and connecting across knowledge systems, and of maintaining the integrity of each knowledge system throughout the process. This means that evaluations of knowledge occur within, rather than across, the contributing knowledge systems when mobilizing and synthesizing knowledge, for example, in an ecosystem assessment process.

One of the objectives of the piloting of MEB has been to develop methods, procedures and good examples for how evidence can be mobilized for multiple needs, at local to global levels, and across knowledge systems. For example, knowledge that is relevant for feeding into local and national policymaking, as well as in processes such as assessments for the CBD and the IPBES, and other fora where working with synergies across knowledge systems are essential. Additional objectives have included: contributing to changing the views that governments hold about indigenous governance and management systems, towards respect and benefit for indigenous peoples and local communities; strengthening livelihoods and wellbeing within the communities, based on their indigenous governance systems, and finally, promoting joint learning around this across the participating communities and other partners.

The community research that is part of the piloting has been initiated and conducted by the communities themselves, based on their own needs and priorities. Biodiversity, food and culture were the unifying topics. Most of them have earlier experiences of mobilizing knowledge e.g. to recover lost seeds or to protect and revitalize sacred natural sites and rituals connected to them. Past experiences encourage communities to continue such work. Some communities are mobilizing knowledge as part of efforts to demonstrate the sustainability of their traditional management and governance systems, as a way of creating an evidence base for policies

Documentation by: Million Belay AliCover photo: Pernilla Malmer

3


and decisions at scales beyond the local, that protect rather that counteract their rights and capacities to manage their ecosystems and resources.

A number of insights have emerged across the five piloting projects. One is the importance and role of mobilizing knowledge before engaging with other knowledge systems. The communities engaged in methods and approaches to mobilizing knowledge that were well suited to the local context and engaged with multiple facets of knowledge, including cultural and spiritual dimensions. How knowledge was mobilized was an important part of building confidence for interactions with other knowledge systems, including

authorities. Another insight is the relevance for coproduction of knowledge across knowledge systems to connect with interests and needs of all actors involved, including at the local level. For all the communities, mobilisation of knowledge was part of securing territory, authority and rights to govern their ecosystems in a sustainable way. In several communities, the outcomes were well received by local and regional authorities and collaboration has improved.

The project was financed by support from the Swedish Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) through SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Photo credit: MELCA-Ethiopia

4


Table of content1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 .1 Participatory mapping as a tool for endogenous development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1 .2 The actors represented in the multiple evidence base piloting in Ginderberet . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1 .3 Gindeberet and the Haroberbabo community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

2 Main issues in Haroberbabo community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

3 Methods used for the mobilisation of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 3 .1 No mans map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 3 .2 . Group interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

4 Developments after the mapping process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 .1 What has changed since the time of the map of the past? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 .2 Why did the situation change in Haroberbabo? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 .3 What will happen if the trend continues like this? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 .4 What should be done to arrest the negative changes that are happening in Haroberbabo? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 .5 Summary of the importance of the evidence of the maps for the community, and what do they hope to achieve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5 Outcomes of the mapping process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 .1 Reviving traditional ecological knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 .2 Learning about the landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 .3 Inter and intragenerational communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 .4 Connecting the people with their land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5 .5 Shared understanding of the complexity of the problem landscape among actorss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5


1. IntroductionIn 2013 MELCA – Ethiopia11 started a project called Community Based Agrobiodiversity Management (CBAM) in Gindberet, which has the aim of reviving traditional seed systems and improving livelihoods. To this end, it has used an approach called Multiple Evidence Based (MEB)12 and participatory mapping as a methodology and this report narrates the process and the result.

MELCA – Ethiopia has a long experience in practicing participatory methods for mobilizing people and their knowledge for endogenous development. It wanted to test the extent to which a Multiple Evidence Base approach could help to advance the methods and processes already being practiced. Thus, the piloting of the Multiple Evidence Base approach in MELCA – Ethiopia involved actors representing a diversity of knowledges and perspectives on rural development.

In addition to supporting communities in mobilizing their knowledge towards resilient food production, the MEB piloting in Gindeberet aimed at creating a “pilot MEB” where different knowledge streams are creating synergies with one another. Specifically, the approach was to use a topographic map generated in a formal scientific process, to elicit the communities’ experiences from the cultural ecological change that has taken place in the Haroberbabo community, thereby contributing to their opportunities for selfdetermination and food sovereignty.

Another objective was to document the traditional ecological knowledge of the Haroberbabo community related to seeds, to ensure that the knowledge can be strengthened and used for continued effective protection and sustainable use of their seed system.

To this end, MELCA has initiated a participatory mapping process at Ginderberet, aimed at supporting communities in mobilizing their knowledge and agency towards farmers’ organisation and a resilient food production. Thus, the mapping aimed to serve two purposes: supporting the community in Gindeberet, and adding to the methods and instruments that MELCA can use to encourage and support the work of farmers. For example, improving food production, based on agrobiodiversity, at the same time as revitalizing, mobilizing and conserving their biocultural diversity including their seeds.

11 MELCA – Ethiopia is a local NGO working on agroecology, environmental governance, children and youth empowerment and livelihood improve-ment. See: http://melcaethiopia.org/

12 http://swed.bio/stories/a-multiple-evidence-base-approach-for-equity- across-knowledge-systems/ The MEB approach emphasizes complemen-tarity between different knowledge systems, such as indigenous and local knowledge, respect of the integrity of knowledge systems, and joint processes of bringing different sources of evidence together and assessing complementarities, over-lap, and potential contradictions.

The following sections detail the participatory mapping process and the outcomes obtained as a result of the actions that followed.

1.1. Participatory mapping as a tool for endogenous development

The social fabric of many communities in Ethiopia is challenged due to various internal and external forces, including urbanization, globalization, formal education, religion and change in policies. The cultural practices that ensure social cohesion, including rituals, ceremonies, working practices and plays, are eroding. Due to this, families are challenged to act together to adapt to the changing socialecological environment. By bringing people together to reflect on these issues and excavating memories of past practices that used to assist in social cohesion, participatory mapping has the potential to increase a determination to act together. Cohesiveness among members of the community is a key element for joint mobilisation of their indigenous and local knowledge, as a base for informed joint decisionmaking and is the basis for implementing projects aimed at improving adaptation.

1.2. The actors represented in Ginderberet Mapping

The mapping activities brought together local community members in Gindeberet, the government both at the local and the wereda13 level and MELCAEthiopia (supported by a wider range of partners). These actors participated in the planning of the mapping practice, including selection of an area and the places to be mapped, and refining the purpose of the process and the outcome. All of the actors came with their own perspectives on how rural development should take place. The government wanted to see how the mapping activities could support its policy of rural development. MELCAEthiopia’s stated mission is endogenous development, which implies that people determine what kind of development they want. The organisation employs mapping as one of the tools to mobilize communities to chart their own development pathways. The community is able to employ its agency under the government structure, but generally it is heavily influenced by what government wants. The community had never experienced a mapping event but once they were told what it involved, they were expecting a process which would clarify what they have do to improve their social and ecological reality.

13 In Ethiopia the highest level of governmental organisation is Federal. There are 9 regions and 2 satellite cities, which make up Ethiopia. The regions are divided into zones. The zones are divided into Weredas. The Wereda is an important administrative level structure for biocultural diversity as they are semi autonomous in deciding on how the natural resources of their area should be managed. The next level is Kebele. Kebeles are composed of a cluster of villages called Gots.

6


By bringing these different groups together, participatory mapping created an opportunity for interaction among the actors and the knowledge/practices/ experiences they bring with them, which can be translated into joint planning and implementation. The mapping exercise resulted in proposals from the community for projects ranging from soil and water conservation to income generating activities. Individual community members were learning and gaining experiences in the context of the larger community. The community interacted with the government and with MELCA, which also have their own networks and linkages, to support efforts for broader social change. Although a specific knowledge stream, such as farmers’ system for managing seeds or indigenous ways of conserving soil, were not mobilized in this exercise, farmers have learnt about the past and used this learning to visualize their future. The knowledge of the elders about the past and the reasons for the change were very useful to chart the future. In this way, we can conclude that a general knowledge about the landscape was mobilized.

1.3. Gindeberet and the Haroberbabo community

Gindeberet is located in Oromia region in West Shoa Zone, about 138 km to the North of Addis Ababa. Haroberbabo kebele, where the mapping and MEB piloting process took place, is one of the 31 Peasant associations in Gindeberet wereda, where MELCA has been active since 2013. One of the initial efforts of the community, promoted by MELCA, is a community seed bank. The altitude of the Wereda ranges from 1336 – 2586 metres above sea level (masl). This has created a range of agroecological zones resulting in high agrobiodiversity including crop diversity. The total area is about 120,000 hectares. It consists of lowland and midland (Woyenadega) agroclimatic zones. The annual average temperature is 25ºC, with its annual rainfall ranging from 1000 – 1400 mm. This shows that the area receives plenty of rain and is suitable for agriculture.

Gindeberet has a total population of about 100,000. The community of Haroberbabo has a population of about 4,400 inhabitants. The livelihoods in the area are based on a croplivestock mixed farming system. The soil is predominantly red. Food crops like tef, maize and wheat are dominant. Noug (sunflower) and telba (linseed) are widely cultivated as cash crops and potato dominates as a cash crop. For some members of the locality, beekeeping is a source of income.

7


2. Main issues in Haroberbabo community

According to a preliminary baseline assessment done before the mapping by MELCA, the community has a wide range of agroecological conditions, with unique diversity of crop genetic resources. The Wereda either had no access road, or the road was only passable during certain periods (dry season) of the year, until recently. Infrastructure was also poor. The community maintains a strong traditional culture and identity that is the base for their livelihood and agricultural system. Up to now, it has had very limited government attention with regard to agriculture and agricultural input. This indicates that the traditional seed varieties and agri

cultural system are mostly in farmers’ hands and the network in the farmers’ seed system is still vibrant and has been less influenced by the formal seed system. There is little scientific research done in the area, to our knowledge, only one study has been done by a MSc student from Norway.14

14 Hunduma, T. (2006) Local Crop Genetic Resource Utilization and Management in Gindeberet, west central Ethiopia. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture (MNRSA), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB).

Photo credit: Pernilla Malmer

8


3. Methods used for the mobilisation of knowledge

A combination of methodologies was used in the MEB piloting in Gindeberet. These included using No Mans Map, Group Interviews and farmer facilitated discussion. The “No Mans Map” method is a specific case of “ecocultural mapping”. Ecocultural mapping means a process where communities including elders, women, men and youth, together draw their community maps of the past, present and the future; as a base for finally visualizing their common vision for the future. Ecocultural mapping reveals the cultural and social history related to the landscape and creates a cultural vision and meaning of the territory, as understood by communities. The maps and calendars enable the wider community to develop and hold a collectively agreed understanding of the relations of elements that interact in the territory over time which help to create a common vision.

3.1. No Mans MapA No Mans Map is a map where everything on a topographic map is discarded except the rivers and sometimes the roads. The rivers were left to support landscape orientation to farmers, as well as to give as close (scientific) geographic accuracy to the final product as possible. The No Mans map and the information it contributes can be seen as a supporting tool, that is under full control of the participants from the community, for the mobilisation of their indigenous knowledge.

A topo map of the Gindeberet area, with a scale of 1: 50,000 was bought from the Ethiopian Mapping Agency (Figure 1). The local community identified their area using the Asendabo wetland, the Kachisi Town, the mountain ridges of the Muke Dima Mountain range as a reference.

Fig: 1 – Topo map showing the Haroberbabo area. Photo credit: MELCA-Ethiopia.

9


Figure 2: showing community consultation during the mapping. Photo credit: MELCA-Ethiopia.

A rectangular area was delineated and a No Man’s map with a scale 1:2,500 was hand copied from the Topo Map.

The community studied the map and had a thorough discussion based on it for about an hour, as they were trying to locate themselves and relate it to their cognitive map, Figure 2. One of the participants was a Head administrator of the kebele and, as he has to travel to all parts of the kebele for administrative purposes, he knows it very well. With the help of the others, all of the participants could locate themselves. The students participated through making copies of the map for mapping the past, the present and the future. The community put the map of the past on the No Man’s map. The elders took the center stage of facilitating the drawing process of the past, as most of the adults and the youth have no idea what was in their territories some 50 years ago. The other participants, who are adept at using colour pens and pencils, were guided by the elders, so that the elders’ knowledge was represented on the map. The women were also active in drawing and painting in the discussion that ensued. The same process was done for the map of the present and the map of the future. As the maps started to fill, elders gave more and more information for the youth to put on the maps. They could also narrate the

history of the landscape as they did so. They were telling them, for example, that the loss of the forest was due to the change of regime, from the Derg regime 15 to the current Ethiopian regime, and about the unrestrained destruction that followed due to competition for resources. This interaction, between the elders as facilitators, and the youth as learners using the map as a media, was very educational, they later reported.

3.2. Group interviews After the mapping was finished, group interviews and dialogues allowed the community to cover a variety of topics of concern for them, based on the following questions:

• What did the landscape look like in the past?

• What has changed?

• Why did it change?

• What will happen if the trend continues like this?

• What should be done to arrest the negative change that is happening?

15 The Derg Regime existed from the 1973 to 1980.

10


4. Developments after the mapping process

As described in section 2 and 3, the community developed maps of the past, the present and the future. The Gindeberet kebele was covered with vegetation in the map of the past. There were trees on hills, on grazing lands and on either side of the rivers and scattered among farms. The Asendabo wetland was wide and full of grass for cattle and reeds for house construction. There was also a forest surrounding the wetland. The spiritual leaders were feared and respected and were able to manage the relationship of the people with each other and with the environment. The numbers of households were limited and there was a vast amount of land, which was not covered with crops. There was wildlife in the forest including hyena, antelopes, baboons, monkeys and leopards. The variety of crops included cereals (8), oil crops (9) and pulses (7) adding up to 3 species and 24 varieties of field crops.

These all show the detailed knowledge that people have about the biodiversity in their biocultural landscape. The elders could identify varieties and species, both in plants and domesticated animals, and explain their cultural significance and what has happened because of the increasing degradation of these resources. They said the degradation has accelerated in less than 30 years.

A problem that the farmers reflected on during the mapping process was loss of farmers’ varieties. They said this was because the government was promoting fewer improved varieties and artificial fertilizer. However, many of these improved varieties, they have found, are not well adapted to their local realities.

As Figure 3 shows, the landscape of the past was a combination of agricultural land, forest, wetland, a town, market places, lakes and bush. The rivers were full of water and there were lots of springs. There was little infrastructure and what was there was very poor and not maintained.

4.1. What has changed since the time of the map of the past?

The map of the present, as drawn up by the community, shows a grim picture: most of the wild animals are already gone, forests are degraded, rivers and wetlands are drying and the number of crop and vegetable varieties is decreasing (Figure 4).

Ato Edessa Sori, member of MelcaHaroberbabo community seed bank lamented that, “We see from the maps the changes that have occurred over the years. The present map shows

forest degradation, deforestation, soil erosion, cultural

Figure 3: Map of the past in the community Haroberbabo. Photo credit: MELCA-Ethiopia.

11


erosion and the erosion of local seeds. If it continues like

this, all will be lost. The natural forest will be replaced by

plantation, the soil will be changed to stone (Borile in local

language), the Sendabo wetland, a wetland at the foot of

their village, will be converted into farmland because it will

be filled with silts and will dry. The sources of the water will

dry and no water will remain for human beings and the

livestock.”

4.2. Why did the situation change in Haroberbabo?

The community feels that the main reasons behind the change are the limited efforts in soil and water conservation, population increase, market forces, spread of Protestantism, as well as government interference in how the community should live. As is happening in many places, the spread of protestant Christianity is detaching the people from their sacred sites. The social cohesion among people weakens when their spiritual connection to sacred sites is affected.16

16 Belay, Million. Participatory mapping, learning and change in the context of biocultural diversity and resilience. Diss. PhD Thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 2012.

Figure 4: Photo showing the current degraded land. Photo credit: MELCA-Ethiopia.

The top down nature of government approaches and policies also has an impact on how people respond to rehabilitating their land. They tend to ignore government’s call for rehabilitation activities while they are more receptive when they are engaged with a civil society actor like MELCA – Ethiopia. This is because they are tired of repeated calls for meetings or activities by the government. The mapping has mobilized their knowledge and concerns for their land and created an environ ment for negotiation on how to deal with this challenge.

Wezero (Mrs) Alemi Negaho, member of the Melca Haroberbabo community seed bank said that the map of the past shows what we had in the past and what we lost. “As we can see from that map, the land was covered with forest

and we had local crops such as local maize and local wheat

but all these varieties are eroding. Today, improved varieties,

distributed by the government, dominate our agriculture and

they are not as resistant to change (and locally adapted?) as

ours. For example, for the past 3 years, I used improved teff

known as kuncho. It cannot survive frost and one year I lost

all I cultivated. Our environment is also degrading. I think of

my children and I am shocked with what I see now and with

what will happen in the future if we do not act. We are the

problem and we are the solution. We can rehabilitate our land.”

12


4.3. What will happen if the trend continues like this?

The community had also drafted two alternative maps for the future; one expresses what will happen without action, and another illustrates how the community wishes to see their future. The map of the future without action looked much more degraded than the map of the present, and there was little greenery to be seen, Figure 5.

Ato (Mr) kifile Muleta, MelcaHaroberbabo community seed bank, said that,

“The differences between the four maps are very clear.

When we started mapping, I did not think that I will feel like

this. The map of the past is showing a healthy environment.

There was forest, wetland was great for our cattle, the soil

was good. Our life is directly associated with nature. Now

we see degraded land in the community. Our wetland is

decreasing. We are losing our seeds due to the introduction

of improved varieties. It is clear that if the trends continue

like this, our life is doomed.”

4.4. What should be done to arrest the negative changes that are happening in Haroberbabo?

The last step involved the community putting their vision for the desired future on a specific map, Figure 5. It looks much greener than the present reality, depicted in the map of the present, and there is vegetation created on the sides of rivers. The wetland looks bigger. There is also a big chunk of forest.

Tefera Alema, the Haroberbabo kebele Development Agent (DA), a government official, chimed that, “The resistance of the community is the major challenge for the

rehabilitation of the land. Especially the third map, which

shows what will happen if there is no action, shows the need

for action. What we want to see in our future is what is on

the fourth map, the desired future map. We have to make

reality what we have put as a vision. Hence, the collaboration

of the community, Government and NGOs would be needed

to bring the required change. Otherwise, the livelihood of

the community will be at risk. Therefore, the capacity of the

actors at the community level will be the core strategy for

the revival. Hence, we need to strengthen the community

capacity through awareness creation, skill training, motivation

and capital investment.”

Figure 5: Showing, from left to right, the produced maps starting from the past showing the present, and predicting what will if nothing is done and ending with the desired future. Photo credit: MELCA-Ethiopia.

13


Figure 6: An elderly taking part in the mapping showing the maps to the bigger community. Photo credit: MELCA-Ethiopia.

4.5. Summary of the importance of the evidence of the maps for the community, and what do they hope to achieve?

After the maps were finished, the bigger community was invited for a presentation, Figure 6.

Those who participated in the mapping did the presentation. Most of the Gindeberet Wereda government officials were present. Speeches, exhibition, songs and drama by the school children were part of the presentation. After the mapping, the community had been visiting the Ejere Community Seed bank, started by the Ethiopian Organic Seed Action, a decade or more ago, where the community have managed to revive their seeds and rehabilitate their environment. The Telecho communities, to which the Ejere Community Seed bank

belongs, are doing just that. MELCA – Ethiopia is creating a similar seed bank together with the community of Haroberbabo and they are offered various trainings to improve their management skill of agrobiodiversity and seed conservation, as well as learn how to do participatory variety selection.

Ato (Mr) kifile Muleta, MelcaHaroberbabo community seed bank, said that:

“Fortunately MELCA has taken us for a visit to Ejere and

we could see how farmers could keep their seed and improve

their livelihood. We felt that we can even be better than them

as we can still bring our seeds back as here are farmers that

are still keeping them, and we are waking up at the right

time.”

14


5. Outcomes of the mapping process

5.1. Reviving Traditional Ecological Knowledge

What was emphasized and reflected on by the community during the mapping event was that their traditional ecological knowledge is eroding. Due to the push by the government development agents for improved crop varieties, people have lost both their seeds and their knowledge associated with it. They also have lost their attachment to their sacred natural sites. There were a number of sacred natural sites strewn across the landscape and that could be seen on the map. The mapping exercise brought up these issues and they are now starting to work towards reviving these traditional knowledge and practices.

5.2. Learning about the landscape The community realized during the mapping process that knowledge of the biocultural landscape is not uniform among the community members. It depends on the age, gender, occupation and responsibilities of different members of the community. When they were constructing the maps of the past and the present, it was with a lot of arguments and discussions. The final picture represents a common understanding of the participating group. This has created a basis for future work together to rehabilitate degraded areas in the landscape.

5.3. Inter and intragenerational communication

As a mediation tool, participatory mapping serves as a communication channel among those who participate and beyond. Communities involved in the mapping said that they had never before come together to talk about their past, the present and the future of their biocultural landscape using sketch maps. Using the maps as a tool, elders were able to communicate among each other and with adults and youth.

The mapping activity has also created a chance for the local communities to interact and communicate with outsiders, based on their own indigenous and local knowledge, like with people from the government and MELCA, and learn new techniques and ways of thinking to articulate their knowledge. The process was mediated through artefacts, in the form of coloured pens, papers, maps and other supporting materials that are further facilitating the communication with other knowledge systems and worldviews. Members of the communities involved, use the maps to communicate

their issues to other actors, including government, and are gaining respect for their knowledge and understanding and in this way, gaining support for their initiatives and proposed projects.

5.4. Connecting the people with their land The local community have said time and again that the understanding and attachment of the people, especially of the youth, to their land and culture has weakened due to modernity, schools, spread of urbanization and the changing economy. They said the forces of globalization, modernity, formal education, urbanization, politics and religion have played a great part in challenging people’s attachment to land. They said the mapping exercise has brought them together, especially the youth and the elders, and this has helped to reconnect and reevaluate their relationship with their land. The soil and water conservation activities that are now taking place at Gindeberet, as a result of a project based on the outcome of the mapping, do reflect this attachment and the realization that they have to do something to address it.

As can be seen from subsequent actions agreed on after the mapping, the community continues to come together for various joint actions and they demonstrate togetherness in their decisions.

5.5. Shared understanding of the complexity of the problem landscape among actors

Figure 7 illustrates the phases in the Multiple Evidence Base approach. As illustrated by the different streams in the middle phase, the mapping enabled mobilisation of knowledge and experience from the community – as a ‘stream’ of knowledge to the enriched picture. Further, there was a joint analysis of the issues raised by the mapping event, in this case, between the local community, the local government and MELCA. This has in turn, generated new knowledge and awareness which is the extent of the destruction of the social and ecological landscape, as well as the extent of the degradation of the local culture. Based on this, the actors have decided how to address the situation while economic growth and development continues.

We can say that the process today is back in Phase 1, where new knowledge is used for policy formulation and further actions and new problem formulations. Without the

15


strong mobilisation of the communities’ knowledge stream, where the communities articulated for the first time their knowledges of their landscape and also their concerns, no meaningful and sustainable action can take place. Without the mapping event, and the dialogue across knowledge

Figure 7: Co-production of knowledge for action described as the three phases of the Multiple Evidence Base approach.

systems and actors, it would not have been possible for the actors to agree on a joint vision. The actions that followed, including the building of the community seedbank by MELCA, would not have happened without this thorough analysis of the erosion of the seeds of the local communities.

SwedBio at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE – 106 91 Stockholm, SwedenVisiting address: Kräftriket 2bTelephone: +46 8 674 70 70Email: [email protected], www.stockholmresilience.su.se

SwedBio is funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

About the report This report presents the outcomes of a collaborative partnership between MELCA, Ethiopia and SwedBio for piloting a Multiple Evidence Base approach to cogenerate knowledge and methods for mutual learning across knowledge systems. A process based on participatory mapping supported the community of Haroberabo to reconnect and reevaluate their relationship with their land. The soil and water conservation activities that are now taking place at Gindeberet are all based on the outcome of the mapping, and reflect the people´s attachment to their land and their desire to do something to revive their landscape and their traditional knowledge on how to manage it sustainably.

MELCA-Ethiopia (Movement for Ecological Learning and Community Action) was founded in 2004. MELCA means ”ford” both in Oromiffa and Amharic languages, two of the most widely spoken languages in Ethiopia. The name is used symbolically to indicate the commitment of MELCA to connect young and elders, culture and environment, as well as scientific knowledge and

Co-produced by:Melca-EthiopiaP.O. Box: 1519 Code 1250 Addis Ababa, Ethiopiahttp://melcaethiopia.org/

traditional ecological knowledge. MELCAEthiopia arose out of the concern about the threats and loss related to environment, traditional ecological knowledge and culture. MELCA believes that there are many positive experiences in the indigenous and local cultures which could be used to address the current sustainability crisis. MELCA’s goal is to empower local communities to conserve their biocultural diversity and have a sustainable livelihood. MELCA projects include a youth program designed to encourage initiatives to advocate a sustainable life; environmental governance to empower local communities to conserve their forests and agroecology.

SwedbioSwedBio is a knowledge interface at Stockholm Resilience Centre contributing to poverty alleviation, equity, sustainable livelihoods and socialecological systems rich in biodiversity that persist, adapt and transform under global change such as climate change. SwedBio enables knowledge generation, dialogue and exchange between practitioners, policy makers and scientists for development and implementation of policies and methods at multiple scales.

report - swedbio · representing a diversity of knowledges and perspectives on rural development....

Documents