research proposal: harnessing floods to enhance

[Type here]

RESEARCH PROPOSAL: HARNESSING FLOODS TO ENHANCE

LIVELIHOODS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

This research for development project envisions that investments in land and water development are sustainable and equitable and informed by open dialogue and cooperation based on transparent and publicly shared scientific analyses that

integrates ecosystem services and gender perspectives.

Vision statement formulated by project partners at the WLE Nile Basin and East Africa Focal Region WriteShop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 21 October, 2014

WLE Nile Basin and East Africa Focal Region

RESEARCH PROPOSAL: HARNESSING FLOODS TO ENHANCE LIVELIHOODS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

CGIAR RESEARCH PROGRAMMME ON WATER, LAND AND ECOSYSTEMS: NIE BASIN AND EAST AFRICA FOCAL REGION 1



Table of Content PART A: SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 1

1. Project Outline .................................................................................................................... 1

2. Project Summary ................................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Problem statement ....................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Previous work on related challenges .......................................................................... 1

2.3 Links to on-going projects ........................................................................................... 1

3.1. Lead Institution ............................................................................................................ 2

3.2. Project Partners ........................................................................................................... 2

PART B: PROJECT IMPACT PATHWAY...................................................................................... 3

4. Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 3

5. Output users and use ......................................................................................................... 3

6. Outputs ............................................................................................................................... 3

7. Research questions and methodologies .......................................................................... 3

8. Measuring Progress towards Outcomes .......................................................................... 4

8.1. Indicators ..................................................................................................................... 4

8.2. Baselines ...................................................................................................................... 4

9. Gender and equity ............................................................................................................. 4

10 Ecosystems Services and Resilience ................................................................................. 4

PART C: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 5

11. Activities and Implementation Plan ................................................................................. 5

12. Indicative breakdown of budget ..................................................................................... 5

13. References and bibliography ........................................................................................... 5



PART A: SUMMARY

1. Project Outline

Title: Harnessing floods to enhance livelihoods and ecosystem services Lead Organization: Spate Irrigation Network Foundation (www.spate-irrigation.org), the Netherlands Consortium partners (who receive budget): • The Institute of Water and Environment, Mekelle University, Ethiopia. • The Hydraulic Research Centre of the Ministry of Water and Electricity, Sudan. • The Chair Group: Land and Water Development for Food Security of the UNESCO-IHE

Institute for Water Education, the Netherlands. Project Leader (name and contact details): • Full name: Dr. van Steenbergen, Franciscus. • Organization: Spate Irrigation Network Foundation (SpNF). • E-mail: [email protected]. • Tel: 0031 644995010. Duration: 24 months Target start date: January 2015 Finish date: December 2016 Maximum budget requested from WLE (in US$): 495 000 (550,000 as in original EoI minus 10%) Any matching funds offered (provide brief explanation): 150 000 The project will make use of the resources and outcomes of: • IFAD Grant: From Africa to Asia and Back Again: Testing Adaptation of flood-based • Farming in Ethiopia and Sudan. • Two ongoing PhD researches: one by Ms. EF Bashir (from Sudan) on the Gash irrigation

scheme, the other by Ms. M Zenebe (from Ethiopia) on FBFS (Spate irrigation) in Tigray region.

• Netherlands NICHE197 Government Grant: Small Scale Irrigation Development in Ethiopia.

2. Project Summary

What: This research for development explores how to optimize the use of floods for agriculture and ecosystem services to support livelihoods in different landscapes and socio-economic settings in Sudan and Ethiopia. Flood-based Farming Systems (FBFS) divert floodwater and spread it over large areas to grow crops, water rangeland and/or replenish shallow groundwater. In semi-arid environments it is often the only source of water. These systems cover a total of 30 million ha, often serving poor farmers. In the Horn of Africa/Blue Nile Area the area is estimated at 550,000 ha. In Sudan, the systems are several hundred years old, whereas in Ethiopia investments have accelerated in recent years. Despite the high risk due to unpredictable nature of the floods, the high sediment loads and the frequent changes of riverbeds, FBFS contribute substantially to local food security and economic development, particularly for poor farmers and pastoralists in the lowlands. Recognizing the importance of FBFS for local livelihoods and economies, the Ethiopian and Sudanese governments supported by donors such as IFAD started investing in the improvement of infrastructure (weirs, intake and canals) and on-farm practices to enhance agricultural productivity. However, it is unknown how these interventions at scheme level interact with other functions provided by floods at the local and landscape level and how these interventions affect the livelihoods of different stakeholders.

Why: Flood management in FBFS is closely linked to biodiversity and natural vegetation. FBFS are depositories of local biodiversity – collecting seeds from a large catchment and depositing them in moist soils. They feed ephemeral wetlands rich in species. Natural vegetation is often of

http://www.spate-irrigation.org/�

mailto:[email protected]�



considerable value in providing additional sources of income to local communities although in some places, invasive species, such as mesquite, could negatively affect agricultural production. Diversion and conveyance structures in FBFS stabilize ephemeral rivers. FBFS can also reduce flood damage. Large floods that are too difficult to handle, are not diverted but guided to groundwater recharge basins or reservoirs for domestic and livestock water supply or are spread over large outwash areas serving as rangelands.

FBFS are affected by development elsewhere in the sub-basins and landscapes. For example, upstream watershed improvement to enable agricultural activities in the degraded hills in Tigray can smoothen peak flows and reduce sediment loads.

The aim of this research project is to add value to ongoing decision making concerning FBFS development in Ethiopia and Sudan by including an ecosystems and landscape perspective to current or planned interventions and policies. It will assess and value synergies and trade-offs between the different functions and benefits of FBFS under various development scenarios, for different stakeholders and the environment. It will evaluate the productive functions and ecosystems services provided by FBFS in the current situation and changes thereof as a result of the interventions proposed by farmers, governments and donors. Different stakeholder groups (men, women, youth, pastoralists, farmers, upstream/downstream) may benefit or lose under the different development options. Access to land and water resources is an important boundary condition.

Where: This research builds on ongoing interventions in Tigray (Ethiopia) and Gash area (Sudan).

How: The project will be implemented in three parts: 1) assessment of the baseline situation, separate for men, women and youth; 2) Impact assessment of proposed interventions; and 3) formulation and evaluation of alternative scenarios exploring trade-offs and synergies between benefits, costs and their distribution over stakeholder groups and the environment. Research activities are action oriented and will be implemented together with local stakeholders and relevant staff involved in these ongoing interventions, to enable joint learning. This project will be implemented by a consortium consisting of Spate Irrigation Network Founation (SpNF), Mekelle University (Ethiopia), UNESCO-IHE (Netherlands) and Hydraulic Research Center (Sudan). It will closely work with the Bureaus of Water and Agriculture and local communities.

Outputs: The project will develop a methodology on gender and ecosystems approach to FBFS, validated intervention strategies to FBFS in a landscape perspective, peer reviewed papers co-authored by non-researchers and short courses at partnering universities. Dissemination events include webinars, community meetings, participation in conferences and expansion of the www.spate-irrigation.org website to include ecosystems approach.

What will change? Due of this project government officials, researchers, farmers and other stakeholders increasingly recognize the importance of ecosystems services provided by FBF and their importance for local livelihoods in downstream and upstream. Decision making concerning investments in FBF will incorporate ecosystem services approach, benefitting women and youth, in particular. A broader perspective to land and water resources development will be developed, looking at the entire landscape or sub-basin and not a single interventions at certain points.

2.1 Problem statement Recognizing the importance of FBFS for local livelihoods and economies, the Ethiopian and Sudanese governments supported by donors such as IFAD started investing in the improvement of infrastructure (weirs, intake and canals) and on-farm practices to enhance agricultural productivity. However, it is unknown how these interventions at scheme level interact with other functions provided by floods at the local and landscape level and how these interventions affect livelihoods of different stakeholders.




Decision makers, development planners and investors do not integrate ecosystem services and gender in their land and water programs and often investment criteria are narrowly defined in terms of production targets. Methodologies to incorporate gender and ecosystem services and evaluate tradeoffs are not available. Decision making is not informed by careful analysis of winners and losers. This may lead to an inequitable distribution of benefits and costs of investments programs. It may also preclude ‘upstream-downstream’ solution, where by sedimentation issues are addressed for instance by developments upstream.

2.2 Previous work on related challenges

Previous work MetaMeta and UNESCO-IHE jointly established the Spate Irrigation Network Foundation (SpNF) to bring the vital role of FBFS to the attention of policymakers and donors, and share experiences to increase the knowledge base. Two projects implemented by our partners are relevant here: the IFAD funded spate irrigation projects (phase 1 and 2) and the GiZ sponsored capacity building in FBFS. These projects were instrumental in the proper understanding of the unique features of FBFS in design, organization and importance for food security. FBFS are characterized by a high uncertainty in the timing and quantity of water, huge sediment loads and potential destructive nature of floods, if not properly managed. Further, these projects provided deep insights in the traditional governance structures to ensure fairness of water distribution and reduce conflicts. The projects also contributed to mainstreaming FBFS in national policies and educational systems. Two annual training are now institutionalized in Ethiopia (Mekelle University) and the Netherlands (UNESCO-IHE). Results from the projects informed new investments in FBFS such as under PASIDIP (Ethiopia) and GSLRP (Sudan).

Recently, IWMI in collaboration with the SpNF organized a conference to bring together professionals and practitioners in FBFS systems. With support from IMAWESA knowledge sharing exchange visits were organized among farmers from Yemen, Sudan and Ethiopia.

Lessons learnt The lack of a gender, watershed and ecosystems perspective and a narrow focus on crop production to interventions in FBF leads to 1) missed opportunities related to the multi-functionality of FBFS such as range lands, groundwater recharge, biodiversity, village & livestock water supply; 2) unequal distribution of benefits and costs among men, women, farmers, pastoralists, villagers upstream and downstream; 3) risks of degrading landscapes and ultimately affecting sustainability of the FBFS.

What will we do differently? • This project will take a watershed perspective to identify the basin wide benefits and costs

from floods and minimize adverse impacts on FBFS. We will analyse the impacts of upstream agricultural activities on downstream stakeholders, such as pastoralists and village communities depending on flood based activities.

• We will identify winners and losers of interventions upstream and downstream to ensure that the multiple benefits and uses beyond crop production are properly acknowledged and the resulting costs and benefits are shared in an equitable manner, in particular for vulnerable groups such as women and pastoralists.

• This project will develop methodology to evaluate synergies and trade-offs. • We will develop inclusive investment criteria that take into account ecosystems services and

gender equity. Further, we aim at developing a proper methodology that investors can use to ensure sustainable and equitable development program in FBF.



2.3 Links to on-going projects 1) In Ethiopia the proposed project links to ongoing investment programs in small scale irrigation, such as Agricultural Growth Program and regional investment programs particularly the IFAD supported PASIDIP (Participatory Small Scale Irrigation Development Program) that has substantial FBFS investment programs for the period 2015 to 2019 in line with the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP II).

2) In Sudan the proposed project links to interventions in the Gash Agricultural Scheme (GAS) and investments under the Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project (GSLRP) and Kuwait Fund. These activities are geared to formally recognized farmers of the Gash River. It is unknown how the interventions might impact or have affected other users in the Gash delta (“Gash die area”).

In the two investment programs above, the proposed project will interact with key decision makers and beneficiaries and aim at incorporating a gender and ecosystems approach in order to broaden their scope beyond production and include an assessment of trade-offs and synergies between a range of ecosystem services provided by FBFS.

3) In the Tigray region (Ethiopia) the proposed project will inform the ongoing debate on the impact of upstream soil and water conservation and improvement of degraded hillsides for agriculture on the downstream FBFS as well the intensive road development underway. Mekelle University (a key partner in the consortium) is tasked by the Tigray Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development and REST (Tigray Relief Society) to evaluate possible impacts of terracing upstream following complaints by farmer groups downstream.

4) The IFAD Grant “From Africa to Asia and Back Again: Testing Adaptation of flood-based Farming” that will be implemented from 2015 to 2018 is focusing on capacity building of national professionals and practitioners in Ethiopia and Sudan (among others) and strengthening the network of farmers. Our research outcomes will inform the capacity building activities. Outputs such as methodologies and case studies will be converted into course material.

5) The project will be informed by two ongoing PhD researches: one by Ms. EF Bashir (from Sudan) on the Gash irrigation scheme. Results from the PhD study will be used as inputs in the project. The other by Ms. M Zenebe (from Ethiopia) on FBFS (Spate irrigation) in Tigray region will contribute data and insights to the assessment of the impacts of investment scenarios.

6) FAO/IWMI/FAO water accounting project. Our project through the PhD candidate will test and evaluate the gender module of MASSMUS (Mapping Systems and Services for Multiple of Water Services) tool in two FBFS in Ethiopia. This tool assesses the multiple uses of (flood)water management systems and their values for women.

7) Lastly, one of the action research sites under the ongoing capacity building program (NICHE) on Small Scale Irrigation managed by Mekelle University partly overlaps with the study area of the proposed project. This will create opportunities for cross-fertilization and synergies between the two projects. For example, MSc students working under the NICHE project will contribute to the proposed project, and results from the proposed project will feed into the curriculum being developed in the NICHE project.

3. Consortium Details

3.1. Lead institution Spate Irrigation Network Foundation (SpNF) is well placed to lead the consortium and ensure smooth implementation of this proposed project. SpNF has strong local presence in the project target countries Ethiopia and Sudan. In these and several other countries in the Global South, it has for the past decade, actively been and is still promoting FBFS both at policy level and



program level and counts 1000 local professionals, practitioners and farmers among its members. SpNF has a proven track record in bringing together varied stakeholders: farmers, community organizations, development agencies, practitioners, researchers and policy makers. Working in partnership with several national and international institutions including UNESCO-IHE, Mekelle University and the Hyraulic Research Center, it has successfully operationalized several spate (flood) irrigation capacity building projects funded by IFAD, the World Bank and GIZ. The knowledge-base on spate (flood-based) irrigation the SpNF has generated along with its partners could be appreciated at: www.spate-irrigation.org. 3.2. Project partners

Institution 1: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, the Netherlands UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education brings in solid FBFS knowledge necessary for technical support in implementing the research programme. It has co-authored the most downloaded FAO Water publication: Guidelines on Spate Irrigation; led the publication of the book: FBFS in Ethiopia Lowlands - Status, Potential and Investment Guide; and contributed to several technical notes including in local languages. For the past 6 years, since 2008, it has run a successful annual course ‘Spate (flood) Irrigation and Water Management under Drought and Water Scarcity;’ and has implemented large scale spate (flood) irrigation capacity building and knowledge networks strengthening projects funded by IFAD and GIZ. UNESECO-IHE brings in about 100 alumni in higher government positions in Ethiopia and Sudan that will be instrumental in creating an enabling environment for smooth local logistical and technical support and pilot testing of any promising research outputs. PhD and MSc fellows supervised by staff at UNESCO-IHE in collaboration with Mekelle University and HRC will ensure scientific quality.

Institution 2: Mekelle University, Ethiopia Mekelle University is a leading knowledge centre in Ethiopia in land and water development and management in general and watershed management and FBFS in particular. It is well connected to the Regional Water, Rural Development and Agricultural Bureaus, the Gender and Youth Departments and several institutions important for the smooth implementation of this proposed project. The University has some concrete achievements: 1) facilitated the mainstreaming of FBFS in the Tirgray Region GTP (Growth and Transformation Plan) in collaboration with SpNF and UNESCO-IHE. 2) As part of the IFAD project, developed a hybrid FBFS design that combines traditional and modern principles and practices. 3) Working together with UNESCO-IHE and GIZ, initiated and successfully run in 2013 and 2014 an annual short course on Watershed Management and FBFS benefiting a total of 90 participants from Ethiopia and the GAD region. 4) It has, jointly with local government bureaus and universities as well as International Institutions such as UNESCO-IHE, conducted several action-oriented research focusing on management, design, governance and hydrology.

Institution 3: Hydraulic Research Centre, Sudan The Hydraulic Research Centre (HRC) is a well-known research centre in Sudan, established in late 1970's. The centre has obtained a good reputation through successful implementation of applied research projects in Sudan, and in the Nile region, either alone, or in partnership with other organizations, such as UNESCO-IHE, Nile Basin Initiative, and IWMI among others. The HRC has been actively engaged in applied research in Gash Flood-based Agriculture including, hydrology, morphology, irrigation design and management within the scheme. Partnering with UNESCO-IHE, IWMI, MetaMeta and the SpNF, the Centre has successfully implemented two FBFS specific projects funded by IFAD: 1) Spate Irrigation for Rural Economic Growth and Poverty Alleviation. 2) SMART ICT.




PART B: PROJECT IMPACT PATHWAY

4. Outcomes

These are the main outcomes foreseen by the project:

Outcomes - within Project Period: • Importance of gender and ecosystem approach in FBF development is endorsed by next

users (by end of 2015). • The methodology applied by the next users for FBFS development scenarios includes gender

and ecosystem services, identification of winner and losers and trade-off analysis (in 2016) and linked to watershed development activities.

• Integration of gender and ecosystem approach into curriculum of UNESCO-IHE, Mekelle University and Sudan Gezira University/Hydraulic Research Center (by end of 2016).

Outcomes - 5 Years after project period: • Some 40 professionals per year develop skills in gender and ecosystems approach to plan and

implement land and water programmes and investments. • New investments in land and water are guided by principles of gender equity and balanced

ecosystem services.

During the very successful Proposal WriteShop organized by WLE, the NILE Basin and East Africa Focal Region, we identified the next users of our project outcomes and related outputs. As it can be inferred from the Figure below, we are well connected to various decision making institutions, donors, civil societies and community organizations as well as research, knowledge centres and networks. Three strong government institutions based in our study areas have already sent us official Letters of Support expressing their full commitment to ensure the smooth implementation of the project. They are: the Bureau of Water Resources (BoWR) and the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD) in the Tigray Region, Ethiopia; the Kassala State Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Irrigation, Animals, Wealth and Fisheries (MoAFIA).



We have high expectation that the project outcomes and related outputs will lead to the following changes in policy, attitude, knowledge and skills among the next users.

Next users of project outcome Expected change in Government officials - decision makers at: Ministry of Water Resources and Electricity (Sudan); Ministry of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Affairs (Sudan and Ethiopia); Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy (Ethiopia); Ministry of Agriculture (Ethiopia and Sudan); Kassala State Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Irrigation, Animals, Wealth and Fisheries (MoAFIA); Women and Youth (Sudan), Tigray Bureau of Water Resources, Agriculture and Rural Development, Women and Youth (Ethiopia)

Attitude and policy: thinking beyond narrowly defined production targets and single intervention, but taking into account inclusion of other ecosystem benefit for all stakeholders including women and youth

Technical experts from the above institutions: responsible for designing, planning and guiding implementation of investments in land and water

Skill and practice: inclusion of gender and ecosystem approach in land and water investment and development programs

Civil societies and community organizations: in charge of implementing investment programmes: Gash Development Authority (Sudan), Relief Society of Tigray (Ethiopia); Raya Valley and Gash Water Users Associations (Sudan and Ethiopia)

Attitude: thinking beyond short term benefits and immediate environment Knowledge: Recognition of interdependent and competing users

Donors: IFAD, GIZ, World Bank and others active in Flood-based Farming Systems (FBFS) investment and development programmes

Policy: formulating investment strategies and development programs including synergies and trade-offs in ecosystem benefits for range of stakeholders including women and youth

Research and knowledge centres: Mekelle University (Ethiopia), Gezira University and Hydraulic Research Centre (Sudan), UNESCO-IHE (the Netherlands)

Practice: Change in curriculum and research approach and methodology to properly include gender and ecosystem perspectives

5. Output users and use

The evidence of demand for the project outputs, the capacity and incentives the respective users will need to overcome current barriers and better understand and effectively apply the project outputs are as described below.

Next user of project output

Capacity needed to apply and use project outputs

Barrier/incentive Evidence of demand

Government officials - decision makers who will use our testimony/briefing videos , media articles on added value of including gender and ecosystem service in investments; impacts of upstream interventions on downstream livelihoods.

Openness to alternative approaches and ideas. Ability to properly understand analyses by experts with regard to consequences of alternative investment options.

Barrier: Lack of flexibility in policy interpretation. Lack of incentive to think differently. Incentive: Better integrated repertoire of interventions. Reduced risk of conflict, getting (re)elected.

In Tigray, Ethiopia the pilot bench-terrace based agricultural development of hillsides has stopped awaiting a better understanding of impacts on downstream users of Flood-based Farming Systems (FBFS).

Technical expert - Investment planner who will use our methodologies

Knowledge and skills in FBFS development scenario formulation that integrate gender and ecosystem service perspective. Applying models and tools (such as HEC-HMS, SWAT, Invest) that analyse varied impacts of basin-wide interventions.

Barrier: Lack of existing curriculum (courses) and good examples. Incentive: Career perspective.

Increased interest by donors and potential national government and educational institutions. Non-inclusive planning leading to degraded ecosystems and unequal benefit sharing.

Civil societies and community organizations using our video products, briefing notes and forums.

Being able to evaluate the usefulness of long-term thinking that goes beyond immediate benefits and environment. Understanding the characteristics of interdependent and competing users (winners and losers).

Barriers: Lack of incentive to change a weak social fabric. Power differences. Lack of knowledge of integrated approach. Incentives: Reduce risk of conflict, successful community programs.

Inequity in access to resources. Failed projects due to conflicts or inappropriate design. Programs leading to inequalities and short lived program due to conflicts.



Donors using our knowledge products and methods

Being able to formulate investment strategies and development programs- including synergies and trade-offs in ecosystem benefits for range of stakeholders including women and youth.

Barriers: The need for short terms success stories - pressure from national government and backing agencies Incentives: To be seen as progressive and innovative donor on the forefront of new thinking

Increasing demand for concrete action and results on gender and sustainability.

Research and knowledge centres reading our journal articles, using our course material and other knowledge products

Curriculum review and evaluation. Formulate integrated and gender inclusive research approach

Barriers: Lack of conviction that taking an ecosystem and gender perspective is a better approach. Incentives: Funding opportunity and possibility of experimenting and exploring new approach

Demand for innovative concepts and research products Number of students in participant in short courses Availability of research fund

We will implement an effective strategy that combines user-specific engagement, networking and communication mechanisms to ensure that our project outputs are widely used. The following table provides details. Next user of project output

Engagement mechanisms

Intermediaries/connecting institutions

Communication activities to reach them

Government officials - decision makers

Key staff attends project launch. Attendance to and presentation at their quarterly evaluation meeting.

Project members are well connected and existing strong institutional collaboration.

Presentation. Study tour/ learning route. Stories in media (television) outlet with their involvement.

Technical experts -Investment planners

Joint research, scenarios development and formulation of alternative investment plans. Short training courses. Participation key project meetings.

Members of the project consortium are well connected with relevant agencies. There already exists strong institutional collaboration.

Joint research outputs. Presentation in national and international gathering such as ICID, Stockholm, Nile conferences.

Civil societies and community organizations

Attendance of representative at the launch and key project meetings. Involvement in scenario development. Feedback on project output in community meetings.

While the consortium members already have good connections, the following institutions will further strengthen the partnership: Ethiopia: Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development. Sudan: Gash Agricultural Scheme (GAS) authority. Sudan and Ethiopia: Woman and Youth Institutions, UNESCO-IHE alumni.

Joint field visits. Country exchange visits between project sites. Videos with their involvement.

Donors Short visit to project site combined with mid/final evaluation missions. Possibly attendance to and presentation at their annual meeting. Proposal responding to calls.

WLE, UNESCO-IHE, University Water Sector Partnership (UWSP), IGAD

Success stories and glossy reports. Web stories and blogs.

Research and knowledge centres

Presentations, seminars MSc and PhD and alumni Reports and publications. Wiki. Website of key implementing institutions



6. Outputs

The anticipated project outputs are as outlined below.

Knowledge products Gender specific products

Methods and Tools Forums and partnerships

Two briefing notes on: 1. Added value of gender and ecosystem approach - comparing current and new investment plans that incorporate gender and ecosystem perspectives. 2. Impact of upstream watershed management activities on downstream Flood-based Farming Systems (FBFS) and livelihoods. Blog: Investing in FBFS from an ecosystems perspective: who wins and who loses? Briefing videos: before and after project implementation that gauge the change in perspectives among key project output and outcome users with regards to ecosystems services provided by FBFS and their importance for livelihoods. Three peer reviewed journal articles co-authored by non-researchers and local partners on: added value of ecosystems approach; added value of gender approach; and impact of upstream activities on downstream livelihoods. Course material such as case studies for the annual short courses at Mekelle University and UNESCO-IHE.

Three blogs on: 1. What is the bargaining power of women who manage FBFS for livelihood 2. Are FBFS where wome are actively involved in management performing better? 3. Importance of rehabilitating degraded lands by managing floods for productive use by landless women and youth. 3.Methodology for gender inclusive planning and implementation of investments in FBF? 4) tested and updated gender module in MASSMUS

Methodology for: 1. including gender and ecosystems perspective in FBFS investment and development programmes and evaluating the trade-offs and synergies. 2. Participatory scenario formulation and inclusive investment criteria development. Tools: 1. Floodwater assessment tools specific to Gash (Sudan) and Raya (Ethiopia) basins: identifiying and quantiying the multiple use of floods.

Forums: 1. Testimony videos by policy makers/farmers explaining the importance of gender and ecosystems perspective in FBFS investments 2. Articles in the media featuring our next users comparing benefits and costs of current and newly developed investment plans that include gender and ecosystem perspectives 3.Dissemination events including webinars on www.waterchannel.tv; Communities meetings bringing together farmers (male, female), practitioners, investors and policy makers; Farmer and local politicians’ participation in conferences. Partnerships: Expansion of the Spate Irrigation Network membership and webste (www.spate-irrigation.org) to better represent farmers and policymakers, include different sources of knowledge and perspectives on ecosystems and gender.

7. Research questions and methodologies The proposed project will address three main questions:

Question 1: What is the impact of current investment plans of upstream agricultural development on downstream flood based farming systems and livelihoods, in particular for women? The methodology to answer this question consists of the following parts: • description of the baseline situation, developing map images and assessing the hydrologic

situation (using tools such as SWAT, HEC-HMS), the governance situation (using 20 indicators approach1

1 http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/toolkit-for-the-indicators-of-resilience-in-socio-ecological-production-landscapes-and-seascapes/

and strategic choice) different uses of floods (expert interviews) and traditional adaptive management strategies in flood based farming by men and women (focus group

http://www.waterchannel.tv/�




discussions) – this will set the basis for the identification of issues and planning subsequent research and discussion activities;

• stakeholder analysis to identify the different beneficiary groups such as upstream, midstream and downstream; men, women, youth;

• livelihood and eco-system services mapping upstream and downstream in the basin, differentiated between men and women;

• participatory mapping of resources and access by different groups, identifying spatial patterns in distribution of benefits;

• landscape wide transects identifying inter-linkages (livelihood systems, water availability, moisture distribution, flooding patterns and flood water use, sediment transport, landscape interventions, productive uses, infrastructure development), during the dry season and flood/rain season;

• economic valuation of benefits derived from these resources by different stakeholder groups, and trade-offs, negotiations and existing conflict resolution mechanisms;

• scenario evaluation exploring current and ongoing investment plans: physical/hydrologic aspects using models such as SWAT, HEC-HMS; socio-economic and gender aspects through focus group discussions and interviews of key experts.

Question 2: What is the added value of incorporation of gender and ecosystems perspective in investment plans in flood based farming? - how can gender and ecosystems perspective be incorporated? - who are the winners and losers of different investment scenarios? - to whom do benefits and losses accrue? - what is the difference in costs and benefits for men, women and youth?

The methodology to address these questions consists of a comparison of impacts under baseline and alternative investment scenarios, as follows:

a) Assessment of the baseline situation (separate for men, women and youth), see above. • Valuation of ecosystems functions with direct and indirect benefit to different stakeholders

(using tools such as INVEST and TEEB) b) Impact assessment of alternative investment scenarios • Participatory formulation and evaluation of alternative scenarios that incorporate gender and

ecosystems (Focus group discussion) and relate this to specific interventions • Evaluation of scenarios, including winners and losers and exploring trade-offs and synergies

between benefits, costs and their distribution over stakeholder groups (see above) and the environment (using tools such as SWAT, HEC-HMS, Ribasim, INVEST, and focus group discussions in different stakeholder forums at local and policy level).

Question 3: What is the most ‘efficient’ use of floods (from different angles) in the Raya watershed and valley and Gash basin? And what interventions and set of intervention support this? • Based on the results of question 1 and 2, Focus group discussions in different forums of the

next users. All proposed research activities are action oriented and will be implemented together with local stakeholders and relevant staff involved in these ongoing interventions, to enable joint learning.

8. Measuring Progress towards Outcomes

8.1. Indicators The verifiable time-bound indicators we will employ to realize the proposed outcomes are as summarized below.



8.2. Baselines Current investments in land and water development programmes, particularly in FBFS, are not properly informed by open dialogue and cooperation based on transparent and publicly shared scientific analysis. Many led to unequitable sharing of benefits and costs among various stakeholders (upstream, downstream, men, women, youth), and have contributed to ecosystem degradation.

Among the root causes are: Criteria of investment are narrowly defined in terms food security and single interventions

disregarding gender and other ecosystem service or inter-linkage between watershed and flood-based farming improvement.

Expected outcome Progress indicator towards achieving the outcome Information or data to verify progress

1) Importance of gender and ecosystem approach in FBFS investment programmes is endorsed by government officials/decision makers (by end of 2015).

Following discussion with project staff, key government officials/decision makers (in Ethiopia: Bureau Heads of Water Resource, Agriculture and Rural Development; in Sudan: State Minister, Kassala State Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Animal Resources, and Director General of Gash Agricultural Scheme) commit to facilitate the implementation of the project (end of November, 2014).

These government officials/decision makers attend the launch and the session introducing gender and ecosystem service approaches (Jan/Feb, 2015).

Informative video featuring interviews with winners and losers of current investment plans and highlighting the added benefits of a gender and ecosystem perspective presented at the mid-year meetings of the government institutions (June/July, 2015).

Government officials/decision makers officially recognize importance of gender and ecosystem approach in their investment programmes (by end of 2015).

Official letter of support by key government officials/decision makers.

Video documentation: opening speeches and media interviews involving the government officials. Project inception report.

Media interviews with key government officials. Official minutes of the meeting.

Testimony videos.

2) The methodology applied by the technical experts/investment planners for development scenarios of FBFS includes gender and ecosystem services, identification of winner and losers and trade-off analysis (by mid 2016).

Methodology co-developed with key investment planners/technical experts (June, 2015).

Methodology is agreed upon by investment planners and civil society and community organizations (by September, 2015).

Methodology is endorsed by government officials/decision makers (by end of 2015).

Methodology is pilot tested by key investment planners/technical experts in one of their sites (by mid 2016)

Joint publication with key investment planners/technical experts.

The technical expert guest lectures in existing spate irrigation course at Mekelle University or UNESCO-IHE. Memorandum of understanding signed.

Joint publication with logos and foreword written by relevant ministries and regional authorities. Endorsement letter.

Different scenarios formulated. Winners and losers identified. Trade-off analysis conducted.

3) Integration of gender and ecosystem approach into curriculum of UNESCO-IHE, Mekelle University and Sudan Gezira University/Hydraulic Research Center (by end of 2016)

Based on preliminary project findings, draft Syllabus prepared and subsequently endorsed for the course/module: Gender and Ecosystem Services Approach for Sustainable FBFS Investment Programmes - Challenges and Opportunities (March, 2016).

Project outputs (videos, articles, briefing notes, and blogs) are converted into comprehensive course material consisting of case studies, lecture notes and PowerPoint (by Mid 2016).

The course/module officially integrated into curriculum and pilot run (by October, 2016).

Official endorsement communication by the Institute of Water and Environment (Mekelle University); Irrigation Water Management Institute (Gezira University); Chair Group Land and Water for Food Security (UNESCO-IHE).

Publication of course materials by the above three educational institutions.

Official approval communication by the Senates of Gezira and Mekelle Universities and Programme Committee of UNESCO-IHE. Project staff lecture/guest lecture in the existing FBFS courses at Mekelle University and UNESCO-IHE.



Lack of appropriate methodology incorporating gender, ecosystem services and tradeoff. Non inclusive decision making and information sharing. Decision making without clearly identifying winners and losers. Lack of skill to incorporate gender and ecosystem services and evaluating tradeoff.

9. Gender and equity

The aim of the project is to improve investments in flood based farming to ensure an equitable distribution of costs and benefits of the impacts of proposed interventions. Hence, gender and equity is at the core of this project. Gender and equity will be addressed at different levels and through different approaches.

Firstly, the research activities explicitly recognize and analyze the differentiated needs, priorities and constraints of both women and men. Following the gender-responsive research approach all relevant data and analyses are gender differentiated. For example, the impacts of current and future investment plans in flood based farming on livelihoods are analyzed for women and men separately. It also involves research to identify constraints for women in business opportunities and livelihood options and ways to overcome these gender specific constraints.

Secondly, the proposed research probes into the role that women play in traditional management and conflict resolution structures. It analyzes the position and bargaining power of women within the management of FBF and the representation of women in community organizations and Water Users’ Associations. It then poses the question if the flood based systems in which women are relatively well represented perform better in terms of equitable access to resources and distribution of benefits (gender-specific research).

Thirdly, the project aims at contributing to women empowerment by involving women at all levels and in all project stages. For example, efforts will be made to ensure that in community and project meetings women will be well represented. A special effort will be made to engage women leaders in the spate irrigation network. A good part of local researchers and MSc students involved in the project will be female. The two PhD fellows contributing to this project are both female (and from the region).

Gender outputs foreseen in this project include blogs addressing gender-specific questions and a methodology for gender inclusive investments in flood based farming.

10 Ecosystems Services and Resilience

The aim of this research project is to add value to ongoing decision making concerning FBF development in Ethiopia and Sudan by including an ecosystems and landscape perspective to current or planned interventions and policies. Flood based farming systems provides several ecosystems services that are often overlooked in current interventions. For example, large floods that are too difficult to handle are not diverted for agriculture but are spread over flood plains that provide grass for cattle and herbs (provisioning service). Managing floods contributes to groundwater recharge (regulating service). Flood management in FBF systems is closely linked to biodiversity and natural vegetation. FBF systems are depositories of local biodiversity – collecting seeds from a large catchment and depositing them in moist soils (regulating service). They feed ephemeral wetlands rich in species (regulating service). Natural vegetation is often of considerable value providing additional sources of income to local communities (provisioning service) although in some places, invasive species, such as mesquite, if not properly managed, negatively affect agricultural production.

The proposed research will assess and value synergies and trade-offs between the different ecosystems functions and benefits of FBF under various development scenarios, for different stakeholders and the environment. It will evaluate the productive functions and ecosystems



services provided by FBF systems in the current situation and changes thereof as a result of the interventions proposed by farmers, governments and donors.

The research takes a landscape perspective by considering the impact of upstream activities on downstream flood based activities. For example, upstream storage development and watershed improvement that are proposed to enable agricultural activities in the degraded hills of Tigray (Ethiopia) can smoothen peak flows and reduce sediment loads. This may adversely affect communities downstream who depend on sediment loaded floods for their traditional farming practices. The Tigray Bureau of Agriculture decided to temporarily suspend upstream activities after concerns raised by downstream communities. This research will shed light on the downstream effects of upstream activities. It will add a landscape perspective to current investment approaches and adapt investment criteria to include gender and ecosystems.

PART C: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The GanntChart is detailed in the "Project Workbook" file submitted along with this document.

13. References and bibliography

Frank van Steenbergen, Philip Lawrence, Abraham Mehari Haile, Maher Salman and Jean-Marc Faurès, 2010. Guidelines on Spate Irrigation. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 65, ISBN 978-92-5-106608-09

Abraham Mehari Haile, Demissie, A., Embaye, T.G., Getaneh, A.2013. Flood-based Farming for Livelihoods in Ethiopia Lowlands. Status, Potential and Investment Guide. ISBN:9789490792022

IFAD, 2014. Gash Sustainable Livelihoods Regeneration Project. Project performance assessment. Report No. 3530-SD

Frank van Steenbergen, Abraham Mehari Haile, Alemehayu, T., Alamirew, T, Geleta, Y. 2011. Status and Potential of Spate Irrigation in Ethiopia. Water Resource Manage. 25:1899–1913.

Abraham Mehari Haile, Frank Van Steenbergen, Schultz, B. 2011. Modernization of spate irrigated agriculture: A new approach. Irrigation and Drainage. DOI: 10.1002/ird.565

De Fraiture, C., A. Fayrap, O. Unver and R. Ragab. 2014. Integrated Water management approaches for sustainable food production. Irrigation and Drainage 63(2): 122-231.

GIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE). 2014. Gender strategy. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IWMI, 27p. doi: 10.5337/2014.204

Marieke Adank, Barbara van Koppen, and Stef Smits, 2012. MUSgroup, Guidelines for Planning and Providing Multiple-Use Water Service. IRC and IWMI, ISBN/EAN: 978-90-6687-079-6

Frank van Steenbergen and Albert Tuinhof (2014), Managing the Water Buffer for Development and Climate Change Adaptation: Groundwater Recharge, Retention, Reuse, RW. Wageningen: MetaMeta.

Abraham Mehari Haile, Van Koppen, B., McCartney, M., Lankfordd, B., 2009. Unchartered innovation? Local reforms of national formal water management in the Mkoji sub-catchment, Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 34: 299-308

De Fraiture, C., D. Wichelns, E. Kemp Benedict, J. Rockstrom. 2007. Scenarios on water for food and environment. In Molden (ed): Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. International Water Management Institute.

http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/toolkit-for-the-indicators-of-resilience-in-socio-ecological-production-landscapes-and-seascapes/;http://spate-irrigation.org/resource-documents/practical-notes

Annexes to your proposal submission

A: Team leader and team member’s C.V.s. One full CV (Team Leader) and 15 CVs of project members have been submitted together with

this proposal (see "CVs" file). B: Letters of intended association and/or contracts We have included six letters of association and support (see file "Letters_ Association). C: Project Workbook: see attached file, "Project Workbook" for details on budget, contacts, outcome planning.

http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/toolkit-for-the-indicators-of-resilience-in-socio-ecological-production-landscapes-and-seascapes/�

http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/toolkit-for-the-indicators-of-resilience-in-socio-ecological-production-landscapes-and-seascapes/�

http://spate-irrigation.org/resource-documents/practical-notes/�

http://spate-irrigation.org/resource-documents/practical-notes/�

Project Partners and Contact Details

Family Name Given Name Gender Institution Title/Position Email Mobile Phone Postal Address Country Expertise Role in the project

1 van Steenbergen Franciscis M Spate Irrigation

Network

Foundation

(SpNF)

Research manager fvansteenbergen@m

etameta.nl

31644995010 Paardskerkhofweg 14

5223Aj 's-

Hertogenbosch

The Netherlands Water

management

Overal Project leader, promoting

project at relevant meetings,

endorsement of projects outputs and

outcomes, synergy with other projects

and partners, identifying additional

fuding opportunities, co-author

articles, oversee M&E activities

2 Borgia Cecilia F SpNF Senior Researcher cborgia@metameta.

nl

31617130481 Paardskerkhofweg 14

5223Aj 's-

Hertogenbosch

The Netherlands Water

management,

gender

senior researcher, gender specialist,

guide differentiated data collection and

analyses, for men and women

backstopping support to Stakeholder

analysis, livelihood mapping and

participatory resource mapping, co-

author gender products and articles.

3 Kool Matthijs M SpNF Researcher [email protected] 31630106132 Paardskerkhofweg 14

5223Aj 's-

Hertogenbosch

The Netherlands Spate irrigation junior researcher, support data

collection and organization,

communication and dissemination of

project results, coordination support

Please remember to provide a CV for each person listed below as Annex B to your proposal. Indicate in particular who has responsibility for communications, M&E, knowledge sharing and gender analysis.

4 de Fraiture Charlotte F UNESCO-IHE Professor c.fraiture@unesco-

ihe.org

Westvest 7, 2611 AX,

Delft

The Netherlands Agricultural

Water

Management,

Irrigation water

management,

water and food

Research leader, Economic valuation of

ecosystem services; gender

mainstreaming; synergy with other

research programmes, review project

deliverable, co-author knowledge

products and articles.

Mehari Haile Abraham M UNESCO-IHE Senior Lecturer and

Researcher

a.meharihaile@unes

co-ihe.org

31633334925 Westvest 7, 2611 AX,

Delft

The Netherlands Managing floods

for multiple use;

Agricultural

water

management,

Irrigation desing

and anagement,

water and food

Senior researcher, scenario

formulation and methdology for

analysing added value of gender and

ecosystem services, values of multiple

flood uses, women empowernment,

translating research results to

knowledge and gender products;

Coordination/communication,

contribnute to M&E support, co-author

articles

5 Suryadi Fransiscus

Xaverius

m UNESCO-IHE Senior Researcher f.suryadi@unesco-

ihe.org

31615262368 Westvest 7, 2611 AX,

Delft

The Netherlands GIS, water

resources

modelling,

support for SWAT and related

modelling activities

6 Yazew Hagos Eyasu M Mekelle

University

Director and

Associate professor

[email protected] 251910 170415 P.O.BoX: 231, Mekelle Ethiopia Land and Water

Development,

Integrated

Watershed

management

and Flood-based

Farming

National (Ethiopia)research leader.

Timely delivery and endorsement of

project outputs and outcomes by

decision maker in Ethiopia, Superivise

research staff and students (MSc and

PhD), overview M&E, co-author

knoweldge proudcts and articles

7 Weldu Abrha Yirga M Mekelle

University

Lecturer and

Researcher and Head,

Quality Assurance

Office

[email protected]

om

25191277209 P.O.BoX: 231, Mekelle Ethiopia Land resources

management,

watershed

management

Researcher, contribute to site

selection, evaluation of baseline

situation, contribute to knowledge

products, scenario formulation and

methodology development,

communications and organizational

support.

8 Getachem Zenebe Martha F Mekelle

University

Lectuirer and

researcher/PhD

research fellow

Marthaget21@yahoo

.com/m.zenebe@un

esco-IHE

51913689949 P.O.BoX: 231,

Mekelle/Westvest 7,

2611 AX, Delf

Ethiopia/Netherl

ands

Water

Resources and

Irrigation

Engineering,

gender

Researcher, Differentiated data for

men and women collection and

analyses, scenario formulation and

methodlogy development for analsyes

multple flood uses, HEC-HMS

modeling, co-writing gender products

and articles

9 Tesfa-alem

G/Egziabher

Embaye M Mekelle

University

Lectrure and

Researcher Counsel

Head

251914708127 P.O.BoX: 231, Mekelle Ethiopia Integrated

design of

Irrigation and

Flood-based

Farming

Systems

Researcher, contribute to secnario

formulation and methodology

development, SWAT modelling

10

Mohamed Yasir

M HRC Director and

Professor

y.mohamed@hrs-

sudan.sd

249916120615 P.O.Box 318, Wad

Medani, Sudan

Sudan Hydrology,

Water resources

National (Sudan) Research leader,

overall responsibilty of research

quality, supervise research work in

Sudan, engage relevant senior staff

members in the research, ensure

delivery and endorsement of outputs

and outcomes, modelling support

11

Abdel Hafiz Abu Obeida

M HRC Associate professor [email protected]

om

249123813813 P.O.Box 318, Wad

Medani, Sudan

Sudan Water

resources,

irrigation water

management

Senior researcher, scenario

formulation and methodology

development, assessment of

floodwater allocation for multiple use,

M&E

12

Mekawi Amira

F HRC Assisstant Professor [email protected]

om

249915010681 P.O.Box 318, Wad

Medani, Sudan

Sudan water resources,

researcher, contribute to methodlogy

development, gender analyses,

coordination support

13

Hayati Ahmed Hayati

M HRC Researcher [email protected]

om

249111154007 P.O.Box 318, Wad

Medani, Sudan

Sudan

Junior researcher, field research

support, communication and

dissemination of project outputs,

organizational support

Gantt Chart Please list 2-4 activities per year. Activities can span multiple years.

Project Name Harnessing floods for livelihoods and ecosystems

Date January 2015 - December 2016

No. Activity/ Milestone (including Deliverables)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

0 Project Management & ImplementationResponsible Staff

Member (only one)

Evidence of delivery provided by project

to WLE

Activities 0.1 Sites selected in Sudan Mohamed Yasir names & photos of sites

0.2 Sites selected in Ethiopia Eyasu names & photos of sites

0.3 Project launch, partners and communities aware of the project van Steenbergen report of launch

0.4 Midterm workshop van Steenbergen report of meeting

0.5 End of project workshop van Steenbergen report of meeting

0.6 Project progress reportsvan Steenbergen progress and finance reports

Milestones 0.a First visit to the sites and community meetings in Sudan 0.a Mohamed Yasir report & photos of meetings

0.b First visit to the sites and community meetings in Ethiopia 0.b Eyasu report & photos of meetings

0.c Project launch meeting with stakeholders 0.c van Steenbergen report of launch

0.d Midterm workshop 0.d van Steenbergen report of meeting

0.e End of project workshop 0.e van Steenbergen report of meeting

0.f Project progress and financial reports 0.f 0.f van Steenbergen progress and finance reports

2015 2016




Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015 2016

1 Methodologies & tools co-developed with partnersResponsible Staff

Member (only one)


to WLE

Activities 1.1 Develop methodology to include gender & ecosystems perspective co-

developed with investment planners/technical experts Abraham HaileJointly written briefing note and

presentation in conference

1.2 Develop methodology on participatory scenario development in Flood

Based Farming investmentsAbraham Haile Joint write-up

1.3 Develop tool to quantify and value the multiple uses of floods in

Ethiopia and SudanAbraham Haile Joint write-up

1.4 Get methodologies endorsed/accepted by government officials in Sudan Yasir Joint publication with logos & foreword

written by relevant ministry; testimonial

videos

1.5 Get methodologies endorsed/accepted by government officials in

Ethiopia

Eyasu Joint publication with logos & foreword

written by relevant ministry; testimonial

videos

1.6 Pilot test methodologies by investment planners in one of their sites

(Ethiopia)

Abraham Haile Different investment scenarios compared

with business as usual

Milestones 1.a Methodology draft written, co-authored by partners; inclusive

investment criteria developed

1.aAbraham Haile

Inclusive investment criteria

1.b Methodology draft written, co-authored by partners; scenarios

developed

1.bAbraham Haile

Alternative scenarios

1.c Tool to value the multiple uses of floods developed 1.c Abraham Haile Values of multiple uses

1.d Evidence of endorsement (eg. letter or foreword) by officials in Sudan 1.d Yasir Letter or foreword by gov't officials

1.e Evidence of endorsement (eg. letter or foreword) by officials in Ethiopia 1.e Eyasu Letter or foreword by gov't officials

1.f Different approach to investments in one site in which scenarios are

formulated & winners and losers (M/F, ecosystems) identified 1.f

Abraham Haile Briefing note on the added value of

gender & eco approach




Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015 2016

2 Research for development activities

Responsible Staff

Member (only one)


to WLE

Activities 2.1 Description of the baseline situation Yasir (Sudan); Eyasu

(Ethiopia)

report on the baseline

2.2 Stakeholder analysis, livelihood mapping and participatory resource

mapping

Yasir (Sudan); Eyasu

(Ethiopia)

report and relevant data on the baseline

available

2.3 Economic valuation of ecosystems services from floods de Fraiture Journal article

2.4 Formulation of scenarios and comparison with and without gender &

ecosystems approach, jointly with community stakeholders

Abraham Haile Briefing note, blog and journal article

2.5 Identification of winners & losers upstream and downstream Yasir (Sudan); Eyasu

(Ethiopia)

Briefing note, blog, course material and

journal article

Milestones 2.a SWAT, HEC-HMS, Ribasim and/or other models calibrated; current

investment plans identified

2a Yasir (Sudan); Eyasu

(Ethiopia)

calibrated models, report on the baseline

2.b Stakeholder analysis, livelihood mapping and participatory resource

mapping finalized

2.b Yasir (Sudan); Eyasu

(Ethiopia)

report and relevant data on the baseline

available

2.c Economic valuation of ecosystems services from floods using TEEB

tools/INVEST finalized

2.c de Fraiture Journal article

2.d Added value of gender & ecosystems approach identified (comparison

with and without)

2.d Abraham Haile Briefing note, blog and journal article

submitted

2.e Losers & winners upstream & downstream identified 2.e Yasir (Sudan); Eyasu

(Ethiopia)

Briefing note, blog, course material and

journal article submitted




Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015 2016

3 Gender activitiesResponsible Staff

Member (only one)


to WLE

Activities 3.1 Identification of differentiated needs, priorities and constraints of both

women and men.


(Ethiopia)

Differentiated data available

3.2 Role of women in traditional management and conflict resolution

structures.


(Ethiopia)

Two blogs on power of women and

performance of FBF managed by women

3.3 Women empowerment in the project Abraham Haile Participation of women in project

activities

Milestones 3.a Differentiated data for men and women collected and analyzed 3.a Yasir (Sudan); Eyasu

(Ethiopia)

Data available, analyzed and blog

written

3.b Role of women in traditional management and conflict resolution

structures identified

3.b de Fraiture Data available, analyzed and blog

written

3.c Women participation throughout the project 3.c 3.c Abraham Haile Number of women in each activity

reported (in progress report)




Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015 2016

4 From outputs to outcomes and impact

Responsible Staff

Member (only one)


to WLE

Activities 4.1 Existing short course at IHE updated to include fresh insights based on

results from this project

Abraham Haile Updated course material available from

SpNF website

4.2 Existing training at Mekelle updated to include fresh insights based on

results from this project

Eyasu Updated course material available from

SpNF website

4.3 Policy/Practice of water allocation in Gash updated based on results

from this project

Yasir revised policy document on floodwater

allocation presented to decision makers

4.3 Dissemination of results: Testimony videos, articles in the media,

dissemination events on waterchannel, and SpNF websites

van Steenbergen videos and ppt of presentations on

'waterchannel' and SpNF website,

promotion activities organized

4.4 Expansion and strengthening of the SpNF network, increase visibility van Steenbergen List of member organizations, presence

of SpNF at relevant events

Milestones 4.a Course material developed and curriculum updated 4.a 4.a Abraham Haile Case studies included in updated

curriculum of short course at IHE

4.b Course material developed and curriculum updated 4.b 4.b Eyasu Case studies included in updated

curriculum at Mekelle

4.c Dissemination of results: Testimony videos, articles in the media,

dissemination events on waterchannel, and SpNF websites

4.c 4.c van Steenbergen materials on 'waterchannel' and SpNF

website, promotion activities organized

4.d Number of SpNF partners increased (including farmers reps, policy

makers etc.) , additional funding opportunites identified

4.d 4.d van Steenbergen List of member organizations, presence

of SpNF at relevant events




Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2015 2016

Responsible Staff

Member (only one)


to WLE

Activities

Milestones

OUTCOME PLANNING

2019 Outcomes of the WLE Flagship on Integrating Ecosystem Solutions into Policy and Investments (IES)

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

2017 Project Outcomes ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

Describe below how these outcomes will be achieved. Be as specific as possible and include gender and ecosystems and resilience.

10 Major development initiatives and public institutions at national and subnational levels are using WLE’s science and decision support tools to prioritize and inform project

implementation of equitable ecosystem based approaches

10 Public-private actors (including financing) at national and sub-national levels are using new incentive mechanisms (e.g. novel financial mechanisms) or business

models/markets that explicitly promote ecosystem based approaches in natural resource management especially agriculture using WLE science.

Define Next User 1 (see Definitions tab). Define the change in the next user (e.g. change in knowledge, attitude, skils, practice, etc.) that

is necessary to achieve the outcome. Complete one table for each next user.

Government Officials and Decision Makers

Risks and

Assumptions

Why are next

users (the

research users)

not taking this

action now?

What are the

barriers (e.g.

capacity) and

incentives (e.g.

new policy) for

next users to

take this action?

Specify 1-2

indicators of

progress from

baseline towards

outcomes. The

project will collect

data on these

indicators annually

to measure

progress towards

outcomes.

Data and

evidence to

support your

plan (e.g.

documentation

of next user

demand for

research,

national/subnati

onal priorities)

Barrier: Focus on

single interventions,

decentralized

implementation.

Lack of incentive to

think differently.

Incentive: Better

integrated repertoire

of interventions.

reduced risk of

conflict, model

function (of Tigray)

in landscape

management.

Review your project outcomes in the Expression of Interests. Revise these outcomes if needed based on the workshop discussions. These statements should be specific and

measureable regarding the changes (in skills, practice) anticipated, e.g. "Who is doing what differently as a result of the project activities." Include gender and

ecosystems. Outcomes - within Project Period:

• Importance of gender and ecosystem approach in FBF development is endorsed by next users (by end of 2015).

One or more private sector next users will use ESS safeguard outputs to reduce negative impacts on ecosystem services and/or simulate them.

One private sector and one civil society next users will use genderized eco-system approach to producitve flood management in sub-basins, landscapes

4 relevant government agencies will employ programmatic outputs and systems tod develop investment package, usingappraoch that they have developed by WLE

Official letter of

support by key

government

officials/decision

makers.

Video

documentation:

opening speeches

and media

interviews involving

the government

officials. Project

inception report.

Interviews with key

government

officials. Official

minutes of the

meeting.

Testimony videos.

Joint publication with

logos and foreword

written by relevant

ministries and

regional authorities.

Endorsement letter.

Expected change

in: Attitude and

policy: thinking

beyond narrowly

defined

production targets

and single

intervention, but

taking into

account inclusion

of other

ecosystem benefit

for all stakeholders

including women

and youth

Project strategies to

work with next users

to achieve outcomes.

How will the project

overcome the

barriers?

Outputs produced by

the project for use by

next user

Baseline = what is

the next user (the

research user) doing

now. This is the

current situation.

Following discussion with

project staff, key

government

officials/decision makers

(in Ethiopia: Bureau

Heads of Water

Resource, Agriculture

and Rural Development;

in Sudan: State Minister,

Kassala State Ministry of

Agriculture, Irrigation

and Animal Resources,

and Director General of

Gash Agricultural

Scheme) commit to

facilitate the

implementation of the

project (end of

November, 2014).

These government

officials/decision makers

attend the launch and

the session introducing

gender and ecosystem

service approaches

(Jan/Feb, 2015).

Informative video

featuring interviews with

Two briefing notes on:

1. Added value of gender

and ecosystem approach -

comparing current and

new investment plans that

incorporate gender and

ecosystem perspectives.

2. Impact of upstream

watershed management

activities on downstream

Flood-based Farming

Systems (FBFS) and

livelihoods.

Blog: Investing in FBFS

from an ecosystems

perspective: who wins and

who loses?

Briefing videos: before and

after project

implementation that gauge

the change in perspectives

among key project output

and outcome users with

regards to ecosystems

services provided by FBFS

and their importance for

livelihoods.

Three peer reviewed

the Ethiopian and

Sudanese governments

supported by donors such

as IFAD started investing in

the improvement of

infrastructure (weirs,

intake and canals) and on-

farm practices to enhance

agricultural productivity.

Current investments in land

and water development

programmes, particularly

in FBFS, are not properly

informed by open dialogue

and integrated multi-

functional approach and

publicly shared scientific

analysis. Many led to

unequitable sharing of

benefits and costs among

various stakeholders

(upstream, doownstream,

men, women, youth), and

have contributed to

opportunities to improve

ecosystem services

foregone.

Among the root causes

Engagement mechanisms:

Key staff attends project

launch.

Attendance to and

presentation at their

periodic evaluation

meeting.

Communication activities to

reach them: Share d

p resentation.

Study tour/ learning route.

Stories in media (television)

outlet with their

involvement Government

officials- decision makers

will use the shared

testimony/briefing videos

and media articles on

added value of including


service in investments;

impacts of upstream

interventions on

downstream livelihoods.

Why are next

users (the

research users)

not taking this

action now?

What are the

barriers (e.g.

capacity) and

incentives (e.g.

new policy) for

next users to

take this action?





overcome the

barriers?

Outputs produced by


next user

Baseline = what is

the next user (the


now. This is the

current situation.

Specify 1-2

indicators of

progress from

baseline towards

outcomes. The


data on these

indicators annually

to measure

progress towards

outcomes.

Barrier: Lack of

existing c good

examples.

Incentive: Career

perspective,

professional ethos

Expected change

in: Different

professional skill

set: inclusion of

gender and

ecosystem

approach in land

and water

investment and

development

programs

Risks and

Assumptions

Data and

evidence to

support your

plan (e.g.

documentation

of next user

demand for

research,

national/subnati

onal priorities)



Technical expert - investment planner


Joint research, scenarios

development and

formulation of alternative

investment plans.

Short training courses.

Participation key project

meetings. Communication

activities to reach them:

Joint research outputs.

Presentation in national and

international gathering

such as ICID, Stockholm,

Nile conferences Technical

expert - investment

planner will use our

methodology

Methodology for:

1. including gender and

ecosystems perspective in

FBFS investment and

development programmes

and evaluating the trade-

offs and synergies.

2. Participatory scenario

formulation and inclusive

investment criteria

development.

Tools:

1. Floodwater assessment

tools specific to Gash

(Sudan) and Raya

(Ethiopia) basins:

identifiying and quantiying

the multiple use of floods.



programme, particularly in

FBF miss the modality and

the approach for

integrated development

and maximizing various

ecosystem services

Among the root causes

are:

- Criteria of investment are

narrowly defined in terms

food security and simple

c/b analysis, interventions

disregarding gender and

other ecosystem service or

interlinkage between

watershed and flood-based

farming improvement.

- Lack of appropriate

methodology

incorporating gender,

ecosystem services and

tradeoff.

- Non inclusive decision

making and information

sharing.

- Decision making with out

Methodology co-

developed with key

investment

planners/technical

experts (June, 2015).

Methodology is pilot

tested by key

investment

planners/technical

experts in one of their

sites (by mid 2016)

Joint publication with

key investment

planners/technical

experts,

presentation in

regional meeting

and international

conferences.

The technical expert

guest lectures in

existing spate

irrigation course at

Mekelle University

or UNESCO-IHE.

Memorandum of

understanding

signed.

Different scenarios

formulated. Winners

and losers identified.

Trade-off analysis

conducted.

Baseline = what is

the next user (the


now. This is the

current situation.

Expected change

in: Attitude:

thinking beyond

short term

benefits and

immediate

environment

Knowledge:

Recognition of

interdependent

and competing

user and methods

to balance

interests and

engage local

governments and

other parties

Testimony videos.

Different scenarios

formulated. Winners

and losers identified.

Trade-off analysis

conducted.

Barriers: Lack of

incentive to change

a weak social fabric.

Power differences.

Limited

engagement in

development

programming

beyond community

level, no actual

upstream and

downsteam

interaction.

Incentives: Reduce

risk of conflict,

successful

community

program, better use

of potential od

ecosystems.


Attendance of

representative at the

launch and key project

research events

Involvement in scenario

development and

endorsement

Feedback on project

output in community

meetings. Communication

activities to reach them:

Joint field visits.

Exchanges between

farmer groups

Videos with their

involvement.

Civil societies an

community organizations

will use our video products,

briefing notes and will speak

afforums

Two briefing note (see

above) translated and

discussed


after project








livelihoods Forums:

1. Testimony videos

farmers explaining the

importance of gender and

ecosystems perspective in

FBFS investments

2. Articles in the media

featuring our next users

comparing benefits and

costs of current and newly

developed investment

plans that include gender

and ecosystem

perspectives

3. Communities meetings

bringing togetheru/s and

Communities have good

understanding on meaustrs

and impact in their

immediate locality but

none so beyond -

Interventions hence aimed

at local benefits and not

taking into account root

poblems that may lay

elsewhere, development


in FBFS, are not properly

informed by open dialogue

and cooperation Women

engagement in planning

and discussion is limitedt.

Lack of appropriate

methodology



tradeoff.

Non inclusive decision

making and information

sharing.

Decision making with out

clearly identifying winners

and losers.

Lack of skill to

Methodology is agreed

upon/ endorsed by civil

society and community

organzations (by

September, 2015).



Civil society and community organizations

Specify 1-2

indicators of

progress from

baseline towards

outcomes. The


data on these

indicators annually

to measure

progress towards

outcomes.

Data and

evidence to

support your

plan (e.g.

documentation

of next user

demand for

research,

national/subnati

onal priorities)

Risks and

Assumptions

Why are next

users (the

research users)

not taking this

action now?

What are the

barriers (e.g.

capacity) and

incentives (e.g.

new policy) for

next users to

take this action?





overcome the

barriers?

Outputs produced by


next user

Expected change

in: Policy:

formulating

investment

strategies and

development

programs

including synergies

and trade-offs in

ecosystem

benefits for range

of stakeholders

including women

and youth -

introducing new

assessment

methodologies

Barriers: The need

for short terms

success stories -

pressure from

national government

and backing

agencies

Incentives: To be

seen as progressive

and innovative

donor on the

forefront of new

thinking

interest in new

modalities and

operationalization of

'landscape'

development


Short visit to project site

combined with mid/final

evaluation missions.

Possibly attendance to and

presentation at their annual

meeting.

Proposal responding to calls -

seeking cooperation and

sharing.


reach them:Success stories

and attractive reports.

Web stories and blogs

Donors will use our

knowledge products and

methods

Knowledge products are:

Two joint briefing notes

(shared logos) on:

1. Added value of gender

and ecosystem approach -.

2. Impact of upstream

watershed management


Flood-based Farming

Systems (FBFS) and

livelihoods.

Blog: Investing in FBFS

from an ecosystems

perspective: who wins and

who loses?


after project








livelihoods.

Three peer reviewed

journal articles co-authored

by non-researchers and




in FBFS, are 'run off the

mill' . Many led to

unequitable sharing of

benefits and costs among

various stakeholders

(upstream, doownstream,

men, women, youth), and

have missed creative

opportunities at

maximixing ecosystem

services - incl managing

micro-climate and soil

moisture

- Criteria of investment are

narrowly defined in terms

food security and C/B

disregarding gender and

other ecosystem service or

interlinkage between

watershed and flood-based

farming improvement.


methodology



Informative video

featuring interviews with

winners and losers of

current investment plans

and highlighting the

added benefits of a


perspective presented at

the mid-year meetings

of the government

institutions (June/July,

2015). Based

on preliminary project

findings, draft Syllabus

prepared and

subsequently endorsed

for the course/module:

Gender and Ecosystem

Services Approach for

Sustainable FBFS

Investment

Programmes -

Challenges and

Opportunities (March,

2016). Project

outputs (videos, articles,

briefing notes, and blogs)

are converted into

Testimony videos.

Interview with

donors and new

concept notes and

different

approaches in

project assessment



Donors

Why are next

users (the

research users)

not taking this

action now?

What are the

barriers (e.g.

capacity) and

incentives (e.g.

new policy) for

next users to

take this action?





overcome the

barriers?

Outputs produced by


next user

Baseline = what is

the next user (the


now. This is the

current situation.

Specify 1-2

indicators of

progress from

baseline towards

outcomes. The


data on these

indicators annually

to measure

progress towards

outcomes.

Data and

evidence to

support your

plan (e.g.

documentation

of next user

demand for

research,

national/subnati

onal priorities)

Risks and

Assumptions

Expected change

in: Practice:

Change in

curriculum and

research

approach and

methodology to

properly include

gender and

ecosystem

perspectives

Barriers: Lack of

conviction that

taking an ecosystem

and gender

perspective is a

better approach.

Incentives: Funding

opportunity and

possibility of

experimenting and

exploring new

approach


Presentations, seminars


reach them: Reports and

publications. Wiki. Website

of key implementing

insitution, webinars,

inclusion in short courses

Research and knowledge

centres will read our journal

articles, use our course

material and other

knowledge products

Three peer reviewed

journal articles co-authored

by non-researchers and

local partners on: added

value of ecosystems

approach; added value of

gender approach; and

impact of upstream


livelihoods.

Course material such as

case studies for the annual

short courses at Mekelle

University and UNESCO-

IHE.

Current research is not

looking at larger

geographical units and is

also missing out on a large

part of important eco-

systems services.


methodology



tradeoff.

- Inability of local

researches to advise local

government with practical

suggestion on integreated

approach - including for

instance road authorites

that also influence road-

run off

Based on preliminary

project findings, draft

Syllabus prepared and

subsequently endorsed

for the course/module:

Gender and Ecosystem

Services Approach for

Sustainable FBFS

Investment

Programmes -

Challenges and

Opportunities (March,

2016).

Project outputs (videos,

articles, briefing notes,

and blogs) are converted

into comprehensive

course material

consisting of case

studies, lecture notes

and PowerPoint (by Mid

2016).

The course/module

officially integrated into

curriculum and pilot run

(by October, 2016).

Official

endorsement

communication by

the Institute of

Water and

Environment

(Mekelle

University);

Irrigation Water

Management

Institute (Gezira

University); Chair

Group Land and

Water for Food

Security (UNESCO-

IHE).

Publication of course

materials by the

above three

educational

institutions.

Official approval

communication by

the Senates of

Gezira and Mekelle

Universities and

Programme


is necessary to achieve the outcome. Complete one table for each next user. Research and knowledge centres

Why are next

users (the

research users)

not taking this

action now?

What are the

barriers (e.g.

capacity) and

incentives (e.g.

new policy) for

next users to

take this action?





overcome the

barriers?

Outputs produced by


next user

Baseline = what is

the next user (the


now. This is the

current situation.

Specify 1-2

indicators of

progress from

baseline towards

outcomes. The


data on these

indicators annually

to measure

progress towards

outcomes.

Data and

evidence to

support your

plan (e.g.

documentation

of next user

demand for

research,

national/subnati

onal priorities)

Risks and

Assumptions

research proposal: harnessing floods to enhance

Documents