SEPTEMBER 5, 2019

SYSTEM UNDERSTANDING AND STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS FOR IMPLEMENTING CAPACITY BUILDING FOR RESTORING DEGRADED

LANDSCAPE IN THE HAWASSA CATCHMENT, ETHIOPIA REPORT

WOLDE MEKURIA & AMARE HAILESILASSIE INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (IWMI)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................. ................................... 3

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Method ............................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1. Study design ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.2. Data collection and analysis .................................................................................................... 7

3. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 9

3.1. Land degradation in the Hawassa catchment .......................................................................... 9

3.2. Learning watersheds ............................................................................................................. 11

3.3. Stakeholders identification and analyses .............................................................................. 15

3.3.1. Description and relationships ........................................................................................ 15

3.3.2. Stakeholder profiles ...................................................................................................... 18

3.3.3. Strategic options of selected stakeholders ..................................................................... 21

3.3.4. Power and power resources ........................................................................................... 22

3.3.5. Stakeholders’ interests .................................................................................................. 23

3.3.6. Influence and involvement ............................................................................................ 24

3.3.7. Building trust ................................................................................................................ 26

3.3.8. Exclusion and empowerment ........................................................................................ 30

References ............................................................................................................................................. 32

1

List of Figures

Figure 1. Stages in conducting stakeholder analyses ............................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Location of the Hawassa catchment and learning watersheds ............................................... 12 Figure 3. Graphic representation of identified stakeholders. The full names of the stakeholders are

indicated in Table 2. .............................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 4. Strategic options of selected primary and secondary stakeholders........................................ 21 Figure 5. Visualization of interest – influence in a system of coordinate. ............................................ 26 Figure 6. Visual representation of the perceived access to and control of resources, and competencies. 31

List of Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of selected learning watersheds. ..................................................................... 13

Table 2. Description of key stakeholders* ............................................................................................ 16 Table 3. Stakeholders’ s profile including their agenda, field of action, scope of influence, alliances, and types. .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Table 4. The perceived stakeholders’ legitimate power (based on seven types of authority) and power resources. .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 5. Analysis of stakeholders’ interest and influence ..................................................................... 25 Table 6. The level of trust among the different stakeholders ................................................................ 28 Table 7. Analysis of trust building from the perspective of (a) GIZ, (b) PIN, (c) rift valley lakes basin development office. ............................................................................................................................... 29 Table 8. Perceived access to and control of resources and competencies. ............................................ 31

2

Executive Summary

In the Hawassa catchment, reducing the degradation of the agricultural landscapes and the

associated impacts as well as sustaining the benefits of restoration efforts requires addressing

the underlying causes. In this line, we assessed the underlying causes of land degradation,

and conducted a stakeholder analyses to better understand the system and assess stakeholders

interest, priorities and power and power resources as well as the interaction among them.

Data were gathered using key informant interviews who are familiar with the degradation of

agricultural landscape and restoration. We also consulted literature (both published and

unpublished), and conducted field observation to better understand the issue in the

catchment. As part of the stakeholder analysis, we conducted stakeholder mapping, and

analysed the stakeholders’ power and power resources, interests and scope for action,

influence and involvement, trust, and exclusion and empowerment.

Agricultural landscape degradation in the Hawassa catchment is attributed to several

interlinked biophysical and socio-economic factors. Our results support that the poor

research-extension linkage, political commitments of development agents and other

practitioners, and the lack of capacity, livelihood diversification mechanisms and alternative

energy options are the key areas that need attentions to restore the system. Many

stakeholders including government and non-governmental organizations, local administrative

bodies, civil societies, private sectors and local communities or farmers involve in landscape

restoration. Results support that the relationships between government and non-

governmental organization, and private sectors are weak or mostly informal or unclear. In

most cases, the relationships between government and non-governmental organizations

symbolise alliances and cooperation that are organized contractually or institutionally.

Most of the identified stakeholders possess similar mission/mandate related to natural resource

management but their scope of influence varies considerably. The results support that

stakeholders that have moderate to considerable influence do not vary with their strategic

options, indicating that there is a high potential of collaboration with the stakeholder and achieve

the project objectives. The agricultural and natural resource offices and local administrative

bodies have higher legitimate power compared to other stakeholders. This could be attributed to

their power derived from information, communication and negotiation, practical relevance, and

social relations. Among the NGOs and other secondary stakeholders, GIZ showed higher

legitimate power. This could be attributed to the nature of the

3

organization (i.e., focussed on supporting the implementation of government plan through

providing technical and financial support), which provides the organization power derived

from information, and communication and negotiation in addition to its power derived from

practical relevance. We observed that most of the power resources acquired by influential

stakeholders can be utilized without major additional inputs.

The results support that the interest of governmental organization, NGOs and civil societies

are similar, and that these stakeholders are keen to support the project objectives and see

rehabilitated landscapes in the Hawassa catchment. It is also perceived that the assertion of

the stakeholder’s interest would affect the project activities and the restoration of degraded

landscapes positively. The project activities can be implemented with less transaction cost, as

the level of trust among the different stakeholders ranged from moderate to pronounced trust.

Also, majority (68%) of the stakeholders have both access to and control of resources, as

well as a high level of basic competencies, indicating that it is not necessary to use

empowerment measures for this group.

In sum, involving the identified key and primary stakeholders at all levels of the

interventions is crucial. Also, using/exploiting their experience could support to achieve the

objectives of the project, and improve ecosystem services and livelihood of local

communities. Further, it is important to regularly inform about the progress of the project to

the identified secondary stakeholders; and to private sectors to ensure that their experiences

are integrated into the process.

4

1. Introduction

Stakeholder analysis can be defined as a methodology for gaining an understanding of a

system, and for assessing the impact of changes to that system, by means of identifying the

key stakeholders and assessing their respective interests. Stakeholder analysis in natural

resource management has largely stemmed from concern that many projects have not met

their stated objectives because of non-co-operation or even opposition from key stakeholders,

who believed they would be adversely affected by change. Stakeholder analysis recognizes

the different interest groups involved in the utilization and conservation of natural resources

and provides tools that help to identify and resolve tradeoffs and conflicts of interest. The key

stakeholder groups in natural resource management could vary from formal or informal

groups of men or women farmers to government bodies or NGOs, international agencies and

multinational companies.

Stakeholder analysis has considerable value in assisting researchers and practitioners related

to natural resource management to take account of potentially conflicting objectives of

efficiency, equity and sustainability. These conflicts are fundamental in the field of natural

resource management, particularly where there is increasing resource scarcity and where

common property resources are concerned. Stakeholder analysis also distinguishes between

conflicts (i.e., competition and potential disagreement between two or more stakeholder) and

trade-offs (i.e., the process of balancing conflicting objective within a single stakeholder).

In the Hawassa catchment, the study area, pressure on agricultural landscape is mounting

because of population growth. Noticing simple indicators such as agricultural land expansion

and associated land use change is a common phenomenon. Halting/reducing the degradation of

land and water resources and the associated impacts as well as sustaining the benefits of

restoration efforts requires addressing the underlying causes. For example, restoration efforts

need to be implemented with full understanding of the local context including the respect and

understanding of the local communities, smallholder’s rights and local and federal policy

context. In this line, we assessed the underlying causes of land degradation, and conducted a

stakeholder analyses to identify the key stakeholders involved in landscape restoration in the

Hawassa catchment, and to better understand their interest, priorities and power as well as

understand how the various stakeholders involved in landscape restoration are contributing

directly or indirectly to the restoration and sustainable use of multifunctional landscape.

5

2. Method

2.1. Study design

We employed five stages in conducting stakeholder analyses and understanding the

underlying causes of land degradation in the Hawassa catchment (Fig. 1). In the first stage

of the analyses, we set objective (s) based on the major problem in the study area -

landscape degradation and restoration, and selected three sub-watersheds (or learning

watersheds) within the catchment based on criteria stated in FAO (2017). These include (a)

representativeness, (b) visibility and accessibility, (c) evidence of watershed degradation and

physical restoration potential, (d) diversity in land use pattern, (e) products and problems to

be addressed, (f) demonstrated interest of stakeholders, (g) demonstrated commitment and

support from government lines, agencies and local entities, and (h) the need for protection of

high-value areas downstream. Then, we determined or delineated their system boundary

using hydrological criteria (i.e., based on the location of the main outlets of selected learning

watersheds).

The second stage of the analyses focused on understanding the problem of landscape

degradation and restoration as a system. For example, at this stage we investigated where the

system is breaking down, what the immediate and underlying reasons are, and who the

decision makers are. The third stage of the analyses focused on identifying key stakeholder

groups relevant to the implementation of landscape restoration measures. The selection

criteria were based on considering all those groups who in some way will be affected by the

implementation of restoration measures. Because the main interest of the analyses was to

understand if there is equal or greater concern for the equitable distribution of benefits and

costs following the implementation of restoration measures. This included those who have

interests, claims or rights (ethical or legal) to the benefits of the restoration efforts, or to some

measure are likely to bear its costs or adverse impacts. Stages four and five focused on

investigating stakeholders’ interest, characteristics and circumstances, interest, influence,

power and power resources, and forms of interaction between different groups of

stakeholders including conflict, co-operation and dependency.

6

Figure 1. Stages in conducting stakeholder analyses

2.2. Data collection and analysis

The process of understanding the system and identifying stakeholders employed 26 key

informant interviews who are familiar with the issue (i.e., the degradation of agricultural

landscape) and project activities (i.e., building the capacity of practitioners at different levels for

restoring degraded landscapes). These represents a range of governmental organizations, NGOs,

private sectors and civil societies; and expertise including watershed and soil and water

conservation experts, agronomists, foresters, environmentalists, socio-economists, program

managers, economic development advisor, and monitoring and evaluation advisor.

The key informant interviews were conducted using informal and semi-structured interviews

(i.e., using simple check-lists of key topics). The key issues covered during discussions with key

informant interviews include: (a) their knowledge on landscape degradation and restoration, (b)

immediate and underlying causes of land degradation and their relationship, (c) what general improvements to the management of agricultural landscape would they

like to see, (d) their perception on the role of capacity building for landscape restoration, (e)

potential beneficiaries and losers in the catchment due to the implementation restoration

7

measures, (f) decision making processes and decision-making environment, (g) understanding the

issue (i.e., the degradation of agricultural landscapes), (h) availability of resources, (i) quantity

and quality of connections among different stakeholders, and (j) forms of key stakeholders’

involvement. We also consulted literature (both published and unpublished), and conducted field

observation to better understand the issue in the catchment.

As part of the stakeholder analysis, we conducted stakeholder mapping, and analysed the

stakeholders’ power and power resources, interests and scope for action, influence and

involvement, trust, and exclusion and empowerment. We conducted stakeholder mapping to

visualise the stakeholders relevant to the project (i.e., building the capacity of practitioners at

different levels for restoring degraded landscape), and thereby characterise the relationships

between stakeholders and the respective networks. The mapping of the stakeholders involved

the identification of stakeholders, graphic representation of identified stakeholders, and the

description of stakeholder profiles (i.e., describing the stakeholders in terms of agenda, arena

and alliance) and strategic options. The description of the strategic options of the identified

stakeholders were done using ten criteria: development vision, operational effectiveness,

flexibility and innovation, contractual fidelity, communication, relationships, management,

trust, conflicts, and capitalising on experience.

We analysed power and power resources to visualizing the differences among stakeholders in

terms of power and influence and identifying options for action to change power relations.

Our analysis focused on two aspects: (a) the stakeholder’ legitimate power, which is based on

seven key types of authorities: setting objectives, norms and quality control (OQ); allocating

or denying resources (RS); defining roles, tasks and responsibilities (TR); structuring the

participation in decision-making processes (SP); controlling access to information and

knowledge (CI); allocating rewards, recognition and sanctions (RS); and channelling

messages to superiors and external bodies (CM); and (b) power resources such as power

derived from information (IN), communication and negotiation (CN), specialist knowledge

and expertise (KE), practical relevance (PR), creativity (CR), and social relations (SR).

We analysed the stakeholders’ interest and scope of action to describe their interests in

relation to land degradation and restoration, and identify behavioural constraints and the

stakeholders’ scope for action. This analysis aimed at assessing whether the interest of the

stakeholders is coherent with the project activities and objective, and how the assertion of

the stakeholder’s interest likely impacts the project.

8

We assessed the stakeholders’ influence and involvement towards building the capacity of

practitioners to facilitate restoration of degraded landscape. The key questions answered

through this analysis were: (a) the stakeholders’ attitude towards the reform intervention (i.e.,

how do stakeholders see land degradation and the role of capacity building to restoring

degraded landscape? Do they have a rather negative attitude towards it or are they basically

in favour of the intervention? (b) the stakeholders’ influence on achieving the planned project

activities (i.e., capacity building for restoration) (i.e., how much influence do stakeholders

have on the reform intervention? Are they key stakeholders or just passive players?

We analysed trust building to investigate the degree of trust that exists between stakeholders;

discussing options for strengthening the cooperation network; and analysing specific

stakeholder relationships. We analysed exclusion and empowerment on identify

disadvantages and marginalised stakeholders, and discussing empowerment strategies. This

analysis employed two indicators: (a) access to and control of resources, and (b) basic

competencies of the stakeholder.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Land degradation in the Hawassa catchment

Landscape degradation in the Hawassa catchment is attributed to several immediate and

underlying causes. Deforestation, overgrazing, mining (mainly excavating mountains for selected

materials used for road construction and rock sale), and failure to use agricultural, grazing and

forest lands according to appropriate land use management plan and resource base are among

frequently mentioned immediate causes. Deforestation is caused by the demand for fuelwood to

meet household energy demand and agricultural land to feed the growing population as well as

local communities dependence on forest resources for livelihood and income. The growing

demand for fuelwood and agricultural land is attributed to population growth, which is caused

due to failure to implement family planning programs, local communities need to have more kids

to get support to run the predominance subsistence agriculture, and the lack of awareness

creation programs on the relationships between population growth and natural resource

management and how to diversify livelihood and reduce pressure on natural resource base. The

key informant interview also revealed that the shift from pastoralist dominated community to

agrarian community contributed to the expansion of agricultural land and clearing of forest

resources. Overgrazing is mainly linked

9

to shortage of alternative livestock feed sources, higher number of livestock and lack of

appropriate management plan. Poor livelihood diversification options in the catchment and

low productivity of the agricultural system aggravate mining (Picture 1a), which

consequently led to soil erosion and gully formation (Picture 1b). The failure to properly

manage natural resource base is attributed to the limitation in information (knowledge) base

related to natural resources management, lack of adequate implementation capacity and

lack of dissemination of the available best-practice related to natural resource management.

The low agricultural productivity also attributed to knowledge/capacity gaps, and poor

input availability and linkage between extension and research system.

(a)

(b)

Picture 1. Sand mining (a) and land degradation (b) in the Abaye watershed,

Hawassa catchment (Photo: Wolde Mekuria).

Socio-economic factors such as lack of policy enforcement, intense resource competition

among public and private investment and local communities, poor waste disposal facilities

10

and lack of principles and guidelines to manage natural resources, youth unemployment, lack

of coordination between the different technical sectors while implementing public

investment, and limited knowledge on understanding the linkage between natural resources

and different ecosystem services contributed to the degradation of agricultural landscapes.

Decision on the restoration of degraded landscape is usually made by the Bureau of

Agriculture. Local communities are usually consulted assuming that they agree on the plan.

Other government institutes such as the research and university systems involve in generating

knowledge on best-practices and impact of implemented restoration measures, and

demonstrating and scaling up of selected restoration measures. Also, these institutes influence

practitioners and decision makers through providing advise based on research outputs. NGOs,

usually provide technical support during planning, implementation and monitoring and

evaluation of restoration measures. Also, they provide financial support to implement

restoration measures and integrate some income generating activities within implemented

restoration measures. Discussion with key stakeholders revealed that decision-making

environment in the catchment is rated as medium, and that the poor research-extension

linkage, political commitments of development agents and other practitioners, and the lack of

capacity, livelihood diversification mechanisms and alternative energy options are the key

areas that need attentions to restore the system.

3.2. Learning watersheds

Within the Hawassa catchment, we selected three learning sub-watersheds: Doyo-Oticho,

Abaye and Kechema, to implement project activities (Fig. 2). We selected three sub-

watersheds to fully represent the entire Hawassa catchment and accommodate the existing

variabilities in biophysical and social settings. The catchment includes Lake Hawassa, which

is a fresh closed lake located within the Ethiopian Rift Valley (Fig. 2). The catchment crosses

two regions: SNPPR and Oromia regions. It has an area of approximately 1,250 km2, where

the waterbody covers approximately 7% of the catchment. Elevation in the catchment varies

between 1,660 and 2,980 m above mean sea level. The average slope of the catchment from a

30-m resolution Digital Elevation Model is approximately 12%. The characteristics of

selected learning watersheds based on the 8 selection criteria were summarized in Table 1.

11

Figure 2. Location of the Hawassa catchment and learning watersheds

12

Table 1. Characteristics of selected learning watersheds.

Criteria*

Description of selected sub-watersheds

Doyo Oticho Abaye watershed Kechema sub-watershed

Representativeness This sub-watershed represents the This sub-watershed represents the western part This sub-watershed represents the eastern

western part the Hawassa catchment. of the Hawassa catchment. part of the Hawassa catchment.

Visibility and accessibility The watershed is very accessible, and The watershed is very accessible, and found The watershed is very accessible, and

found within 10 km radius of the within 15 km radius of the district town, and is found within 5-10 km radius of the district

district town, and is visible. visible. town, and is visible.

Evidence of watershed Evidence of watershed degradation Evidence of watershed degradation such as soil Evidence of watershed degradation such as

degradation and physical such as vegetation degradation and erosion, vegetation degradation and gullies are vegetation degradation is common. The restoration potential gullies are common (picture 2a). The common (see picture 1). The watershed could watershed has a high restoration potential;

watershed displayed a high restoration be rehabilitated by establishing exclosure and particularly through plantation activities

potential (picture 2b) implementing SWC measures. (picture 3).

Diversity in land use pattern The watershed contains both The watershed contains both agricultural and The watershed displayed high diversity of

agricultural and grazing lands. grazing lands. land use pattern including cultivation of

perennial and annual crops, and contains

irrigated fields.

Products and problems to be Vegetation degradation and gully Soil erosion, vegetation degradation, mining of Vegetation degradation and restoration of addressed rehabilitation. soil, and gully rehabilitation. native tree species.

Demonstrated interest of Kebele level administrative bodies and Kebele level administrative bodies and Kebele level administrative bodies and

stakeholders members of the community displayed members of the community displayed high members of the community displayed high

high interest. interest. interest.

Demonstrated commitment District agricultural office showed District agricultural office showed strong District agricultural office showed strong

and support from government strong interest to rehabilitate the interest to rehabilitate the watershed. There are interest to rehabilitate the watershed.

lines, agencies and local watershed. also some projects working in the nearby entities watershed.

The need for protection of Rehabilitating the watershed supports Rehabilitating the watershed supports to protect Rehabilitating the watershed supports to

high-value areas downstream. to protect Lake Hawassa from Lake Hawassa from sedimentation and siltation, protect Lake Hawassa from sedimentation

sedimentation and siltation, and the and the agricultural lands located below the and siltation; irrigation fields and

agricultural lands located below the watershed (picture 4b). infrastructures, and cash crops planted in

watershed (picture 4a). the watersheds. *Source: FAO (2017).

13

(a)

(b)

Picture 2. Evidence of watershed degradation (a) and restoration potential (b) in the Doyo

Oticho sub-watershed, Hawassa catchment (Photo: Wolde Mekuria).

Picture 3. Degradation of native tree species (a watershed devoid of big trees) in the

Kechema sub-watershed, Hawassa catchment (Photo: Wolde Mekuria).

14

(a) (b)

Picture 4. The agricultural land dissected by big gully: (a) Doyo Oticho sub-watershed, (b)

Abaye sub-watershed, Hawassa catchment (Photo: Wolde Mekuria).

3.3. Stakeholders identification and analyses

3.3.1. Description and relationships

We identified several stakeholders including government and non-governmental

organizations, local administrative bodies, civil societies, private sectors and local

communities or farmers, and described them based on three core functions (legitimacy,

resources and connections, Table 2). Of the identified stakeholders, only one stakeholder

(S13) had all the three important core functions that distinguish it as outstanding, while two

stakeholders (S14 & S16) have at least two important core functions that distinguish them

as outstanding (Fig. 3). Of the identified stakeholders, four stakeholders (S1, S2, S18 and

S19) have veto power with close relationships with government and non-governmental

organizations in terms of information exchange, frequency of contact, compatibility of

interests, coordination, mutual trust. Our results support that the relationships between

government and non-governmental organization, and private sectors are weak or mostly

informal or unclear. In most cases, the relationships between government and non-

governmental organizations symbolise alliances and cooperation that are organized

contractually or institutionally.

15

Table 2. Description of key stakeholders*

Potential key stakeholders Position and core functions of the Stakeholder Forms of key stakeholder involvement

for landscape restoration Roles and Resources and Relationships€

Legitimacy£

Responsibility√

Agriculture and natural Strong Weak-Medium Medium The agricultural offices at different levels (i.e., Regional to Kebele level) could

resource offices at different involve in building the capacity of practitioner for restoring degraded landscape

levels (S1) through providing expertise and material support, and sharing their relevant

experience during the implementation of restoration measures. They also provide

support during community mobilization, and are responsible for preparing

implementation guidelines and principles for land restoration.

Environment and Forest Strong Weak - Weak - This stakeholder could involve in the project through providing technical support

Protection offices at different Medium Medium (e.g., forest development activities); sharing their relevant experience related

levels (S2) restoration activities.

South Agricultural Research Strong Medium Medium Providing expertise related to impact assessment, undertaking demonstration on

Institute (SARI) (S3) different kinds of land restoration options, and selecting and out-scaling best-

practices related to natural resource management (NRM).

Wondo Genet Agricultural Strong Medium Medium Same as SARI (S3) – though their degree of involvement varies. research centre (S4)

Hawassa University (S5) Strong Medium Weak Same as SARI (S3) – through their degree of involvement varies.

Rift Valley Basin Strong Weak Medium Meeting facilitation, community mobilization, experience sharing, and providing

development office (S6) expertise.

SNNPR Water Resources Strong Medium Medium Coordination and facilitation of meetings; provision of resource persons.

Development Bureau (S7)

Small and micro enterprise Strong Medium Medium Selection of youth groups, provision of financial support through short- and long-

office (S8) term credit facilities.

SNNPR National Regional Strong Medium Medium Selection of youth groups, establishing cooperatives, providing trainings.

Marketing and Cooperatives

Bureau (S9)

SNNPR Health Bureau (S10) Strong Weak Weak Provision of technical support on the link between family planning and NRM.

SNNPR Culture and Truism Strong Weak Weak Provision of technical support or providing trainings on the link between NRM and

Bureau (S11) Tourism.

Hawassa city forest, Strong Medium Medium Providing information, community mobilization, sharing resources, providing

environment and climate resource person.

change regulation office (S12)

German International Strong Strong Strong Experience sharing, provision of expertise, and providing documents on capacity

Cooperation (GIZ) (S13) development strategies and support while doing training need assessment.

16

SOS Sahel (S14) Strong Medium Strong Conducting studies and generating knowledge, capacity building, providing financial

and material support, supporting the implementation of rehabilitation measures.

People in Need (PIM) (S15) Strong Medium Medium Provision of expertise/resource persons, experience sharing & facilitation of

meetings/trainings.

Netherlands Development Strong Strong Medium Providing technical and financial support related to NRM. organization (SNV) – Ethiopia

(S16)

Population, Health and Strong Medium Medium Providing technical and financial support related to NRM.

Environment (PHE) –

Ethiopia consortium (S17)

Local communities (farmers) Strong Weak Weak Local communities contribute free labour during the implementation restoration

(S18) measures. They also participate in decision making, for example, when

demarcating/delineating areas for establishing exclosures.

Local administrative bodies at Strong Weak Medium The administrative bodies (both district and local level) involve in mobilizing local different levels (S19) communities and demarcating lands for biological conservation measures (e.g.,

exclosures). Ensure labour and in-kind contributions to the restoration activities.

Industrial Park Development Medium Strong Weak Could provide financial support as part of their social responsibility.

Corporation (S20)

Hotels and resorts (S21) Medium Strong Weak Could provide financial support as part of their social responsibility.

Factories (MOHA, textile, Medium Strong Weak Could provide financial support as part of their social responsibility.

BGI) (S22)

Hawassa Lake Lovers Strong Weak Medium Provision of expertise/resource persons, experience sharing.

Association (HLLA) (S23)

Sidama Development Strong Weak Medium Providing support during community mobilization and implementation of restoration

Association (SDA) (S24) measures.

South Ethiopia People Strong Weak Medium Providing support during community mobilization and implementation of restoration

Development Association measures.

(SEPDA) (S25) *Rank each core function as strong/medium/weak.

£ Legitimacy: Institutional position, ascribed or acquired rights, e.g. which are formalised by law; the task being undertaken or through public consent and which are considered to be legitimate.

√ Resources: Knowledge, expertise and capabilities, as well as material resources that allow the key stakeholder to exert a formative influence on land degradation

and restoration or to manage and monitor access to these resources.

€ Connections: The number and quality of relationships to other actors who are under obligation to or dependent on the key stakeholder.

17

S20, S21,

S22

Stakeholders

S16

Stakeholders

with strong with control

legitimacy over essential

resources S1 -19; &

S23 - 25

S13

S14

Strongly

networked

stakeholders

Figure 3. Graphic representation of identified stakeholders. The full names of the

stakeholders are indicated in Table 2.

3.3.2. Stakeholder profiles

The results of key informant interviews and review of documents revealed that both

government and non-governmental organization identified as key, primary and secondary

stakeholders have similar mission/mandate related to the management of the environment

(Table 3). However, their scope of influence and/or field of action varies considerably. In

general, the scope of influence of governmental organization is ranked as first, while those of

non-governmental organization, civil societies and private sectors ranked from second to

fourth, respectively (Table 3). The results indicated that the alliance or relationships with

other stakeholders of a given stakeholder in terms of institutionally regulated dependency;

ongoing information exchange; coordinated action; and co-production with common

resources ranged from weak to medium (Table 3). This could be attributed to the lack of

coordination and information exchange while implementing restoration measures or other

development activities.

18

Table 3. Stakeholders’ s profile including their agenda, field of action, scope of influence, alliances, and types.

Stakeh Issue – Landscape degradation; Project activity - capacity building for restoring degraded landscapes Stakeholder

olders Agenda (Mandate/mission, strategic objectives) Arena (Field of action, scope of influence) Alliances Type

(S1) Implementing integrated watershed development in Involves in formulation of strategies and guidelines, avail extension Weak - Primary

collaboration with the local communities; and providing the service and technical support to the farmers and relevant Medium

extension services. stakeholders, and carry out NRM activities and irrigation practices;

and has considerable influence.

(S2) Put in place an environmental management system that Involves in developing environmental strategic plan, formulation of Weak – Primary

sustainable utilization of environmental resources. environmental laws and standards, and implementing restoration Medium

measures; and is influential in some areas.

(S3) Conduct research that ensure the conservation and Involves in in generating evidence, developing appropriate Medium Primary

sustainable management of natural resources. technologies related to NRM and capacity; and is influential.

(S4) Conduct research that ensure the conservation and Involves in generating evidence, developing appropriate technologies Medium Secondary

sustainable management of natural resources. related to NRM and capacity building; and has little influence.

(S5) Pursuing excellence in academics, research and community The main action areas are teaching, research and provision of Medium Secondary

services. community services; and has little influence.

(S6) Implement a research based, participatory and sustainable Involves in policy formulation, implementing IWRM, preparing Medium Primary

integrated water resource management system within the basin plan, and providing advice and technical support to the High

basin. Council and the Ministry, and undertake studies, surveys and

researches; and is influential in some areas.

(S7) In relation to NRM, the bureau's mission is to asses and Involves in the study, design, construction, and supervision of small Medium Secondary

study water and land potential areas that could be and medium scale irrigation facilities and in the protection of water

developed through irrigation. sources from industrial pollutants; and has little influence.

(S8) To see vibrant and competitive micro and small enterprises More focused on establishing foundation for industrial development Weak Secondary

capable of providing diversified and solid foundations for – weak linkage with natural resource management; and has little

industrial development. influence.

(S9) Enabling cooperatives of rural and urban society in Involves in organizing landless youth and women and engage them in Weak Secondary

different types and levels based on their will and resource. restoration activities, capacity building related to market linkage and

integration of income generating activities within restored areas; and

is influential in some areas.

(S10) Supporting communities through disease prevention and Involves in capacity building – mainly linking family planning with Weak Secondary

health promotion by providing health services, and ensuring NRM; and has minimal influence.

accessibility and utilization.

(S11) Study, preserve, sustain, and develop the regions natural, Involves in capacity building that support to link restoration areas Weak Secondary

cultural, language, historical heritages & other cultural with job creation; and has minimal influence.

assets & improve the capacity of tourist service rendering

institutions.

19

(S12) Conserve and restoring the environment while enhancing Involves in developing strategic plan, regulating the environment, Medium Primary

people's well-being and livelihoods. and provision of support for environmental regulatory bodies and

implementers; and has considerable influence.

(S13) Promoting a market-oriented, ecological and social Involves in sustainable land Management, agriculture, food supply, Strong Primary

economic order. and biodiversity conservation; and has moderate influence.

(S14) Improving the smallholder livelihoods and pastoralists Involves in community-based natural resources management and Medium Primary

through better management of their environment. other activities, and is influential in some areas.

(S15) Improving lives of the poor in Ethiopia through Involves in development projects including natural resource Medium Primary

development and humanitarian projects. management; and is influential in some areas.

(S16) Supports people to enjoy the freedom to pursue their own Involve in capacity building related to productive sectors like Medium Secondary

sustainable development. agriculture; and is influential in some areas.

(S17) Contribute to sustainable development in Ethiopia by Involves in capacity building, mainly linking population, health and Medium Secondary

promoting and enhancing the integration of PHE. environment; and is influential in some areas.

(S18) Ensure better management of their environment to Involves in implementing restoration measures, managing Weak Key

(S19) sustaining their livelihood. agricultural development activities and protecting natural resources; Medium Key and has considerable influence.

(S20) Improving the sustainability and resilience of economic Could involve in restoration activities, as part of their social Secondary

growth in the country. responsibility; and has minimal influence.

(S21) Consistently deliver enduring memorable experience to our Could involve in restoration activities, as part of their social Weak Secondary

guests, job satisfaction to our associates, and sustainable responsibility; and has minimal influence.

profit to the owners.

(S22) Maximizing benefits through using cheaper labour force, Could involve in restoration activities, as part of their social Weak Secondary

local inputs and resources, lower manufacturing cost and to responsibility; and has minimal influence.

produce quality products,

(S23) Restoring the lake to its previous state. Involves in raising public awareness about the environmental and Medium Primary

social threats of lake Hawassa; and has little influence.

(S24) Mobilizing and coordinating the capacity of the people, and Involves in in mobilizing local communities while implementing Medium Primary

(S25) its supporters to implement development activities in the restoration measures; and has little influence. Medium Primary areas of environment and other. Note: alliance was evaluated based on (a) Institutionally regulated dependency; (b) Ongoing information exchange; (c) Coordinated action; and (d) Co-production with common resources.

20

3.3.3. Strategic options of selected stakeholders

Our results support that the selected primary and secondary stakeholders that have moderate

to considerable influence do not vary with their strategic options (Fig. 4). For example, Of

the nine stakeholders, four of them strongly agree (i.e., +2) that their organization implement

development interventions based on democracy and the balancing of interest, while the

remaining five displayed moderate agreement (i.e., +1) with the statement (Fig. 4). Majority

(66 – 88 %) of the selected stakeholders strongly agree that their organizations are flexible

and innovative, keeps to agreements and fulfils the relevant requirements, have good

relationships with other stakeholders, possess transparent strategies and guidelines, and

inform others proactively (Fig. 4). This indicates that there is a high potential of collaboration

with the stakeholder to achieve the project objectives (i.e., implementing capacity building

for restoring degraded landscapes).

Deg

ree

of

agre

emen

t

18 16 14 12 10

8

6

4

2

0 DV OE FI CF CN RL MG TR CN CE

Criteria

S1

S2

S3

S6

S12

S13

S14

S15

S17

Figure 4. Strategic options of selected primary and secondary stakeholders1.

1 DV refers to development vision (i.e., the stakeholder supports a constructive vision of development based on democracy and the balancing of interests); OE refers operational effectiveness (the stakeholder works in a goal-oriented and results-driven way and periodically checks the extent to which goals have been achieved); FI refers to flexibility and innovation (the stakeholder is open to new ideas and adapts his/her/its organisation to new challenges); CF- contractual fidelity (the stakeholder keeps to agreements and fulfils the relevant requirements on schedule); CN-communication (the stakeholder keeps others informed of his/her/its activities, participates in the exchange of information and answers queries promptly); RL – relationships (the stakeholder facilitates contacts, creates spaces in which encounters can occur and adapts his/her/its actions to the capacity of his/her/its external partners); MG – management (the stakeholder acts on the basis of transparent guidelines and strategies, and clarifies roles and responsibilities in his/her/its organisation); TR – trust (the stakeholder informs others proactively about his/her/its intentions, objectives and expectations, and shows understanding for other interests); CN – conflicts (the stakeholder is quick to flag tensions and conflicts and is prepared to tackle them constructively, openly and quickly); and CE – capitalising on experience (Capitalising on experience: The stakeholder evaluates his/her/its experiences, is open to criticism and shows a willingness to learn and to change).

21

3.3.4. Power and power resources

Our analysis on the perceived legitimate power based on seven key types of authority (Table

4) support that the agricultural and natural resource offices and local administrative bodies

possess higher legitimate power compared to other stakeholders. This could be attribute to

their power derived from information, communication and negotiation, practical relevance,

and social relations (Table 4). The German International Cooperation (GIZ) showed higher

legitimate power compared to other NGOs and some governmental organizations. This

could be explained by the nature of the organization (i.e., focussed on supporting the

implementation of government plan through providing technical and financial support),

which provides the organization power derived from information, and communication and

negotiation. GIZ has also power derived from practical relevance. However, most of the

NGOs, national research and university systems, identified as potential stakeholders have

weak legitimate power (Table 4). This could be attributed to the lack of power derived from

the control of the flow of information and influence over information content, and their low

communication and negotiating power. Private sectors and civil societies have weak

legitimate power, as these organization lack majority of power resources (Table 4). We

observed that most of the power resources acquired by some of the key and primary

stakeholders such as agriculture and natural resource office of different levels, environment

and forest protection offices, the Hawassa City Forest, Environment and Climate Change

Regulation Office, the regional research systems, local administrative bodies and GIZ can be

utilized without major additional inputs.

22

Table 4. The perceived stakeholders’ legitimate power (based on seven types of authority)

and power resources.

Stakeholder’ legitimate power Power resources

Types of OQ RS TR SP CI RS CM Total

authority

(S1) 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 20 IN, CN, PR, SR

(S2) 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 15 IN, CN, PR, SR

(S3) 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 15 IN, KE, PR, CR

(S4) 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 3 1 1.5 11 KE, PR, CR

(S5) 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 3 1 1.5 11 KE, PR, CR

(S6) 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 11 CN, CR, SR

(S7) 1 2 2 1.5 2 2 2 12.5 KE, PR, SR

(S8) 1 1.5 1.5 1 1 2 2 10 CN, KE

(S9) 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 12 CN, KE, PR

(S10) 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1 1.5 8.5 KE

(S11) 1 1.5 1 1 1 2 2 9.5 KE

(S12) 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 16 IN, CN, PR, SR

(S13) 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 16 IN, CN, KE, PR, SR

(S14) 1 1 1.5 1.5 3 1 2 11 PR, CR, SR

(S15) 1 1 1.5 1.5 3 2 2 12 PR, CR, SR

(S16) 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 11 PR, SR

(S17) 1 1 1.5 1 3 1 2 10.5 KE, PR

(S18) 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 12 PR, SR

(S19) 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 19 IN, CN, PR, SR

(S20) 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 11 KE

(S21) 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 8.5 KE

(S22) 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.5 8.5 KE

(S23) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1 2 9.5 CN, SR

(S24) 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 10.5 CN, SR

(S25) 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 10.5 CN, SR Note – 1: types of authority. OQ - Setting objectives, norms and quality control; RS - Allocating or

denying resources; TR - Defining roles, tasks and responsibilities; SP - Structuring the participation in decision-making processes; CI - Controlling access to information and knowledge;

RS - Allocating rewards, recognition and sanctions; CM - Channelling messages to superiors and

external bodies. Score 3 denotes strong, score 2 intermediate and score 1 weak authority. Note – 2: power resources: IN - Information: Power deriving from the control of the flow of information and

influence over information content. CN - Communication and negotiating power: The power to

grasp the crux of the issue and to communicate clearly and concisely, conveying a coherent message,

persuading others and thereby asserting own interests. KE – Specialist knowledge and expertise:

Power based on specialist knowledge others do not possess, but which is crucial in achieving the

desired goal. PR – Practical relevance: Power that arises from learned skills and experience and is

expressed in the ability to solve practical problems and thus bring about change. CR - Creativity:

Power arising from the ability and skills to utilise knowledge and experience in such a way that they

generate new ideas, concepts and solutions and provide an innovative view of existing systems. SR -

Social relations: Power derived from membership of a social group, class, peer group etc. and

safeguarded by relations with other stakeholders.

3.3.5. Stakeholders’ interests

The results indicated that the interest of governmental organization, NGOs and civil societies

are similar, and that these stakeholders are keen to support the project ideas and objectives

and see rehabilitated landscapes in the Hawassa catchment. Also, the interest of these

stakeholders is coherent with the project ideas. In this line, majority (> 90%) of the

23

stakeholders indicated that one of the bottleneck to sustaining restoration efforts and their

benefits is lack of awareness and capacity, and stressed that building the capacity of

stakeholders at different levels is crucial. Some of the stakeholders, particularly, NGOs

indicated that restoration efforts need to be linked with job creation and diversification of

livelihood to increase the short-term economic benefits of restoration measures and support

local communities to adopt the measures. In sum, our results support that the assertion of the

stakeholder’s interest would have positive effect on the project objectives and the

restoration of degraded landscapes.

3.3.6. Influence and involvement

Our results support that it is crucial to involve governmental organizations, NGOs, local

communities and local administrative bodies in all information and decision-making

processes (Table 5, Fig. 5). Particularly, involving key and primary stakeholders (see Table

3) at all levels of the interventions is crucial. Also, using/exploiting their experience could

support to achieve the project objectives, and improve ecosystem services and livelihood of

local communities.

The results also support that it is important to regularly inform about the progress of the

project activities and achievements to national research and university systems and for

governmental organizations identified as secondary stakeholders (Table 3) as well as for civil

societies. This assumes that they may, in certain circumstances, play an important role in

alliance with other stakeholders. Further, private sectors identified as a stakeholder (Table 5),

need to be consulted to ensure that their experiences and the reasons for their critical stance

are integrated into the process.

24

Table 5. Analysis of stakeholders’ interest and influence

Stakeholders Assessment

Interest Influence

Agriculture and natural resource offices at different levels (S1) +2 +2

Environment and Forest Protection offices at different levels (S2) +2 +0.5

South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) (S3) +2 +1

Wondo Genet Agricultural research centre (S4) +2 -0.5

Hawassa University (S5) +2 -0.25

Rift Valley Basin development office (S6) +2 0

SNNPR Water Resources Development Bureau (S7) +2 -0.5

Small and micro enterprise office (S8) 0 -1

SNNPR National Regional Marketing and Cooperatives Bureau (S9) +1 -0.5

SNNPR Health Bureau (S10) +1 -1.5

SNNPR Culture and Truism Bureau (S11) +1 -1.5

Hawassa city forest, environment and climate change regulation office (S12) +2 +2

German International Cooperation (GIZ) (S13) +2 +0.5

SOS Sahel (S14) +2 0

People in Need (PIM) (S15) +2 0

Netherlands Development organization (SNV) – Ethiopia (S16) +2 0

Population, Health and Environment (PHE) – Ethiopia consortium (S17) +2 0

Local communities (farmers) (S18) +2 +1

Local administrative bodies at different levels (S19) +2 +1

Industrial Park Development Corporation (S20) -1 -1

Hotels and resorts (S21) -1 -1

Factories (MOHA, textile, BGI) (S22) -1 -1

Hawassa Lake Lovers Association (HLLA) (S23) +2 -1

Sidama Development Association (SDA) (S24) +2 -1

South Ethiopia People Development Association (SEPDA) (S25) +2 -1 Scale for interest: +2 strong approval, also expressed towards other stakeholders and in public; active

participation; +1 moderate approval with some constructive suggestions for improvement; participation

variable; 0 indifferent, waits and observes further developments; -1 moderate rejection, offers few

suggestions; passive participation; -2 strong rejection, also expressed towards other stakeholders; refuses to

participate. Scale for influence: +2 very influential: key stakeholder with power of veto, the project activities

cannot be achieved without the explicit consent of this stakeholder. +1 influential: the stakeholder is in a

position to support and speed up or obstruct and block the process at several points. 0 influential in some

areas: the stakeholder has influence regarding certain issues; however, the project activities could still be

implemented against his/her will. -1 little influence: the stakeholder has a few limited opportunities to

influence progress towards the implementation of project activities. -2 minimal or no influence on progress

towards the implementation of the planned project activities.

25

Figure 5. Visualization of interest – influence in a system of coordinate.

3.3.7. Building trust

Our results demonstrated that stakeholders 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 25 showed a lot

of trust in the other stakeholders (scored average values of ≥ 4) (Table 6). The remaining

stakeholders displayed a moderate trust in others (average values between 3.5 and 4; Table

6). The results support that the private sectors are strongly mistrusted compared to other

stakeholders (Table 6). Although most of the NGOs showed pronounced trust to others,

they are moderately trusted by others (Table 6). In sum, our results indicated that the project

activities can be implemented with less transaction cost, as the level of trust among the

different stakeholders ranged from moderate to pronounced trust.

The analysis of trust building from the perspective of GIZ, PIN and rift valley lakes

development office (Tables 7 a, b, c), for example, indicated that the pronounced trust of

these organization on others is mainly attributed to: (a) important, positive and useful

experience of cooperation, (b) intentions and goals are made explicit and are clear, (c) regular

meetings and intensive communication, (d) agreements are negotiated openly and are

adhered to, (e) fair distribution of benefits and gains, (f) representatives know one another

and nurture the relationship, and (g) presentation of relationships to the outside. The lack of

26

communication between private sectors and other stakeholders could explain the observed

little trust on private sectors. Intensive communication among private sectors, governmental

and non-governmental organization, and making goals and intentions clear could alleviate

this problem and support to build a strong trust. The analysis also showed that NGOs should

exert more effort in making their goals and intentions clearer, and in achieving fair

distribution of benefits and gains to gain pronounced or a lot of trust from other stakeholders.

27

Table 6. The level of trust among the different stakeholders

Stake - Issue - Landscape degradation; Cahnge objective - Capacity building for restoration Trust

holder others

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25

S1 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 3.7

S2 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3.8

S3 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.7

S4 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.7

S5 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4 3.7

S6 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4.1

S7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

S8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

S9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

S10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

S11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

S12 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.7

S13 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0

S14 5 5 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 2 3 3 4 4 4 3.8

S15 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.6

S16 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.6

S17 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.8

S18 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0

S19 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 4.5

S20 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3.5

S21 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3.5

S22 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3.5

S23 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 4.5

S24 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 4.5

S25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 4.5

“is

trusted” 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.6 4.6 3.0 3.1 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Note: The level of trust and mistrust was evaluated based on the average values, and that average values with [4 - 5], (3 – 4), (2 - 3], (1 - 2], (≤ 1) indicates pronounced

trust, moderate trust, little trust, moderate mistrust and pronounced mistrust, respectively.

28

Table 7. Analysis of trust building from the perspective of (a) GIZ, (b) PIN, (c) rift valley lakes basin development office.

(a) i. Positive experience of cooperation in the past

No experience or only negative experience of 1 2 3 4 Important, positive and useful experience of

cooperation. cooperation.

ii. Transparency and predictability of intentions and goals Intentions and goals are unclear and veiled. 1 2 3 4 Intentions and goals are made explicit and

are clear.

iii. Communication between the stakeholders There are hardly any opportunities to meet 1 2 3 4 Regular meetings and intensive

and communicate. communication.

iv. Adherence to agreements and contracts Agreements are ignored and rarely adhered to. 1 2 3 4 Agreements are negotiated openly and are

adhered to.

v. Fair distribution of benefits and gains One-sided appropriation of benefits and gains. 1 2 3 4 Distribution is negotiated openly and a fair

solution is reached.

vi. Trust in the representatives of the other stakeholder Behaviour of representatives is unpredictable. 1 2 3 4 Representatives know one another and

nurture the relationship.

vii. Conflict transformation

Tensions and conflicts remain unspoken and 1 2 3 4 Conflicts are dealt with early on in an open

unaddressed. and constructive manner.

viii. How the relationship is presented to the outside The relationship appears one-sided and 1 2 3 4 Agreed presentation strengthens our

presents us in a negative light. relationship and is positive.

Analysis: Sum = 31; Average = 3.9; Variance = 0.1

(b) i. Positive experience of cooperation in the past

No experience or only negative experience of 1 2 3 4 Important, positive and useful experience of

cooperation. cooperation.

ii. Transparency and predictability of intentions and goals Intentions and goals are unclear and veiled. 1 2 3 4 Intentions and goals are made explicit and

are clear.

iii. Communication between the stakeholders There are hardly any opportunities to meet 1 2 3 4 Regular meetings and intensive

and communicate. communication.

iv. Adherence to agreements and contracts Agreements are ignored and rarely adhered to. 1 2 3 4 Agreements are negotiated openly and are

adhered to.

v. Fair distribution of benefits and gains One-sided appropriation of benefits and gains. 1 2 3 4 Distribution is negotiated openly and a fair

solution is reached.

vi. Trust in the representatives of the other stakeholder Behaviour of representatives is unpredictable. 1 2 3 4 Representatives know one another and

nurture the relationship.

vii. Conflict transformation

Tensions and conflicts remain unspoken and 1 2 3 4 Conflicts are dealt with early on in an open

unaddressed. and constructive manner.

viii. How the relationship is presented to the outside The relationship appears one-sided and 1 2 3 4 Agreed presentation strengthens our

presents us in a negative light. relationship and is positive.

Analysis: Sum = 32; Average = 4; Variance = 0.0

29

(c) i. Positive experience of cooperation in the past

No experience or only negative experience of 1 2 3 4 Important, positive and useful experience of

cooperation. cooperation.

ii. Transparency and predictability of intentions and goals Intentions and goals are unclear and veiled. 1 2 3 4 Intentions and goals are made explicit and

are clear.

iii. Communication between the stakeholders There are hardly any opportunities to meet 1 2 3 4 Regular meetings and intensive

and communicate. communication.

iv. Adherence to agreements and contracts Agreements are ignored and rarely adhered to. 1 2 3 4 Agreements are negotiated openly and are

adhered to.

v. Fair distribution of benefits and gains One-sided appropriation of benefits and gains. 1 2 3 4 Distribution is negotiated openly and a fair

solution is reached.

vi. Trust in the representatives of the other stakeholder Behaviour of representatives is unpredictable. 1 2 3 4 Representatives know one another and

nurture the relationship.

vii. Conflict transformation Tensions and conflicts remain unspoken and 1 2 3 4 Conflicts are dealt with early on in an open

unaddressed. and constructive manner.

viii. How the relationship is presented to the outside The relationship appears one-sided and 1 2 3 4 Agreed presentation strengthens our

presents us in a negative light. relationship and is positive.

Analysis: Sum = 27; Average = 3.4; Variance = 0.2

3.3.8. Exclusion and empowerment

Our results showed that government bureaus such as SNNPR Health and Culture and Truism

Bureaus as well as civil societies (Table 8; Fig 6) have good basic competencies but

nonetheless have little access to resources and are largely excluded from relevant decision-

making processes. Due to their basic competencies, it is likely that sooner or later they will

raise their voice and register their demands. These stakeholders need to be actively supported

to be able to participate in negotiation processes about resource use and distribution and to

represent their own interests.

The analysis indicated that majority (68%) of the stakeholders comprises of governmental

organizations, NGOs, local communities and administrative bodies (Table 8, Fig. 6) have

both access to and control of resources, as well as a high level of basic competencies. It is

not necessary to use empowerment measures for this group. Our analysis showed that the

private sectors have access to and some degree of control over resources, but they have only

few basic competencies. Since the idea of building the capacity of stakeholder for improved

restoration of degraded landscapes usually present the stakeholders with a new challenge and

require new forms of participation, empowerment measures should be concentrated first and

foremost on the actors’ capacity to organise themselves towards the project ideas and goals.

30

Table 8. Perceived access to and control of resources and competencies.

Stakeholder Assessment Remark

Access Competencies Values for indicator one (i.e., access)

(S1) +2 +1 indicate: +2 has full access to and control

(S2) +1.5 +1 of resources; +1 has limited access to

(S3) +1 +1.5 and control of resources; 0 has limited (S4) +1 +1.5 access to but no control of resources; -1

has little access to and no control of (S5) +1.5 +1.5

resources; -2 has neither access to nor (S6) +1.5 +0.5

control of resources. (S7) 0.5 +1

(S8) 0.5 0

(S9) 0.5 0

(S10) -1 +0.5 Values for indicator two (i.e.,

(S11) -1 +0.5 competencies) indicate: +2 Is well able

(S12) +1

+1 to formulate his/her own interests and (S13) +1

+1.5 needs and has the ability to organise. +1 (S14) +1

+1.5 Is able to formulate his/her own interests (S15) +0.5

+1 and needs, but lacks basic skills and the (S16) +0.5

+1 ability to organise. 0 Is able at least to (S17) +0.5

+1 put across his/her own interests and (S18) +1

0 needs. -1 Is able to formulate some

(S19) +2 +1 aspects of his/her own needs and

(S20) +1 -1 interests, but lacks the ability to

(S21) +1 -1 organise, lacks mobility and lacks time. -

(S22) +1 -1 2 Does not have the capability to

(S23) -1 +1 formulate his/her own needs and

(S24) -1 +1 interests, lacks the ability to organise,

(S25) -1 +1 and lacks basic skills, mobility and time.

Figure 6. Visual representation of the perceived access to and control of resources, and competencies.

31

References

Brugha R., Varvasovszky Z. 2000. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy and

Planning 15 (3): 239-346.

FAO. 2017. Watershed management in action – lessons learned from FAO field projects.

Rome.

Kennon N., Howden P., Hartley M. 2009. Who really matters? A stakeholder analysis tool.

Extension Farming Systems Journal volume 5 number 2 – Research Forum.

http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/science/saws/afbmnetwork/efsjournal/index.htm.

Zimmermann A., Maennling C. (2007). Multi-stakeholder management: Tools for

Stakeholder Analysis: 10 building blocks for designing participatory systems of

cooperation. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH,

Postfach 5180, 65726 Eschborn, Federal Republic of Germany.

32