Method of data collection

In order to acquire the data to address the research questions, primary as well as secondary and qualitative as well as quantitative techniques of data collection were applied. Data for this study were drawn from five main sources: (i) Focus group discussions (ii) Key informant interview (iii) Stakeholder identification and analysis workshop (iv) Household survey (v) Unstructured observation and (vi) Secondary data sources.

3.3.3.1 Primary data

Primary data were collected during 2010 and 2011 using focus group discussion and key informant interviews (see Appendix 5), stakeholder identification and analysis workshop, semi-structured interview schedule (see Appendix 4) and unstructured observation.

i) Focus Group Discussion

Since one goal of the research was to emphasize the ways in which individuals collectively make sense of the socio-economic, institutional and environmental issues related to Common pool resources, it was important to conduct focus group discussions among resource users (particularly fishers and subsistence farmers), development agents and kebele administrators.

Accordingly it was imperative to understand how people respond to each other’s views and build up a view out of the interaction that takes place within the group (Bryman, 2012). A series of Focus Group Discussions (FDGs) were conducted with community members, district experts and kebele administrators selected from more than 8 districts and 35 kebeles

Sampled Districts Sampled Kebeles No of Total HHs No of Sampled HHs

North Achefer Kunzila 1,153 23 (11.5%)

Bahir Dar Zuria Gonbat 1,235 25(12.5%)

Dembiya Achera 799 16(8.0%)

Fogera Nabega 2,283 46(23.0%)

Kidisthana 1,790 36(18.0%)

Libokemkem Tezamba 1,040 21(10.5%)

Agid-kiregna 1,599 33(16.5%)

Total 9,899 200(100%)

67

bordering Lake Tana. Most of the group discussions were conducted by superimposing on different community awareness creation training sessions conducted on ‘Sustainable Wetland Management and Use’ training organized by Bureau of Environmental Protection Land Use and Administration (Bo-EPLUA) at Dangila-42 participant (from January 27-29, 2011), Maksegnit-38 participants (from January 30-February 1, 2011) and Wereta-32 participants (from June 22-24, 2011).

Across all the 3 training sessions conducted at different periods and places (at Dangila, Maksegnit and Wereta) a total of 6 sub-groups were formed. In each training places, after the training session, participants were divided into 2 small sub-groups consisting of approximately 16-21 participants. Two moderators including the researcher ran and guided the focus group sessions with a great precaution not to be too intrusive and with minimal intervention. The moderator has to straddle two positions: allowing the discussion to flow freely and intervening to bring out especially salient issues, particularly when group participants do not do so. The moderator also has an important role in encouraging those who have not said much and discourage systematically opinion leaders who dominate the discussion (Bryman, 2012). Each session lasted approximately one hour and was tape-recorded. The outcomes of each sub-group’s discussion were presented and discussed with whole participant.

ii) Key informant interview

In total 24 key informant interviews (3-regional government officials, 8-experts from different districts, 5-cooperative members and 8-community elders at different districts) were conducted. Particularly community elders, who are knowledgeable of the historical trends, existing rules and regulations, and overall situation of Lake Tana sub-basin CPR system, were selected by community members. Checklists were used for both focus group discussion and key informant interview (see Appendix 5).

68

iii) Stakeholder identification and analysis workshop

The general purpose of stakeholder identification and analysis may be seen as providing a methodology for better understanding environmental and development problems and interactions of a given system through comparative analysis of the different perspectives and sets of interest of stakeholders at various levels (Grimble and Wellard, 1997). The basic premise behind stakeholder identification and analysis was primarily to generate knowledge about the relevant stakeholders so as to understand their behavior, intentions, interrelations, agendas, interests and the influence or resources they have brought or could bring to bear on CPR use and rule making processes, to identify different categories of stakeholder and anticipate the kinds of influence they could exert on the management and governance of CPRs, potential areas of synergy, collaboration, potential conflicts of interest among stakeholders and between stakeholder groups.

A two days stakeholder identification and analysis workshop was conducted from February 26-27, 2011 at Wereta town (Fogera district). Since resources, time, and finance for this research were limited, the participants from different stakeholder groups were prioritized.

Therefore, participants (who may have important knowledge about or perspective on the issues) were selected purposively from different organizations representing different stakeholder groups (Governmental, Non-Governmental, Academic and Research) and various disciplines (for instance ecologists, environmentalists, hydrologists, fishery experts, animal scientists and economists) (see Appendix 1). In addition, representatives from NGOs who are working in relation to natural resource management (for example, Ethiopian Wetlands and Natural Resource Association- EWNRA) and experts from districts were involved. However, it was too difficult to bring local people (the majority of whom are illiterate) together with the panel of experts in the workshop. Therefore, in order to capture the views of resource users and their interaction with other relevant stakeholders at grassroots level focus group discussions with resource users at different districts were held (see Figure 3.3-a).

69

Different groups have different concerns, capacities and interests in and power over CPR management and governance. Therefore, these need to be explicitly understood and recognized in the process of CPR use, management and governance. The analysis yielded useful and accurate information about those individuals, groups and organizations that have an interest in and power over CPRs (water, fish and wetlands) of Lake Tana sub-basin. The information generated from the analysis is also important for making decisions on which stakeholders ought to be involved in CPR use, management and governance decisions in Lake Tana sub-basin. As noted by different scholars (Grimble and Wellard 1996; Engel, 1997; Roling and Wagemakers, 1998 cited in Ramirez, 1999) the reasons for carrying out stakeholder analysis are; i) empirically to discover existing patterns of interaction; ii) analytically to improve interventions; iii) as a management tool in policy making; and iv) as a tool to predict conflict. For this study the primary focus is on the first and forth reasons. A stakeholder analysis also helps to identify whom to interview first.

For this research, a stakeholder is defined as: an organization, group or individual that is concerned with or has an interest in and control over CPRs (water, fish and wetlands) and that would be affected by decisions about CPR use, management and governance. A number of possible tools such as Stakeholder Matrix, SWOT Matrix, spider diagram and useful frameworks such as importance/influence matrix (used to map out the relative interests/stake value and power level of key stakeholders) (Matsaert, 2002) were used. Particularly, matrices were used, in which stakeholder groups appear on one axis and a list of criteria or attributes appear on the other. For each overlapping area, a qualitative description or quantitative rating were given (Ramirez, 1999). After a brief explanation of the overall concepts and definitions of CPRs, stakeholders, stakeholder analysis, tools for stakeholder identification and analysis, a flexible set of steps for conducting stakeholder analysis as suggested by Grimble et al. (1995); Grimble (1998) and Schmeer (1999) were followed for this research. These are:

70 Step 1. Identify the main purpose of the analysis;

Information generated from stakeholder identification and analysis may serve several purposes: to provide input for other analyses (institutional analysis, the main objective of this research); to inform the development of action plans, policy reform or institutional change to increase sustainable management and governance of CPRs (the expected outcome of this research as a recommendation); or to identify ways to guide a participatory, consensus-building process in conflicting situations.