small scale & micro irrigation support project oromia...
TRANSCRIPT
Institutional Mapping & Linkage Assessment Draft
Report
May 22, 2016
Finfinne
Small Scale & Micro Irrigation
Support Project Oromia Regional
Office
2
Contents
1 .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Background Information about OIDA & Irrigation Development in Oromia ................................ 5
1.2 Institutional Mapping & Linkages ................................................................................................. 7
2 Objectives of Institutional Linkage Assessment .................................................................................... 7
3 Scope/Area of Coverage ....................................................................................................................... 8
4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Major issues / questions ................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Variables Identifications ................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Limitations....................................................................................................................................... 10
4.4 Team ............................................................................................................................................... 10
5 Data analysis, Results & Discussions ................................................................................................... 10
2 Conclusion & Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 14
3 6.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 14
4 6.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 16
5 Annex 1. Assessment Questionnaires ................................................................................................. 18
6 References .......................................................................................................................................... 19
3
List of Tbales
Table 1 Structural Situations of Irrigation Development in Oromia b/n the years 1977 to 2006 EC ........... 6
Table 2. Organization Consulted & Relevant Respondents .......................................................................... 8
Table 3 Existing Linkage Variables b/n OIDA & other Partners .................................................................. 10
Table 4 Summary of Responses given by Respondents on the linkages of Resource Related variables .... 11
Table 5 Information flow Respondents result ............................................................................................ 12
Table 6 Situations of having Regular Meeting .............................................................................................. 6
Table 7 Respondents having Practical Experiences in institutional linkages ................................................ 8
Table 8 Data on the Roles of Leaders & Managers in institutional Linkages ................................................ 9
Table 9 Level of Knowledge of Organizational Mandate by staff ............................................................... 10
Table 10 Level of Organizational Overlapping ............................................................................................ 11
List of Figures
Figure 1 Institutional Linkages & Variables ................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 Respondents Positions as Sources of Data ..................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 Information share as a variables ................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4 Financial Resource Sharing ............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 5 Physical Resource Sharing ............................................................................................................... 3
Figure 6 Human Resource Sharing ................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 7 Technical Support ........................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 8 Decision Making Support ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 9 Summary of Resources sharing Variables ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 10 Situations of having Regular meeting ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 11 Existing Practical Experiences ....................................................................................................... 8
Figure 12 Respondents Response on the Roles of Leaders & Mangers in the Institutional linkages ........... 9
Figure 13 Level of knowledge of Organizational Mandate ......................................................................... 11
Figure 14 Role overlapping b/n sectors ...................................................................................................... 11
4
Acronyms
1. AGP – Agricultural Growth Programme
2. BoA – Bureau of Agriculture
3. BOFED – Bureau of Finance & Economic Development
4. BPR – Business Process Re-Engineering
5. DA – Development Agent
6. EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment
7. ESIA – Environmental & Social Impact Assessment
8. IPM – Integrated Pest Management
9. NRM – Natural Resource Management
10. MoA – Ministry of Agriculture
11. M & E – Monitoring & Evaluations
12. OIDA – Oromia Irrigation Development Authority
13. OWWE – Oromia Water Works Enterprise
14. OBRLEP – Oromia Bureau of Land & Environmental Protection
15. OARI – Oromia Agricultural Research Institute
16. OCPA – Oromia Cooperative Promotion Agency
17. OTMDB – Oromia Trade & Market Development Bureau
18. OBWCA – Oromia Bureau of Women & Children Affairs
19. OATVET – Oromia Agriculture Technical, Vocational Education Training
20. OWMEB – Oromia Water, Mineral & Energy Bureau
21. PASIDEP – Participatory & Sustainable Irrigation Development Programme
22. PIDM – Participatory Irrigation Development & Management
23. RSB – Regional Supervisory Board
24. RTC – Regional Technical Committee members
25. SLM – Sustainable Land Management
26. SMIS – Small Scale & Micro Irrigation Support Project
5
1 Introduction
This report presents the findings of an assessment consisting of a number of semi-structured interviews
with different level managers & Experts of various Regional Sectoral Bureaus. All interviewed institutions
are Irrigation stakeholders. The questionnaires aimed at identifying their linkage experience with OIDA;
how the linkage between their organization and OIDA is working and also how it can be improved where
there is gap.
1.1 Background Information about OIDA & Irrigation Development in Oromia
The new Oromia Irrigation Development Authority (OIDA) was established by Proclamation No. 180/2013
aiming to bring together different irrigation development activities under one roof to streamline and
improve irrigation development efficiency that were under taken and followed by different bodies, and
bring together the scattered resource to one place and implement the development as mentioned in the
proclamation. Before ratification of the current proclamation, OIDA concept in one form or another was
structured and restructured within different sector institutions at different time. Just Even in a few years
back, the existing OIDA was partially structured partly (as two departments) in BoA and Oromia water
mine & Energy Bureau. This ever-changing working environment presents new challenges that require
commitment from all side where OIDA is pivoted at center & delivering its mandate and core purpose.
The importance of irrigation sector on economic development, as is highlighted in GTP II plans,
emphasized the need and importance of developing strong linkage between OIDA and all relevant
institutions to ensure full success of irrigated agriculture in Oromia.
Historically, traditional Irrigation has been around for centuries in Ethiopia and can be considered as a
part of the culture. In more recent times, there has been an effort by government and private institutions
to move forward and introduce modern irrigation. The modern irrigation development chronicle in recent
past in Oromia is highlighted below:
In 1952, modern irrigation system was introduced in Awash Valley by one investor for production of
sugar cane, fruits, vegetables and cotton. This trend was further disseminated to other areas of
Awash valley and Wabe Shabel river banks;
In 1967 EC, through the rural land redistribution process, management of large irrigated farms being
handled by large investors, were moved to the government under the Ministry of Agriculture, while
management of small-scale irrigation schemes were given to Producer’s Cooperatives;
Due to drought & feminine of 1976/77 EC, the Derge Regime provided attention for small-scale
irrigation to ensure food security.
6
Since 1977 EC, MoA was given the responsibilities for irrigated agriculture and added a new
Department, Irrigation Development Department to its structure with the mandate of managing
irrigation.
In 1986 EC, Irrigation Department was established at Regional level in Bureau of Natural Resource &
Environmental Protection with the mandate of construction and Development of Small-Scale
Irrigation. However, even though feasible irrigation development strategies have existed in the
country, their contribution towards food security has not been significant. Table 1 provide a
chronological history of modern irrigation development in Oromia.
Table 1 Structural Situations of Irrigation Development in Oromia b/n the years 1977 to 2006 EC
No Year of Restructure Institutions with structured
1 1977 1985 Under BoA as Department
2 1985 1987 Under Oromia Bureau of NR & EP
3 1988 1991 BoA & BoWER
4 1992 1996 OIDA as independent institution
5 1996 1997 Under BoA & Rural Development
6 1997 1999 OIDA as independent institution
7 November 2000 June, 2005 Under BoA as Department level & some part under Oromia BoWER & OWWCE
8 July, 2005 Up to date OIDA as independent institution
(Source: OIDA BPR Document)
According OIDA establishment proclamation, article 7 and sub article 10 -Collaborate with stakeholders
who contribute to the sustainability and growth of irrigation-, it is absolutely necessary for OIDA and
other partner institutions involved with irrigation development to link work together for betterment of
rural people and to ensure better performance and increase of food production, using irrigated
agriculture. To ensure that it is necessary to assess and rate the degree of the existing current working
relationship among PIs. OSMIS, using the above justifications, embarked on assessing status of linkages
between PIs through performing institutional mapping. OSMIS believes that such an assessment will
identify the existing linkage gaps & assist PIs in alleviating shortcomings of the current institutional
linkages, level and standards of delivery, and most importantly, the institutional relevance.
With this in mind, OSMIS planned institutional mapping & linkage assessment as the part of SMIS TOR,
strengthening institutional linkage among PIs. The assessment is done in structured questioner,
discussion, literature review and other relevant tools.
7
1.2 Institutional Mapping & Linkages
Each institution normally follows a series of rules and regulation, either formal or informal, to define the
boundaries of their institutional mandates. Therefore, institutional mapping or identifications is
considered to be helpful for better understanding of existing distribution of power and working linkages.
During data collections significant variables considered useful in determining the status of linkage
between different organizations. To minimize complexity of this study, OSMIS limited its effort in
analyzing only PIs that have direct input into irrigated agriculture development and their improved linkage
with OIDA should improve economic productivity of this sector..
Institutional Linkages b/n OIDA & other Partners
Get Quote
Your T ext Goe s her e.Download this awesomedi a gr am . Br i ng y ourpr e se nt at i on t o l if e.
Variables
• Land Distributions, Land Use, Environmental Protection(EIA/ESIA),
• Joint M & E system, Report, Policy Guidelines, Proclamations, Regulations
Variables
• Research findings, Published materials, High quality varieties of seeds & vegetables, fruits etc
Variables
• Gender mainstreaming, Gender Policy & Guidelines
Variables
• Irrigation Related curriculum development & revisions
Variables• DA, NRM, Extension
Roles, IPM, Agricultural tools
Variables• Planning, Budgeting, • Reporting, Joint M & E
Variables• Water related
Guidelines, Policies and regulations
Variables
• Agricultural tools,
Inputs(fertilizers, improved seeds,
Pesticides, Herbicides),
WUA,/IC
Variables
• Market and Market Related
information BoA
BoRLE
P
OARI
BoFED
OATVET
OMDB
OCPA
OWEB O
WCA
OIDA
Figure 1 Institutional Linkages & Variables
2 Objectives of Institutional Linkage Assessment
OSMIS observations indicate the existence of linkage gap and limited effort in development of close
working relationship among PIs that are all working to reach to the same goal, enhancing irrigated
agriculture in the region. This Assessment aims at identifying the institutional linkage gap that may
negatively affect the success of ongoing Irrigation Development efforts in the region.
The identified linkage gaps will be presented to the relevant PIs and possible solutions will be
recommended to achieve the region’s irrigation development goals. The study will also assist in
identification of institutions that are best suited to implement irrigated agriculture related projects and
constraints that impede the development of institutional linkages. The study also aims at providing
8
mechanisms to overcome identified impediments and to recommend best practices to overcome existing
issues related to institutional linkage development.
The specific objectives of this Institutional Linkages Assessment are:
Mapping/identification of institutions that already have good working relationships;
Identify Institutional linkage gaps between OIDA and other partners Institutions;
Identify linkage Variables between sectoral Regional Bureaus and OIDA where there is or should
be a direct working relationship;
Identifying benefits of having formal or informal working relationships between PIs to reach
better performance; and
Perform SWOT analysis of linkages between OIDA other PIs.
3 Scope/Area of Coverage
The present assessment targeted the institutional linkages at the regional level and did not cover linkages
at zone or district level. The main institutions included in this study are the ones that are already members
of RSB and TC: OIDA, BoA, OBRLEP, BOFED, OARI, OCPA, OTMDA, OWCA, OATVET, OWMEB. In addition,
some of the irrigated agriculture related projects in the region were also consulted such as AGP, SLM and
PASIDEP etc. to collect relevant information and basic data. Table 2 summarized the list of organizations
and relevant respondents that have been contacted during this study.
Table 2. Organization Consulted & Relevant Respondents
No Organizations Relevant Respondent N0. of respondents
1 OIDA Design & Study Sub process owners, Budgeting & Planning process owner, Extension/Community participation process owner
3
2 BoA NRM proc. owner, & Watershed expert 2
3 OBRLEP Envt. Protection expert & SWC expert 2
4 OARI Director of Socio-economic & Agricultural Extension Researcher, Socio-economic Researcher & Coordinator
2
5 OCPA Cooperative Promotor Expert 1
6 OTMDA Value Chain Expert 1
7 OWCA Project Coordinator 1
8 OTVET Market Need Assessment & Trainees Development Process owner, Curriculum Development Coordinator
2
9 BoFED Senior Planning Expert 1
10 AGP AGP Coordinators(BoA, & OIDA) 2
11 PASIDEP PASIDEP Project Coordinator 1 Total 18(12 Managers & 6 Experts)
9
4 Methodology
4.1 Major issues / questions
This assessment used qualitative approach consisting of 11 questions. The rationale behind the qualitative
component of the study was to provide more in-depth and contextualized insights into how people
perceive the outcomes and benefits (effects and changes) of the institutional linkages.
The study commenced with institutional Mapping and identification of institutions that are directly or
indirectly working in irrigation development at Regional level. Structured questionnaires were developed
and used to assess the status of existing linkages to collect relevant data to determine the variation from
what can be considered as “the optimum”. The team conducted a comprehensive interview with 18
selected experts from 9 selected institutions that should closely work with OIDA and to identify the
existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT Analysis) and to determine the level of
existing linkages. The team made every effort to ensure that interviewees have a leadership and/or
managerial role within their respective organizations.
Figure 2 Respondents Positions as Sources of Data
4.2 Variables Identifications
Many variables that link OIDA to other relevant PIs was identified. Table 3 present some of the major
variables/means for developing linkage between OIDA and other PIs.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Manager/Leader Expert
11 7
61
39
100
No % Total
10
Table 3 Existing Linkage Variables b/n OIDA & other Partners
No Organizations Linkage Variables with OIDA/Irrigation Development
1 OBoA DA, NRM, Extension Roles, IPM, Agricultural tools
2 OBoRLEP Land Distributions, Land Use, Environmental Protection(EIA/ESIA),
3 OCPA Agricultural tools, Inputs(fertilizers, improved seeds, Pesticides, Herbicides), WUA,/IC
4 OTVET Irrigation Related curriculum development & revisions
5 OBoFED Planning, Budgeting, Reporting, Joint M & E
6 OWCAB Gender mainstreaming, Gender Policy & Guidelines
7 OARI Research findings (High quality varieties of seeds & vegetables, fruits, water saving , water lifting technologies etc.)
8 OWMEB Water resources and water balance
9 OTMDA Market and Market Related information
10 AGP Schemes development, Extension service Plan, budget & Joint M & E
11 PASIDEP Schemes development, Extension service Plan, budget & Joint M & E
4.3 Limitations
During data collection the team faced a number of limitations that are highlighted below:
Difficulties to get access to the appropriate experts at the right time due to their unavailability
due to heavy workload and/or competing government priorities;
Failure to extend this data collection to zones & districts
Unavailability of data in a timely manner;
4.4 Team
Two OSMIS experts (NRME and PIDM) collected the data for this study.
5 Data analysis, Results & Discussions
The OSMIS team analytically treated the collected data to make the linkage assessment. The following
are the main points considered in the assessment:
Working Relationships and organizational linkages based on the linkage variables;
Presence/frequency of Regular meeting for mutual responsibilities;
Pros & Cons of informal relations between PIs in relation to their work performance;
Practical experiences on institutional linkage has been previously done by other projects;
Role of top and middle level managers (process owners) in Institutional linkage development;
Principal Quality required from leaders, manager, & experts;
Staff knowledge of Organizational mandates;
11
Experiences of working with RSB/TC members, Types of existing Development Project
committees, Task forces and/or working groups;
Nature of collaboration between stakeholders during Planning, Implementation and M & E of
different Development projects;
Role duplications/overlapping among PIs
Major constraints that hamper collaboration between PIs where both are accountable.
Methods used to develop coordination mechanisms and synergies;
Outcome of other projects similar to OSMIS in improving institutional linkages; and
Strategies used to mainstream crosscutting issues such as gender, nutrition and environment.
Q1. Working Relationships and organizational linkages based on linkage variables
Using the findings of the questionnaire, the extend of linkage between OIDA and others PIs is mapped to
determine how the current status of linkage allow ether for mutual support and accountability. The main
linkage variables used for this analysis include;
(i) information flow;
(ii) linkages related to Resource sharing such as financial, physical, & human/knowledge;
(iii) linkages related to decision making; and
(iv) Linkages related to technical and managerial support. Table 4 summarizes the responses of
the interviewees.
Table 4 Summary of Responses given by Respondents on the linkages of Resource Related variables
No Variables Sectors Linkages to OIDA with respect to the following variables
Degree of Relationships(5= V. strong 4= Strong, 3= Normal, 2= Poor 1= none)
5 4 3 2 1 Average
No. % No % No % No. % No. % No. %
1 Information flow 0 0 7 38.9 1 5.6 9 50 1 5.6 2.8 55.6
2 Financial Res 1 5.6 4 22.2 0 0 0 0 13 72.2 1.9 37.8
3 Physical Res. 0 0 4 22.2 0 0 2 11.1 12 66.7 1.8 35.6
4 Human/Knowledge sharing
0 0 4 22.2 2 11.1 5 27.8 7 38.9 2.2 43.3
5 Technical support 0 0 5 27.8 2 11.1 2 11.1 9 50 2.2 43.3
6 Support in areas of Decision making
0 0 4 22.2 2 11.1 4 22.2 8 44.4 2.1 42.2
12
For better understanding the relationships, each variable is treated separately & summarized below.
a. Information flow
Table 5 Information flow Respondents result
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
None 1 5.6 5.6
Poor 9 50 50
Normal 1 5.6 5.6
Strong 7 38.9 38.9
Very Strong 0 0
Total 18 100.0 100.0
Figure 3 Information share as a variables
Results: - From the analysis, presented in Figure 3, it can be concluded that linkage between Sectoral
Bureaus and OIDA is not strong. Only 39% of respondent believe there is strong linkages between their PI
and OIDA regarding information flow. Even if we consider normal, strong and very strong as indicators for
presence of linkage regarding information flow, the level is 44.5% that still indicates the presence of
limitations in areas of information sharing. More than half (55.5%) of respondents believe that
information regarding their work is not fully shared among institutions.
b. Sharing of Financial Resources
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
None 13 72 72
Poor 0 0 0
Normal 0 0 0
Strong 4 22 22
Very Strong 1 6 6
Total 18 100.0 100.0
None5%
Poor50%
Normal6%
Strong39%
V. strong0%
2
Figure 4 Financial Resource Sharing
Results: - The analysis presented in Figure 4 clearly indicates that the linkage is not strong between
sectoral Bureaus & OIDA with regard to financial resources. The results indicate that only 28% of
respondents believe that there is a strong level of information sharing between institutions with regard
to financial resources.
c. Physical Resources Share
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
None 12 67 67
Poor 2 11 11
Normal 0 0 0
Strong 4 22 22
Very Strong 0 0 0
Total 18 100.0 100.0
72%
0%0%22%
6%
28%
None
Poor
Normal
Strong
Very Strong
67%
11%0%
22%
0%
22%
None
Poor
Normal
Strong
Very Strong
3
Figure 5 Physical Resource Sharing
Results: - The analysis presented in Figure 5 clearly indicates that the linkage between sectoral bureaus
and OIDA in relation to sharing physical resources is quite limited. The analysis indicates that 78% of
respondents believe that status of sharing physical resources between institutions are either non-existent
or is poor.
d. Human/Knowledge Resources Share
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
None 7 39 39
Poor 5 28 28
Normal 2 11 11
Strong 4 22 22
Very Strong 0 0 0
Total 18 100.0 100.0
Figure 6 Human Resource Sharing
Results: - This variable also shows weak linkage between OIDA & other sectoral bureaus. About 67% of
respondent’s state that sharing human/knowledge resources between institutions is either non-existent
or poor, having limitation on knowledge sharing, skills and experience obtained at each institution.
Technical Support
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
None 9 50 50
Poor 2 11 11
Normal 2 11 11
Strong 5 28 28
Very Strong 0 0 0
Total 18 100.0 100.0
39%
28% 11%
22%
0%
22%
None
Poor
Normal
Strong
Very Strong
None39%
Poor28%
Normal11%
Strong22%
V. strong
0%
4
Figure 7 Technical Support
Results: - The information presented in Figure 7 indicate that giving technical support from one institution
to the other is also quite limited. The results indicate that 61% of respondents believe that the status of
giving technical support from one to the other institution is either is not satisfactory.
e. Decision Making Support
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
None 8 44 44
Poor 4 22 22
Normal 2 11 11
Strong 4 22 22
Very Strong 0 0 0
Total 18 100.0 100.0
Figure 8 Decision Making Support
Results: - The results presented in Figure 8 also indicate the gap in decision-making issues between
institutions. Results indicate that 66% of respondents believe that there is none or poor level of support
between institutions on decision-making related activities. As known, this is the area where leaders and
50%
11%11%
28%0% None
Poor
Normal
Strong
Very Strong 9 2 2 5 0
50
11 11
28
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
NONE POOR NORMAL STRONG VERY STRONG
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
None Poor Normal Strong Very Strong Total
Series1 Series2
5
managers support each other’s for better performances. Experience has shown that improving the level
of support on decision-making process between institutions leads to significant improvement of
performance of respective institutions.
f. Summary of the above variables
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid
None 50 46 46
Poor 22 20 20
Normal 7 6 6
Strong 28 26 26
Very Strong 1 1 1
Total 108 100.0 100.0
Figure 9 Summary of Resources sharing Variables
2.8 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.1
55.6
37.8 35.643.3 43.3 42.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Information flow21%
Financial Resource
15%
Physical Resources
14%
Human/Knowledge Sharing
17%
Technical Support
17%
Information flow Financial Resource
Physical Resources Human/Knowledge Sharing
Technical Support Decision making support
Very
6
Results: - Figure 9 presents the summary of all the survey findings presented in the preceding sections.
The results indicate that:
55.5% of Respondents believe that there is a good flow of information between institutions;
37.8% of Respondents believe that institutions do share financial resources;
35.6% of respondents believe that there is good sharing of physical resources between
institutions;
43.3% of respondents believe that institutions share their human and knowledge as well as
provide technical supports,
43.3% of respondents believe that institutions provide technical support to each other; and
42.2% of Respondents believe that there is a strong level of support between institutions in
relation to the area of decision-making.
Q2. Do your Organization have formal Regular meeting with OIDA? Yes/No. If yes, explain types of
meeting, memberships in the meeting, frequency of meeting, purpose of the meeting, etc.
Table 6 Situations of having Regular Meeting
Frequency Percent Percent
Valid
Yes 3 17 17
No 15 83 83
Total 18 100.0 100.0
Figure 10 Situations of having Regular meeting
Results: - According to the respondent’s response (Figure 10), there is almost no regular meetings
between OIDA and PIs. Only 17% of respondents claimed that there is regular meeting between their
institutions, while a significant majority (83%) did not agree. Apparently, meetings are planned at the start
of the fiscal year, but the plans for regular meetings are seldom adhered to. The following are some of
the provided by the respondent regarding the lack of scheduled meetings:
0
50
100
Having Regular meeting
17
83100
Yes No Total
7
Institutions do not follow the agreed plans and do not consider the meetings as essential.
Meetings are scheduled only when an urgent matter arises:
Other unplanned activities/meetings receive higher priority by the PIs and cause cancellation of
scheduled meetings:
Meeting attendance does not receive much importance by the membership;
Frequency of the meeting is depending on the urgency and importance of the issues;
The reasons for having meetings and the agenda varies from Bureau to Bureau:
Responsibility for conducting the scheduled meetings are not clearly defined, causing
cancellation of the meeting because of lack of planning:
Q3. In your perspectives; what are the pros & cons of informal relations to our work performance?
Benefits of Informal Relationships
Results: - The team attempted to assess respondents’ perception regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of having informal relationships between PIs. All interviewees agreed that such informal
relationship has great value and is beneficial to development of a better working environment. However,
they also identified a number of disadvantages of having informal relationship. The following presents the
identified advantages and disadvantages of informal relationship according to the respondents:
Advantages
Reduces Bureaucracy;
Facilitates more efficiency & effectiveness;
Allows for easy communications;
Helps to collect and share more relevant information from stakeholders, easy and timely
provisions of information and ease the update of information;
Provide significant support for formal functions;
Smooths the working environment;
Breaks working time limitations;
Creates and strengthens openness;
Allows for easy accesses to available knowledge and skill sharing between PIs;
Allows for quick response when urgent matters arise during critical times;
Avoid reservations between experts during discussions and sharing of information;
Provides easy access to shared resources and technical support;
8
Enhances level of support between PIs;
Avoid information gaps; and
Provide a venue for filling the technical gaps through informal discussion between experts of
different PIs.
Disadvantages
Difficult to organize information, record and mange;
Difficult to use data gathered in confidence
Information may be biased due to personal interest rather than reality
Q4. Do you have any practical experiences on institutional linkages done so far by other projects of similar
objectives? Yes/No? If yes, share us your experience
Table 7 Respondents having Practical Experiences in institutional linkages
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid Yes 14 78 17
No 4 22 83
Figure 11 Existing Practical Experiences
Results: - The data analyzed revealed that reasonable experience on developing institutional
linkage exist among respondents. Most respondents state that whenever the institutional
linkages are strong, there is more efficiency and it is easier to achieve the goals. Some of the
practical experience that the respondents shared are:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Experiences
22
78
Yes No
9
A platform has been established that includes all sectors, but they are not fully
implemented and minimum attention is given to its implementation;
Whenever a strong institutional linkage exist, work is completed more efficiently due
to the presence of good collaboration, coordination and synergy among relevant PI
experts; and
Whenever a good institutional linkage exists, the PIS will work in tandem, providing a
platform for development of an environment that permits the full engagement of
participants and allowing for internalization of the activities. Such an environment
encourages PI staff to share their ideas and cooperate together with minimum
hesitation.
Q5. In your perceptions, do you think that managers & leaders have roles in the Institutional linkages?
What are the role of top level & middle level leaders and managers (process owners) in the process of
Institutional linkages? Yes No
Table 8 Data on the Roles of Leaders & Managers in institutional Linkages
Frequency Percent
Valid Yes 18 100
No 0 0 Figure 12 Respondents Response on the Roles of Leaders & Mangers in the Institutional linkages
Results: - The table indicate that respondents believe that top and middle level management at
PIs have an important role in developing institutional linkages. All interviewees believe that
leaders and managers are the key players in developing the proper environment for having
effective institutional linkages. The main reasons given by respondents regarding the role of top
and middle managers in developing institutional linkage are:
They have a significant role in developing institutional linkages process;
They can make decisions and handle coordination;
They can solve problems, if they occur, at higher level;
They can help the implementations of developed plan;
They create team sprit between the experts; and They can set a workable and common
agenda.
Q6. As a leader/manager/expert what leadership quality should be in place for effectiveness of working
relationships with external stakeholders?
10
Results: Respondents identified the following as the necessary leadership qualities: highly demanded for
health working relationships.
Transparency;
Effective communication;
Decision making ability;
Knowledge of his/her mandate, roles and responsibilities;
Ability to develop achievable plans;
Ability to coordinate;
Honesty;
High commitment for the program;
Team working sprit;
Being diplomatic;
Being cooperative and inspirational;
Being visionary;
Kindness;
Being highly sociable in behavior;
Accountability, credibility and openness;
Being an effective listener;
Participatory in decision making;
Ability to create harmonization between partners;
Facilitate the performance process; Being a positive thinker;
Being flexible and able to manage time; and ability to persuade people.
Q7. Do all of your staff know your Organizational mandates to play their side role for institutional linkages?
1. No Knowledge 2. Little Knowledge 3. Some knowledge 4. Good knowledge
Table 9 Level of Knowledge of Organizational Mandate by staff
Descriptions Frequency Percent
Valid
No Knowledge 4 23
Little Knowledge 5 26
Some knowledge 5 29
Good knowledge 4 22
Total 18 100
11
Figure 13 Level of knowledge of Organizational Mandate
Results: - Figure 13 indicate that some 51% of the staff have basic knowledge about the mandate of their
institutions. The other 49% have no or very little knowledge of their organizational mandates to play their
role regard to developing institutional linkages.
Q8. Is there any role duplication of your organization with other counterparts? If yes; what are they and
with which Organizations?
Table 10 Level of Organizational Overlapping
Frequency Percent
Valid Yes 7 39
No 11 61
Figure 14 Role overlapping b/n sectors
No Knowledge23%
Little Knowledge26%
Some Knowledge
29%
Good Knowledge22%
Both 51%
%
No Knowledge Little Knowledge Some Knowledge Good Knowledge
0
20
40
60
80
100
Duplication of Roles
39
61
100
Yes No Total
12
Results: - Figure 14 shows that 61% the respondents do not believe there is much duplication or
overlap of roles. However the other respondents explain the existence of role duplication
between PIs quoting the following example:
BoA and OIDA have some overlap in areas of NRM & Watershed, some water harvesting
technologies and pond constructions.
Q9. What are the major constraints that impeded your organization to work with other partner
institutions in areas where mutually accountable? Use the experiences of similar projects in your
organization?
Results – According to the perception of interviewees, the major constraints are:
Lack of having mutual plan, causing less willingness to work together;
Failure to have well established M & E System;
Irregular/unscheduled meetings;
Lack of competencies;
Less commitment from leaders and lack of uniformity;
Low level of team work sprit;
Competition for resources instead of responsibilities;
Less common working points
Less synergy and harmonization among partners;
Failure of having regular meetings and discussion forum;
Heterogeneity of willingness, and interests;
Less institutional mapping and stakeholder analysis;
Lack of clear cut rules and regulations from the government side; and
Variation in leadership quality and style.
Q10. In your perspectives; what are the means to establish coordination mechanisms and synergies with
other projects of having similar objectives?
Results: - on responses of interviewees, the following are recommended for creation of
coordination mechanisms:
Establish workable M & E system;
Develop stakeholder platform;
Sectors working together should share their plans;
13
Identify in which areas they can work together;
Regular discussion on their mutual accountability;
Providing directions on the roles and responsibilities;
Balanced commitment from each side;
Better knowledge of their organizational mandate;
Supportiveness sprit;
Result oriented programs;
Close follow up of actual achievements;
Coordination, collaboration, and synergy; and
Experience sharing on best practices.
This will lead to:
Increase in societal benefits;
Enhances sectoral working relationships;
Reduces resource abuse;
Creates access to share the resources (physical, Financial, & human);
Easy exchange of information & human knowledge sharing;
Willingness to provide technical support;
Increased effectiveness and sustainability of performance;
Less time to see work impact;
Early exchange of experiences, knowledge, skills, and best practices;
Allow for attitudes change: and
Reduce reservation to work together and create an environment with common
understanding.
Q11. Can you mention some of the strategies that has to be used in action of mainstreaming cross cutting
issues like Gender, Nutrition and Environment.
Results: - According to the interviews, the following are the basic strategies that should be
followed to ensure mainstreaming of cross cutting issues:
Cross cutting issues should be evaluated during planning;
Attention of the top level managers and leaders is required;
Sectoral linkages is needed to complement each other;
sectoral performance evaluations should strictly include cross cutting issues;
14
More awareness among stakeholders at all level;
Mainstreaming issues should be clearly articulated and indicated in all phases of program
implementation (from planning phase to implementation phase);
Sector based accountability;
Enforcing existing policy and strategies related to cross cutting issues;
Build the capacity of staff on cross cutting issues;
Appropriate budget should be allocated for the planning, implementation, monitoring &
evaluation purposes; and
Commitment at all level.
1 Conclusion & Recommendations
2 6.1 Conclusion
OSMIS conducted this study to assess and map the level institutional linkage that exists between OIDA
and other PIs that are directly or indirectly responsible for irrigated agriculture related activities, using a
number of linkage variables. The assessment results indicate that the institutional linkage as well as
working relationship are less than desirable and need improvement. Information, financial resources and
physical resources are hardly shared between OIDA and other PIs. The assessment results indicate that
there is a better sharing of human Resources, & technical supports between PIs than other studied
variables. The study also indicates that support in area of decision making is also weak and managers do
not support each other as much as is desirable.
Based on the assessment findings, although regular meetings between OIDA and other PIs are organized
during annual planning, they are not conducted as per schedule and are mostly ignored. The only times
that meetings are conducted are whenever an urgent issue has been brought to the attention of OIDA
and/or other PIs. The scheduled meeting is considered less important and are usually cancelled due to
other activities and/or meetings. Based on assessment results, it appears that the existing development
Project committees, taskforces and/or working groups are good base to strengthen linkage but still they
have a limitation in achieving their committee’s Goals, purpose or scope. In addition, it appears that there
is no serious effort made to consider gender in establishment of committees.
The respondents believed that having informal relationship between PIs has both advantages and
disadvantages. The respondents believe in benefits of such relationship in improving working
15
relationships between PIs. However, they believed that such informal relationship requires the
development of trust between staff and special attention by the senior management.
Other major conclusions include:
The impact and role of senior & middle level leaders and managers (process owners) in
development of Institutional linkages is very important;
To develop strong institutional linkages, the entry point should be managers and leaders;
Managers have to be committed and allow for development of a conducive environment for staff;
Managers’ leadership quality such as transparency, effectiveness in communications, decision-
making ability, knowledge of their mandates, roles and responsibilities, being inspirational,
Visionary, and the ability to create harmonization between partners are key to development of
effective institutional linkage.
Attempt was made to determine how knowledgeable the staff in different PIs are about their
organizational mandates with relation to developing institutional linkages and it was found to be
inadequate. Staff are not well aware of their organizational mandate. Their knowledge is directly related
to their tenure in the system, their position in the institution and their personal interest. The results clearly
showed that significant number of staff lack knowledge of their organizational mandate.
During assessment a few areas of overlap between responsibility of OIDA and other PIs were identified,
but the overlapping areas were not found to be significant.
Major constraints identified as being an impediment to development of favorable working environment
between different PIs include:
Lack of an effort to develop mutual plans;
Failure to establish workable M&E system;
Absence of regular scheduled meetings between PIs;
Inadequate willingness between PIs to work together;
Inadequate commitment of senior management at different PIs to work together;
Inadequate team spirit;
Competition between PIs for access to resources;
Inadequate synergy and harmonization among PIs; and
Absence of well-defined government’s rules and regulations with regard to good governance.
16
Some strategies that can improve possibility of mainstreaming the cross cutting issues (gender, nutrition
and environment were also identified during the assessment that include:
Joint evaluation of cross-cutting issues against planning activities;
Genuine attention to cross-cutting issues by senior management/decision-makers;
Sector’s supportiveness of attention to cross-cutting issues;
Improved awareness of stakeholders at all levels;
Enforcing existing policies and strategies related to cross-cutting issues; and
Allocation of adequate budget during planning for attention to cross-cutting issues.
Therefore, the main conclusion of the assessment is that OIDA and other PIs should work on improving
the identified gaps with regard to the linkage variables as the stronger institutional linkages play a positive
role in improving the distribution of resources and avoid abuse of resources and improve institutional
performance.
3 6.2 Recommendations
The assessment of collected data provided the assessment team with useful information that lead
to the following recommendation for improving institutional linkages between OIDA and other
PIs: Working Relationships & organizational linkages should be strengthened based on the linkage
variables;
Adherence to regular meeting between OIDA and relevant PIs to define mutual responsibilities
should be strengthened; Informal relations should be encouraged between OIDA and PIs’ staff to
improve performance;
Senior and middle level leaders and managers (process owners) should play significant role in the
process of developing strong institutional linkages to improve quality of irrigated agriculture
development activities;
Continuous awareness raising regarding organizational mandates for the staff;
Minimize duplication of roles in PIs to avoid confusion, duplication of efforts & mismanagement
of resources;
Major constraints that impeded collaboration b/n partner institutions in areas where mutually
accountable, means to establish coordination mechanisms and existing synergies b/n them should
be identified & treated.
17
Develop strategies for mainstreaming cross-cutting issues like gender, nutrition and environment;
Linkages regarding information flow, Resource sharing (Financial, Physical, & Human/knowledge),
technical and managerial support should be given due attention; and
The above recommendation should lead to:
Increase in societal benefits;
Improving sectoral working relationships;
Reducing resource mismanagement;
Improve access to resources (physical, Financial, & human) by different PIs;
Easy exchange of information and sharing of human knowledge;
Improve willingness of staff of different PIs to provide technical support;
Improve effectiveness and sustainability of performance of PIs; and
Improve the work environment for sharing of experience, knowledge and skills.
18
4 Annex 1. Assessment Questionnaires
Q1. How do you rate your working Relationships and your organizational linkages based on the following
linkages variables: Information flow, Linkages Related to Resource sharing, Linkages related to building in
areas of Decision making, Linkages related to technical and managerial support with the following
Institutions? (Some of the activities/variables commonly exist are Land & LU, Environment, Gender,
Market, NRM/WSM, IPM, DA, WUA, IC, water, Research, Budget, Planning, joint M & E, & inputs
(Agricultural tools, fertilizers, improved seed& Pesticides & Herbicides)
Q2. Do your Organization have formal Regular meeting with OIDA? Yes/No. If yes explain types of meeting,
memberships in the meeting, frequency of meeting, purpose of the meeting etc
Q3. In your perspectives; what are the prons & cons of informal relations to our work performance?
Q4. Do you have any practical experiences on institutional linkages done so far by other projects of similar
objectives? Yes/No? If yes share us your experience
Q5. In your perceptions, do you think that Managers & Leaders have roles in the Institutional linkages?
what are the role of top level & middle level leaders and managers (process owners) in the process of
Institutional linkages? Yes No
Q6. As a leader/manager/expert what leadership quality should be in place for effectiveness of working
relationships with external stakeholders?
Q7. Do all of your staff know your Organizational mandates to play their side role for institutional linkages?
1. No Knowledge 2. Little Knowledge 3. Some knowledge 4. Good knowledge
Q8. Is there any role duplication of your organization with other counterparts? If yes; what are they and
with which Organizations?
Q9. What are the major constraints that impeded your organization to work with other partner
institutions in areas where mutually accountable? Use the experiences of similar projects in your
organization?
Q10. In your perspectives; what are the means to establish coordination mechanisms and synergies with
other projects of having similar objectives?
Q11. Can you mention some of the strategies that has to be used in action of mainstreaming cross cutting
issues like Gender, Nutrition and Environment.
19
5 References
BPR Documents OIDA
OIDA Establishment Proclamation
Constitutions, Proclamations, Policies and Strategies Relevant to Irrigation Development: a
Document compiled by SMIS expert