Local level participatory planning approach (based on FFW) (Ethiopia)

Description

It is FFW based participatory approach, by which the land users takes part in all stages of conservation planning, implementation evaluation.

Aims / objectives: To achieve better SWC through promotion of participation, awareness creation and better organization and better plannin., To solve problems related to top down approach., Achive better quality works, Achieve better participation, Achieve better planning, implementation and evationation, There are different methods involved in the approach to mention some of them,- Approporicate Targeting, Wealth Ranking, - Vulnerablity Assessment and mapping. - Planning, - implementation, - monitoring, evaluation, The food insecter community members are participating in all stages of planning & implementation, - labour supply donor & government- provide farm implements provide training and food grains.

Location

Location: SNNPR, Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 36.0, 6.0

Initiation date: 1986

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused on SLM only

Facilitate better achievement of SWC through promotion of participation, awareness creation, better organization, trainining, skill up grading, better planning.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Top down approach, - Poor participation, - Poor Integration, - Poor planning, - Low quality of conservation measures, - low level of awarness
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Low level of awareness, cultural taboos poor participation (specially for women) Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awareness creation activities have been promoted using different methods.
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Budget constraints (for training & Retty cash) Treatment through the SLM Approach: Partially solved by project fund allocation and through income generating activities
  • Institutional setting: Office and staff shartage. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Staff recutited by project and project office & wage house constructed
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): An absence of agreed SWC policy Treatment through the SLM Approach: Policy formulation is now on process
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Shortage of skilled man power, poor skill of farmers. Treatment through the SLM Approach: A number of technical training was given to staff and skill upgrading training for farmers.

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Working land users were mainly men (The conservation activities like bench terracess and ETC are considered heavy and laborious and mainly done by men whereas nursery activities are equally divided.) In local tradition men is considered as hard worker and so laborious SWC works are mainly done by men. Tedious works like benchterracess and ridge basins and the likes are mainly done by men. Where as less tedious activities like pitting, potting and planting are done equally. Approach involved persons with very small lands & low casts through general LLPPA meeting.
national government (planners, decision-makers) Ministry of Agriculture
international organization WFP (World Food Programme of UN)
Lead agency
The international & national SWC specialists modified the minimum planning approach to LLPPA together.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Mainly:LLPPA; partly: public meetings
planning
implementation
responsibility for minor steps
monitoring/ evaluation
Research
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • SWC specialists
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Planning, skill upgrading, and technical training on SWC

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees

In relation to SWC the Extension is weak and it is also crop biased.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored through measurements There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: As a result of M&E the quality of work improved, exotic SWC measures which fits the local condition incorporated.

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (UN- WFP Ethiopia): 70.0%; government (national - SNNPR (Regional Government): 30.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
partly financed
fully financed
equipment: tools

Handtools

Seedlings

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Modified the traditiional one to fit into modern ones.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • n.a.
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Better access to decision making (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By empowering)
  • Skill upgrading (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More training (Skill upgrading))
  • FFW incentive (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It is farmers view as fame it is something that to be discouraged.)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Participatory nature (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: by further empowering the local community)
  • Capacity building measures (efforts) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: by giving more training skill upgrading.)
  • Awareness raising (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: by giving more training skill upgrading.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • No comments
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • FFW orientation Gradully decreasing the food aid by increasing productivity self help activities.

References

Compiler
  • Philippe Zahner
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Jan. 21, 2009
Last update: Julie 24, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International