Participating the community at all level at all stages of the project. (Ethiopia)

Description

Local level particpatpry planning approach

Aims / objectives: Enhancing people participation to creat awarnes that the project ownership realized correctly to improve people project management, to improve the capacity of the community to implement identify monitor and evaluate the technology and in coorporate the indiginious knowledge with the technology make people to realize the technology, Awaring local administraters to organize general meeting of the target group and breifing the objective of the project to the target group, the target group select planning development team which is gender balanced and planning the project with the planning team participating the target group at ll project cycle, Planning train the target group about the technology then group formation according to the interest of the land users then establishment follows, 1. in planning stage identified the problem & prioritication suggest possible solutions, 2. in implementation stage monitoring the implementation, 3. evaluate the performance of the technology.

Location

Location: Oromia, Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 40.0, 7.0

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 mainly on SLM with other activities (Soil and water concervation based integrated forest development, forage development, water development, infrastructure.)

1. Enhancing people participation, 2. Warnes creation of the people on the project.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of participation of the target group speciany in planning monitoring and evaluation.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Organizational problem of the institution not well stuructued & changed from to time Treatment through the SLM Approach: Undermine women to participate in the project , land fragementation.
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Perdime pety cash for monitoring the required logestics transportation. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Efforts made by the experts.
  • Institutional setting: Awarness creation on land management Treatment through the SLM Approach: Organizational problem of the institution not well structured & changed from to time
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): Lack of the proper land use policy Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awarnes creation & participating the 10 cmunity.

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 work equally divided between men and women (In approach equaly divided but practicaly due to social & cultural reasons they not participate equal, but increasing trend to equal participation. However the trend of women participation has increased but due to cultural reasons there is little difference. All resore poor household have been involved because of the aproach target them first in selection of the SWC technology in implementation of the SWC technology.
national government (planners, decision-makers) Ministry of Agricalture
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Mainly:public meetings; partly: interviews/questionnaires
planning
Mainly: public meetings; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal
implementation
Mainly: casual labour; partly: responsibility for minor steps
monitoring/ evaluation
Mainly: public meetings, workshop/seminars, measurements/observations; partly: reporting;
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 (1), extensionists/trainers (3)
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

On the concept of the approach in the planning, performance evaluation profile.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: LLPPA; Key elements: Participating local community in planning, Tranning, Monitoring and Evaluation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Planning implementing monitoring & evaluation

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
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 regular monitored through measurements technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through measurements There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Focus on generd, focus on integrated & sustainable development by participating different expert from different disciplenes, Encovraging visit of different activities by different stake holders aditional school children.

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 non-government (WFP)
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

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?

Adoption of SWC technology maintainance of technology implementation of SWC technology.

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

Even if there is not supporting land use policy the approach has focused on local level participatory planning.

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
  • Participatory
  • Gender balanced
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Participatory (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: All steps in the approach should be requier)
  • Gender balanced
  • Good monitoring and evaluation system
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome

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
Key references
  • Guideline for LLPPA: Ministry of Agriculture
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International