Local Level Participatory Planning (Ethiopia)

Description

LLPPA is community involved participatory planning for integrated and sustainable development

Aims / objectives: To ogrganize the community member to contribute their free labour in SWC activities and to conserve the land.

Methods: The methods are using vernurablity rank to form groups to participate through the approach, select PDT (participatory Development Team) to under take.

Stages of implementation: Stages of implementations are introduced prepared plan with PDT to the community, site selection for each activity, design and layout, organize the community in working groups, under take the actual selected activity on the ground. Role participants are providing suggestions/ideas during the discussion, select PDTs based on vernurablity ranking and gender proportion aspect, prepare plan of action through PDTs direct involvement during implementation.

Role of stakeholders: Participants are providing suggestions/ideas during the discussion, select PDTs based on vernurablity ranking and gender proportion aspect, prepare plan of action through PDTs direct involvement during implementation.

Location

Location: Soth Wollo/Amhara, Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 38.99, 10.85

Initiation date: 2000

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 (homestead vegetables plantation, income generating activities, rainwater harvesting, HIV/AIDS, gender issues)

to organize and creat awarness within the community in order to contribut their free labour for SWC and other related activities

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: creating ownership of each activities, solve soil/lad degradation problem, through participatory undertaking on sustainable base, solve food shortage problem through availing food grain.
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 moderately helped the approach implementation: Planning, working together, labour saving
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: shortage of input Treatment through the SLM Approach: community awarness to participate with its available resources (labour + tools)
  • Institutional setting: unsufficient staffing, lack of office equipment Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: shortage of skilled manpower Treatment through the SLM Approach: provision of training & support technically

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 work equally divided between men and women Actual work. Involvment of disadvantaged groups through PDTs
national government (planners, decision-makers) Training, planning, technical support
international organization Financial and technical support
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
public meetings
planning
x
Mainly: PDTs; partly: interviews/questionnaires
implementation
x
responsibility for minor steps
monitoring/ evaluation
x
measurements/observations;
Research
x
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, extensionists/trainers (2), politicians/decision makers (3)
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

SWC and LLPPA and others

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 2) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: SWC and other activities

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The community is interested to protected degradation and gain benefits
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 observations technical aspects were regular monitored through observations 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 observations no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through observations management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations

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.
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

Hand tools

x
agricultural: seeds

x
Seedlings

x
Community infrastructure

x

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?

Planning, working together, labour saving

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • creat awarness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: training, workshop)
  • large area can be conserved (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: provision of hand tools)
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. 22, 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