Incentive based CCPPA
(Ethiopia)
Description
The participation of the communities in the planning implementation and evaluation of SWC activities and provided with food for work as an insentive to encourage participation.
Aims / objectives: The objective of the approach is to enable indiividual farmers be aware of soil erosion problem and importance of SWC to control erosion and improve soil fertility,
Methods: The method of the approach includes discussion with farmers group and general descusion with community and local administrative units, include site selection community meeting awarness creation, planning, selection of participants, implementation, planning, implementation and management of SWC technology.
Location
Location: SNNPR, Ethiopia
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2000
Year of termination: n.a.
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Foreage development, income generating planting on bunds.)
The main objectives of the approach are to reduce soil erosion, improve soil fertility and increase productivity.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Soil erosion, low soil fertility, low productivity and food insecurity.
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 participation of women due to social and cultural problem
Treatment through the SLM Approach: to encourage women to participat on the activitiy.
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: lack of operational cost
Treatment through the SLM Approach: to support adequate finance
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation Because of the land is under the state ownrship
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: lack of technical knoweledge
Treatment through the SLM Approach: training and providing technical support
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 |
Wereda Agri. And Rural Development Office and Community of the project area |
Working land users were mainly men. Because of cultural limitation. In this approach proirity is given for the poorest of the poors and they are the main beneficeries. |
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
MERET Project |
|
international organization |
|
|
Lead agency
The basic principle and steps of the SWC approach have been adopted from internatial specialists and adopted to local conditions by national, regional and woreda specialists.
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; The involvement of land uses in public meetings is important to change their attitudes.
planning
rapid/participatory rural appraisal; In this stage the community plann SWC activities.
implementation
Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: responsibility for minor steps; SWC activities are implemented in areas that are affected highly by erosion.
monitoring/ evaluation
Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: reporting; Monitoring omit evaluation is done on the basis of work norm and technical specification of the SWC technology.
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
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
-
land users
-
field staff/ advisers
-
SWC specialists (1), extensionists/trainers(2)
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
Training on SWC techniques and management.
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Convantional; 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: Implement SWC activities
Awarness creation is given to the land users to practice SWC technology for the control of soil erosion and generat income.
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through observations
management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations
There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
-
sociology
-
economics / marketing
-
ecology
-
technology
Observation and trials on technologies have enabled the project to screen best practices and management techniques.
Research was carried out on-farm
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 (WFP): 80.0%; government (national): 5.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 15.0%
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
Labour by land users was
-
voluntary
-
food-for-work
-
paid in cash
-
rewarded with other material support
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?
Soil erosion controlled, water is conserved and soil fertility increased.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
Because the land is owend by the state
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
Land users, NGOS and government organization are using the CCPPA for their development prgram.
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
-
Soil Erosion is controlled (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By continious training and following)
-
Environment is rehabilitated
-
Income is generated (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: contineous technical support)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Soil erosion is reduced, soil fertility and improvement land activity increase. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strenathe in incentive based SWC approach, technical support.)
-
Addiional income is generated (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: by introducing additional improved input)
-
The community has gained knowledge of participatory planning (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Training the planning team and land users.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
References
Date of documentation: Jan. 22, 2009
Last update: Julie 24, 2017
Resource persons
-
Daniel Danano (dale.daniel@fao.org) - SLM specialist
-
Mesfin Mentasseawito - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy
Project