Organogramme showing the different actors within the approach.

food-for-work programm (Ethiopia)

Description

food-for-work programm with distribution of grains and oil

Aims / objectives: Overall purpose: contribute to the SWC of the area; Specific objectives: build the level bunds, reforestation and the cut-off drains

Methods: Incentives for work

Stages of implementation: Collect farmers, tell them about the conservation, they formed groups/units who worked under a unit leader (capo=chief)

Role of stakeholders: Farmers carried out the work, the construction of the level bunds, the planting of trees. The technician told them what to do. Passive role of the farmers.

Other important information: Discussion started after implementation when farmers came to eht research station to get advice what they could do about the narrow terraces on the steep steep slopes and against the rats. Together they found a solution.

Location

Location: South Wello, Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 39.66, 10.997

Initiation date: 1983

Year of termination: 1985

Type of Approach
organogramme showing the different actors within the approach.

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (1984 construction of water channel for water pump for an irrigation project (outside of described catchment, but affectsuing people within catchment as well), road from main road Dessie-Jemme-Borana down to lake was constructed through the same approach)

give food and get work for it; not just getting the food even though there was a drought, but the people received only food if they worked for it

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: drought, to improve the field qualities, prevention of erosion, to give the hungry farmers food because they were suffering from shortage of food
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: farmers were weak because of drought Treatment through the SLM Approach: food helped because they got it every 2 weeks
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: time-consuming activities Treatment through the SLM Approach: food-for-work
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: not enough material Treatment through the SLM Approach: shovel, hoes lend to the 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 (also some women) The capo is a man; it is the culture and tradition that men work on the field, women collect stones; men dig lines, bring soil with the shovel, build stone walls
national government (planners, decision-makers)
international organization
Lead agency
Designed by SIDA
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
planning
x
information
implementation
x
Mainly: casual labour; partly: responsibility for major steps; the capo has a greater responsibility
monitoring/ evaluation
x
Research
x
on-station
Flow chart

organogramme showing the different actors within the approach

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

the cattle should not enter the cultivated land until bund is established; how to maintain the bunds was also demonstrated

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
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

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; they need new, different technologies, another training to give to the people
Monitoring and evaluation
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

it was especially undertaken for the environment

Research was carried out on station

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): 100.0%
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

Hand tools

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?

terraces

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
  • incentives are good to start the project (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: give food, material)
  • they learned a lot from the project (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: give them more information, train them)
  • they were happy to get some food
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • pass on information, trainings (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: give more information and trainings)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • payment was fixed, but because of the drought, the farmers were too weak to work payment should be flexible
  • top-down more bottom-up
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • not having asked the farmers; top-down approach involve farmers from the beginning, so they feel needed and useful
  • local knowledge has not been considered ask the farmers and integrate their knowledge
  • incentive food should be reconsidered especially because it was not flexible and there was a drought and they strictly distributed it according to their measures and not according to the situation no strict calulation formula of the food, so there is space to give more food if needed as it would have been the case here since there was a serious drought at the stage of implementation

References

Compiler
  • Sabina Erny
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