LLPPA (local level participatory planing approach
(Ethiopia)
Description
LLPPA is an approach at the local level participatory planing approach that involves community participation at all level.
Aims / objectives: To solve problem of food in food difficiet areas by participating the community in implimentation of different development activities relating that are identified to be a reason for their problems, Conservation of soil and water (SWC) in erosion promot areas, participating the community in problem identifying planing decision making & implementation using SWC specialist to facilitate the over all acomplishment of the project, brief description of the project to local adminstration units establishment of project planning and development team problem identification and decision making, socio economic survey, area delination, planning and implementation of development of SWC activities are the stages of the project, convincing the entire community regarding the objectives & participating at all stages of the project, the approach emphasizes more on SWC activities and its implementation continues of for 5(five) consequative years.
Location
Location: Oromiya, Ethiopia
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: n.a.
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 on SLM only
To solve food problems in difficiet areas by increasing the potential of soil productivity through conservation of soil and water.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of manpower, lack of transport facilities, lack of budget for maintenance, the absence of land use policy
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: awarness of erosion damage is not sufficient
Treatment through the SLM Approach: awarness creation was being facilitated by SWC specialistes
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Late provission of pitty cash insufficient allocation of budget.
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): problem of land use legislation
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly hindered the approach implementation There was not land uses ligislation/polices due to its absence the land users lead to improper use of land.
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: lack of skilled man power some activities being difficult in their
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
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 |
|
Adult stage community level. Working land users were mainly men (Now a days the approach has focused in an equal participation of gender.). Due to the effects of socio-cultural attitudes and different house hold- activities the participation of women was inadequate. Mainly mean with an age of 20-45 have been involved in SWC activity selection. |
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
|
Implementation WW with the help of gov't staffs such as MOA, NIRIDER/ E/ Rehabilitation. |
international organization |
|
|
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Mainly:interviews/questionnaires; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; They were focused on problem identification socio-economic surpes
planning
interviews/questionnaires; Planning followed by socio-economic interviews with the land users.
implementation
casual labour; Implementation was by causal labour with an incentives of food fore work programme.
monitoring/ evaluation
measurements/observations; Most of the time the evaluation is by asimple field abservation
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 specilists, politicians/ decision makers
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
Technical standard of physical conservation structures, experience sharings based on field supervisions etc.
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Informal extension; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Problem identification, planning, implementation technical follow up.
Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations
technical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
socio-cultural aspects were monitored through observations
economic / production aspects were monitored through measurements
area treated aspects were monitored
no. of land users involved aspects were monitored
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): 98.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 2.0%
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
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?
To some extent the technical standard of physical conservation measures were improved.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
The approach didn't try to reduce the problem because of lack of the support of lands use policies.
Land use policies are targeted by the Gov't but still it has not started its implementation or performance.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
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
-
Community participation on SWC activities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: should involve land users of all localities.)
-
Provision of direct subsides (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: has to be provided on time)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Local level community participation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular participation of the community in monitoring and evaluation.)
-
Training on technical standards (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involving all community target groups in gender with the approition age groups)
-
Awareness creations on objectives of the approach (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continual extension of awareness creation)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
-
Imput/food-provision being late
Need to be provided timely
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
Monitoring and evaluation
It has to be performed regularly
References
Date of documentation: Jan. 21, 2009
Last update: Julie 24, 2017
Resource persons
-
Philippe Zahner (philippe.zahner@deza.admin.ch) - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland
Project
Key references
-
LLPPA -Quarter report:
-
Socio-economic-survey plan: