Participatory Rehabilitation of Dry Valleys
(Ethiopia)
Kaqayb Galka Dadwayne
Description
Participatory rehabilitation and productive use of dry valleys is an approach employed to rehabilitate degraded and degradable land. It is operationalised through the Lowland Soil Rehabilitation Project with local development partners from kebele, district, regional agricultural bureaus, and other relevant stakeholders.
Participatory rehabilitation of degraded and degradable dry valleys engages the community at the grassroots through consultation. It is operationalised through the Lowland Soil Rehabilitation Project with local development partners from kebele, district, regional agricultural bureaus, and other relevant stakeholders.
Technical experts from the district and region are involved in reconnaissance, observation and joint selection of the intervention sites. The team conduct a survey, then profile and design the technologies required, along with the project engineer. The approach optimises the participation of the community and agricultural actors, allowing the development of a sense of ownership and accountability through training and awareness-creation exercises. In turn this encourages them to take care of and maintain the structures.
This approach combines top-down and bottom-up methods. At the grassroots, the local agropastoral communities are mobilized by local extension agents and made aware about the SLM intervention that the project and partners strive to put in place – including the physical structures in the farmers' fields and communal lands. The procedures include a site visit, a survey/ observation, and the identification of the intervention site based on the specific topographic features and drainage system of the catchment. Then, detailed field data is collected and a profile analysis is made to develop the design and get approval after stakeholders’ consultation and review of the details of the implementation design. The approach is complemented by satellite imagery and ground truthing. Following this, the next stage is identification of masonry experts, provision of training, and supply of construction materials and tools. Building the masonry works involves both skilled and unskilled labour.
The woreda NRM expert (focal person) facilitate the process at the grassroots through the development agents. The community gives their consent and support to the objectives of the project implementation. Therefore, they are involved in local decision-making and overseeing the technology that is being put in place.
The agropastoral community is the end user and benefits from the positive consequences of the intervention which is a result of better management of soil and water for productive uses of the dry valley. However, because of a lack of awareness, and the agropastoralists conventional livelihoods practice traveling with their livestock, there is a lack of participation in the day-to-day implementation activities. That limits their active contribution in implementation. Of course, local elders value the consultative experience which confirms a sense of self-worth and acknowledges their role in ownership of the land and as the ultimate decision-maker for development intervention operating in their areas.
Location
Location: Amadle kebele, South Jijiga district, Somali, Ethiopia
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2021
Year of termination: n.a.
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Stakeholder discussion regarding the project implementation and follow-up actions. (Ahmednur Mohamed)
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
To engage the community and other stakeholders in making participatory decisions on the rehabilitation of the dry valley.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Access to finance promotes intensive awareness creation and participation of the community to implement the technology at a larger scale. Also, it allows supporting the maintenance and other follow on actions that ensure sustainability.
-
Institutional setting: Setting up the local institution such as an agropastoralist group enables the effective implementation of dry valley rehabilitation technologies/practices.
-
Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Coordination of actors enables the identification of useful actors and cross-fertilize experiential knowledge for documentation and further uses. Also, it enables acknowledgment of the contribution of different actors.
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Having SLM knowledge enables efficient and effective implementation of dry valley rehabilitation technologies.
-
Workload, availability of manpower: Labour in the agropastoralist area is the limiting factor for the effective implementation of SLM practices. Therefore, the availability of labor or manpower is pivotal for the proper implementation of the SLM.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the 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 |
Agropastoralist. |
Participatory planning and decision making, sources casual laborer and oversee the technologies/practices. |
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers |
Natural Resource Management experts. |
Facilitate stakeholders' participation, provide technical support, and backstopping services, and monitor the development during and after the implementation of the technologies. |
private sector |
Contractor to perform the engineering works. |
Building/constructing the physical structures. |
GIZ project |
GIZ (bilateral cooperation) projects. |
Provide financial and technical support to the government partner organizations to promote the proper implementation of the rehabilitation of dry valley. |
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Agropastoralists involve in allowing peers to understand SLM-related intervention.
planning
Land users involve in participatory planning and decision-making exercise.
implementation
Skilled and unskilled laborers are sources from neighboring urban areas and the intervention kebeles.
monitoring/ evaluation
SLM experts and extension agents support in monitoring and evaluation of the intervention activities.
Flow chart
The sketch describe the process of implementing Participatory Rehabilitation of Dry Valleys.
Author: Gerba Leta
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
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
-
Masonry workers
Subjects covered
Dry Land Rehabilitation and Produce Use of the rehabilitated land. Basically, the training is on the SLM practices which are suitable for agropastoralist areas with special emphasis on the physical structure.
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Advisory services related to SLM are infrequently given. As the agropastoralists are mobile looking for feed and water, particularly during the dry period, advisory services have not been provided on regular basis.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
-
no
-
yes, a little
-
yes, moderately
-
yes, greatly
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Stakeholders from government and bilateral organization (project) do make ad hoc meeting during planning and evaluation, this brings actors together but need to establish a sustainable institution that stands on its own and can be working beyond the project's lifetime. Particularly, a land users (agropastoralist) group is essential to oversee the technology placed on their land so that sustainability of the intervention can be ensured.
Type of support
-
financial
-
capacity building/ training
-
equipment
Further details
The equipment refers to the technical tools that can be used by the partner experts - but not farm tools. The latter is expected during which the agropastoralist resumes the productive use of the rehabilitated land which is currently in the initial years of implementation and not yet associated with the productive uses of it.
Monitoring and evaluation
The monitoring and evaluation are part of the project implementation that enables the implementers to track the development and engage the end users to enable them to sense the benefits. The land users started to benefit from the structure such as fetching drinking water both for human and their livestock, though, it is an indirect benefit from the intervention.
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.
No specific data on budget allocation for SLM at the district level. However, Local Subsidy Contract (LSC) was used to assist the woreda implement and follow-up the development of the intervention.
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
Impact analysis and concluding statements
Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
Local land users consulted and informed regarding the benefits of SLM for the degraded and potentially degradable lands to ensure rehabilitation and its productive use. This may give motivation and a sense of self-worth as land owner.
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
Beyond the approach, the land users can learn from the actual function of the technologies.
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
Consultation with the land users motivates them to build trust in the intervention.
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
In the long run, it can assist land users mobilize casual laborers.
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
The approach creates an opportunity for land users to engage in the initial implementation process through which their awareness is raised.
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
Through stakeholders meeting and training opportunities created by the project.
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
It builds collaboration between stakeholders.
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
Involve them in the awareness creation training.
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
Women are involved in the community meeting and/or consultation. Also benefited from the technology as it creates the opportunity to fetch drinking still water closer to their residence.
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
It provides knowledge to the young generation through exposure to evidence based intervention.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
The technology implemented using the participatory approach believed to rehabilitate degraded lands and enhances productive use of the rehabilitated lands for growing various crops, and supply feeds to the livestock.
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
The technology implemented using this approach creates land users temporal access to still as well as groundwater regardless.
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
In the future, when the productive use of dry valley is effected, post the rehabilitation efforts, land users certainly develop an adaptation to climate change and associated disasters through participatory approach.
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
It improves generation of income from the production of food and feed crops.
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
-
increased production
-
increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
-
reduced land degradation
-
reduced risk of disasters
-
reduced workload
-
payments/ subsidies
-
rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
-
prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
-
affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
-
environmental consciousness
-
customs and beliefs, morals
-
enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
-
aesthetic improvement
-
conflict mitigation
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
-
Creates stakeholders awareness on SLM, and productive use of rehabilitated dry valley.
-
Improves coordination between agricultural actors in line offices, and other stakeholders collective action.
-
Enhances participatory decision making on the development and use of the rehabilitated lands.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
It creates evidence based lesson learning to replicate similar practices across the region.
-
It improves SLM implementation capacity of the development partners (agricultural offices) and the land users at local level.
-
It encourages the government respective department to allocate matching fund for SLM operationalized by development partners.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
-
Time and energy/labor demanding to integrate efforts of experts from different organizations.
Nurture proper joint planning for collective action.
-
Shortage of financial and material resources to put the structure in place.
Find and generate sources of resources and promote efficient use of the available budget.
-
Improper participation of stakeholders (dropout of experts)
Enforce participation through adopting binding by-laws to all.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
Recurrent droughts displace the land users while looking for water and feed to their animals.
Ensure representation to the community, and assess enabling environment that reduce temporal displacement of the land users.
-
Relatively low participation of the land users in the conception and implementation of the approach as well as the technology intended to rehabilitate the dry valley.
Promote land users participation through intensive capacity building and awareness creation by gender and various categories of the community.
-
Lack of forming agro-pastoralist group who are believed to share knowledge, skills and labor for collective oversee and maintenance of the technology when damage is encountered.
Promote the development of a local institution that allows not only for the use of the land but also to oversee the gaps, report the issues, and involve in participatory fixing activities.
References
Editors
-
Torben Helbig
-
Noel Templer
-
Tabitha Nekesa
-
Ahmadou Gaye
-
Siagbé Golli
Reviewer
-
William Critchley
-
Rima Mekdaschi Studer
-
Sally Bunning
Date of documentation: Maart 23, 2023
Last update: April 26, 2024
Resource persons
-
Ahmed Omer (ahmdomr1954@gmail.com) - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya
Project
- Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)
Key references
-
Problems and landscape approach for ecological rehabilitation in the dry valleys of Southwest China. Dong, Y. & Liu, S. (Undated): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shiliang-Liu-5/publication/221354340_Problems_and_Landscape_Approach_for_Ecological_Rehabilitation_in_the_Dry_Valleys_of_Southwest_China/links/574129be08ae9ace84160bec/
Links to relevant information which is available online