Approaches

Community social labour-share groups (Debo/Wenfel) [Ethiopia]

approaches_2387 - Ethiopia

Completeness: 67%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Debo is a 'labour share', grouping of land users in a community. It is a social / traditional co-operation/ where land users support each other by working in groups for activities which are labour intensive.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Debo involves voluntary labour assistance from other land users to a member in a community who requets for labour to undertake activities, which he or his family could not do it by themeslevs. A land user who seeks debo assitance prepares food and beverages in turn to the labour his fellow land users provide. It is a way of getting activites done in time with less expenses. It is also a means and way for sharing experience and skill among members.

Methods: Method: any one in the community participates from a 'Nege-beine' (i.e. 'Tomorrow could be my turn') feeling. In such cases, the family/farmer sends a word around so that, on a fixed day, those who live around should come and assist at his place in constructing the checkdam. Where as in Wonfel all memebers of the group are given equal opportunity to get labour share, which goes turn by turn to all members.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Ethiopia

Region/ State/ Province:

Amhara/Oromia Zone

2.7 Type of Approach

  • traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (For farm activities such as cultivation and weeding, harvest and seed bed preparation, house consruction and social activities)

To get voluntary labour assistance from other land users in the community to undertake activities, which a land user or his family could not do by themeslevs. It is a way of getting activites done in time with less expenses.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land degradation, Shortage of land, shoratge labour, individual efforts

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

lack of finance

Treatment through the SLM Approach: incentives

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: The recently issued land use and land administration policy and legislatiion

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

lack of new interventions to enhance productivity

Treatment through the SLM Approach: provide technical support

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Working land users were mainly men (Women mostly are engaged in household acvtivites due to cultural influences)

All groups have right of decision making on their own land

  • NGO
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
  • international organization
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation self-mobilization A land user seeking debo assitance intitiates; In case of wonfel a land user intitiates and others accepting this will be mebers. In case of Debo the request comes from the one who needs labour from others.
planning self-mobilization The group for wenfel
implementation self-mobilization The group for wenfel
monitoring/ evaluation self-mobilization land user;
Research none

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:

No other technical people or decision makers are involved in providing advice or techncical support in the choice of the technology

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). No other technical people or decision makers are involved in providing advice or techncical support on the method of implementing the technology

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • SWC specialists (3), extensionists/trainers (2)
Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

Advice on the importance of SWC measures in moisture conservation and maintaining ecosystems, strengthening the social groups, technical support on the application of techniques such as cutoff drains, trench etc., advice and awreness creation on implementing integrated measures.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory Approach Demonstration and Training Systems (PADETS); Key elements: participation, Training, Demonstration; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: practicing the skill / techniques they are given, act as model farmers

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; shoratge of exetensionsts, inability to transefer technologies isufficinet to adress land users problem

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, moderately
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • < 2,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: other ( land user): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools partly financed Hand tools
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed
Seedlings partly financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

All labour for carrying out the SWC technology and practicing the approach is born by the land users

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Geen

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Changes in including improvement such as laying out in contour, growing of soil fertility improving plants, planting of multipurpose trees shrubs, improving land productivity

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach has little to influnce the land tenure policy of the government The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. There is new regulation issued. The land certification regulation could motivate land users feeling of getting relatively secured of their user rights that what it was before

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Almost all land users are now practicing the approach and iit has become part of the farming system

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
make the work sustainable (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: support)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
sustainable (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: encourage farmers experience)
all land users used the approach (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: more training and encouragement)

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules