Approaches

Local level participatory planning approach (based on FFW) [Ethiopia]

approaches_2379 - Ethiopia

View sections

Expand all
Completeness: 72%

1. معلومات عامة

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Philippe Zahner

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:

نعم

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

It is FFW based participatory approach, by which the land users takes part in all stages of conservation planning, implementation evaluation.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To achieve better SWC through promotion of participation, awareness creation and better organization and better plannin., To solve problems related to top down approach., Achive better quality works, Achieve better participation, Achieve better planning, implementation and evationation, There are different methods involved in the approach to mention some of them,- Approporicate Targeting, Wealth Ranking, - Vulnerablity Assessment and mapping. - Planning, - implementation, - monitoring, evaluation, The food insecter community members are participating in all stages of planning & implementation, - labour supply donor & government- provide farm implements provide training and food grains.

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

بلد:

Ethiopia

Region/ State/ Province:

SNNPR

Map preview

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1986

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

Facilitate better achievement of SWC through promotion of participation, awareness creation, better organization, trainining, skill up grading, better planning.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - Top down approach, - Poor participation, - Poor Integration, - Poor planning, - Low quality of conservation measures, - low level of awarness

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

Low level of awareness, cultural taboos poor participation (specially for women)

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awareness creation activities have been promoted using different methods.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Budget constraints (for training & Retty cash)

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Partially solved by project fund allocation and through income generating activities

institutional setting
  • hindering

Office and staff shartage.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Staff recutited by project and project office & wage house constructed

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

An absence of agreed SWC policy

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Policy formulation is now on process

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Shortage of skilled man power, poor skill of farmers.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: A number of technical training was given to staff and skill upgrading training for farmers.

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 (The conservation activities like bench terracess and ETC are considered heavy and laborious and mainly done by men whereas nursery activities are equally divided.)

In local tradition men is considered as hard worker and so laborious SWC works are mainly done by men. Tedious works like benchterracess and ridge basins and the likes are mainly done by men. Where as less tedious activities like pitting, potting and planting are done equally. Approach involved persons with very small lands & low casts through general LLPPA meeting.

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Ministry of Agriculture

  • international organization

WFP (World Food Programme of UN)

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

The international & national SWC specialists modified the minimum planning approach to LLPPA together.

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 interactive Mainly:LLPPA; partly: public meetings
planning interactive
implementation external support responsibility for minor steps
monitoring/ evaluation none
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:
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

نعم

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • SWC specialists
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
Subjects covered:

Planning, skill upgrading, and technical training on SWC

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

نعم

Describe/ comments:

1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees

In relation to SWC the Extension is weak and it is also crop biased.

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:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

نعم

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored through measurements

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: As a result of M&E the quality of work improved, exotic SWC measures which fits the local condition incorporated.

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (UN- WFP Ethiopia): 70.0%; government (national - SNNPR (Regional Government): 30.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

نعم

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools partly financed Handtools
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
Seedlings partly financed
  • other
Other (specify) To which extent Specify subsidies
Field vehicle, instrument
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • food-for-work
Comments:

Food for work grain is given as incentive.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

لا

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

Modified the traditiional one to fit into modern ones.

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

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • uncertain
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

No comment

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Better access to decision making (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By empowering)
Skill upgrading (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More training (Skill upgrading))
FFW incentive (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It is farmers view as fame it is something that to be discouraged.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Participatory nature (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: by further empowering the local community)
Capacity building measures (efforts) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: by giving more training skill upgrading.)
Awareness raising (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: by giving more training skill upgrading.)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
No comments
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
FFW orientation Gradully decreasing the food aid by increasing productivity self help activities.

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