Mass mobilization
(Ethiopia)
Description
Mass Mobilization is an approach pursued to implement SLM technologies by organizing land users to undertake SLM activities without incentives being involved.
Aims / objectives: It involves the process of mobilizing and organizing land users in the community (men, women, and youth) who are able-bodied to participate in SLM activities. Land users participating in mass mobilization are required to form SLM groups. Plan for SLM is made at the woreda level and then distributed to kebeles and or sometimes each kebele proposes plan, which is later approved by the woreda. Each member contributes free labor of 20 days every year to undertake land management technologies (past) and this contribution is increased to account for 40 days a year since 2009. The specific objective is to make land users participate in the management of land by implementing improved technologies. SLM measures control runoff and enhance rainfall water percolation. The approach involves organizing land users in SLM groups. Recently two groups are formed known as development team and a sub group called a work team. A development team group comprises 20-30 members while the work team group is 10-15 members. Women and men participate equally in the work groups and in leading the team. Activities undertaken by mass mobilization are mostly (80%) carried out on cultivated lands. Every day the group evaluates its activities. They also participate on the discussions of the plan.
Methods: There is a leader for each group and a production cadre for the groups at Kushet level (the lower administrative unit) who supervises activities of the groups. The groups also work on activities other than SLM. Problems addressed include: soil erosion, deforestation, declining productivity of land, low fertility of soil, low level of participation of the community in SLM activities. All land users in the community are expected to participate in the implementation of the technologies through the mass mobilization approach. The approach area is defined by administrative and as well as watershed boundaries. The Kebele and woreda administrators, woreda specialists and development agents coordinate the implementation and planning of the approach.
Location
Location: Tigray, Ethiopia, Laelay Adet, Tahtay A det, Naedir , Ethiopia
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 1992
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 mainly on SLM with other activities (Pond & dam construction and other water harvesting technologies.)
Aware, organize and initiate land users to participate in SLM activities that aim at controlling soil erosion, which causes land degradation and encouraging land users to contribute free labor for implementing the SLM technologies introduced. The specific objectives are: I) promote the awareness of land users on land degradation problem and II) show the importance of SLM measures which protect cultivated lands from erosion, retain soil moisture and improve fertility of soils.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Soil erosion, deforestation, low productivity low soil fertility, low participation of community in SWC activities.
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 moderately helped the approach implementation: There is use right of land users.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Many holidays are celebrated, and land users do not work on those days.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Create awareness to work on those days.
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Low income of the community
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Create other off farm activities
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Widely spaced bunds do not control inter bund erosion.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training to be provided and also promote awareness.
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 |
Tabias |
Working land users were work equally divided between men and women. All community member participate equally in decision making. |
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
BOA & Regional Adminstration |
|
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
public meetings: general assembly meeting called for awareness creation and informing about the development plan.
planning
Training: train SLM commission members. They plan the activities which is later endorsed by the general assembly.
implementation
Free labour: 20 days per year
monitoring/ evaluation
Measurements observation reporting: each activity is measured by the team leader and the other committee members.
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 specialists, extensionists/trainers (1), politicians/decision makers (2)
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
On desing, layout & construction methods of SWC technologies, moisture harvesting techniques.
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: House hold pack (PADET); Key elements: DA, Contact farmer; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: land users, technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: Contrubuting free labour; Training, supervising, monitoring & evaluation, creating awarness in the co
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
-
no
-
yes, a little
-
yes, moderately
-
yes, greatly
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
-
financial
-
capacity building/ training
-
equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements; indicators: soil depth, change in land use and land cover
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: dimensions and quality
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements; indicators: increase in production per unit area
area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: extent of work done
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: number of participating land users in the work
management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: impacts and changes
There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: At initial stage of the implementation of the approach the cummunity members were contributing their free labour 3 month per year for SWC activities, but through evaluation it has been changed to 20 days/year.
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: government (Training and work tools support): 5.0%; local community / land user(s) (Labor and material): 95.0%
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 conserve their individual land by them selves.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
In some jfood for jwork & chas for work SWC activities they apply this approach to contribute some perventage of the activities as a free labour.
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
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Wokring in group improves the management of large area of cultivated lands in short period (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More training, awareness and study tour opportunities to be provided. Provision of hand tools.)
-
Easy transfer of technology possible
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
Unwillingness from some land users to work in groups
Convincing land users.
References
Date of documentation: Jan. 21, 2009
Last update: July 24, 2017
Resource persons
-
Gabriel Wolde - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by