Food for work (Ethiopia)

Description

Food for work is an incentive given to land users for the activities they perform by participating in land management activities.

Aims / objectives: Food grain and edible oil at a rate of 3kg/day of grain and 200gm/day of oil is paid for an activity undertaken by a person. Land users who are selected to participate in the approach should be able bodied to undertake activities in land management and are paid the amount indicated for a given amount of work done according to the norm. A person is required to perform 10m/day soil bund to be paid the rate described above. Other activities have different norms. There are some land users who could do more than this and are entitled to be paid more according to the norm.

Methods: FFW's role in soil conservation work: 1. it has motivated the involvement of many farmers 2. Help alleviate food shortages 3. Enabled create assets 4. Strengthened the functioning of Kebele Administration. The approach was implemented through a project initiated in 1990 in the woreda. Problems addressed by the approach included: soil erosion, sever gully and land degradation, loss of cultivated lands, absence of legislations, shortage of fuel and construction material and grazing land shortages. The direct causes for the problems were identified to be overgrazing, vegetation clearing, steep slopes cultivation and poor agricultural practices. Main constraints hindering proper implementation of technologies included lack of community collaboration, lack of sense of ownership and shortage of trained extension workers.

Location

Location: Ana Limu, Hossana, Tigray, Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 38.31, 14.02

Initiation date: 1996

Year of termination: 2003

Type of Approach

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Pond construction, tree planting, development infrastructure.)

Rehabilitation of degraded land and planting trees on denuded slopes and hills: Protecting farmland from soil erosion and improving grazing lands and pasture for improved livestock feed production. The Specific targets are to improve crop and livestock productivity, reduce fuel and construction wood shortages, control farmland soil erosion, improve grazing conditions and increase livestock production, alleviate water shortages by developing springs and pond construction and provide access roads. Benefits obtained included: rehabilitated degraded lands; improved crop and livestock production.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - to increase community participation, - to work quality activities, - to develop sense of ownership, soil erosion, deforestation.
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.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Poor farming practice, high no. of holidays Treatment through the SLM Approach: Improve farming pracitice decrease no. of holidays.
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Shortage of budget for training & construction payment Treatment through the SLM Approach: Budget supply
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): Free grazing Treatment through the SLM Approach: Apply cut and carry system
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Lack of knowledge Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training (LLPPA training)
  • Other: Lack of awarness (no maintenance) Treatment through the SLM Approach: creation of awarness through meeting, training etc.

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 LLPPA-Committee There is no clear demarkation between poor and very poor, so are the community are at equal level.
teachers/ school children/ students
NGO WFP
national government (planners, decision-makers) MOA
international organization WFP
Regional BOANR
Lead agency
Regional technical aspect of the approach national technical & methodology of the approach , International technical & methodology of the approach.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Mainly:LLPPA; partly: public meetings; At initial during the community meeting the SWC specialist create awarness
planning
LLPPA
implementation
responsibility for major steps; All the community members participate.
monitoring/ evaluation
Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: reporting;
Research
Flow chart

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
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • politicians/decision makers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Method of planning, construction of different SWC activities.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Government extension system; Key elements: Development agent, Production cadres, SWC specialists; 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: Training of land users of development agents

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The government structure is up to grass root level so that is helps to continue the SWC activities.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: physical achievements socio-cultural aspects were monitored through observations; indicators: farmers' participation and acceptance economic / production aspects were monitored through observations; indicators: results obtained There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The method of training was supported by practical demonstration sites.

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 (-): 80.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%
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
equipment: tools

Handtools

Seedlings

Community infrastructure

Labour by land users was

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?

Maintenance of the structures & integrate with biologjical meaures.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Other NGOs also apply the approach exg. world vision.

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • n.a.
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • They get food and conserve their land (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Communities shoul work SWC activities on their own land individually.)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • It creats awarness and strengther local institutions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continue training)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • It creates problem in farming increate the spacing of the stractures on cultivated land.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • There is free grazing area closure, cut and carry, maintain damaged SWC activities.

References

Compiler
  • Daniel Danano
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Jan. 21, 2009
Last update: July 24, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International