Labour exchange (Ethiopia)

Description

It is an approach based on labour exchange organized on the basis of mutual assistance involving no payment for work done. However, the land user is supposed to provide people participating with food and drinks. All wanting such cooperation request the me

Aims / objectives: To alleviate the labour shotage each member of the labour exchange group could request for assistance any time farm activities need to be performed. The objective of the approach is to strengthen the relationship among the community members. It is further intended to make the community members share experience, skills and technical know-how on soil and water conservation activities.

Role of stakeholders: A farmer request individuals from the community members to get support.The request is made ahead of time in informing individual farmers about the programme (one to two weeks ahead) so that participants get enough time to prepare. The farmer who seeks assistance should prepare food and local drinks. And in the mean time, the farmer has to remind those who are requested for help so that all invited farmers participate. The participants avail themselves on the specified date with all necessary farm implements required for the activity. In this approach particularly for soil and water conservation activities participants shold be men. For weeding and harvesting women involve more than men because they can carry more weights than men.

Location

Location: Konso, SNNPR, Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 37.357, 5.292

Initiation date: n.a.

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Approach is used mostly on activites like land preparation, sowing and weeding. Community members help each other in contributing labour contributing labour on the basis of mutual understanding)

To solve the labour constraints faced by that some members of the community.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Shortage of labour
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The practice has been there before the existing land ownership policy came into existance and it still exists after it.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Lack of finance to hire labour Treatment through the SLM Approach:
  • Other: Shortage of grain. A farmer to benefit from labour exchange he has to have enough food crop in which he can make food and drink. Treatment through the SLM 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 Men mainly undertake SWC activities but women equally take part in other farm activities. According to the farmers view men are wise (have more wisdom on indegenous technical knowledge than women). The SWC work is tedious and requires more energy to perform. No significant difference among different classes or status in the community in dicision making because the approach is mainly designed to help those who require labour assisstance for their farm activities.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
planning
implementation
monitoring/ evaluation
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

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.
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

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?

Since the practice has evolved locally the farmers have no problem in practicing it.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

The approach has no relation with land ownership or land use rights.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

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
  • The one who had few children to help him in farm activities benefited more from the system
  • Created a better understanding on labour exchange among the community
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Labour problem alleviated (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: The system by it self is sustainable because it has evolved and developed with in the community.)
  • All farming activities can be accomplished according to their seasonal calender
  • Every member of the community has got awarness on each farm activities
  • Social relationship among the communit becames stronger
  • The farmers can cope up adverse environmental conditions
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • To some extent the system favours the rich people than the resource poor households
  • The farmer with many children has got more chance of getting all the participants expected during labour day
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • No one is volantary to participate if in case the farmer is unable to provide food and drink The system should be modified in such away that the participantes should have their own food and drink so that the problem of resource poor farmer is alleviated.

References

Compiler
  • Unknown User
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Jan. 22, 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