Self help approach [Ethiopia]

approaches_2377 - Ethiopia

Completeness: 72%

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:


2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Self help

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: To develop his doing of activity by himself in order to manage his land., By consulting, Survey, Contain, bund for mation, embankment, Doing of terracing, Transporting of stones.

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



Region/ State/ Province:

Region 3

2.7 Type of Approach

  • traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

The objective of self help approach is only to motivate every one should have done in his own land than on others land.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: He couldn't do his duties of the right time due to so many causes.

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

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: The land use right gives right and obligate to do his land properly, so it enhance self help approach.

  • hindering

The low of implementing S.W.C. is not so much strong.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Every one has perform his land at the right time and together.

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 work equally divided between men and women. The youngest household even he has no any wealth, he can manage his land by using his family labour.

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
  • international organization
If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

The SWC specialist and the land users 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 passive Mainly:public meetings; partly: workshops/seminars; Training
planning interactive Mainly: workshops/seminars; partly: public meetings; With watershed committees
implementation self-mobilization Mainly: responsibility for minor steps; partly: casual labour; By using family labour for every activities.
monitoring/ evaluation passive interviews/questionnaires, measurements/observations;
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:
  • SLM specialists alone

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

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?


Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • planners (1), politicians/decision makers (2), extensionists/trainers (3)

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: PADETS; Key elements: Demonstration, Training system; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The SWC activities left for some one else, no body, ensure sWC activities. The gov't do nothing for cont neuation of SWC wherever.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, a little
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
  • by contributing labour

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored hrough observations

management of Approach aspects were monitored through observations

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out on station

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: local community / land user(s) (For commarical work): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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


5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
fertilizers fully financed
Biocides fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


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

Because of the soil degradation improvement.

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

The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. If land use policy practiced

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

Every one has choosen/Adopt/self help activities than mobilization.

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
Motivate self help activities than mass mobilization (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By giving training.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It gives right to do on his land
One man do more in his own land than others land
The activiries have had quality wise

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Starting time were delayed Motivating & regulating to do so.
Making continious of SWC activities eg. Cut of drain on different pieces of land By giving training and regulating the group 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