Food for work [Ethiopia]

approaches_2378 - 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)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO Food and Agriculture Organization) - Italy

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

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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.

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



Region/ State/ Province:


Further specification of location:

Ana Limu, Hossana

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:


Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):


2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 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.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

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
  • hindering

Shortage of budget for training & construction payment

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Budget supply

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: There is use right of land.

  • hindering

Free grazing

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Apply cut and carry system

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of knowledge

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Training (LLPPA training)

  • hindering

Lack of awarness (no maintenance)

Treatment through the SLM Approach: creation of awarness through meeting, training etc.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities


There is no clear demarkation between poor and very poor, so are the community are at equal level.

  • teachers/ school children/ students
  • NGO


  • national government (planners, decision-makers)


  • international organization


  • Regional


If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

Regional technical aspect of the approach national technical & methodology of the approach , International technical & methodology of the approach.

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:LLPPA; partly: public meetings; At initial during the community meeting the SWC specialist create awarness
planning interactive LLPPA
implementation external support responsibility for major steps; All the community members participate.
monitoring/ evaluation passive Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: reporting;
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

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?


Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • politicians/decision makers
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered:

Method of planning, construction of different SWC activities.

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: 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.

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
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



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.

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 100,000-1,000,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (-): 80.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%

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)

  • 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
  • infrastructure
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
Community infrastructure partly financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • food-for-work

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

Maintenance of the structures & integrate with biologjical meaures.

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

Other NGOs also apply the approach exg. world vision.

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:

At this time the community are food insecured so that if the incentives are stopped the activity may not continue.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It creats awarness and strengther local institutions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continue training)

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?
It creates problem in farming increate the spacing of the stractures on cultivated land.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
There is free grazing area closure, cut and carry, maintain damaged SWC 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