Participating the community at all level at all stages of the project. [Ethiopia]

approaches_2381 - 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

Local level particpatpry planning approach

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Enhancing people participation to creat awarnes that the project ownership realized correctly to improve people project management, to improve the capacity of the community to implement identify monitor and evaluate the technology and in coorporate the indiginious knowledge with the technology make people to realize the technology, Awaring local administraters to organize general meeting of the target group and breifing the objective of the project to the target group, the target group select planning development team which is gender balanced and planning the project with the planning team participating the target group at ll project cycle, Planning train the target group about the technology then group formation according to the interest of the land users then establishment follows, 1. in planning stage identified the problem & prioritication suggest possible solutions, 2. in implementation stage monitoring the implementation, 3. evaluate the performance of the technology.

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



Region/ State/ Province:


2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:


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 (Soil and water concervation based integrated forest development, forage development, water development, infrastructure.)

1. Enhancing people participation, 2. Warnes creation of the people on the project.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of participation of the target group speciany in planning monitoring and evaluation.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

Organizational problem of the institution not well stuructued & changed from to time

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Undermine women to participate in the project , land fragementation.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Perdime pety cash for monitoring the required logestics transportation.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Efforts made by the experts.

institutional setting
  • hindering

Awarness creation on land management

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Organizational problem of the institution not well structured & changed from to time

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation

  • hindering

Lack of the proper land use policy

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Awarnes creation & participating the 10 cmunity.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

work equally divided between men and women (In approach equaly divided but practicaly due to social & cultural reasons they not participate equal, but increasing trend to equal participation. However the trend of women participation has increased but due to cultural reasons there is little difference. All resore poor household have been involved because of the aproach target them first in selection of the SWC technology in implementation of the SWC technology.

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Ministry of Agricalture

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 interactive Mainly:public meetings; partly: interviews/questionnaires
planning interactive Mainly: public meetings; partly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal
implementation passive Mainly: casual labour; partly: responsibility for minor steps
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Mainly: public meetings, workshop/seminars, 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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Since the technology is newly introduced to the project area it should be mainly decised by the SWC specialist with consultation of land users.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. is decising the working time and implementing individualy or in group the commonity land user mainly decised and supported by SWC specialist

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
  • SWC specialists (1), extensionists/trainers (3)
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
Subjects covered:

On the concept of the approach in the planning, performance evaluation profile.

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: LLPPA; Key elements: Participating local community in planning, Tranning, Monitoring and Evaluation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Planning implementing monitoring & evaluation

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, greatly
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 measurements

technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through measurements

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Focus on generd, focus on integrated & sustainable development by participating different expert from different disciplenes, Encovraging visit of different activities by different stake holders aditional school children.

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: international non-government (WFP)

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 fully financed Handtools
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

Adoption of SWC technology maintainance of technology implementation of SWC technology.

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

Even if there is not supporting land use policy the approach has focused on local level participatory planning.

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
Gender balanced
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Participatory (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: All steps in the approach should be requier)
Gender balanced
Good monitoring and evaluation system

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Guideline for LLPPA

Available from where? Costs?

Ministry of Agriculture

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all