Incentive Based Participatory Planning and Implementation Approach Integrated watershed Management [Ethiopia]

approaches_2383 - Ethiopia

Completeness: 78%

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:
SLM specialist:

Dantamo Daniael

046-555-1135 / 046-555-2799

Agr. & RD Office, SNNR, Hadiya zone Sorro Wereda



SLM specialist:

Mugoro Amare

046-2205276 / 046-2204753

SOS. Sahel Awassa project offic

P.O.Box 135 Awassa


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
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
SNNPR Bureau of Agriculture - Ethiopia

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

Integrated watershed management is implementation of SWC measures, forage development and crop production activitiesthrough increasing production and productivity per unit area of land on suistainable manner.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Overall purpose of the approach is to attain food security at household level and then contribute for the anticipated national goals. Specifically the objectives are improving food security of targeted area land users by capacitating community members with incentive support application of SWC activities. Promoting and implementing integrated watershed management practice promote catchment based natural resources management and enhance forage development from matreials used for bund stablization.

Methods: Methods of participatory planning and implementation approach is using local institutions (groups), local leaders community development committee) and existing infrastructure/facilities.

Stages of implementation: Monitoring and evaluation.

Role of stakeholders: SOS Sahel--financinig are evaluating the programmee, Bureau of agriculture and rural development--follow up, monitoring and evaluation, Office of agricultue and rural development--coordinating, planning, and implimenting the project activities with the community and Community/land users--they do the actual implementation phase and evaluation the activities.

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



Region/ State/ Province:

SNNPR/Hadiya Zone/Sorro Woreda

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 (Provision sheep credit to resource poor women with 10% insurance payment and transfer of the first born lamb to other resource poor women.)

Empowerment of the community memebers with incentive support to improve food security at household level; promoting and and implementing integrated watershed management and forage development.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Food insecurity, shortage of animal feed, severe land degradation.

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

allocation and transfer of budget delay & bureaucracy

Treatment through the SLM Approach: direct budget transfer to the implementors

institutional setting
  • hindering

turnover of technical staff

Treatment through the SLM Approach: provide the necessary incentives to technical staff

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: some land user is not accept constructing SWC structure on their land & even planting desho grass b/s the land in the future may be transter to others & why I worry for it they said. This is the question of land ownership.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

no or low level of incentive & training for technical staff

Treatment through the SLM Approach: provision of incentives and training

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Watershed dwellers

Working land users were mainly men (as being a household in the watershed area majority men & women were member of the group for SWC activities implementation.) Women were active participant in the activities because of sheep credit scheme operation initiate their pasticipation. Both poor and medium land users are the majority in the community: by deciding number of working days in a week for SWC activities, who can det sheep credit and penality according to their bylaws applied on those violating the rules and regulations established by the community.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • NGO

SOS Sahel Ethiopia

  • local government

Local government, woreda Agriculture Office

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

SOS Sahel Integrated watershed Management on the base of participatory planning and implemention deshograss intervation MOA-SWC activities, BOFED - M & E system

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:rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: experience sharing vist; need assessment, problem indentification solution seeking, by demonstration
planning interactive rapid/participatory rural appraisal; use participatary planning approach
implementation external support responsibility for minor steps; all the SWC structure constructed by participation
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Mainly: reporting; partly: Terminal evaluation; The representatives of the land users observe & measure what has been done report the accomplishment monthly, impact was assessed
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. Land users report the severity of land degradation in their area and seek assistance. The SWC specialist advice and support the land users to be organized in groups in a sub-watershed bases to implement SWC activities by train the Community Development Committee (CDC). The CDC and other member land users decide what, why, where, when to do SWC activities in their watershed.

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, extensionists/trainers
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

SWC about physical structure construction methods & layout biological SWC- planting of deshograss & other legume species. Integrating watershed management. Sheep credit facility & management.

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: Pilot Extension proram (based on conventional extension approach.; Key elements: Integratd Watershed Management, (IWM), Participatory planning and implementation (PPI), Community Development Committee (CDC); 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 discuss with community on soil erosion problem group organizing providing tools & sheep credit.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Three middle level trained extension agents were assiened in one kebele and wereda experts capacitated by summer course.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, moderately
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Specify type of support:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • petty cash for purchase of equipment & sheep for c

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored through observations

Management of Approach aspects were monitored

There were many changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Monthly based monitoring and evaluation initiate to improve the performance & use to address problem area to be solved in both stakeholders by doing so many project weredas improve their performance.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


Specify topics:
  • sociology
  • on farm trail research by SOS Sahel
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Adoption level, role of bund stablization, economic importance & impact of expansion cose study was under taken.

Research was carried out on-farm

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:
  • 2,000-10,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: national non-government (SOS Sahel, Awassa): 94.0%; local community / land user(s) (Resource poor womon land users): 6.0%

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
machinery fully financed
tools partly financed Handtools
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
Seedlings fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • rewarded with other material support

with 30% down payment share shovels and/or hoes provision for SWC structure.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

repayment conditions: Sheep credit provision with 10% insurance and transfer of first lamb and Agricultural tools like shvel & hoe provision with 30% contribution..

Specify credit receivers:

not applied so we can't compare.

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

Planting desho grass on bund and any embankment and around homestead constructing new bund by their time to plant desho grass.

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

At that time some land users in the catchment did not accept to participate in SWC activities b/s the were not owner of the land. The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. The land use legislation of SNNPR restricts & stated how to use the land, the responsibility & obligation of the users. Then the land user acts according to the rules & regulation stated by the legislation improves natural resource utilization properly.

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

The land users from shashogo, Misha, Lemmo and Duna Wereda has taken 3 truck 3 pick up, 5 Truck and 10 Trucks of grass planting materials has been taken respectively for the bund stabilization and forage development purposes.

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:

1. Extension service is very crucial to support technical aspects of SWC activities and coordination of watershed group members to follow integrated watershed management approach in a participatory planning and implementation method. 2. Desho grass planting material is very expensive so that for the first time planing material supply is necessary

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
IWM approach very important for the farmer by prodiving basic skill in all activities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Thraining the farmers)
The introduced Desho grass become cash source by selling the planting material & grass (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By creating awareness to all farmers.)
Hand tool provision help them in facilitating working condition (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By circulating 30% down payment share.)
Sheep credition provision (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: with 10% insurance down payment and transfer to first lamb to the next poor.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Desho grass introjduction is a new technology which has multipurpose use. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Extension work should be strong until they know & see the advantage & Adopt.)
Integrate all the agricultural and natural resource management activities in the catchment. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Awareness creation work has to be following in a continous way)
Introduction of Desho grass become income generating means by selling & forage source. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: By introducing the grass to new areas & supply planting material of the grass for the first time to the resource poors.)

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?
other. Doing as stated on the agreement & credit contruct.
Failure of payment of 10% insurance and acting accoringly. enforcing to pay the stack 10% of insurance.
Mis use of down payment by CDC and Development Agent close follow and facilitating the payment procedure for the debted CDC.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Lack of close follow up of the activities may stak or hindered over all activities. Office of Agriculture & Natural Resource should work hard extension to sustain the approach & function normally.
failure of supply of desho grass planting material for those who start SWC activities for the first time. These could be solved by coordinating NGOs other project to help desho grass purchasing
using open access grazing of farmland destroy the grass & constructed bund. using controlled grassing &/or stall feeding

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:

Integrated food support supply project document, 2000 SOS Sahel

Available from where? Costs?

SOS Sahel, Awassa, Sorro Wereda

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Assessing significance of Desho grass intervention on SWC structure, As food security strategy A case of Sorro wereda, Lintala watershed Author Daniel Dantamo Jan. 2005.

Available from where? Costs?

Daniael Dantamo, Hossana/Sorro Te- 046-555-1135 cost 8,000 Eth. Birr

Title, author, year, ISBN:

IFSSP- Terminal evaluation report 2004 Bureau of Finance & Ecnomic Development

Available from where? Costs?

Wereda Agriculture Office (Sorro)

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all