Incentive Based Local Level Participatory Planning Approach [Ethiopia]

approaches_2384 - Ethiopia

Completeness: 75%

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:


1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Rehabilitation of degraded lands

Rehabilitation of degraded lands [Ethiopia]

Activities that help maintain the productive potentials of soils through prevention and reduction of erosion, enhancing of rehabilitation rate by practicing measures such as microbasins, trench, eyebrow terrace, terraces, pitting and plantation of trees.

  • Compiler: Unknown User

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The approach involves, the use of incentives to motivate particpation of communities in the planning and implementation of SWC activities which improve land productivity and income.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The purpose is to tackle food shortages of the participating households in preventing and controlling soil erosion by conserving soil and water and through improving soil fertility, enhance the production and productivity of lands, which are aimed at improving the income of the communities and hence improving livlihoods. The specific objective of the approach is to enable each individual land user to be aware of land degradation problem and the use of SWC. . The approach includes discussion during general meetings on the concept, discussion of SWC specialist with community memebers, demonstration, and conducting training.

Stages of implementation: The stages of implementation include site selection, making participatory work plan, selection of participants, construction of structures and planting trees.

Role of stakeholders: Communities participate in palnning and management, implementation of the technology which consists of soil consrevation and stablizing of bunds by planting suitable plant species.

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 (Infrastructure development, water harvesting, income generating)

To allviate the problem of food insecurity and to rehabilitate the degraded lands by involving the communities in planning and implementaion of SWC activities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land degradation, soil erosion, food insecurity and low soil fertility.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

low participation of women due to religious reasons

Treatment through the SLM Approach: encourage women to do more SWC works by incentives

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

lack of hand tools and other operational costs

Treatment through the SLM Approach: provision of hand tools and alocate adequate finance

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: Land users understand that income generated from closure areas is of community, not of governement. This has encouraged the community to get more involved in conservation activities.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of knoweledge

Treatment through the SLM Approach: training, field visits and participatory involvement at all levels

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local government
  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

The MERET project

  • international organization
If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

The basic principles and steps for the methodology have been adopted from experience in other countries. This was adapted to local conditions with new elements added. National, regional and woreda specialists were involved in the process.

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; At this stage public meeting is important to change land users attitudes.
planning interactive workshops/seminars, rapid/participatory rural appraisal
implementation external support Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: responsibility for minor steps; Proirity is given to highly degraded areas for treatment.
monitoring/ evaluation none
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

During the community meatings land users choose the proper SWC technology. The SWC specialists give explanation on the importance/use of the technology.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Eventhough land users can make decissions on the methods of implementing SWC technology, advise from SWC specialist is required.

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
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

Training on how to rehabilitate degraded lands by closing the area, laying out and constructing of physical and biological techniques to conserve soil and water and how to maintain them.

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: Conventional extension package: Household package; Key elements: mass mobilization (regular extension package), group work (MERET), family labour (Household package); 1) Mainly: government's existing extension system, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: implement soil and water conservation activites.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Awarness creation given to SWC specialists and land users, so that they will be able to practice SWC technologies. As a result, substantial amount of degraded land have been rehabilitated and made productive.

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
  • seedlings

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Following the recommendations made through the evaluation and monitoring work, some changes in the way technolologies and techniques have been applied could be changed / adjusted. Exmple: layout procedures standards, design and choice of techniques

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Practicing, recording and reporting of activities, achievements and impacts have been part of the work. Hence observations and trials on technologies have enabled the project to screen best practices and management techniques.

Research was carried out on-farm

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 (WFP): 80.0%; government (national): 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
machinery partly financed Motor cycles / transport facilities
tools partly financed Handtools
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed
fertilizers fully financed Biocides
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

community works 80% for food for work and 20% as voluntary contribution

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

protection of soil erosion by improved methods, water is conserved in the soil by microbasins, flood hazard decreased by combined measures and soil fertility is increased using compost.

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

The approach has promoted the sense of user rights of land users on assets /developments created/made such as the communiy forests, grass, terraced fields etc and they are aware that they are the ones to decide on the use of the assets developed.

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

Land users have greatly adopted the methods and procedures of LLPPA to all development plans at villages, communities and Kebele levels. Similarly, many NGOs and government organizations have been using the LLPPA.

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:

There are different types of supports: without specialists, technical support it is most unlikely that they will continue specially on communal lands. Without incentives the approach could be continued on individual land holdings as well as on communal lands, but there could be some communities who without food support may not be able to support their livelihoods until they create their own assets

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Avoid individual contribution for different social works. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Improve the production per unit area of land.)
Availability of construction materials and feed for livestock increased. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant multipurpose tree and shrubs species.)
Environment rehabilitation and natural beauty of the area increased. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Improve micro and macro environment)
Increase production and productivity of land. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Plant multipurpose plant species.)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Degraded lands are rehabilitated (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthening incentive based SWC approach)
Sustainable soil and water conservation practices are in place. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increase training and follow-up)
Community has gained knowledge participating on local level planning. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: provide frequent traininng to planning teams from the community working with SWC specialists)
Additional income is generated from rehabilitated and closed areas. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Resource management responsibilities given to the community)
SWC technologies are adopted. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Close supervision and monitoring and evaluation to be further strengthened.)

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