Community social labour-share groups (Debo/Wenfel) [Ethiopia]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Philippe Zahner
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Fabian Ottiger
approaches_2387 - Ethiopia
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
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) - Switzerland1.3 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:
Yes
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
Debo is a 'labour share', grouping of land users in a community. It is a social / traditional co-operation/ where land users support each other by working in groups for activities which are labour intensive.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
Aims / objectives: Debo involves voluntary labour assistance from other land users to a member in a community who requets for labour to undertake activities, which he or his family could not do it by themeslevs. A land user who seeks debo assitance prepares food and beverages in turn to the labour his fellow land users provide. It is a way of getting activites done in time with less expenses. It is also a means and way for sharing experience and skill among members.
Methods: Method: any one in the community participates from a 'Nege-beine' (i.e. 'Tomorrow could be my turn') feeling. In such cases, the family/farmer sends a word around so that, on a fixed day, those who live around should come and assist at his place in constructing the checkdam. Where as in Wonfel all memebers of the group are given equal opportunity to get labour share, which goes turn by turn to all members.
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Ethiopia
Region/ State/ Province:
Amhara/Oromia Zone
Map
×2.7 Type of Approach
- traditional/ indigenous
2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (For farm activities such as cultivation and weeding, harvest and seed bed preparation, house consruction and social activities)
To get voluntary labour assistance from other land users in the community to undertake activities, which a land user or his family could not do by themeslevs. It is a way of getting activites done in time with less expenses.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land degradation, Shortage of land, shoratge labour, individual efforts
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- hindering
lack of finance
Treatment through the SLM Approach: incentives
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- enabling
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: The recently issued land use and land administration policy and legislatiion
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- hindering
lack of new interventions to enhance productivity
Treatment through the SLM Approach: provide technical support
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 mainly men (Women mostly are engaged in household acvtivites due to cultural influences)
All groups have right of decision making on their own land
- NGO
- national government (planners, decision-makers)
- international organization
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 | self-mobilization | A land user seeking debo assitance intitiates; In case of wonfel a land user intitiates and others accepting this will be mebers. In case of Debo the request comes from the one who needs labour from others. |
planning | self-mobilization | The group for wenfel |
implementation | self-mobilization | The group for wenfel |
monitoring/ evaluation | self-mobilization | land user; |
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:
- land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:
No other technical people or decision makers are involved in providing advice or techncical support in the choice of the technology
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). No other technical people or decision makers are involved in providing advice or techncical support on the method of implementing the technology
4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
4.1 Capacity building/ training
Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?
Yes
Specify who was trained:
- land users
- SWC specialists (3), extensionists/trainers (2)
Form of training:
- farmer-to-farmer
- public meetings
Subjects covered:
Advice on the importance of SWC measures in moisture conservation and maintaining ecosystems, strengthening the social groups, technical support on the application of techniques such as cutoff drains, trench etc., advice and awreness creation on implementing integrated measures.
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Yes
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:
Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory Approach Demonstration and Training Systems (PADETS); Key elements: participation, Training, Demonstration; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: practicing the skill / techniques they are given, act as model farmers
Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; shoratge of exetensionsts, inability to transefer technologies isufficinet to adress land users problem
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:
- capacity building/ training
- equipment
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Yes
Comments:
area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
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
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
Approach costs were met by the following donors: other ( land user): 100.0%
5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users
Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?
Yes
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
- equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
tools | partly financed | Hand tools |
- agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
seeds | partly financed | |
Seedlings | partly financed | |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- voluntary
Comments:
All labour for carrying out the SWC technology and practicing the approach is born by the land users
5.4 Credit
Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?
No
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
Changes in including improvement such as laying out in contour, growing of soil fertility improving plants, planting of multipurpose trees shrubs, improving land productivity
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 little to influnce the land tenure policy of the government The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. There is new regulation issued. The land certification regulation could motivate land users feeling of getting relatively secured of their user rights that what it was before
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Almost all land users are now practicing the approach and iit has become part of the farming system
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 |
---|
make the work sustainable (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: support) |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
sustainable (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: encourage farmers experience) |
all land users used the approach (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: more training and encouragement) |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
- interviews with land users
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules