វិធីសាស្ត្រផ្សព្វផ្សាយ

Self Help [Ethiopia]

  • ការបង្កើត៖
  • បច្ចុប្បន្នភាព
  • អ្នកចងក្រង៖
  • អ្នកកែសម្រួល៖
  • អ្នកត្រួតពិនិត្យ

approaches_2386 - Ethiopia

ពិនិត្យមើលគ្រប់ផ្នែក

ពង្រីកមើលទាំងអស់
ភាពពេញលេញ៖ 64%

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:

Muhamed Ahmed

Office of Agriculture

Hulet Eju Ennesse, Amhara

Ethiopia

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
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:

បាទ/ចា៎

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A household and the family members work on SLM measures to manage their land without external support.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Self-help approach explains the responsibility taken by a land user household to undertake SLM activities on the land he is holding using his and the family labor, without incentives provided from external sources. It aims at enhancing household land users’ responsibilities for managing their land so that they will be able to increase land productivity and improve the livelihoods. This approach is as old as communities and farming. Land users cultivating on steep slopes practiced SLM activities using this approach for many years. The approach area is defined by administrative and watershed units.

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

Country:

Ethiopia

Region/ State/ Province:

Amhara

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2000

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 (water harvesting, grazing land management, forest development)

To enhance household responsibilities in the management of land, improve land productivity and efficiency of labor

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: shortage of trained manpower to provide adequate technical advice, support the households at the time of planning and implementation. Causes of the problem are: 1) Indirect: lack of knowledge, lack of enforcement of legislation, land subdivision and 2) Direct: over-exploitation of vegetation, agricultural causes and overgrazing

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

institutional setting
  • hindering

Inadequate emphasis given to implementation compared to the plan

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Attention should be given to action on the ground

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 farmer has use rights that encorages for proper management of that specific plot

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

lack of skilled power to implement the approach

Treatment through the SLM Approach: enhance the skill of support staff

other
  • hindering

Lack of integration of SLM with other agricultural activities

Treatment through the SLM Approach: provision of improved inputs

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 (Family members of the household working together)

Actual work with responsibility. The approach involved disadvantaged people because one who do not implement the approach and conserve his/her land will be land less.

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

providing technical support

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 Public meetings: land users undertake SLM activities on their own plots
planning interactive Training: At any time in the year but most commonly in the dry seasons before the onset of rains
implementation self-mobilization family labor: engaged any time their involvement is needed
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Field visits: development agents and group leaders make field visits to evaluate the activities
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
Explain:

This approach is prepared by land users because at the time of last approach/ mass mobilization where all are working in one watershed the other area was damaged. So some farmers decided to work on ther lands with their families.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. the one assigned as an expert is responsible in facilitating implementation schedual.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

បាទ/ចា៎

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • SWC specialists
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • demonstration areas
Subjects covered:

general and frequent traing and followup

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

បាទ/ចា៎

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Training and visit; Key elements: training, demonstration, followup; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 2) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: planning, surveying, constructio and evaluation

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; there should be further empowerment through training

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?

បាទ/ចា៎

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: number of farmers practising SLM measures

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: amount of work done

technical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: quality of work

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: extent of work done

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurement

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

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national): 3.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 97.0%

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

ទេ

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 and expansion of the technology

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

Almost all land users used this approach because it is easy to adapt with the local condition.

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 is a problem of in provision of adequate training, inputs. In some cases there is a problem of dipossing exess water safely therefore it needs a closed technical support and follow up

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
decrease lands that can be degraded more and improve the production of land (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: training, follow up)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
improve the attituede of farmers on conservation works (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: it shoud be supported through training, motivation/ rewarding and follow up)

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

ម៉ូឌុល