15.2 How to engage communities in road development

How to engage communities in road development

TABLE 15.2

RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Major choices on multifunctionality Road alignment to optimize environ mental functions specific to local opportunities

RELATED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

INFRASTRUCTURE USAGE Choice of type of economic opportuni ties to promote

Choice of supporting transport measures Decisions on use of road reserves

INFRASTRUCTURE FEATURES

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Road alignment selection Decisions on type of contract and construction method

Local government Representative interest groups Stakeholder dialogue

STAGE OF ROAD DEVELOPMENT Conceptualization and planning Special economic zones Identification of measures and locations for road-water management

Freeing up land for side activities Consultation on location of road drainage structures

Roadside tree planting concessions

Design to accommo date specific transport Consultation on location of water-harvesting structures and borrow pits Community and individual develop - ment of roadside water management infrastructure

Community conces sions “Start-up” contractors Training in income- generating activities Additional provisions

n.a.

Design of roads and water crossings and additional measures Freeing up land for road and road reserves Community contracts Agreement on interface in participation

Community discussion Local government Participatory methods Consultation with other parties

Design and preparation Community road construction groups Start-up contractors Community contributions in land and labor

Community groups Local government

Construction of road and water infrastructure Participatory methods Complaint-handling mecha nisms Maintenance and rebuilding of water structures assigned to individuals as part of their responsibility

Roadside tree planting

Community road safety measures

Community road maintenance groups or contracting societies

Community groups Local government

Maintenance and continuing care

Source: MetaMeta, ( www.roadsforwater.org ). Note: n.a. = not applicable.

first, soil and water conservation would focus on both cultivated and uncultivated land. The farmers who farm the land should primarily conserve the cultivated land, and watersheds should be conserved by public mobilization. Compared with the more scattered intervention in earlier years, the new approach helped create a density of interventions that ensured a systemic change in the landscape. second, in addition to erosion control, the new approach placed more emphasis on harvesting water and retaining moisture. In practice, this meant using several new techniques. for instance, in low-rainfall zones infiltration ditches were added to the stone bunds so that more water was used for recharge, and storage ponds were added to the trench measures.

The work was undertaken through the use of free labor in the off-season under the so-called mass mobilization campaigns. Under this arrangement, every able-bodied community member was required to work 20–40 days each year, free of any payment. There were norms as to what was to be done in a day’s work; for instance: for a man, 5 meters of stone bund was to be completed in a day’s work. The norm for women was half that for men. The work was done in the off-season, January to March, with a smaller campaign in June and July. In addition to the free labor, contributions from the Productive safety net Program were integrated with the soil and water conservation program. Under the Productive safety net Program, chronically food-insecure people were registered and provided with work opportunities for payment in cash or in kind.

The amount of work that can be done this way is enormous. In contrast to earlier initiatives, the program was very popular (photo 15.2). The starting point was local planning, and the results were significant. The work was usually accompanied by festive events such as rallies and meetings. By concentrating on one section of a watershed at a time, and not spreading resources too thin, the program organized intensive efforts and usually produced quickly noticeable results.

In addition to the collective work, farmers also invested substantially in their own land improvement (leveling, terracing, soil improvement), and in some places developed wells. Local planning and implementation—something that was missing from earlier efforts—has been one key to the program’s success. Capacity building consisted of the following:

• The regional Bureau of agriculture provided training and planning support to the districts (woredas). • Woredas provided training and support to village clusters. • Village clusters (in coordination with woreda representatives) offered training to farmers at subcatchments. • Local experts and farmer-leaders made a watershed plan for each watershed. • Groups of five farmers worked together and combined their efforts in groups of 25. The location of the water storage and drainage structures was planned locally, with farmers setting out stakes

The strong, locally driven initiative was a break from the previous soil and water conservation efforts. In previous programs, people mainly participated to receive food for survival, and often were unaware of the impact that soil and water conservation activities could achieve. Implementation at scale also meant rapid environmental changes, as evidenced by the reemergence of springs, the regulation of local flows, and the growth of indigenous trees. These results fueled the