The Attitude of Food-For-Work Beneficiaries towards the Implementation and Impacts of Food-For-Work Programmed

No Thumbnail Available



Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title


Addis Ababa University


Til(! IIllIill ohjeclive of this paper is 10 study the allitude of hell eficiaries towards the 1I/{/llIIgelllellt iss lies ill FFW and the impacts of FFW ill ilia ted soil conservatioll /'/IeaSllres all ellvirOlllllellt. It is also the ail1l of this paper to analyze the factors that determine the .Ii,ture ,,"stlliIOhility 0/ FFW illitiated soil conservatioll activities. The shulV is based all a SlIrve)! of ISO hellds ofhollseholds who were random IV selectedfro/1/ Alaba Wereda. TI1 addilioll. focl/s grollp discussiolls alld key informant interviel'VS were also condUCled wilh henejiciaries. Werelia ofliclllis. I'll leaders, alld staffji-olll the implelllellting agellcy to get all ill-depth insighl 011 Ihase issl/es Ihat are 110t adequately addressed ill the survey lII ethod. Secolldwy data sOl/rces sl/ch liS CSA reports, project documents alld CIIl/1ual reports produced hy Ihe illlplelll elllillg IIgency were also reviewed. The study brought together ideas ji-olll direct hellefirillries. implelllenting agellcy, government officials, and other stakeholders. it is a lieseriplive alld evaluative sll/dy, and both the descriptive statistical lIIethods and qualilative (/lwl)!sis Ivere elllployed ill the study as methodologicallools. 7/lcfol/olVillg lire the lIIajorfilldings of th e stue!y: I) FFW belleficiaries have 1101 raken part ill decisioll-lIlllkillg process at different levels in FFW programming, alld hence gellerally the)! have nega/ive attitude towards management issues ill FFW; 2) BeJl eficiaries preferred hioiogicill soil cOllservation measures to the physical measures as the former have a IllOre liirecl alld shon-tCl'III economic benefits than the laller. As a result, the hiological and physical soil cOllserValiOIl lIIeasures were IIOt well-integrated to hring about a suslaillable impact 011 ellvil'OlIlIIellt: 3) Dlle to restrictive CUStOIllS alld traditiolls ill Ihe study area, alld due to the lack of COlllnlitl/Wli1 of the FFW programme to address women's needs, gender issues were 1I0t Ivel/addressed ill tlie FFW progralllllle. There/ore. {/I I illlporlilliliessoll drawnJi'oll! this study is that beneficiaries should he ill valved in tlie riecisioll -Illukilig process at all /eve/s in FFW progral11l11illg. alld adequate e/'llphasis has to he givell 10 Ihe prolllotioll a/' cOllservatioll knowledge allc/ praclice. alld to gender issues ill order 10 II/f1Xilllize tlie ell virollmental impacts of tlie FFW illitiated soil cOliservatioll IJrogmlllllle. """ 10 ensure Ihe .li ,ture sustaillability of soil cOllservatioll (lctivilies ullderlakell tllrougll FFW. Th e stur/v "/0'0 attelllpts to draw addiliollal illsights ill the use olIood as all cfJixtive loolfor {Icliicvillg the I/Illch aspired environmental rehabilitatioll objective, "lid as all e/Jcctive toolfor reducillgfood aid dependellcy alld achievillg self-sufficiency.



Attitude of Food-For-Work