MODULE C ODXP PREVENTION & RECOVERY World Food Programme Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual MODULE C: PLANNING OF FFA – PROCESSES IN SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION Once you have conducted your context analysis and built your FFA rationale (Module B), the next step is to identify the specific FFA interventions you plan for your country. Your plan will need to consider the prioritization of your interventions according to geographical, livelihood and capacity factors. Involved throughout this process is the involvement of the communities whom will benefit from your intervention. This includes participatory planning at the community level to validate and fine-tune individual intervention details and to ensure they fit into the longer-term goals of the community.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MODULE C
ODXP
PREVENTION & RECOVERY
World Food Programme
Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) Manual
MODULE C: PLANNING OF FFA – PROCESSES IN SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION
Once you have conducted your context analysis and built your FFA rationale (Module B), the next step is to identify the specific FFA interventions you plan for your country. Your plan will need to consider the prioritization of your interventions according to geographical, livelihood and capacity factors. Involved throughout this process is the involvement of the communities whom will benefit from your intervention. This includes participatory planning at the community level to validate and fine-tune individual intervention details and to ensure they fit into the longer-term goals of the community.
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
FFA Manual Module C (2011): version 1. This module was published and made electronically available in July 2011. Where relevant, this module supersedes previous guidance on FFA interventions. Please inform ODXP’s Prevention and Recovery team if you identify outdated information that causes confusion with the information presented here. Any updates to Module C will be outlined below (and include page numbers) to allow FFA practitioners with an older version to identify where changes have occurred:
No changes as yet.
i
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
MODULE C: PLANNING SPECIFIC FFA INTERVENTIONS – IDENTIFYING THE APPRORIATE FFA INTERVENTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
C1. OVERVIEW 2
FROM RESEARCH TO PLANNING 2
C2. IDENTIFYING, SELECTING & PRIORITISING SPECIFIC FFA INTERVENTIONS 3
USING YOUR FFA RATIONALE AND OUTLINING YOUR FFA PLAN 3
MENU OF FFA INTERVENTIONS 4
TARGETING: SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION FOR THE CONTEXT 6
OPTIMIZE SELF-HELP AND COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION 7
PARTNER COVERAGE AND CAPACITY, AND LOW/HIGH-TECH INTERVENTIONS 9
C3. PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES AND PLANNING 14
WHY PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ARE IMPORTANT FOR FFA INTERVENTIONS 14
WHAT A COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE 17
TYPES OF PARTICIPATORY CONTEXTS 18
1
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FFA MANUAL:
Overall WFP uses approximately 12 to 15 percent of its yearly resources for assets restoration, rehabilitation
or creation under emergency, recovery and enabling development operations. Most countries receiving
food assistance increasingly promote policies and strategies requiring various forms of conditional transfers
(productive safety nets, special operations to improve access to food, disaster risk reduction, and resilience
building). It is therefore important for WFP staff (and its partners) to meet these challenges and emerging
demands. The purpose of this manual is to strengthen WFP staff understanding of the contexts that require
FFA, their selection and programmatic coherence to WFP global and local commitments, as well as main
design aspects.
The manual is divided into five modules and includes a number of Annexes:
Module A provides the overall rationale and framework for FFA within the WFP toolbox of assistance
Module B provides the analytical lens in which to determine if FFA is appropriate within specific
contexts
Module C helps define the specific FFA projects to be undertaken within these specific contexts,
depending on various factors
Module D provides the practical elements of implementing FFA
Module E provides the key elements that informs M&E for FFA
Caveats
. A limitation of this FFA manual is that it cannot be fully comprehensive – the nature of FFA can be so
diverse that it would be impossible to capture all possible approaches and interventions. Therefore, this
guidance focuses largely on the response options and assets that are commonly related to WFP operations.
. A second limitation relates to the range of response options and FFA interventions related to pastoral and
urban settings. These are simply insufficient as documented experience regarding FFA from these areas has
been limited. However, there has been increased attention in several CO to both pastoral and urban
livelihoods in recent years that will bring further lessons and best practices. Furthermore, the current FFA
guidance is largely built upon documented evidence from a few countries where FFA have demonstrated
significant impact and have been documented both in terms of the processes that lead to positive results to
technical standards and work norms. It became clear to the authors that there are several other countries
with important experience (past or recent) that could not be taken into consideration or only marginally in
the drafting of these guidelines because of insufficient information. Another limitation is the level of
insufficient research information regarding FFA under different programmed contexts and the often
anecdotal assumptions that tend to underplay the role and impacts of FFA (positive and negative).
. A final limitation is the lack of guidance on Food for Training (FFT) which is largely absent in these
guidelines as cutting across all programmed design components (school, feeding, HIVAIDS, nutrition, etc). In
relation to FFA, these guidelines include FFT only in relation to the range of assets that would impact on
disaster risk reduction and resilience building.
2
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
C1. OVERVIEW
Once you have conducted your context analysis and built your FFA rationale (Module B), the next step is to
identify the specific FFA interventions you plan for your country. Your plan will need to consider the
prioritization of your interventions according to geographical, livelihood and capacity factors. Involved
throughout this process is the involvement of the communities whom will benefit from your intervention.
This includes participatory planning at the community level to validate and fine-tune individual intervention
details and to ensure they fit into the longer-term goals of the community.
FROM RESEARCH TO PLANNING
Based on your context analysis (Module B), where research has helped you identify the seasonal livelihood
programming rationale most appropriate to help communities respond to shocks within specific
environmental zones, the next step is to plan your specific FFA interventions.
Your FFA rationale at this stage has
identified broader objectives.
Within these objectives, various
specific intervention options may
exist – a FFA “menu” of possible
interventions which could achieve
these objectives. It is necessary to
review these various options and
identify and plan the best options
for actual implementation. In this
module, this menu of options is
outlined based on the broader
course/objective selected.
At the same time, your overall
rationale may be relevant for a
broad range of locations and
communities, but due to lack of
resources, needs, capacities and
time on the ground, will likely
require prioritization of
interventions to only a sub-set of such locations and communities. This module helps guide you on how to
prioritize FFA in your specific country setting and programmed category (e.g. EMOP, PRRO, CP/DEV).
In particular is the need to ensure that the communities where specific interventions are to be implemented
continue to be consulted throughout the whole process. Participatory planning is especially important. A
powerful tool in the FFA toolbox, participatory planning can help the practitioner validate with the
community which intervention is relevant – or requires refinement, in particular to ensure it would meet the
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
MAIN INTERVENTION AREAS (AND COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES)
1. Physical soil and water conservation
1.1. Level Soil Bund
1.2. Stone Bunds
1.3. Stone Faced Soil Bund
1.4. Level Fanya Juu
1.5. Bench Terracing
1.6. Conservation Tillage using local plow
1.7. Broad Bed and Furrows Maker (BBM)
1.8. Hillside Terraces
1.9. Hillside Terrace with Trenches
2. Flood control and improved drainage
2.1. Waterways (Vegetative and Stone Paved)
2.2. Cut-off Drains
2.3. Graded Soil Bund
2.4. Graded Fanya Juu
2.5. Improved Surface Drainage for Increasing
Productivity of Vertisols and Soils with Vertic
Properties
3. Water harvesting
3.1. Hand-dug Wells
3.2. Low cost Water Lifting
3.3. Low Cost Micro-ponds
3.4. Underground Cisterns (Hemispherical, Dome cap, Bottle
Shape, Sphere, Sausage shape)
3.5. Percolation pit
3.6. Percolation Pond
3.7. Farm Pond Construction
3.8. Spring Development
3.9. Family Drip Irrigation System
3.10. Roof Water Harvesting System
3.11. Farm Dam Construction
3.12. River-bed or Permeable Rock Dams
3.13. Small Stone Bunds with Run-on and Run- off Areas
3.14. Narrow Stone Lines Along the Contours (Staggered Alternatively)
3.15. Stone Faced/Soil or Stone Bunds with Run-off/ Run-on Areas
3.16. Conservation Bench Terraces (s) (CBT(s))
3.17. Tie Ridge (s)
3.18. The Zai and Planting Pit System
3.19. Large Half Moons (Staggered Alternatively)
3.20. Diversion Weir Design and Construction
4. Soil fertility management and biological soil
conservation
4.1. Compost Making
4.2. Fertilization and Manuring
4.3. Live Checkdams
4.4. Mulching and Crop Residues Management
4.5. Grass Strips along the Contours
4.6. Stabilization of physical Structures and Farm
Boundaries
4.7. Vegetative Fencing
4.8. Ley Cropping
4.9. Integration of Food/Feed Legumes into Cereal
Cropping Systems
4.10. Intercropping
4.11. Crop Rotation
4.12. Strip Cropping
5. Agro-forestry, forage development and forestry
5.1. Area Closure
5.2. Micro-basins (MBs)
5.3. Eyebrow Basins (EBs)
5.4. Herring bones (HBs)
5.5. Micro-trenches (MTRs)
5.6. Trenches
5.7. Improved Pits (IP)
5.8. Multi-storey Gardening
5.9. Seed Collection
6. Gully Control
6.1. Stone Checkdams
6.2. Brushwood Checkdams
6.3. Gully Reshaping, Filling and Re-vegetation
6.4. Sediment Storage and Overflow Earth Dams (SS
Dams) for Productive Gully Control
6.5. Sediment Storage and Overflow Soil Bunds (SS
Bunds)
7. Feeder roads
7.1 R1 Earth road on flat and rolling terrain – stable soils
7.2 R2 Earth road on mountainous terrain–stable soils
7.3 R3 Graveled road on flat and rolling terrain – sandy or weak
soils
7.4 R4 Graveled road on mountainous terrain – weak soils
7.5 R5 Graveled road on flat and rolling terrain– black
cotton soils
7.6 R6 Road on escarpment
7.7 R7 Typical pipe culvert using concrete rings
7.8 R8 Standard drift
6
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
There are also Info-techs (one page per intervention) provided in Annex D-1 that provide a basic set of info
for planning and implementation. More elaborate one to two page Info-techs are also found in Part 1 of the
Ethiopia Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) Planning Guidelines (Ethiopia
MOARD, 2005) which is indicated as a main reference document for participatory watershed planning. The
CBPWD is fully owned by the Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MOARD) and
developed by a number of stakeholders, including a significant WFP contribution through the MERET1
programmed.
Each info-tech uses a standard format that provides basic information about the intervention. Such technical
guides do not apply to all contexts where WFP operates, although their application in the described form has
proven to be relevant in a number of countries and can be replicated in many more. It is therefore
recommended that at the initial stages, the measures outlined in the info-techs are tested at a small scale
and their performance observed. Many of these techniques make reference to possible modifications to
their original design and integration requirements.
Choosing from your menu of options is however not just linked to the “best-fit” technical solution to a
setting, as practical elements such as those to help undertaken the implementation may significantly
influence the final choice. Of particular importance is the coverage and capacity of partners in the local
setting.
TARGETING: SELECTING THE MOST APPROPRIATE FFA INTERVENTION FOR THE CONTEXT
FFA targeting normally involves two main tiers. At the highest level, during the context-analysis of project
design (Module B), the targeting exercise focuses on outlining the groups most vulnerable and in need of
WFP assistance. The second tier is explained in this module, and uses the broader context-analysis as its
parameters to help prioritize by selecting locations and groups that would benefit the most from a FFA
intervention. Additional technical considerations (see for example Gender in Module D) are then used to
fine tune targeting criteria for specific FFA interventions that may target specific groups or the broad
community (ies) to fulfill specific technical requirements and objectives (for example a feeder road or water
dam).
In this second tier, the FFA practitioner is likely to face the situation where there is a limited amount of
resources (including food, partner and government capacity and complementary assistance), and yet a high
demand for FFA interventions. In such scenarios, questions of prioritization need to focus on the questions
of whether your FFA interventions target:
(i) The geographical locations which best-fit your FFA rationale. Based on your context analysis, is the
intervention site more affected by the impact/frequency/likelihood of the shock to be addressed,
compared to other locations? Such a shock may have been particularly prevalent in a certain agro-
climatic zone – does this location fall within this zone?
1 Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transitions – MERET means also “Land” in the national language
Amharic. MERET is largely a risk reduction programme through participatory community based watershed rehabilitation of degraded lands and community empowerment.
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
C3. PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES AND PLANNING “Beneficiary participation is an essential ingredient in the successful and effective implementation of recovery
activities. Through participatory approaches, WFP can initiate developmental activities that strengthen
community organizational capacity for economic, social and physical recovery.”
(WFP’s ‘From Crisis to Recovery’ policy, 1998)
Key terms in this section:
Participation: a people-centered approach which has the highest probability of success because it offers
the potential to strengthen the voice of the most vulnerable.
Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): a method of involving rural people, their knowledge and views
within the planning, implementation and management of projects that aim to assist them.
The importance of planning with communities: A simple basic village or community-level participatory
planning approach improves people’s participation and increased sense of ownership over assets created or
rehabilitated, with a positive impact on management and sustainability. Participatory planning procedures
can be used by communities to identify viable projects, enhance participation of food insecure households
and of the community. Community level decision-making and targeting may be strengthened, particularly if
the most vulnerable, youth and women are involved in FFA project selection, design and implementation.
The approach can also help identify and promote self-help efforts within the community on needs outside of
the FFA intervention scope.
Participatory planning approaches are required to select and design appropriate FFA interventions. Some of
these interventions require that more than one community develops its plan (e.g. one mini-plan can be
developed the five villages a feeder road plans to cross in a given district). Depending on the circumstances,
plans can be developed by the community with limited help from local partners, with support instead
provided to a village level planning team selected by each community to develop these plans. In a number
of villages, existing facilitation teams can also expand their role and carry out the planning work with the
support of district level and NGO staff.
A local level plan also acts as a baseline of what exists prior to an intervention, providing WFP and partners
with the information that will allow tracking of the performance of the different measures implemented and
the progresses made in terms of food security.
WHY PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ARE IMPORTANT FOR FFA INTERVENTIONS
One of the most essential elements that determines success or failure of FFA interventions throughout the
world is people’s participation. There is ample literature regarding participatory planning – in Africa, Asia
and Latin America. During the last two to three decades, most NGOs and UN agencies have developed
participatory planning approaches and tools; some of these approaches have been very good and practical
while others have been cumbersome and difficult to apply. The PGM includes various tool kits that can be
15
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
referred to for overall guidance. However, the following focus on the relevance of participatory planning
specific to FFA. Most specifically, this section explains a variety of strategies and tools used for Community-
Based Participatory Planning (CBPP) as well as the minimum requirements for engaging in CBPP.
Considerable attention to participatory planning is necessary also from a gender perspective, as it often
emerges that one of the most important elements in planning is working to know how to involve women and
improve their participation in FFA design, implementation and especially management.
Planning approaches range from simple to moderately complex, based upon local capacity and experience
from partners and/or government technical staff. These approaches have the aim to achieve five key
objectives, to:
1. Improve targeting and seasonal livelihood analysis for enhanced response analysis and design:
Participatory planning allows discussions around vulnerability issues and makes provision for the
participation of most vulnerable groups in planning and as priority groups for food assistance. It also
helps identify what FFA activities are required and when, based on seasonal calendars and priorities.
2. Enhance women and most vulnerable households’ participation in planning, decision-making and
implementation: The introduction of local level planning should empower women and marginalized
groups as they become an integral part of planning teams. These groups should participate in the
decisions on the range of FFA interventions to implement, and to benefit from specific assets that
contribute to improve their social status and level of food security.
3. Prioritize FFA interventions and improve their technical design and implementation: Local level
planning allows for better prioritization of FFA and their selection based upon, needs, realistic targets
and technical requirements based on local capacity (which need to include both community level and
implementing partners’ capacity).
4. Improve the quality and sustainability of FFA interventions: Local level planning allows for greater
social and technical interactions (such as the description of land use, farming system and watershed
delineation and interactions, technical standards and integration of interventions, etc) which have a
positive effect on the design of different FFA and on quality aspects. It also increases sense of ownership
over assets created and their management, hence sustainability.
5. Improve FFA effectiveness and foster partnerships at the local level to improve food security: Local
level planning helps WFP and stakeholders to optimize the use of existing resources, often promoting
self-help efforts, and building a strong case for additional support through developing partnerships, as
local level plans can include a number of interventions that require other partners’ inputs and support.
There is close link between participatory planning, capacity development, contexts & risks (slow or rapid
onset disasters) and seasonal livelihood analysis. These aspects will influence the type of approach to choose
for planning, and the design of FFA interventions in different contexts, including the possibility to expand or
reduce specific FFA interventions during a shock.
It is important to underline that for FFA participatory planning is intended to include technical aspects as an
integral part of what makes participation work – this is an aspect not often well covered in participatory
planning approaches. Commonly, considerable efforts are put into participatory planning tools, problem
16
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
Box 4. WFP corporate guidance on participation can be found in the following PGM site http://pgm.wfp.org/index.php/Topics:Participation#WFP.27s_commitment_to_participation
Amongst a number of useful references, the following main levels of participation, as identified below, are key stages in
a participatory process and are critical to retain:
I. Information sharing;
II. Consultation (two-way flow of information);
III. Collaboration (shared control over decision-making);
IV. Empowerment (transfer of control over decisions and resources).
An IFPRI/WFP brief (2008) explains the relevance of community participation and capacity development aspects – this
reference further supports the rationale for pursuing local level planning in FFA design and implementation:
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
TYPES OF PARTICIPATORY CONTEXTS
Before choosing a participatory planning approach, considerations should be given towards:
The key criteria to consider before choosing a given approach
Feasibility of participatory planning for FFA during emergencies, short duration PRROs, or in coercive
contexts
The approach and tools that should be chosen based on local capacity
To reconcile participatory planning with the need to reach many beneficiaries and communities at once
(e.g. can “starting small and doable” interventions match the imperative of reaching scale?)
Whether participatory planning will foster self-help efforts
Tailoring the participatory approach to your context:
There are various types of participatory contexts that may be seen around the world. FFA and related
planning approaches need to be developed based on the common situations where WFP operates and that
Box 5. Technical considerations for participatory planning:
Considering the common situations and the key questions (above), five technical aspects are required to be analyzed
when selecting or developing a planning approach:
(i) Biophysical context and livelihoods. Planning will follow different approaches and territorial units based on whether communities are located in areas that are arid, semi-arid, mountainous, flood prone, or peri-urban. The different type of livelihood will significantly influence whether to focus on the entire community, groups and/or single households depending on social cohesion, land tenure issues, cultural dynamics and seasonal patterns.
(ii) Institutional approach and involvement. Participatory planning will be influenced by whether government institutions follow a top-down or bottom-up approach (or a mix of both); whether it has a well organized extension system or not, a centralized or decentralized structure; and whether there are specific planning approaches already in place that can be followed or are largely absent.
(iii) Capacity of partners (government, NGOs, etc) and WFP. There are countries with robust capacity for grassroots level planning because of years of experience in promoting different planning methods through pilots and community based planning efforts. There are also countries where this experience is largely found within government structures while others in NGOs – or both.
Capacity for participatory planning within WFP is also variable – specific CO have robust capacity because they have assisted institutions and partners develop participatory planning approaches, while other CO have minimal or no capacity.
(iv) Vulnerability profile. Planning approaches will be influenced by the type of vulnerability and by who are the
most affected. Some approaches will require a very inclusive modality as food insecurity is highly pervasive
while other approaches will need to reconcile the need to target specific affected marginalized groups while
meeting overall community demands.
(v) Partnership level. The type of planning approach is also influenced by the range of partners present in specific
parts of the country where FFA are intended to be implemented. In general, participatory approaches that tend
to integrate different components require competent local institutions and/or NGOs partners able to deal with
the complex range of demands that communities provide through the planning process. If this is not possible,
planning approaches need to be simple and developed to address a few problems.
19
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
relate specifically to FFA. Below are four common situations found in the WFP context (although there are
many more contexts possible to consider):
The understanding of these common situations helps field staff to respond to determine the following,
- Situation 1: Top-down or largely coercive institutional environments that follow specific government
directives regarding extension and planning approaches in the field. Rural communities and farmers
have limited decision-making and follow orders from the top. Under such contexts, participatory
approaches are often pursued via NGOs (when available) albeit often in limited number and coverage. In
such contexts it is common that policies of the government require that WFP and any other partners’
resources are used as conditional transfers in the form of labour-based FFA.
- Situation 2: A mix of semi-coercive institutional environments and attempts of bottom-up planning co-
exists in a number of countries where WFP operates. This is often the result of years of interaction and
relationships built by WFP and partners with specific institutions (particularly ministries of agriculture,
natural resources, environment and others) that have resulted in piloting new approaches and the
gradual dissemination of lessons learned. In these contexts, there are often new policies and strategies
that are conducive to or include elements of participatory planning, that declare the need to empower
vulnerable groups, and that acknowledge the need to pursue more integrated food security efforts. A
greater number of NGOs and UN partners closely work with government institutions. This is often an
evolution from situation 1 above.
- Situation 3: A largely non-coercive institutional environment, supportive of participatory approaches,
but with limited capacity at various levels, or lacking robust and decentralized outreach with insufficient
and poorly equipped staff. In several of these contexts there are numerous NGOs operating in the field,
not always closely supportive of government institutions and directly focused at community level. There
are many different approaches followed, limited coordination and lack of common technical and
planning standards. There is often a tendency to have numerous small projects, few well integrated
efforts, and insufficient attention paid to capacity development of local institutions.
- Situation 4: A weak or highly-constrained institutional environment, particularly in countries emerging
from conflict and/or years of complex emergencies. Often, government institutions are receptive to
bottom-up approaches but are inadequately staffed and lack trained personnel, particularly at district
and community levels. Most of the NGOs will have experience in humanitarian assistance and only few
on recovery and longer-term food security interventions.
Some starting points will include:
(i) Stocktaking what is available in terms of planning: In most countries there are a number of
participatory planning approaches that have been or are currently in use by different partners, often
also during emergencies or protracted emergencies. Many of them include FFA (CFW or FFW) and
can be used as entry points. Stocktaking and learning from these approaches should be a first step.
20
FFA Manual Module C: Planning Specific FFA Interventions
(ii) Adapt from existing experiences: WFP or WFP partners have developed planning tools in a number
of countries tailored to different contexts – they may not be entirely replicable but they include
aspects of planning and technical elements that can be used and adapted to local contexts.
(iii) When capacity is low make it simple: The approaches to use in contexts with low capacity need to
be very simple – as simple need to be the type of FFA to select and implement. It is often within this
scenario that several FFA projects fail because impossible to implement with existing low capacity.
(iv) Participation in top-down environments is possible: It is possible to introduce participatory
planning at community level in countries where institutional settings and approaches are largely
coercive or top-down. These approaches, however, need to be carefully packaged and introduced
through well accepted NGOs or Government institutions open to test or introduce participatory
approaches and tools. It can be as simple as establishing a relief and planning committee in each
community, undertake a mapping exercise, and completing a plan that captures the needs and
priorities of different groups.
(v) Scaling up participatory planning is possible for simple approaches that relate to a limited and
“low-tech” range of FFA interventions: Simple processes can be identified and formats and planning
tools provided to implementing partners. Although simple, these approaches and their scaling
up/application will require some time depending on the capacity of implementing partners.
(vi) Specific set of FFA related to resilience building, land degradation, risk reduction and adaptation
to climate shocks often requires community-based participatory watershed planning: In agrarian
systems, attention to watershed principles and interactions is critical for planning, designing and
implementing FFA and complementary interventions.
Ideally, community-based participatory watershed planning should be adopted as a main approach
for FFA in most degraded agrarian systems. This is not always possible due to capacity constraints.
However, field staff and partners should be made aware of basic watershed principles and use them
for both simple or more complex form of planning. To this effect, the description of the relevance of
watershed principles included in Module B of the FFA guidelines is a good starting point to think FFA
interventions as integral part of watershed and people’s planning.
(vii) Participatory planning supports self-help efforts: any participatory planning process should
generate self-help efforts which are provided in addition to FFA. Communities and individual
households can contribute a significant amount of the planned assets as self-help, mass mobilization
and solidarity driven efforts targeted to assist the poorest members of a community. A number of
such initiatives are generated from participatory planning processes and dialogue.