Til(! IIllIill ohjeclive of this paper is 10 study the allitude of hell eficiaries towards thern1I/{/llIIgelllellt iss lies ill FFW and the impacts of FFW ill ilia ted soil conservatioll /'/IeaSllres allrnellvirOlllllellt. It is also the ail1l of this paper to analyze the factors that determine the .Ii,turern,,"stlliIOhility 0/ FFW illitiated soil conservatioll activities. The shulV is based all a SlIrve)! ofrnISO hellds ofhollseholds who were random IV selectedfro/1/ Alaba Wereda. TI1 addilioll. focl/srngrollp discussiolls alld key informant interviel'VS were also condUCled wilh henejiciaries.rnWerelia ofliclllis. I'll leaders, alld staffji-olll the implelllellting agellcy to get all ill-depth insighlrn011 Ihase issl/es Ihat are 110t adequately addressed ill the survey lII ethod. Secolldwy datarnsOl/rces sl/ch liS CSA reports, project documents alld CIIl/1ual reports produced hy Ihernilllplelll elllillg IIgency were also reviewed. The study brought together ideas ji-olll directrnhellefirillries. implelllenting agellcy, government officials, and other stakeholders. it is arnlieseriplive alld evaluative sll/dy, and both the descriptive statistical lIIethods and qualilativern(/lwl)!sis Ivere elllployed ill the study as methodologicallools.rn7/lcfol/olVillg lire the lIIajorfilldings of th e stue!y: I) FFW belleficiaries have 1101 raken part illrndecisioll-lIlllkillg process at different levels in FFW programming, alld hence gellerally the)!rnhave nega/ive attitude towards management issues ill FFW; 2) BeJl eficiaries preferredrnhioiogicill soil cOllservation measures to the physical measures as the former have a IllOrernliirecl alld shon-tCl'III economic benefits than the laller. As a result, the hiological and physicalrnsoil cOllserValiOIl lIIeasures were IIOt well-integrated to hring about a suslaillable impact 011rnellvil'OlIlIIellt: 3) Dlle to restrictive CUStOIllS alld traditiolls ill Ihe study area, alld due to the lackrnof COlllnlitl/Wli1 of the FFW programme to address women's needs, gender issues were 1I0t Ivel/addressedrnill tlie FFW progralllllle.rnThere/ore. {/I I illlporlilliliessoll drawnJi'oll! this study is that beneficiaries should he ill valved inrntlie riecisioll -Illukilig process at all /eve/s in FFW progral11l11illg. alld adequate e/'llphasis has tornhe givell 10 Ihe prolllotioll a/' cOllservatioll knowledge allc/ praclice. alld to gender issues illrnorder 10 II/f1Xilllize tlie ell virollmental impacts of tlie FFW illitiated soil cOliservatiollrnIJrogmlllllle. """ 10 ensure Ihe .li ,ture sustaillability of soil cOllservatioll (lctivilies ullderlakellrntllrougll FFW. Th e stur/v "/0'0 attelllpts to draw addiliollal illsights ill the use olIood as allrncfJixtive loolfor {Icliicvillg the I/Illch aspired environmental rehabilitatioll objective, "lid as allrne/Jcctive toolfor reducillgfood aid dependellcy alld achievillg self-sufficiency.