conflicts of indigenous farming practices and modern ... · generally, the konso community are...

Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology B 5 (2015) 589-600 doi: 10.17265/2161-6264/2015.09.001

Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern

Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia

Yohannes Gebre Michael

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 33569, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Abstract: The study attempted to understand indigenous small farming systems and its challenges with the framework of agricultural modernisation in Konso community, Southern Ethiopia. There were 400 household heads from different wealth rank and farming practices considered for in-depth interview. This was completed by focus group discussions and plot level investigations. The findings indicated that the community and landscape are characterized by heterogeneity, implying the challenges of introducing standard modern agricultural technologies. Moreover, the community has wide range of indigenous soil and water conservation (SWC) measures geared to production and protection. For example, in a single plot with a size of less than 0.4 ha, it was possible to produce up to 35 plant spices with multiple functions. The evaluation of the modern agricultural extension services by the community indicates that about 17% was found to be positive in line to diffusion of new technologies and rehabilitation of degraded lands. However, the strengths seem to be offset by the weaknesses (61%) with respect to food security, resilience to drought, synergy with indigenous knowledge, empowerment in decision-making. The findings underlined that to assure food security and sustainable resource management, creating policy environment for holistic and integrated approach, supporting indigenous practices and empowering community in decision making are fundamental.

Key words: Indigenous practices, modern technology, extension service, empowerment, sustainability.

1. Introduction

Today more than 80% of the population in Ethiopia

is depending on agriculture, while this sector

contributes about 46% of the national GDP.

Accordingly, the Ethiopian government have designed

different polices and strategies to achieve the vision of

becoming a middle income state by 2025. The

different polices, including the growth and

transformation plan (GTP) and establishment of the

agricultural transformation agency (ATA), are some

of the strategic interventions to address the vision of

food security and growth. However, in the course of

agrarian revolution, indigenous knowledge has been

marginalized and made smallholder farmers more

vulnerable to famine and drought [1-4].

To this context, indigenous knowledge refers to the

knowledge and know-how accumulated across

Corresponding author: Yohannes Gebre Michael, Ph.D.,

research fields: indigenous knowledge, local innovation and natural resource management.

generations and renewed by each new generation,

which guide human societies in their innumerable

interactions with their surrounding environment [5].

Indigenous knowledge is also sometimes known by

other names and interchangeably used in different

contexts. These names include traditional knowledge,

traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), local

knowledge, farmers’ knowledge, folk knowledge and

indigenous science [6].

With the current global move towards sustainable

agriculture, indigenous knowledge is becoming a

point of departure, as it inherently embedded

eco-system approach and biodiversity in the practice

[5, 7-9]. Similarly, the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) have acknowledge the role of indigenous

knowledge and practices mainly in agro-forestry,

traditional medicine, biodiversity conservation and

customary resource management in adapting to climate

D DAVID PUBLISHING

Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia

590

Table 1 Family size classification in the study areas.

Category of household Lehayite Gewada Doketu

Average SD Average SD Average SD

Better-off 9.7 2.5 8.7 2.9 8.7 3.0

Medium 8.9 2.8 6.0 2.6 6.2 2.5

Poor 7.3 2.9 6.1 2.6 5.9 2.3

Woman-headed 4.2 2.7 4.0 1.9 3.9 1.7

and other changes [10]. An attempt was also made to

compare indigenous and modern agriculture with cost

benefit analysis of economic and environmental

indicators, and the indigenous practice was found to

be superior in many aspects [11, 12]. No doubt that

the green revolution has fundamental role in

addressing the food gap with the global population

growth. However, the undesired foot prints of green

revolution include increases in environmental

degradation, inequalities and marginalization of

indigenous people from decision making [3, 5, 13-15].

On the other hand, some researcher have come with

the critics that both farming practices have many

common denominators, and an attempt of creating

dichotomy between indigenous and modern farming

practices was not only artificial but problematic.

Hence, building a bridge between the two systems for

synergetic effect is proposed [12, 16].

Therefore, this study attempted to understand

indigenous small farming practices and its challenges

with the framework of agrarian transformation.

2. Study Area and Methodology

2.1 Profile of the Study Area

Konso special woreda is located in the Rift Valley

of South Western Ethiopia in the Southern Nations,

Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR)1. It lies

about 600 km South of Addis Ababa. In terms of the

Ethiopian agro-ecological zones, Konso has a dry

kolla agro-ecology in about 70% of the total land area

The current administrative hierarchy in Ethiopia from the highest to the lowest level is federal, regional, zonal, district (woreda) and sub-district (kebele). Some districts that are not part of a zone and function autonomously directly under the regional level are called “special woredas”.

and dry weyna dega in the remaining 30%. Konso has

bimodal rainfall: the main rains are locally known as

Hagaya (March-May) and the small rains as Katana

(September-November). The average annual rainfall is

797 mm, ranging from 519 mm to 1,094 mm. The soil

types are classified up to five major categories locally

based on their fertility, soil colour and slope. In 1994,

the total population of Konso special woreda was

about 152,106, and this grew to 235,087 in 2007,

which means that the population is growing by about

5% per year. Similarly, the average family size for the

better-off is nine people, while for the poor it was six

people and for woman-headed households it was four

people (Table 1). This also implies the challenges of

introducing standard extension services under labour

variability at household level.

Generally, the Konso community are selected as

study area fundamentally due to their deep rooted

indigenous soil and water conservation (SWC)

practices, recently register as United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) world heritage and paradoxically why the

same community are known for their chronic food

insecurity.

Accordingly, Konso district (woreda) has 50

kebeles2, including two urban kebeles. With the help

of persons, three kebeles were identified as study sites

on the basis of farming practice (oxen plough and hoe),

indigenous SWC and food insecurity. The three

kebeles selected were Lehayite, Gewada and Doketu.

The first two represent the kolla agro-ecological zone

and ox-ploughing farming system. The third kebele

2 The lowest administration unit of the government in rural areas; a sub-district.


591

(Doketu), including both kolla and weyna dega

agro-ecological zones, is dominated by hoe cultivation

and deep-rooted SWC practices.

2.2 Methodology

As shown in Table 2, a total of 398 household

heads were randomly selected from the list of wealth

categories in the respective kebeles for an in-depth

interview survey. In addition, a series of farmers’

group discussions (FGDs) was held with elders, local

leaders, women and youth, and individual

stakeholders, such as local healers, artisans,

development agents (DAs) and local administration

and government line offices.

This study was completed by observations of the

plots of better-off and poor households. A total of 27

households and their 80 fragmented plots were

observed with the support of a checklist.

3. Livelihood Bases

3.1 Land Tenure

There are different options to access land in Konso

area. The major source of access to land is inheritance

from family. However, some may also access land

temporary from the clan leader or poqalla. Others are

accessing land through the sharecropping and contract

agreements and some can also buy land.

The average fragmented number of farm plots per

household for the better-off farmer is five plots, while

for the poor it is about two plots (Table 3). The

average landholding per household in the study areas

is about 0.5 ha, but this varies with wealth rank and

between kebeles. As shown in Table 4, the

medium-wealth and poor households have less than 1

ha, while some of the better-off households use more

than 3 ha due to the additional farm coverage under

the contract of sharecropping with the poor who have

no access to oxen and labour power. Similarly, the

better-off households using the hoe with more than 2

ha are usually the poqalla. This implies the challenges

of introducing standard modern agricultural

technologies under heterogeneous resource bases.

3.2 Diversity of Livelihoods

The fundamental sources of livelihood in the rural

areas of Konso are crops and livestock (mixed

farming). In the ox-ploughing areas, different types of

cereals, pulses and oilseeds are produced, and cattle

and small ruminants are reared. In the hoe-farming

areas, cereals, pulses, oilseeds, tubers, coffee and

cotton are produced as components of agro-forestry

Table 2 Sample population with different wealth ranks.

Category of household

Kebeles Total %

Gewada Lehayite Doketu

Better-off 10 20 15 45 11

Medium 23 38 30 91 23

Poor 60 50 50 160 40

Ultra-poor: -Woman-headed -Landless

25 6

28 16

20 5

73 29

19 7

Total No. 124 152 120 398 100

Table 3 Number of plots observed in the study sites.

Location Wealth rank of households

No. of households

No. of plots

Gewada Better-off 3 15

Poor 3 7

Lehayite Better-off 3 16

Poor 3 6

Doketu Better-off 5 23

Poor 10 13

Total 27 80

Table 4 Household landholdings in ha (%).


Lehayite Gewada Doketu < 1.00 ha

1.01- 1.50 ha

1.51- 2.00 ha

2.01- 2.50 ha

< 1.00 ha

1.01- 1.50 ha

1.51- 2.00 ha

2.01- 2.50 ha

< 1.00 ha

1.01- 1.50 ha

1.51- 2.00 ha

2.01- 2.50 ha

Better-off 58 42 - - 40 60 - - 38 38 19 6

Medium 75 25 - - 100 - - 76 24 - -

Poor 100 - - - 100 - - 9 8 - -

Woman-head 100 - - - 100 - - - 75 5 - -


592

Table 5 Sources of livelihood.


Lehayite (%) Gewada (%) Doketu (%)

F T L PSNP F T L PSNP F T L PSNP

Better-off 100 30 40 4 100 47 7 5 100 20 10 4

Medium 100 15 15 5 91 100 12 20 62 9 11 18

Poor 49 65 55 70 64 72 18 70 47 22 14 37

Woman-head 75 50 3 80 44 60 5 63 60 45 10 72

F = mixed-farming, T = trade, L = labour, PSNP = productive safety net program.

systems with multipurpose trees for food, fodder,

medicine, timber and cash. Fattening of livestock is a

complementary activity in all wealth-rank groups;

some are also engaged on traditional beekeeping.

Many of the poor women household heads are

engaged on petty trade, such as selling local drinks

and attending periodical market days to sell different

crops and fruits. Some youth groups migrate

seasonally to neighbouring areas to work as farm

labourers. Most of the farmers are highly dependent

on the productive safety net program (PSNP)3, as part

of the agricultural extension system under the food

security programme (Table 5). Some are also

complementing their livelihoods with craftworks and

selling of firewood from both private and communal

land.

4. Farming Practices

To deal with the diversity and complexity of the

agro-ecological conditions in the Konso area,

including climate change and variability, the farmers

use a wide range of agricultural practices that can be

categorised into agronomic, biological and physical

measures.

4.1 Agronomic Measures

Mixed cropping or multiple cropping are widely

practised with cereals (sorghum, maize, finger millet,

wheat, barley and teff), pulses (pigeon pea, haricot

bean, chick pea, horse bean, lentil, mung bean), oil

3 The PSNP is mean to prevent asset depletion at the household level and create assets at the community level. With the transfer of food and cash, the target households are expected to work mainly on communal assets, including SWC, infrastructure (roads and water supply) and social services [17].

seeds (linseed, sunflower), tuber crops (taro, yam,

cassava, sweet potato, potato), tobacco, cotton and

vegetables (cabbage, pumpkin, onion, tomato).

Usually, with a minimum of seven different crops,

landrace are sown simultaneously and sequentially in

the double-cropping system over the two rainy

seasons. The growing period for the annual crops

ranges from 60 d to 180 d, and the rooting system of

the different crops varies from shallow to deep.

Other agronomic measures include timing of

sowing, seed rates, minimum tillage, green manure,

mulching, use of legumes, manuring and fallowing

with grass at specific sites. Crop rotation is widely

applied in the ox-ploughing system. Thinning and

sometimes replanting of finger millet and sorghum

land races are also widely practised as a way to deal

with poor germination or to prevent disease in the

crops, but also as a source of livestock feed to adapt to

climate variability. After harvesting crops, such as

finger millet and sorghum, the roots are left on the

ground and resprout up to three times as a component

of ratoon (Fig. 1).

4.2 Biological Measures

The biological measures applied in Konso include

live fences, agro-forestry, enclosures and afforestation,

cut-and-carry feeding, grass strips, stall-feeding and

controlled grazing. Agro-forestry with multipurpose

woody species includes fruit trees (papaya, banana,

avocado), stimulants (coffee and chat), Moringa

stenopetala, Ficus vasta, Cordial africana and

Terminalia brownill (Fig. 2).

Moringa stenopetala, locally known as shelqata, is

a staple food, and the fresh leaves are used as a kind


593

(a) Ratooning (b) Mixed cropping (c) Manuring

Fig. 1 Indigenous agronomic practices.

Fig. 2 Agro-forestry.

Fig. 3 Stone terraces.

of “cabbage” in the daily meals of the Konso. In

addition, it serves as fodder crop (also for sale) and for

medicinal purposes and water purification. It is a

drought-resistant and fast-growing plant [18, 19]. The

Moringa tree is also used as a dowry and measure of

wealth in the traditional culture of Konso [20]. In

Konso, Moringa is widespread, irrespective of wealth

rank and farming practices.

4.3 Physical Measures

The physical measures applied in Konso include

terraces, micro-basins, trash lines and check-dams.

Some of the physical structures, including terraces and

check dams, are permanently established, while micro

basins and trash lines are semi-permanent [19]. Each

type of technology and management complements

competes with each other. Some of the physical SWC

measures include:

(1) Stone terraces (kaweta): usually constructed by

the skilled and elderly, while the other people

transport the stones. The multiple functions of the

terraces include slope modification, as bench terrace,

water harvesting, removal of stones from the field,

space for producing fodder and wild foods during

drought, and serving as a fence for the farm plot and

boundary between fields (Fig. 3).

(2) Micro-basins (mona or korayita): made by any

member of the household during hoeing. These are

semi-permanent structures and the size of a

micro-basin varies depending on the soil type and

objective of harvesting more water or gaining more

land by increasing the number, size and height of the

ridges (Fig. 4).

(3) Trash lines (tura): made with the straw of

sorghum or maize as semi-permanent structures. Their

functions include reducing the splash effect of rainfall,

maintaining soil moisture, diminishing runoff and thus

increasing moisture infiltration and improving soil


594

fertility with decomposition. However, the use of trash

lines is declining, because the materials are

increasingly in demand for fodder and fuel-wood

(Fig. 4).

4.4 Plot-Level Observations

From observations of 80 plots of 27 households

(better-off and poor), the following major conclusions

could be drawn (Table 6).

Diversity of crops and trees is higher in the

homestead than in the farm plots. However, the

diversity of plants per plot is not strongly correlated

with size of the plot, as sometimes the smaller plots

have as many or more plant species than the larger

plots. The better-off farmers with larger overall farm

size and more plots have a greater diversity of crops

and trees than the poor.

The better-off households have 15-20 crop species

and varieties of cereals, pulses, oilseeds, tubers and

vegetables per plot and 10-15 multipurpose trees for

food, fodder, medicines, construction materials and

firewood. Thus, they have a total of 25-35 plant

species per plot. Similarly, other study found up to 24

species of plants in a single field in Konso [21]. This

implies no modern technology has able to produce

such huge diversity with a small plot with integrated

and multiple ecological, economic and social benefits.

Hence, there is a wide range of potential from the

indigenous practices for food security and sustainable

production.

The poor households have 7-12 crop species and

varieties and 6-10 multipurpose tree species per plot,

thus a total of 13-22 plant species per plot, i.e., less

diversity than the better-off.

Some plant species are common to the different

wealth-rank groups, e.g., the four major sorghum

landraces, finger millet, pigeon pea, cassava,

Terminalia browenil, Moringa stenopetal and coffee.

5. Grassroots Institutions

The Konso people have a wide range of grassroots

institutions with ecological, economic, social and

political functions. The traditional leaders (poqalla)

played fundamental roles, as spiritual leaders, clan

leaders, in managing the communal forests,

supporting the poor with access to land and other

forms of safety-net support, and mobilising labour for

communal farming and land-conservation works.

The main community-based organisations or task

Fig. 4 Trash lines and micro-basins.

Table 6 Summary of plot level observations.

Indicators Wealth rank

Better-off Poor

Average land holding 2.5 0.5

Average plot size 0.4 0.2

Average fragmented plots 4.0 2.0

Average crop species/plot 15-20 7-12

Average multi-purpose trees/plot 10-15 6-10

Average total plant species/plot 25-35 13-22

Common crops Major sorghum landraces, finger millet, pigeon pea, cassava

Common trees Terminalia browenil, Moringa stenopetal and coffee

Common physical SWC measures Stone terraces, micro-basins and trash lines


595

forces concerned with farming activities—oldawa,

perga, fedeta and keffa, operate by offering food and

drink or according to reciprocity arrangements or

payments. Other local institutions, such as kenta and

edir serve as social safety nets, and equip is a

credit-and-savings club. To overcome the seasonal

labour shortages, some can manage with only

household labour, because the farms have become

smaller, while others allocate their more remote plots

for sharecropping or planting them with trees, the care

of which is less labour-demanding than cropping.

Moreover, the diversification of crops and trees within

a farm lowers the peak labour demand, as the different

plants have different planting and harvesting dates.

Accordingly, any external development intervention

by the government and non-governmental

organization (NGOs) needs to understand how

indigenous grassroots institutions are functioning and

designed for synergy with local initiatives.

6. Modern Agricultural Interventions

6.1 Entry Point

Generally, the extension system of the government

and many NGOs in Ethiopia is based on the

transfer-of-technology approach, which assumes that

scientists create knowledge and technology and

farmers are the recipients who should adopt the new

technologies. This approach denies the competence of

farmers to experiment, innovate and engage in

participatory technology development.

The extension system undermined Ethiopia’s

genetic diversity and contributed to famine and

dependency on imported seed [1]. Similarly, in the

1970s, the World Bank supported the Green

Revolution in Wolaita in Southern Ethiopia (use of

inorganic fertiliser and introduced improved seeds and

line seeding), but the outcome after a decade was

disappointing and poverty in the area has increased

rather than decreased. This was fundamentally due to

the top-down approach that tried to replace indigenous

practices and local landraces, including root crops and

enset as staple food [22].

One of the main reasons given by extension

services for introducing modern inputs in Konso is the

low yield of the local landraces [23]. However, the

equation that attempts to show the superiority of

modern agriculture over the local farming systems has

several gaps. Firstly, in the local farming systems, the

seeding rate by broadcasting for local maize and

sorghum is determined by the fertility of the soil, the

type of SWC structures, the combination of plants

(cereals, roots and trees) and/or the need to feed

livestock. Dense crop cover helps to reduce the splash

effect of rain. Thinning is practised periodically to

obtain fodder for livestock, and at the same time,

reduce competition between plants when rainfall is

less than expected and soil moisture is low.

Furthermore, sorghum straw is used in soil

conservation and mulching. Yet, these benefits prior

to measuring the grain yield are not included in the

equation for comparing modern and local agricultural

practices. Secondly, in mixed cropping, the multiple

synergetic benefits are not considered in the equation.

Thirdly, the risks attached to modern inputs, including

timeliness of their availability, high prices, need for

good rainfall and high labour demands, are not

included in the equation.

Generally, the agricultural extension services

delivered by the government in Konso are in three

spheres: crop farming (agronomy), livestock

husbandry and natural resource management (Table 7).

In each kebele, at least three development agents

(DAs) with these different specialisations are allocated

to promote modern agriculture. For crop farming, the

extension service promotes “improved” seed,

chemical fertiliser and pesticides, and modern

irrigation technology, and gives advice on seeding

dates and rates, line seeding, sole cropping, cash crops

and irrigation. The focus is on maximising yields per

unit area [24] and little attention is given to

indigenous knowledge and local landraces.


596

Table 7 Technologies introduced by the government extension system.

Themes Technologies

Agronomy “Improved” seed, chemical fertiliser, pesticides and insecticides, pest management, crop management (seeding date, rate, line seeding, sole cropping, weeding, etc.), irrigation, marketing

Livestock husbandry “Improved” livestock breeds (including poultry), introduced fodder grasses and trees, modern beekeeping

NRM Watershed approach, with the construction of stone and soil bund, micro basins, check-dams, tree plantation, enclosures and community nursery development and private pond construction for supplementary irrigation

Access to credit “Improved” seed and fertiliser, cash on collateral/individual for short-term

Fig. 5 Defective introduced water-harvesting ponds.

For livestock husbandry, the extension service

promotes introduction of “improved” livestock breeds,

modern beehives, and fodder grass and trees. For

natural resource management (NRM), it promotes

land enclosures, afforestation mainly with exotic and

fast-growing plants, construction of standardised stone

and soil bunds, individual and communal ponds and

community nurseries (Table 7).

The extension service on natural resource

management uses watershed approach. The physical

construction and tree plantations in the communal

land are done through campaign works and with

incentives in the form of food or/and cash under the

productive safety net program (PSNP), usually youth

groups with limited farm skill and land less are widely

involved. Moreover, the push for private pond

construction across the nation in general and in Konso

area in particular was not successful, and usually the

ponds covered with imported expensive plastics are

with no water and occupied the scarce land without

any production, as it was a top-down approach with

no attention to the indigenous knowledge of water

harvesting practices (Fig. 5).

Regarding the use of incentives, there are different

schools of thought: some think that direct incentives,

such as food- or cash-for-work, help to introduce SWC

technologies and speed up project implementation

[25]. However, others have underlined that incentives

never assure sustainable development, push a

top-down approach and introduce inappropriate

technologies [26]. For the government extension

services, the success indicators are the number of

model farmers who adopt the introduced technologies,

the quantities of improved seed, fertiliser and

pesticides used by the community, and the total areas

in enclosures and treated with the SWC measures.

However, for the local people, the indicators of

success are related to empowerment of customary

institutions, socio-cultural practices, risk reduction,

diversity of sources of livelihood, equity of benefits

within the community and food security. A study on

small farming households in Northern Ethiopia

(Tigray) has also similar findings [17].

6.2 Community Evaluation of Modern Agriculture

The FGDs with different groups among the Konso

revealed that the modern agricultural extension

services have contributed strongly (17% of overall

assessments) to introducing new technologies,

providing access to credit, seed and food aid, and

rehabilitating the land. However, the strengths seem to

be offset by the weaknesses (61%) with respect to

food security, resilience to drought, synergy with

indigenous knowledge, empowerment in

decision-making and sustainability (Table 8). Moreover,


597

Table 8 Community assessment of government agricultural extension services.

Features Assessment

Comments of community members Strong Medium Weak

Food security

Increased yields * Availability of introduced seed and fertiliser

Access to cash crops * Producing “improved” seed as cash crop

Access to food aid (PSNP) * Extension support to graduate to a higher level

Access to seed and credit * Package of extension service

Cultural food and fodder sources * Staple foods (root crops/Moringa) not supported

Adaptation

To climate change and drought * Poor in drought resistance

To local environment * More relevant to high-potential areas

Protecting against pests/diseases * Vulnerable to disease and pests

Labour saving * High labour demand

Harmony with farming system * Conflict with traditional farming practices

Complementing indigenous knowledge * Usually standardised and in conflict with indigenous knowledge

Resource conservation

Environmental rehabilitation * Degraded areas are rehabilitated

Supplementary irrigation * Development of springs to support irrigation

Appropriate technologies * Biased to protection than utilization

Biodiversity * Biased to exotic plants

Resource management * Marginalised elders skill in NRM

Decision-making

Demand-driven * Addresses fraction of farmers’ needs and priorities

Participation and transparency * Usually top-down approach

Empowering grassroots institutions * Not working through existing grassroots institutions

Targeting poor and women * Better-off farmers are main beneficiaries Supporting local innovation and innovation

* Treats farmers as recipients of new technologies and creates dependency

Sustainability

Has long-term impact * Unlike manure or compost, chemical fertiliser hasshort-term impact

Can be maintained by the community * Farmers are less interested in modern inputs with their escalating prices and vulnerability to different risks

Percentage of the total assessments 17% 22% 61%

for the Konso people, the big rivers are

emergency-reserve areas for traditional irrigation

during prolonged drought and for collecting wild

fruits from the riverbanks. However, many of these

areas have been allocated to private investors by the

government. To counterbalance it, the farmers are

clearing more forest to claim land ownership and

protect further private investment. These points

indicate the gaps in Ethiopia’s agrarian policy, which

has been preoccupied with transferring standardized

modern technology and has undermined local

knowledge and farmers’ competence to experiment

and innovate [19, 20].

6.3 Incentives in the Diffusion of Modern

Technologies

Similarly, the PSNP has played a fundamental role

in bridging the food-gap deficit, protecting household

assets and building communal assets, if not assuring

food security with resilience to different shocks [8].

Moreover, the PSNP is complementing the extension

services to introduce new technologies and reduce

outmigration. However, the PSNP has many gaps and

possibly undesired outcomes due to a combination of


598

factors:

(1) The grain or cash payment as incentive serves to

enforce the power of the decision-makers and

government extension workers to practise a top-down

approach. Some farmers have destroyed their

traditional SWC structures and replaced them with

modern ones in order to assure their access to food.

(2) Management of the communal land shifted from

the customary institutions to the local (kebele)

administration. The deep-rooted experience of

resource management by the customary institution has

not been integrated. Moreover, the some of the ritual

centres are lost by the enclosures.

(3) The introduced technologies give more weight

to exotic plants with less diversity and little attention

to multipurpose indigenous plants with a wider range

of diversity. The traditional healers could not find

herbal plants in the enclosures and were not

encouraged to plant such species on the communal

land.

(4) Because of the expansion of enclosures on

communal land, using incentives and labour

campaigns, the poor lost access to fodder and fuel

wood in these areas. Many poor women forced to

travel long distance to access none enclosure and high

malaria infestation. With the push to the periphery

areas conflict with neighbouring kebeles who claim

the ownership of the communal land becomes

inevitable. Moreover, many poor women, who

generate income with preparation of local beer and

pottery that demands high fuel wood, suffers a lot

with the enclosure, and some are forced to quite as

mechanism of livelihood diversity. The enclosed areas

in the watershed were protected by banning any use,

leading to increased pressure of use on the other

arable land and riverbanks that were not enclosed.

(5) The incentives created a dependency syndrome

and undermined the identity, values and the

deep-rooted indigenous practices of group work in

different communal activities, including SWC, water

point construction, and road construction and

maintenance [26].

(6) The farmers have gradually lost in trust and

confidence with the government extension services

that is inferior to their indigenous practices and

attributed to the vulnerability of different risks and

uncertainties.

Any development intervention without the genuine

participation of the community (human centre) can

have many undesired outcomes, as it can marginalise

the community from decision-making and weaken

their ability and motivation to experiment, innovate

and solve their own problems.

7. Conclusions

Generally indigenous farming practices are

embedded in the socio-cultural fabrics of the

community with the framework of production and

protection. Moreover, farmers are always

experimenting and innovating to adapt to

environmental and policy changes. Hence, creating an

enabling policy environment for local experimentation

and integration of indigenous practices in assuring

food security is fundamental.

Similarly, the customary grassroots institutions

have roles of managing the indigenous farming

practices with the framework of environment and

socio-economic settings. Therefore, strengthening and

empowering the existing grassroots institutions is a

step to assure the success of framing system.

Finally, no doubt that modern agriculture has

played a fundamental role to meet the food demand of

the ever increasing population in spite of some of

undesired outcomes in the framework of sustainability.

Hence, it is not the choice between the two systems,

as both are equally important and need to be

integrated for synergetic effect in the framework of

assuring food security and sustainable resource

management.

Acknowledgments

The especial appreciation goes to the Konso


599

community and other stakeholders, who so generously

shared their knowledge and experiences. UNESCO

has funded in the early stage of the field study. Addis

Ababa University and the Department of Geography

and Environmental Studies have also creating

enabling environment to conduct the research.

References

[1] Chossudovsky, M. 2001. “Sowing the Seeds of Famine in Ethiopia.” Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal. Accessed September 10, 2001. http://www.globalresearch.ca/sowing-the-seeds-of-famine-in-ethiopia/366.

[2] Yohannes, G. M. 2001. “Community Assessment of Local Innovators in Northern Ethiopia.” In Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development, edited by Reij, C., and Waters-Bayer, A. London: Earthscan Publications, 171-7.

[3] Fenta, G. 2006. Farmers’ Indigenous Knowledge—The Missing Link in Development of Ethiopian Agriculture: A Case Study of Dejen District, Amhara Region. Social Science Research Report Series No. 34.

[4] Angassa, A., and Oba, G. 2008. “Herder Perceptions on Impacts of Range Enclosures, Crop Farming, Fire Ban and Bush Encroachment on the Rangelands of Borana, Southern Ethiopia Southern Ethiopia.” Human Ecology 36 (2): 201-15.

[5] Nakashima, D. J., Galloway-McLean, K., Thulstrup, H. D., Ramos-Castillo, A., and Rubis, J. T. 2012. Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Paris: UNESCO and Darwin: UNU.

[6] Nakashima, D., and Roue, M. 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge, Peoples and Sustainable Practice.” In Social and Economic Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Vol. 5, edited by Peter, T., and Ted, M. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 314-24.

[7] De Schutter, O. 2010. “Report: Agroecology and the Right to Food.” 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (A/HRC/16/49), United Nations. Accessed March 8, 2011. http://www.srfood.org/en/ report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food.

[8] Ziegler, A. D., Fox, J. M., Webb, E. L., Padoch, C., Leisz, S. J., Cramb, R. A., Mertz, O., Bruun, T. B., and Vien, T. D. 2011. “Recognizing Contemporary Roles of Swidden Agriculture in Transforming Landscapes of Southeast Asia.” Conservation Biology 25 (4): 846-8.

[9] Wibbelmann, M., Schmutz, U., Wright, J., Udall, D., Rayns, F., Kneafsey, M., Trenchard, L., Bennett, J., and Lennartsson, M. 2013. “Mainstreaming Agroecology:

Implications for Global Food and Farming Systems.” Centre for Agroecology and Food Security Discussion Paper, Coventry. Accessed July 20, 2015. http://agroecology-appg.org/ourwork/mainstreaming-agroecology-implications-for-global-food-and-farming-systems-report-launch/.

[10] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2010. “The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention.” Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its 16th Session, UNFCCC. Accessed May 25, 2015. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/njlite?chapter=22&page=9.

[11] Altieri, M. A. 2008. Small Farms as a Planetry Ecological Asset: Five Key Reasons Why We Should Support the Revitalization of Small Farms in the Global South? Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network (TWN).

[12] Zhang, D., Min, Q. W., Liu, M. C., and Cheng, S. K. 2012. “Ecosystem Service Tradeoff between Traditional and Modern Agriculture: A Case Study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China.” Front. Envir. Sci. Eng. 6 (5): 743-52.

[13] International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2002. Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

[14] Olea, P. P., and Mateo-Tomás, P. 2009. “The Role of Traditional Farming Practices in Ecosystem Conservation: The Case of Transhumance and Vultures.” Biological Conservation 142 (8): 1844-53.

[15] Shava, S., O’Donoghue, R., Krasny, M. E., and Zazu, C. 2009. “Traditional Food Crops as a Source of Community Resilience in Zimbabwe.” International Journal of African Renaissance 4 (1): 31-48.

[16] Ammann, K. 2007. “Reconciling Traditional Knowledge with Modern Agriculture: A Guide for Building Bridges.” In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, edited by Krattiger, A., Mahoney, R. T., Nelsen, L., Thomson, J. A., Bennett, A. B., Satyanarayana, K., Graff, G. D., Fernandez, C., and Kowalski, S. P. Oxford, UK: MIHR, and Davis, USA: PIPRA.

[17] Yohannes, G. M., and Waters-Bayer, A. 2007. Trees Are Our Backbone: Integrating Environment and Local Development in Tigray Region of Ethiopia. Issue Paper No. 145, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.

[18] Tadesse, M. 2010. “Living with Adversity and Vulnerability: Adaptive Strategies and the Role of Trees in Konso, Southern Ethiopia.” Ph.D. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala.

[19] Kruger, H. J., Berhanu, F., Yohannes, G. M., and Kefeni,


600

K. 1997. Inventory of Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation Measures on Selected Sites in the Ethiopian Highlands. SCRP Research Report 34, University of Berne.

[20] Mezgebe, A. H. 2011. “Indigenous Talent of Konso People to Cope with Climate Change Susceptibility, Ethiopia.” Presented at Meeting of Indigenous Peoples, Marginalized Populations and Climate Change: Vulnerability, Adaptation and Traditional Knowledge, July 19-21, 2011, Mexico City.

[21] Foerch, W. 2003. “Case Study: The Agricultural System of the Konso in South-Western Ethiopia.” FWU Water Resources Publications, University of Siegen, Germany. Accessed January 10, 2014. https://www.uni-siegen.de/zew /publikationen/volume0103/1-wiebke-konso-pubs.pdf.

[22] Dessalegn, R. 1992. The Dynamics of Rural Poverty: Case Studies from a District in Southern Ethiopia. Dakar: CODESRA.

[23] Tadesse, M., Kassa, H., Sriskandarajah, N., and Powell, N. 2008. “Do Conservation and Intensification Have Their Limits? The Challenges of Food Security and

Vulnerability amongst the Konso People of Southern Ethiopia.” In Proceedings of Meeting Global Challenges in Research Cooperation, 229-39.

[24] Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). 2010. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) 2010/11-2014/15.

[25] Beshah, T. 2003. “Understanding Farmers: Explaining Soil and Water Conservation in Konso, Wolaita and Wello, Ethiopia.” Ethiopia Tropical Resource Management Paper No. 41, Wageningen University and Research Centre. Accessed January 10, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40128583_Understanding_Farmers_Explaining_Soil_and_Water_Conservation_in_Konso_Wolaita_and_Wello_Ethiopia.

[26] Giger, M. 1999. Avoiding the Shortcut: Moving beyond the Use of Direct Incentives—A Review of Experience with the Use of Incentives in Projects for Sustainable Soil Management. Development and Environment Reports 17, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Berne.

conflicts of indigenous farming practices and modern ... · generally, the konso community are...

Documents