evaluation of government initiated participatory …
TRANSCRIPT
EVALUATION OF GOVERNMENT INITIATED PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED BASED LAND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS IN SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA: PERFORMANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SARI)
Evaluation of Government Initiated Participatory Watershed Based Land
Resources Management Interventions in Southern Ethiopia:
Performance and Sustainability
March 2018
South Agricultural Research Institute
Hawassa
R esearch T eam M em bers
Name Organization position
1 Ato Anteneh Fekadu South Agricultural Research Institute Team leader
2 Ato Getahun Yakob South Agricultural Research Institute Researcher
3 Ato Mulugeta Habte South Agricultural Research Institute Researcher
4 Ato Genene Tsegaye South Agricultural Research Institute Researcher
5 Dr. Teshale W/Amanuel Hawassa University Researcher
6 Dr. Awdenegest Moges Hawassa University Researcher
7 Dr. Menfes Tadesse Hawassa University Researcher
8 Ato Bereket Roba Hawassa University Researcher
9 Ato Habtamu Tadesse Hawassa University Researcher
10 Ato Efrem Assefa South Agricultural Research Institute Researcher
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CBWD Community Based Watershed DevelopmentCRGE Climate Resilience Green EconomyCSA Central Stastics AgencyDA Development AgentDBH Diameter at Breast HeightEHRS Ethiopian Highland Reclamation StudyESAPP Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership ProgrammeFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFDRE Federal Democratic Republic of EthiopiaFFW Food for WorkFGDs Focus Group DiscussionsFTC Farmers' Training CenterGIS Geographic Information SystemIVY Important Value IndexKB Key Informant InterviewMERET Managing Environmental Resources to Enable TransitionsMoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentNGO Non-Go vemmental OrganizationOM Organic MatterPD Persons' DayPOPIN United Nations Population Information NetworkPRA Participatory Rapid AppraisalPSNP Productive Safteynet ProgramSARI South Agricultural Research InstituteSLM Sustainable Land ManagementSMS Subject Matter SpeculaistsSNNPR South Nation, Nationalities and Peoples' RegionSPSS Statistical Package for Social ScienceSSA Sub-Saharan AfricaSWC Soil and Water ConservationTLU Tropical Livestock UnitTN Total NitrogenUNFPA United Nations Fund for Population ActivitiesWFP World Food ProgrammeWM Watershed Management
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................... ....................................................................................iv
TABLE OF C O N TEN TS................................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.................................................................................................................................x
FO RW A RD ........................................................................................................................................................................xiii
ACKNOW LEDGEMENT................................................................................................................................................ xv
EXECUTIVE SU M M A RY ........................................................... ..................................................................................xvi
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................28
1.1. Background......................................................................................................................................................... 28
1.2. Short History o f Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia............................................................................. 29
1.3. Objectives.................................................................................................................................................................31
1.3.1. General objective..................................................................................................................................................31
1.3.2. Specific objectives........................................................................................................................................... 31
1.4. Approach...................................................................................................................................................................32
1.4.1. Study area description......................................................................................................................................32
1.5. Methodology............................................................................................................................................................ 33
1.5 .1. Sampling technique and sample size............................................................... - .......................................... 33
1.5.2. Data collection................................................................................................................................................. 33
1.5.3. Data analysis.................................................................. ................................................................................. 35
PART I: BIOPHYSICAL PERFORMANCE OF COMMUNITY BASED PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED M ANAGEM ENT.................................................................................................................................36
1. EVALUATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION......................................................................... 37
1.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 37
v
1.2 Methods......................................................................................................................................................................39
1.2.1 Design o f the evaluation...................................................................................................................................39
1.2.2 Data collection.................................................................................................................................................. 40
1.3. Result and Discussion............................................................................................................................................. 40
1.3.1 Evaluation of soil and water conservation activities; the ease of Siltic and Wolaita Zones..................... 40
1.3.2 Evaluation of SWC activities: Sidama, Kembata Tembaro zones and Halaba special woreda................50
1.4. Conclusion and Recommendation.........................................................................................................................62
2. ASSESSMENT OF SOIL FERTILITY ENHANCEM ENT............................................................................... 67
2.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 67
2.2. Methods.....................................................................................................................................................................68
2.3. Result and Discussion............................................................................................................................................. 68
2.3.1. Soil nutrient status o f sub-watersheds in Sidama zone................................................................................ 68
2.3.2. Soil nutrient status o f sub-watersheds in Halaba special woreda................................................................ 70
2.3.3. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Kembata Tembaro zone.............................................................71
2.3.4. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Wolaita zone................................................................................ 73
2.3.5. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Siltie zone.................................................................................... 75
2.3.6. Overall status of selected soil nutrients..........................................................................................................77
2.3.7. Reflection of farmers.......................................................................................................................................79
2.4. Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................................................79
3. ASSESSMENT OF VEGETATION STATUS ON EXCLOSURES....................................................................81
3.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 81
3.2. Methods.....................................................................................................................................................................82
3.2.1. Data collection and analysis............................................................................................................................82
3.3. Results.......................................................................................................................................................................83
3.3.1. Vegetation status of Mulete exclosure, Hawassa Zuriya.............................................................................83
vi
3.3.2. Vegetation status of Wushirana Koro sub-watershed, Halaba special woreda..........................................86
3.3.3. Vegetation status of Sbershera Dubiye sub-watershed, Kedida Gamela woreda.......................................87
3.3.4. Vegetation status of Tibe sub-watershed, Boloso sore Woreda.................................................................. 90
3.3.5. Vegetation status of Doli sub-watershed, Hulbareg Woreda.......................................................................90
3.4. Discussions............................................................................. ................................ - ............................................92
3.5. Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................................................................96
References............................................................................................................................................................................ 98
PART II: SOCIOECONOMIC PERFORAMNCE OF COMMUNITY BASED WATERSHED MANGEM ENT..............................................................................................................................................................104
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 105
1.1. Background.......................................................................................................... - ..........................................105
1.2. Objectives..........................................................................................................................................................108
1.2.1. General objective..................................................................................................................................... 108
1.2.2. Specific objectives....................................................••................................ - ....................................... 108
2. METHODS...............................................................................................................................................................108
2.1. Data Collection................................................................................................................................................. 109
2.1.1. Focus group discussions.......................................................................................................................... 109
2.1.2. Key informant interviews........................................................................................................................ 110
2.1.3. Household survey.....................................................................................................................................110
2.2. Data Analysis....................................................................................................................................I l l
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................I l l
3.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics......................................... ............................................................................... 112
3.1.1. Socio-demographic characteristics o f households......................................................................................112
3.1.2. Livelihood activities.......................................................................................................................................114
3.1.3. Land use and land use arrangements............................................................................................................116
\ a ‘. ........... ... 3 ;2 :.N a to ^ Rcsowces Envirqimentaj Stetus........ tey^tafi0r t^ f l8g?0'te'£3i$itttffr0qq0 ’:€:(?:6.................... ^20
T e l.................3.:?:l:.EnVirOimOTtalprOble^;.;;.:..;.;.;...;........;;..;.;..;..;;.;:..;.;.[9^ ^ 4 | t5< .)g.< W^ Oqq0..|4.Q.g.................... 121
T 3r.................3;2;2;.C a ^ ^ o fm y iro ^ e n ta J j)ro W e^ :;;;;..^ ^ g T9jfivy-4)9fg^^gffo^-9fft-lo,Ytifr(!fBni8f8f/3‘:0i"6................^23
T81.............3:3 , Im pact of E n v i r o n m e n t ^ .................... 124
s a x ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 128
331.................3.4.1. Process o f watershed deyelppir^ i lflqojy^^.barieretew- g o i t e t x a :io-noitelifnTi•6.-0{■6..........................
e a i .............3.5;. C o i^ u m ^ P ^ ic ^ a d o n and Po;oegtion to S $r)Y ?t£f$8f i( ^ € k 5 ® F lf i^A -*30I0fcM9 WG9 -;fc..........135
Qd X.................3-5.1. Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n f K y K l j f o n O " ) :! :^................ 135
£vl................3:5:.?:.ConU9SiB .P r?®tiPR;;;:;:;:;;;;:;;;:;;;;;;::;;:;:;;;:::;:;::;;;::;:::;;::;;:;;:::::;::;;;;eBohBfafBmrnoo3 ,:S; ............^
0YX.............3.6.Im tim tipM lEnyu-onm entsanditsA iT^ .........139
£ 8 i .................3;6.1.. Eo^ti^or^Ll env irontE^nts^ in v^at^shed m ^ a g e i ^ n t : ’XGIWWIA........... ^ 9
X8X.................3-6/2..Institutionalai5^gpj|)^^J^ ^ ^ j ^ ^ g J B l ^ j ^ ^ . ?wn^onw9/^ ^ . . ^ i - ^ b n s q q A ................ 143
£8X...................3.-.6;3;.O r £ ^ /a ( io n ^ ^ - f % ^ ^ }j(5( g ^ } < ^ ^ j . \^ . . B B[fc4{.^.gg3fIfjO0.g3j33qg..£.3{(;jcj.X3{)n;jqq^...............145
£3X.................3.-6.-4.. E^prcement m ech aq y ^^ jfiW ^ -/yttn-osofofl- te egamfoir •£• olds J- xsbnaqqA..............I 48
£81..........3,6.5, Instit^tion^g/|j^^y?i^|}t: JSSafeferoqe-M ldfiJ-xobn^qqA............. 148
S8£ .............. .3 .7 .R ^ u r c ^ .R e ^ r a g r a t rJ^ |^g^A ^Ildf^^¥a^H ^-i^Q 9H o»«teb-8^0>e-^<fe^X 9iM i9qqA -..............148
281................. 3,7.-1.-. TyRe^gfflpp (?) im u ■noiofti •aoig'miroG- d-af de) -xrbnsqqA-............ 150
3.7.2. Availability of resources for watershed.......................................................................................................151
3.8. Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................153
3.8.1. Social impacts................................................................................................................................................ 153
3.8.2. Economic impacts.......................................................................................................................................... 154
3.8.3. Environmental im pacts................................................................................................................................. 162
3.9. Opportunities Due to Watershed Development................................................................................................. 163
3.9.1. Opportunities at household level.................................................................................................................. 163
3.9.2. Opportunities at community level................................................................................................................ 165
3.9.3. Opportunities at organizational level........................................
3.9.4. Opportunity at Policy level........................................................
3.10. Sustainability o f the Rehabilitated Watershed........................ .
3.10.1. Dimensions of sustainability.......................................... .
3 .10.2. Limitations to sustainability of the rehabilitated watershed.
3.10.3. Limitation of the existing watershed development.........
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOM M ENDATION................................
4.1. Conclusion.......................................................- -------- ---------------
4.2. Recommendations............................................................................—
REFERENCES................................................................................... -
ANNEX.......................................................................................... ..............
Appendex table 1 Species richness at Hawassa Zunya, Mulete subwatershed....
Appendex table 2 Species richness at Halaba, Wishirana Koro sub watershed........
Appendex table 3 Species richness at Boloso sore, Tibe sub watershed..................
Appendex table 4 Species richness at Kedida Game la, Shershera sub watershed
Appendex table 5 GPS data collected from all selected sub-watersheds..............
Appendix table 6 Conversion factors used to estimate Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU)
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Map of the study areas................................................................................................................. 32
Table 1.1 The list of sample sub-watershed used for the evaluation study...............................................39
Table 1.2 Type of structures implemented under two contrasting status..................................................41
Table 1. 3 Mean values o f trench dimensions measured in the study sub-watersheds (in cm )................42
Figure 1. 2 Shallow and deep trench in Wermau Gasho (Wolaita) and Ayte (Siltie) sub-watersheds..... 43
Table 1.4 Mean values of fanya juu dimensions measured in the study sub-watersheds (in cm ).......... 44
Figure 1. 3 Fanya-juu devioped into bench terrace stabilized with deshc grass and Cajanus cajan (a) and
purely desho grass (b)....................................................................................................................................45
Figure 1. 4 Structure stabilized by desho grass (a) and harvesting desho grass for animals feed.............46
Table 1. 5 Mean values of soil bunds specifications measured (cm) in the study sub-watersheds...........47
Figure 1. 5 Soil bund on the process of developing into bench terrace.....................................................48
Figure 1. 6 Micro basin constructed with stone on highly denuded area in Doli Demeke sub-watershed49
Table 1. 6 Mean values of the measured dimensions of micro basin (cm)................................................50
Table I. 7 Type of structures implemented in the two land uses and under two contrasting status......... 51
Table 1. 8 Mean values of fanya juu dimensions measured in the study sub-watersheds (in cm ).......... 53
Figure 1. 7 Strip of phalaris grass between structures (a) and of combining grass with bean (b) in Oreta
sub-watershed, Kcmbata Tembaro................................................................................................................ 54
Table 1. 9 Mean values of soil bunds specifications measured in the study sub-watersheds (cm )........... 55
Figure 1. 8 Poorly constructed structures and flood damages on crop lands, Wosherana Koro sub-
watershed, Halaba...........................................................................................................................................56
Table 1.10 Mean values of the measured dimensions of trenches (cm).................................................... 57
Figure I. 9 Sediment filled trench, Sheshera Dudeye sub-watershed, Kededa Gamela.............................58
Table 1.11 Mean values of the measured dimensions of half moon (cm).................................................. 59
Figure I. 10 Check dam at Sheshera Dudye sub-watershed, Kededa Gamela........................................... 59
Figure 1.11 Ineffective check dam, Sheshera Dudye sub-watershed, Kededa Gamela............................ 60
Figure I. 12 Damaged check dams along gully line, Wosherana Koro sub-watershed, Halaba.................61
Figure 1.13 Heifer tied for grazing on the structure (a) and theft of grass from exclousre (b).................. 61
Table 2.2 The selected chemical properties of soils in Halaba special woreda.......................................... 71
Table 2.3 The selected chemical properties of soils in Kembata Tembaro zone.........................................73
Table 2.4 Selected chemical properties of soils in Wolaita zone..................... ............................................ 75
Table 2.5 Selected chemical properties of soils in Siltie zone...................................................................... 77
Figure 2.1 Overall organic matter statuses of the studied sub-watersheds.................................................. 78
Figure 2.2 Overall total nitrogen statuses of the studied sub-watersheds...... ............................................. 78
Figure 2.3 Overall available phosphorus statuses of the studied sub-watersheds....................................... 78
Figure 3.1 Average stem number of woody species per ha at different DBH classes.................................84
Table 3.1 Relative density, frequency, dominance and IVI for woody species at DBH > 5cm.................. 85
Figure 3.2 Average stem number of woody species per ha at two DBH classes.........................................87
Figure 3.3 Average stem number per ha at different DBI' classes at the exclosure of Sheshera Dudyc
sub-watershed...................................................................... ..............................i .......................................... 89
Figure 3.4 Average number of stems per ha at differ t DBH classes at the exclosure of Doli..sub
watershed ........................................................................ ..... 91
Table 3.2 IVI for woody species > 5cm DBH and relauve density (%) for woody species of all size
across the five exclosures............................................................................................................................... 94
Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of households in central zones of SNNPR............................112
Table 2 Distribution of household heads with respect to age category.......................................................113
Table 3 Proportion of households according to the level of education.......................................................113
Table 4 Gender and marital status of the households’ heads......................................................................114
Table 5 Livelihood activities of households................................................................................................115
Table 6 Distribution of respondents with respect to the types of projects.................................................116
Table 7 Proportion of households with respect to land holding and land certificate.................................116
Table 8 Descriptive statistics of land use types (in timad).......................................................................... 117
Table 9 Distribution of households in different land holding category......................................................118
Table 10 Proportion of households engaged in share cropping and land renting......................................119
Table 11 Descriptive statistics of land under various land tenure than own land..................................... 120
Table 12Environmental problems (n=1080).............................................................................................. 123
Table 13 Causes of environmental problems and its severity level........................................................... 124
Table 14 Impacts of environmental problems.............................................................................................125
Table 15 Types of soil and water conservation measures (n=120 per woreda).........................................126
Table 16 The initiator of different soil and water conservation measures.................................................127
Table 17 Distribution of benefits with respect to tenure arrangements (n=1080).................................. 127
Table 18 Respondents view on community participation in sub-sub-watershed development..............135
Table 19 Reasons for participation of the community in the sub-watershed development in 2015...... 136
Table 20 Perception of respondents on watershed development in 2011 (n=1080)............................... 137
Table 21 Respondents willingness to participate in watershed development (2011 to 2015)................138
Table 22 Reasons for (un) willingness to participate in watershed management (2011 and 2015)....... 138
Table 23 Acceptability of campaign time and work norms in 2014......................................................141
Table 24 interaction among I to 5 members............................................................................................. 144
Figure 1 Organizational setup....................................................................................................................145
Table 25 Dynamics in institutional arrangements.....................................................................................146
Table 26 Types of resources used in watershed development with respect to zones.............................. 149
Table 27 Types of resources used and their proportion with respect to Woreda..................................... 150
Table 28 Resources contributed by households........................................................................................ 151
Table 29 Availability of resources for watershed development............................................................... 151
Table 30 Gaps of resource availability...................................................................................................... 152
Table 31 Gaps in resource availability among zones................................................................................152
Table 32 Social impacts from watershed development in % (n=1080)................................................... 153
Table 33 Households who perceived change in crop productivity.......................................................... 154
Table 34 Production of crops before and after watershed development..................................................155
Table 35 Farm land size under annual crop cultivation in timad (n=822)............................................... 156
Table 36 Farm land size under perennial crops before and after watershed management (n=744)....... 156
Table 37 Livestock productivity due to watershed management............................................................. 158
Table 38 Livestock statistics in TLU before and during the implementation of watershed...................158
Table 39 Grazing land before and during the implementation of watershed development....................159
Table 40 Livestock ownership status before and during watershed management (n=1080).................. 159
Table 41 Beehives numbers before and during watershed intervention (n=1080)................................. 160
Table 42 Average annual sale of animals before and after watershed management............................... 161
Table 43 Off-farm income (in birr) before and during watershed development.................................... 161
Table 44 Observed changes in farm and off-farm income in watershed management...........................162
FORWARD
Ethiopia is one of the Sub-Saharan African countries seriously affected by land degradation. Existing
agricultural production systems characterized by uncertain rainfall, low inherent land productivity, lack
of capital, inadequate support services and poverty have been the major derivers of land degradation in
Ethiopia. Land degradation caused tremendous setbacks to the economic development of the country
with severe consequences to millions of livelihoods. The government of Ethiopia has made various
attempts to overcome the adverse effects of land degradation over the past many years.
In the 1980s Ethiopia attempted to reverse land degradation using watershed approach as a way of
redressing the degradation of the natural resource base and increasing land productivity. However, it
resulted in little success due to an array of reasons, one of the most important reasons being the lack of
community participation and ownership. Learning from the major limitations of these past attempts the
FDRE initiated community based participatory watershed development programs in four regional states
including the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region in 2010/11 with the objective of
restoring and developing the natural resource base, achieving food security and improving livelihoods.
This report is an outcome of a comprehensive study of the design, implementation and impact of
com m unity based participatory watershed development program in the SNNPR by a competent team of
researchers from the SARI and HU, with financial support of ESAPP and technical cooperation of the
Beme University, Switzerland. It is based on extensive field studies and exhaustive consultations earned
out with the BOANR of the SNNPR, farmers and other important stakeholders and actors at regional,
zonal, wereda and kebele levels. A series of consultative workshops had been carried out with a range of
stakeholders and professionals at regional, national and international level to validate the preliminary
findings attempting to capture and incorporate all relevant inputs before publishing this report.
The report reflects and acknowledges the work of millions of Ethiopians: men, women and youth, that
invested their time and energy freely with great determination to restore their natural resources and
improve their livelihoods. It attempted to address both the biophysical as well as institutional and
socioeconomic performance of the community based participatory watershed development program in
the SNNPR. We believe that the findings of this study will inform policy makers, planners, development
workers and researchers on the successes and failures of the community based participatory watershed
xiii
development approach in reference to sustainable land management, livelihood improvement and
environmental rehabilitation in the SNNPR.
Nigussie Dana (PhD)
Director Genera!, SARI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Southern Agricultural Research Institute, Natural Resource Research Directorate would like to extend its
deepest and sincerely appreciation to all organizations and individuals who contributed to this work.
The successful accomplishment of this work would have been difficult without their generous financial,
logistic and time devotion. First our gratitude goes to Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership
Programme (ESAPP) and Bern University, Switzerland for financing this work. Next die SNNPR
Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resource Development Specifically Natural Resource section
deserves our heart felt appreciations and thanks for providing all the necessary information on die
overall process of the initiative and providing fund for the final validation workshop. We are deeply
indebted to the Zonal Administration and Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource of Sidama,
Kembata Tembaro. Woliata, Siltie, and Halaba Special Woreda for providing the necessary information
on the overall process and facilitating the data collection resepective sampled woradas. Similarly, the
worda offices of Adminstration, and Agriculture and Natural Resource of Hawassa Zuriya, Benasa,
Kedida Gamela, Kacha Bira, Damot Gale, Boloso Sore, Halicho Weiro, and Hulbareg deserve especial
thanks for the facilitation and the secondary inforamtion they proviicd. Especial thanks goes to Kebele
Administration and Communities in all respective woredas for the facilitation and guidance during the
biophysical and socioecocnomic survey. Finally yet importantly, we would like to extend our gratitude
to Hawassa University (Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources and Institute of
Technology) for engaging their staff in this important endevour.
XV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Land degradation has been the major problem in most of the developing world. Ethiopia is believed to
be one of the Sub-Saharan African countries seriously affected by land degradation, which accounts for
8% of the global total. Indeed, land degradation in Ethiopia is largely an outcome of the existing
‘resource-poor’ agricultural production system, which is a characterized by uncertain rainfall, low
inherent land productivity, lack of capital, inadequate support services and poverty. Consequently, the
problem has been severe to the extent that it affected lives and livelihoods in particular and developmeii i
in general. To change the situation of land degradation, the concept of watershed management was
implemented in Ethiopia in 1980s as a way of redressing the degradation of the natural resource base
and increasing land productivity. Although attempts to reverse land degradation following watershed
approaches dated back to 1980s in Ethiopia (Lakew et al., 2005; Gcte 2006; Tongui and Hobson, 2013),
many programs were unsuccessful and the technologies and practices were often abandoned by farmers
as soon as they stopped being forced or paid to adopt them. The major limitation of the past attempt was
the dominant view that labeled watershed problems as engineering problems, and technical solutions for
controlling erosion, reducing runoff and flooding, and enhancing groundwater recharge were often
designed and implemented with little regard for their impacts on people’s livelihoods, on farm
profitability, or on social equity. Thus, the watershed development was applied in a rigid and
conventional manner without community participation and with little attention to farmer objectives and
farmer knowledge as important reasons for these failures.
Cognizant of these limitations, the government of Ethiopia launched a massive community based
participatory watershed development programs sincc 2010/11 in four regional states: Southern Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples, Oromia, Amhara and Tigray as part of strategy to protect the environment
while achieving food security. The SNNPR watershed development program was initiated to minimize
the problems associated with watershed degradation and enhance livelihoods of the population in all
zones and Special districts following the approaches (a) conducting detailed planning for the
implementation (b) identifying technologies that are suitable for the agro-ecology, (c) providing
repeated and regular community awareness creation workshops and trainings, (d) establishing
appropriate institutional arrangements and institutional environments. To implement this two major soil
xvi
and water conservation technologies were identified in SNNPR. These are (a) physical soil and water
conservation technologies, and (b) biological soil and water conservation technologies.
The proponents of this participatory watershed development including the federal and regional
governments claim that significant social, economic and environmental benefits have been achieved due
to it. This claim was based on the impact assessment that was carried out internally by the respective
offices at different levels following the implementation of the community based watershed development.
However, hardly any evaluation has been carried out by independent bodies/institutions to identify and
evaluate the impacts due to community based watershed development interventions, the limitations and
the best practices that can be scaled up in similar settings. This study, therefore, was initiated by the
South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) in collaboration with Hawassa University (Wondo Genet
College of Forestry and Institute of Technology) in order to address the biophysical and socioeconomic
impacts of participatory watershed development initiated in SNNPR.
This report is about the process, institutional environments and institutional arrangements, biophysical
performance, social and economic impacts, the limitations, and the best practices due to community
based watershed development that can be scaled up. In all the chapters, the report tracks the approach of
looking into the community based watershed development with respect to the various parameters for its
strength and limitations, and the opportunities that exist for scaling up. Finally, it provides
recommendations on how to scale up the interventions m the face of the threats and limitations that are
prevalent in the districts. The report is comprised of two main parts. Part I is about Biophysical
performance of Community based watershed development and part II deals with the process, the
institutional environment, and socioeconomic performance of the community based watershed
development.
The assessment of the biophysical performance of the watershed with respect to the technical
specification, performance and impact of various physical and biological soil and water conservation
measures implemented in the past four years in four selected zones and one woreda confirmed that
public work activities have clearly demonstrated the positive impact of soil and water conservation
measures. Farmers have reclaimed unproductive land such as gullies and eroded hillsides. A
combination of gabions, rock check dams, trenches and live vegetative barriers (trees, shrubs and
grasses) planted in the gullies and considerable silt deposited behind these barriers and effectively
xvii
mitigating gully erosion in area closure. However, there are shortcoming which should be corrcctcd to
enhance this continuing national endeavor.
In the studied 4 zones and one woreda the most common physical soil and water conservation structures
were soil bunds, fanaya juu, and stone bunds, the commonest being soil bund which is found in all the
sampled watersheds. In exclosures nine different types of structures were recorded, the commonest
being trench found in all the sub-watersheds. Fanya juu structures have been changing into forward
sloping bench terraces with varying level of development and status. In all, except few, the ditches have
disappeared leaving the embankments functioning. Combining soil bund and Fanyajuu is a practice used
in Halaba and in Muleti sub-watershed to control heavy rainfall, soil bund constructed on the upper part
alternated with fanya juu on the lower part. Embankments mostly vegetated with Desho grass
(Pennisetum pedicellatum), other native grass and Cajanus cajan. Though planting trees and shrubs
recommended in all observed watershed such practicc has not been observed. The overall field
assessment by and large indicates that the fanya juu terraces arc constructed according to the
specification and development into bench tcrraces is observed.
The ditch and embankment of soil bunds were distinctively noted and measured in most of the sampled
bunds but few have been observed to develop into bench terracc. It is expected that the embankment
should be raised and increased while the ditch depth reduced and diminish but the reverse is being
happening. This perhaps indicates that the structures were not designed and or managed properly. It is
recommended that soil bunds should be ‘upgraded’ / modified to Fanya juu to enhance the development
of bench terrace. This has not been done in all of the soil bunds visited.
Trenches can have flexible design and are applicable on wide range of slopes thus comparison was
difficult. However, the depth, width and the length as well the embankment height and the width of
water collection trenches has been found to be within the range of the specification from Ayte sub
watershed (Siltie Zone) and Garo sub-watershed (Wolaita Zone). The specification used in the different
sub-watershed visited / studied lack uniformity and has no consistency. For example, the recorded
values indicate that out of the six deep trenches two third of them are either longer or shorter.
Embankment vegetated both on top and the space between them, trees as well as grass are planted
providing multiple benefits.
and water conservation technologies were identified in SNNPR. These are (a) physical soil and water
conservation technologies, and (b) biological soil and water conservation technologies.
The proponents of this participatory watershed development including the federal and regional
governments claim that significant social, economic and environmental benefits have been achieved due
to it. This claim was based on the impact assessment that was carried out internally by the respective
offices at different levels following the implementation of the community based watershed development.
However, hardly any evaluation has been carried out by independent bodies/institutions to identify and
evaluate the impacts due to community based watershed development interventions, the limitations and
the best practices that can be scaled up in similar settings. This study, therefore, was initiated by the
South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) in collaboration with Hawassa University (Wondo Genet
College of Forestry and Institute of Technology) in order to address the biophysical and socioeconomic
impacts of participatory watershed development initiated in SNNPR.
This report is about the process, institutional environments and institutional arrangements, biophysical
performance, social and economic impacts, the limitations, and the best practices due to community
based watershed development that can be scaled up. In all the chapters, the report tracks the approach of
looking into the community based watershed development with respect to the various parameters for its
strength and limitations, and the opportunities that exist for scaling up. Finally, it provides
recommendations on how to scale up the interventions in the face of the threats and limitations that are
prevalent in the districts. The report is comprised of two main parts. Part I is about Biophysical
performance of Community based watershed development and part II deals with the process, the
institutional environment, and socioeconomic performance of the community based watershed
development.
The assessment of the biophysical performance of the watershed with respect to the technical
specification, performance and impact of various physical and biological soil and water conservation
measures implemented in the past four years in four selected zones and one woreda confirmed that
public work activities have clearly demonstrated the positive impact of soil and water conservation
measures. Fanners have reclaimed unproductive land such as gullies and eroded hillsides. A
combination of gabions, rock check dams, trenches and live vegetative barriers (trees, shrubs and
grasses) planted in the gullies and considerable silt deposited behind these barriers and effectively
xvii
Check dams in Kcdeda Gamela are excellent examples for the successful protection of highly eroded
and dissected lands. Runoff flow line (drainage paths) that had created gullies was successfully
rehabilitated by series of check dams. Sediment trapped and good grass/vegetation growth both at the
upper and lower sections of the check dam, were observed.
The following paragraphs report the general remarks of the evaluation team. Desho grass (pennisetum
Pedecilatum) is a very famous grass used by farmers. It is used for stabilization of structures in the
visited sample sub-watersheds. The benefits are as fodder for animals, income generating activity, sale
of harvested grass to neighbors as well as in the market
In most the visited sub-watersheds the structures are well managed. Watershed activities carried out with
proper considering the different requirements entailed because of topographic, soil and climatic
variables / variations. On the other hand, it has been observed that there are inappropriate planning and
design, as well as maintenance and management. These include laying structures on gradient while
claimed to be level. This has resulted in breaching structures and creating eroded waterways initiating
gullies and or high rill erosion.
The rule to compact embankments should be respected and taken as one of the important steps to be
accomplished during the construction, this has not been the case. Checking during the hand over step by
the group of farmers may resolve the problem. Poor structures layout was observed during the field
visits. This has been observed in narrow field widths, where layout string length had to be reduced to 3 -
5 m. Therefore, the blanket recommendation of a 10m long string should be amended as modification is
required as per the condition of the area being surveyed.
It is obvious that the successes of the activities depend on the maintenance and follow up biological
interventions during the rainy seasons. The maintenance works generally do not have well organized
planning as well as implementation guideline. This included setting maintenance norms (PD-persons-
day). Moreover, a guideline how to manage the structures after construction is missing as various
structures do require different treatments.
The findings with respect to the sociocconomic profile of the respondents' show that the ccntral zone of
the SNNPR, where the study carriedout, has unique demographic characteristics. Morcthan 95 % of the
household heads are in working age category implying that the zones have high potential for labor forcexix
for any development interventions including watershed development. The average family size of the
households is about 7 persons which is higher than that of the regional (4.9) and the regional (4.7)
average. In addtion, more than two third of the households attended formal education that implies an
opportunity to adopt any development interventions. Particularly its contribution in the case of training
fanners for surveying work is remarkable. Above all, cultural heterogeneity is the important aspect the
zones are characterized. There are diverse ethnic groups in the zones and each ethnic group has its own
indigenous institutions (rules, believes, values for natural resources use and management) and
indigenous institutional arrangements (e.g. edir, Seera, etc), and indigenous soil, water, and trees
management practices. The indigenous institutions have already functioning as foundations/ institutional
infrastructures for the formal rule making and enforcement as well as for promoting collective action in
developing the watersheds
Extent of natural resources degradation: Central es of the SNNPR ones were known for their
enact natural resources and clean environment. It used be covered by dense natural vegetations before
1970s. Notably, natural forests, shrubs, and bushes of indigenous species were common. Regarding the
natural environment, there was little incidence of soil erosion, flooding, deforestation, landslides, and
other environmental problems. Today, however, diverse environmental problems: deforestation, soil
erosion, soil fertility decline, flooding, over-grazing and land slide are omnipresent. Agricultural
expansion, improper farming practices, cut of trees and bushes for fiiel and construction purposes, tenure
change and/or problems, and investment expansions are the main causes of environmental problems.
Degradation of the watersheds has gone to the extent that human and animal lives to be threatened and
lots of assets damaged.
Community participation and perception in watershed development: It is known that community
participation in the process of watershed development has been instrumental and also dynamic over
time. The community participation was in terms of contributing labor/time, skill, farm implements,
construction materials, seeds and seedlings and etc. Without these inputs the program was hardly
possible. At the beginning of the watershed development process, the level of community participation
was very weak. In this regard, the majority of the respondents (96%) underlined that initially they had
limited understanding about the benefits of the program. Above all, there was speculation that the
rehabilitated watershed will no longer be under their ownership. Later on the level of community
participation has been improved over time due to awareness creation and the early impacts observed on
the rehabilitated watersheds. The result shows that it was not only the level of participation but also the
quantity and quality of the structures developed at the beginning of the sub-sub-watershed development
was poor. This is because the community participation used to be in mass and not followed a specific
institutional arrangement at different levels.
As it was the case with community participation, community perception in community based watershed development was low at the beginning. There was understanding that physical soil and water
conservation structures as well as exclosures take up farmland, limit the short term benefits (such as free
grazing and fire wood collection), host rodents and pests, create difficulty in farming activity such as
movement of draught animals and livestock, demands labor. They also perceived that watershed
development is a cumbersome activity to be carried out in dry and sunny days, and etc. Over time,
however, this perception has been improved. The reasons contributed for the improvement are (a)
continuous awareness creation, (b) technical backstopping, (c) sense of ownership development on
rehabilitated areas, and (d) observation of some indicators of the watershed development such as early
economic, social and environmental impacts. Today the majority of the residents are convinced by the
environmental, economic, and social benefits they arc enjoying from the developed (sub) watersheds.
Resources requirements, identification and mobilization: Diverse resources were employed in
participatory watershed development work. These include labor, farm implements, local construction
materials (e.g. stone, wood and etc), industrial construction materials (e.g. gabion and, etc) and seeds,
seedlings. About 82.3 % of the households were engaged in contributing labor and farm implements.
Besides, it is known that some households were also engaged in contributing other resources such as
local construction materials and seeds and seedlings. Regarding the availability of the resources, four
fifth (80%) of the households witnessed that the resources available for watershed development were
enough. Only one fifth of the households mentioned the resource available were not sufficient.
Institutional environments and Institutional arrangements: The findings show that the process of
watershed development has been characterized by diversity of institutional environments and
arrangements. These are both formal and informal rules of the game that guided all phases of the
watershed development starting from planning to implementation. These were rules regarding (a) the
area coverage or the extent of the (sub) watershed; (b) prioritization of the (sub) watershed to be
rehabilitated; (c) timing of the (sub) watershed rehabilitation, (d) the participants or players in the (sub)
xxi
watershed development, (e) resource contribution (f) managing and conservation of the developed
watershed. They are not only diverse institutional environments but also diverse institutional
arrangements characterized the process of watershed development in the zones. These include watershed
committee, And Le Amist (one to five), Lemat Budin, youth associations, women associations, and
Kebele] administration. In the early stage of the watershed development, the role of such arrangements
was very low. But the introduction of specific institutional arrangements gave live and the overall
process of the watershed development has been carried out successfully and efficiently. The findings
show that the strong interaction between formal and informal institutions. As a result, the indigenous
institutions enabled the enforcement of the byelaws regarding the implementation and protection of the
established physical and biological structures
Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of participatory watershed development: The findings
from this study confirm the impacts of watershed development in terms of social, economic, and
environmental dimensions. The result shows that there are diverse social benefits. Places that used to be
bare and with mass of exposed rocks have now become rehabilitated and become beautiful landscapes
that give spiritual satisfaction (amenity value). As opposed to the past watershed activities particularly
soil and water conservation works, the current community based watershed development have created
strong sense ownership in the community. Above all, temporary migration that used to characterize
some of the zones was reported to be reduced.
The community in all the watersheds witnessed the diverse economic impacts in terms of crop
productivity and production, livestock productivity, increase in farm and off-farm incomes. Crop and
livestock productivity after watershed development is significantly higher than that before. The number
of livestock owned by households after watershed development is significantly higher than the number
owned before the development of watershed. The factors that contributed for the increased productivity
are increased capacity of the farm and grazing land to grow crops due to reduced soil erosion and runoff,
increase feed availability and accessibility. Moreover, alternative feed sources for livestock are possible
due to the various grass and fodder species that are planted on physical soil conservation structures both
at private and communal lands. In some cases, the grasses and fodder on soil and water conservation
1 kebele is the lowst administrative level
structures arc also supporting the households as sources of cash income. Above all, the mean farm and
off-farm income after the watershed development is significantly higher than before the watershed
development. These changes in the above mentioned parameters are known to be due to two major
factors. First soil and water conservation structures maintained fertility in the farm lands by reducing
soil erosion significantly and thereby increased infiltration which enhanced soil moisture and the growth
of annual crops, perennial crops, and grass biomass. Second the maintenance of inorganic fertilizers that
are maintained on the farm due to the physical and biological soil and water conservation structi'7
constructed both on farm and communal lands. Opportunities for off-farm income in terms of collection
and sale of firewood, grasses both for fodder and house roofing arc in place due to watershed
development.
The environmental impacts of watershed development are witnessed in terms of improvement in soil
fertility, vegetation cover, increase in surface and ground water recharging capacity, crop productivity,
soil moisture, and etc. The improvement in surface and ground water recharging capacity and flow of
river water during dry season is also the outcome of the sub-sub-watcrshed development. This means
that the developed physical and biological SWC structures contributed in reducing run off, increasing
infiltration and enriching the smaller tributaries that supply water to main river. As a result, the capacity
of both ground and surface water was reported to increase. In other words, the river flow remains almost
constant throughout the year including the dry season.
Limitations: In some areas community based watershed development (CBWD) has not been successful
due to internal and external factors. Internally, the following points can be mentioned. First, in some of
the areas CBWD was conducted in areas that arc not priority and as a result people did not appreciate
them. Second, in some of the watersheds the people are part time residents and did not own the
structures. These people live in highlands pcnnanently and use the mid land only in few crop seasons
and the management on such cases are very low and the watersheds are not developed. Third, in some of
the areas the community is still reluctant to practice SWC practices in their farms. There are watersheds
in which soil and water conservation structures are not practiced. Fourth, there are watersheds in wrhich
incomplete and irregular SWC structures in farm plots created erosion that was not common in the area.
Externally lack of coordination between watershed development and other development activities (e.g.
road construction) can be mentioned as an important limitation. This can be associated with lack of
xxiii
capacity including technical, financial and etc; lack of integrating other infrastructural development (e.g.
water, road, etc) with watershed development. Also the problem due to the characteristics of natural
resources in terms of cross political boundaries as one watershed can be situated in two different
administrative regions. The limitation is that as the bottom of the watershed can be a priority in certain
administrative region, whereas, the pick of the same watershed in other administrative zone or region
may not be developed. As a result, the success of the watershed development at the bottom of the
watershed is not successful.
Opportunities due to watershed development: Watershed development in central zones of SNNPR
has been manifested in other diverse opportunities. These opportunities are at diverse levels and
dimensions such as at household, community, organizational, and policy levels. They include:
(a) increased capacity of households with respect to agricultural production and natural resources
management as the watershed development intervention is known to engage people with diverse
knowledge, skills, and capacities from different organizations and this helped participants to get
information and knowledge that capacitate them to carry out agricultural and natural resources
management by their on capacity and it also brought the spirit of competition among the
neighbors and hence makes them stand for good work. But now they come to understand that
soil and water conservation structures have additional roles than soil and water conservation role
(b) Integration of soil and water conservation with livelihood activities. The rehabliaited areas
have provided economically important goods that are used for livelihood diversification. Among
these: apiculture, dairy farm, fattening of oxen and small ruminants can be mentioned.
(c) Technology transfer. Due to the watershed development interventions, the community has
come to leam and know the various soil and water conservation structures and where to practice
them. As a result, they started to practice the technology by themselves to their own farmland
(d) Reduction o f fodder problem in densely populated highlands of central zones due to
introduction of new commodities (desho and other grasses, fruits, and etc)
(e) Introduction off-farm and non-farm activities to households and others. The developed
watershed has helped them practice different off-farm activities that were not possible in the past
xxiv
due to degradation of the natural environment. The development of watershed has brought
important off-farm and non-farm opportunities for the households. The opportunity of grass
selling, apiculture and fattening of small ruminants and oxen as off-farm livelihood activities
have become possible due to the development of watershed. The developed physical structures
have supported the development of grasses, annual crops and perennial crops more than ever and
favored the various off-farm activities in the area and
(g) In addition some of the areas are developed to the extent of attracting tourism (visit from
other the owner gets benefit from the visitors as tax).
So it can be said that the introduction of soil and water conservation structures played a double dividend
role. On one hand, the interventions helped to conserve soil and water both on private farm and
communal lands. On the other hand, the watershed development has been linked with livelihood
improvement of the households by becoming sources of both off-farm and non-farm activities. Before
the development of watershed structures the grasses, annual and perennial crops used to be only the
traditional ones in the area. But now new grasses, annual and perennial crops are introduced. Notably,
the grass species has shown remarkable contribution to the economy of the households by minimizing
the amount of expenditure with respect to grass on one hand and by increasing the productivity of their
livestock. Above all, some of the introduced grasses have become important sources of income as they
are sold in the market. Above all, these grass species have reduced the pressure on enset and sugar cane
as they have been used inteesively for fodder.
Due to watershed development opportunities at community level are also immense. In all the watersheds
people irrespective of their age, gender, and qualification have already been concerning about the
watersheds. Now the sense of ownership for communal resources has been improved. This has been
associated with sufficient knowledge to compare and contrast the benefits and losses due to watershed
developm ent or degradation. Now concern for watershed is the issue o f every citizen to the extent o f
duly considering the future generation as what the current generation makes determine the fate of future
generation. In the past the approaches and processes of the watershed development were at small scale
and in a fragmented way. Communal resources in general and watershed resources in particular were
considered as every ones. As every ones’ property is no one’s property, communal resources have been
degraded. But after the development of the watershed, the attitude towards watershed/communalXXV
resources has been improved and now the community made SWC activities their own resources whether
they are on individual farm lands or on communal lands.
The opportunities due to watershed development are beyond household and community levels as diverse
opportunities are registered at organizational levels as the process has capacitated experts at different
levels with training and exposure visits, and providing different resources and facilities. It has also given
strength and life for the performance of various institutional arrangements. Furthermore, it has
strengthened the concern and participation of various sectors or offices of government to involve
themselves in watershed development activities. This is a stepping stone for further development
activities.
At national level, the opportunities for policy and strategies in order to promote collective action are
remarkable. In the past watershed development activities have been difficult to accomplish in the
absence of incentives such as cash or kind. In the past such incentives used to be widespread instruments
but with limited success. In the current community based watershed development, however, the whole
program comes to be successful in the absence of such incentives. As a result, a huge volume of work
amounting to billions of ETB is being accomplished every year. Moreover, the institutional
arrangements (Andleamist, Limai Budin, etc) have shown its importance in the current community based
watershed development. Therefore, it can be used as an important input to devise policies and strategies
in other collective action dilemmas.
The following are the best practices that can be scaled up for watershed development beyond central
zones and also for promoting collective actions in other problems than watershed even in central zones
of SNNPR:
• The use of indigenous or traditional institutions as foundations/infrastructures for the formal rule
making, enforcement and for promoting collective action
• Link of soil and water conservation with livelihood strategies
• The use of institutional arrangements (Andleamist, Limai Budin) throughout the process of
watershed development.
To sum up, community based watershed development in central zones of SNNPR, Ethiopia has met
double objectives. On one hand, it contributed in rehabilitating the degraded watersheds. On the otherXXV)
hand, it helped the communities in the watershed to increase the production and the productivity of both
their livestock and crops and diversify their livelihoods into off-farm and non-farm activities
xxvii
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Ethiopia is believed to be one of the Sub-Saharan African countries seriously affected by land
degradation, which accounts for 8% of the global total (Habitamu. 2010). Notably, land
degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining fertility is serious challenge to agricultural
productivity and economic growth in Ethiopia (Mulugeta, 2004). Extensive areas of the
highlands in the country experienced high rates of erosion. In the mid-1980s it was estimated that
4% of the highlands (2 million ha) had been so seriously eroded to the extent of not supportig
cultivation, while another 52% had suffered moderate or serious degradation (Wood, 1990;
Ktivaruger et al., 1996). Regarding soil loss, average soil loss rates 21 to 42 tones per hectare per
year on cultivated lands (Humi, 1988; Kebede 1996). Land degradation in Ethiopia is also
intensified by soil nutrient depletion, arising from continuous cropping together with removal of
crop residues, low external inputs and absence of adequate soil nutrient saving and recycling
technologies (Bojo and Cassels, 1995; Sahlemedhin, 1999). The aggregated national scale
nutrient loss was 41 kg/ha per year for N, 6 kg/ha per year for P and 26 kg/ha per year for K
(Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990). In Ethiopia, the impacts of land degradation have reached to the
extent of affecting livelihoods of the people in particular and the national economy (Tadesse,
2001). The immediate consequence of land degradation includes reduction in crop yield which,
in turn, resulting economic decline and social stress. The impact of erosion is particularly severe
in the highland parts of the country where farming is practice for many centuries (Lakew et a l,
2005).
To reverse these situations, the government of Ethiopia has launched a massive community
based participatory watershed development programs since 2010/11 in four regional states:
Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples, Oromia, Amhara and Tigray as part of strategy to
protect the evironment while achieving food security. The farming communities in the rural areas
were highly mobilized to implement both physical and biological soil and water conservation
measures on farm and communal lands. The proponenents of this participatory watershed
management including the government of Ethiopia claim that significant social, economic and
environmental benefits have been achieved due to it. However, the processes and the
28
output/impacts of community based participatory development programs have not been
systematically studied and evaluated. As a result, it requires understanding the process of the
watershed management, the biophysical, social and institutional factors at the watershed level as
well as detailed investigation of the social, economic and enviromental impacts. This is crucial to
sustain achievements and scale-up best practices to the next level. However, in Southern Nation
Nationalities and Peoples' Region (SNNPR) hardly any evaluation has been carried out by
independent bodies/institutions to identify and evaluate the impacts, the limitations and the best
practices that can be scaled up in similar settings in order to develop watersheds and ultimately
improve livelihoods of rural communities. Indeed, understanding the process of the watershed
development, the social and institutional factors at the watershed level as well as detailed
investigation of the social and economic impacts brought due to this program are crucial to
sustain achievements and scale-up best practices to the next level. This study, therefore, was
initiated by South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) in order to evaluate the biophysical and
socioeconomic impacts and process of Community based participatory watershed development
programme implemeted in SNNPR particularly in central zones.
1.2. Short History of Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia
Land degradeation in general and soil erosion in particulary has been a serious environmental
problem in developing countries including Ehtiopia. An increase in population and consequent
activities such as intensive cultivation, overgrazing, deforestation and inappropriate landuse
practices to satisfy its needs are fundamental factors contributing to soil erosion in Ethiopia
leading to low agricultural productivity (Osman and Sauerbom, 2001). Many studies attribute
water erosion, particularly on cropland, as a major cause for such a high level of soil erosion in
Ethiopia (Hurni, 1988; Shiferaw and Holden, 1999; Sonneveld, 2003).
Several studies in Ethiopia showed that large areas in the highlands have been affected
by soil erosion. The Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study (EHRS) o f the Food and
Agriculture Organization o f the United Nations (FAO) (Wright and Adamseged 1984
and Kruger et al., 1996) indicated that, of the 53.5 million hectare of the highlands, 28 % is very
severely affected by accelerated erosion and 24 % to a more moderate but still serious
29
degree. This leaves only 48 % free from erosion problems but with very high susceptibility
to accelerated erosion if conservation measures are not implemented.
Prior to 1974, very little effort was made to combat degradation of the Ethiopian highlands
(Bezuayehu el al., 2002). Recognizing land degradation as a major environmental and socio
economic problem, large-scale conservation schemes were initialed and developed after
experiencing major food deficits and famine in 1974, 1984/85 and 1987y88 (Amsalu and Graaff,
2006).
In the mid 1970s, the establishment of Peasant Associations provided the mechanism to
implement the World Food Program which provided the initial motivation for mobilization of the
rural labour force for conservation and development work (Constable, 1985). The land
conservation activities introduced through food for work (FFW) included mainly physical
measures such as level and graded bunds, level and graded Fanya Juu, afforestation and
reforestation. Harrison (1987) pointed out that Ethiopia is the site of the World Food Program’s
(WFP) biggest conservation effort in Africa. Like most WFP projects it provides food for hungry
people not in the form of free handouts, but in exchange for hard work aimed at laying the
foundations of food self-sufficiency. The first FFW supported soil and water conservation
(SWC) activities were started in 1971 in Tigray and in 1972 Wello with US food under PL 480
project to carry out reforstation and construction of low cost rural roads and small soil and water
consevation projects (Humi,1988). Large-scale conservation schemes were initiated particularly
after the famines of the 1970s. Since then, huge areas have been covered with terraces, and
millions of trees have been planted (Herweg, 1993; Yeraswork, 2000). World Food Program
(WFP) and other governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were supporting
these projects and a great deal of money has been invested during the 1980s (Humi, 1988).
According to the World Food Program (2005) report between 1980 and 1994 an area of
1,045,130 ha was covered with soil bunds and hillside terraces, 17880 km of check dams and cut
of drains, 1,259,760 ha were covered by closure and afforestation, and about 170 small earth
dams were constructed. Additionally Getachew Adugna (2005) has also reported that between
1993 and 2001 about 1,134,709 hectares of terraces, 11,303 km check dam, 10868 km cutoff
drains and 4014 km artificial water ways have been constructed to treat degraded lands in
30
various areas of the country and 158,132 hectares of land were also planted with different and
multipurpose species of seedlings. Likewise, the area coverage of SWC activities through the use
of food aid escalated tremendously and the conservation continued to grow though the
implementation could not keep pace with the up to 1986 (Campbell, 1991).
This effort has resulted in many ecological benefits such as restoring farmlands, increasing soil
depth, water holding capacity and improved woodlot and pasture land (Tato, 1991). In spite of
the ecological benefits of the soil conservation efforts, there were serious shortcomings. The high
labour demand and cost of construction for structural conservation measure (Humi, 1990),
farmers’ reluctance to adopt such intensive measures, (Kejela and Fcntaw, 1992), little effort to
incorporate indigenous soil and water conservation activities, there was no clear linkage between
land rehabilitation investment and improvement in food security and income (Dejene, 1990;
Humi and Tato, 1992; Assefa, 1999). Moreover, Debele (1994); Nedesa (2002); Pender and Ehui
(2000) underlined that the soil conservation policies and activities o f the past decades have not
been successful. The overall evaluation of the past soil and water conservation activities
suggested that these efforts yielded limited success (Shiferaw and Holden, 2000).
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. General objective
The general objective o f this evalauation was to assess community based participatory watershed
development approach and results obtained by the efforts in reference to sustainable land
management, livelihood improvement and environmental rehabilitation in SNNPR.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
• To examine the institutional environment and arrangement employed as entry for the
approach
• To analyze perception, processes of community participation, and level of involvement in
watershed activities
• To identify and analyze the resources invested by farmers and government in watershed
development
31
• To identify and evaluate the interventions (design, construction and quality) against
Ministry of Agriculture’s (MoA) specifications
• To assess changes in soil quality indicators and vegetation and
• To examine the early socioeconomic impacts of watershed development
1.4. Approach
1.4.1. Study area description
The study focuses on the central part of the SNNPR, where the severity of erosion is reported to
be high and there has been massive interventions campaign. Accordingly, Sidama, Woliata,
Kembata Tembaro, Siltie and Halaba Special woreda were selected for this study (figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Map of the study areas32
1.5. Methodology
1.5.1. Sampling technique and sample size
Multi-stage sampling techniques were employed to select the study areas. In the first stage, four
zones and one special woreda from central zones of the SNNPR were identified. The selection of
the zones and special woreda was on the basis of population density, severity of land
degradation, and the status of watershed intervention. In the sccond stage two woredas from each
zone and one special woreda, totally nine woredas were selected on the basis of the same criteria
employed for the selection of zones. Finally, two intervened watersheds with good and poor
performance were selected in each woreda. Both bio-physical and socio-economic data were
collected from sampled watersheds.
Data at household level was collected using a household survey. For the household survey 120
households (60 households from good and 60 from poor watersheds) was selected from each
woreda and total of 600 sample households were selected using stratified random sampling
technique. For the stratification of households an existing wealth ranking criteria, available at
local level, and employed for various development interventions was be used.
For biophysical data collection two scales of sampling were employed- larger scale and case
study sampling. At a larger scale based on secondary data, interviewing and discussion the
general picture of the scale of the campaign in terms of spatial overview, what type of
interventions taken, where the interventions arc taken and when the campaign conducted (how
long, the season, norms of implementation) were ascertained. In the case study, smaller scale
focused watersheds/fields were selected for vegetation, soil quality and quality of the
interventions detailed analysis.
1.5.2. Data collection
Both secondary and primary data were used for this evaluation. The secondary data was maily
obtained from Bureaus, Department and Office of Agriculture and Natural Resources at regional,
zonal and woreda levels, respectively.
33
I.5.2.I. Biophysical data collection
Identification and measurement of interventions: The scalc of the interventions, the spatial
overview as well as the coverage in terms of area and timing were evaluated based on the
reports and discussions with the concerned authorities. Commencing from the reports, field
verification was conducted to get the realistic picture. This was further cross checked through
discussion with implementors and the farmers.
On selected watersheds and/or farmers plots, focused evaluation of the ihe quality of the work
was conducted. Comparison of the interventions to the set standards and the appriopirateness of
the interventions were evaluated. This focused study employed the identifcation of type of
interventions and land type that has been treated. The main criteria for the evalaution employed
were topography, land use, climate and the farmers preferences.
Soil quality evaluation: After the sub-watersheds were selected as good and poor based on the
predetermined criteria, two paired sampling locations of intervened and adjacent non-intervened
fields, which were under similar slope and land use condition were selected. Private and
communal lands treated with different soil and water conservation measures and those remained
untreated in the watershed were identified for evaluation of soil quality.
Vegetation survey: The vegetation survey was conducted in exclosures of selected sub
watersheds from five woredas. Transect-quadrant method was employed for vegetation
sampling. Analysis of watershed vegetation cover change was also conducted using GIS and
remote sensing.
I.5.2.2. Socioeconomic data collection
The primary data was obtained from both formal and informal interviews and discussions with
experts and adminstartors at regional, zonal, district and Kebele levels. Formal and informal
interviews and discussions were also made with community and households. Furthermore,
observations were made al sub-watershed levels. The interviews and discussions included the
process, the resources used, the challenges, and performance of the watershed development in
the region.
34
1.5.3.1. Biophysical data analysis
Descritpive statstics were used to compare the values of soil oranic matter (SOM), total nitrogen
and available phosphorous. Species richness, relative density, relative frequency and relative
dominance were estimated using vegetation survey data collected.
1.5.3.2. Socio-economic data analysis
The collected raw data was edited, coded and entered to computer. Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS) version 20 was employed for data entry and analysis. Analyzed data was
classified and tabulated. Hence, both descriptive and econometrical analysis was used.
1.5.3. Data analysis
35
PART I: BIOPHYSICAL PERFORMANCE OF COMMUNITY BASED PARTICIPATORY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
36
1. EVALUATION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
1.1. Introduction
Land degradation is one o f the principal causes of low and declining food insecurity in many
parts of Ethiopia. Recognizing the conncction between land degradation and food security, the
government of Ethiopia has been committed to solve this problem by protecting the resource
basis on which agricultural production depends (soil, water, and other natural resources) through
sub-watershed approach. Sub-watershed management that sustain land management practices
and provide alternative means of livelihoods strategies are the pathways for food security and
other socio-economic development.
In the past four years, the government of Ethiopia has been implementing community based
participatory sub-watershed development activities with the goal of restoring degraded sub
watersheds, enhance agricultural production and ensure food security. In Growth and
Transformation Plan: 2010-2015, the government outlines the need to combat degradation,
promote and invest in soil and water conservation activities through sub-watershed development
approach.
The community based participatory sub-watershed development approach is based on sub-
watershed as a planning and development unit to restore degraded areas and sustain land
management. The approach advocates that the departure point is participation of the stakeholders
throughout the processes of sub-watershed development i.e. planning, implementation and
evaluation. This is the corc element of community based participatory sub-watershed
development whereby the community collectively defines and prioritizes problems and identifies
what solutions are best suited to the area.
On these bases and as part of the government initiatives, the SNNPR has been implementing sub
watershed development activities throughout the region. SNNPR consist of several agro-climalic
zones and endowed with variety of natural resources. As elsewhere in the country, land
degradation has been a problem in the central zones that arc found in SNNPR. Though the extent
of soil erosion in the study areas varies from one zone to the other, many places are threatened
from land degradation. It is observable that erosion features, such as rills, gullies and streams
37
flowing with concentrated sediment are common features in some of the zones. In some of the
study zones, the severity of soil erosion makes investment in soil conservation crucial for
protecting the natural resource base.
Since 2010, the government of Ethiopia has launched a massive particpatroy sub-watershed
dvelopment programmes in SNNPR, Oromia, Amhara and Tigray regions of Ethiopia as part of
strategy to protect the evironment while achieving food security. The farming communities in the
rural areas were highly mobilized to implement physical and biological SWC measures.
However, the output/impacts and the processes have not been systematicaly studied and
evaluated. To sustain achievements and sacle-up best management practices to the next level,
understanding and detailed investigation of technological, biophysical, social and institutional
factors at the sub-watershed level is required.
In the study areas key soil and water conservation practices have been implemented to restore
degraded lands, farmlands that are already affected by erosion and with potential risk of soil
erosion as part of the sub-watershed development effort. The four Zones and one special woreda
included in this study, implemented soil and water conservation activities according to their
environmental conditions. Moreover, the soil and water conservation practices have been
implemented after discussing with the communities about their interest, priority, capacity and
available resources with detailed schedule of activities.
Therefore, the aim of this evaluation report is to assess the technical specification, performance
and impact o f various physical and biological soil and water conservation measures implemented
in the past four years through community based participatory sub-watershed approach m selected
zones/special woreda (Sidama, Wolaita, Kembata-Tembaro, Si i tie. and Halaba) of SNNPR. Such
evaluation is necessary to realize the achievements/success or limitations of the conservation
measures and provides feedback to take counteractive measure for future planning.
38
1.2 Methods
1.2.1 Design of the evaluation
The southern region was assumed to be represented by the central part in which the different
ago'ccologies as well as the various activities in the sub-watershed activities have been practiced
similar to all the other parts of the region. Accordingly, the following zones and special woreda
were selected namely; Sidama, Kembata Tembaro, Siltie, Wolaita. and Halaba.
In consideration to representing the various influencing factors two woredas were selected from
each /.one typical of dega and kolla agro ecology. Finally, two sub-watershed representing where
activities are carried out in an exemplary good way and where activities are weak to be poorly
performing were identified from each agro-ecology of each woreda. The criteria used for
identifying the poor and good sub-watersheds were deliberated in an extended and detailed
discussion with the zone and woreda experts. The selected sub-watersheds arc presented in (table
1.1).
Table 1.1 The list of sample sub-watershed used for the evaluation study
Zone/Special Woreda Woreda Kebele Sub-watershed StatusSidama Hawassa Zuria Lebu koromo Koromo-Danshe Poor
Umbulo Kejema Laygnaw Muleti . Good* Bensa Shata Golba Hodamo Kunkuna Poor
- . Hatchie Huro Adilo GoodKembata Tembaro Kacha Bira Ita Senbete Poor
Hoda Gutc GoodKededa Gamela Abosa Orota Poor
Sheshera Sheshera Dudiye GoodHalaba Halaba Tachcgnaw Bcdene Wushirana Koro Poor
Misrak Gortancho Mulete GoodWolaita Boloso Sore Gurmo Koysha Tibc Good
Wormuma Wormuma Gas ho PoorDamot Gale Akabilo Garo Poor
Wandara Boloso Godaye GoodSiltie Hulbareg Bilwanja Doli Bilwanja Poor
Demeke Doli Demeke GoodAlecho Wiriro Gugso Chunko Poor
We/.ir Hulet Ayte Good
39
1.2.2 Data collection
On the selected sub-watersheds the type of interventions and the landuses dominantly intervened
were identified through discussion and field observations. The sub-watershed and or the specific
sample fields for the study were those interventions carried out in 2011.
On the dominant structures practiced in the sub-watershed and/or farmers plots, evaluation of the
quality of the work were evaluated. The performance of the structures were assessed in terms of
the level of development of the structures, how well the\ function at the moment, the biological
interventions carried out on and around the structures-type and extent and design considerations
with respect to mainly the landuse and topography. The informations on the above issues were
recorded in pre-developed format in the field in consultation with the development agents and
field observations. Moreover data were collected on the dimentions of the structures in
replications on at least three section of a structure.
1J . Result and Discussion
1.3.1 Evaluation of soil and water conservation activities; the casr of Siltie and Wolaita
Zones
In this report an assessment was made to evaluate SWC activities being implemented in Wolaita
and Siltie Zones. The scopc of the evaluation focused on technical standards, performance and
impact. By natural resource experts from the woreda, the sub-watershed areas in each zone was
categorized in to good and poor performing then field visit was earned to see their status. This
section elaborates on findings/ the technical specification, performance, impacts and identifies
challenges of physical and biological SWC measures established through particpatroy sub
watershed dvelopment programmes.
1.3.1.1 The soil conservation structures in the study areas
In Wolaita and Siltie Zones various types of physical conservation measures have been
implemented. The most common physical soil and water conservation structures include stone
bunds, soil bunds, fanaya juu, and bench terraces on farmlands where their presence depend on
agro ecology, land use, soil and slope conditions. Eye-brow basins, micro basins, rock check
dams, gabions and deep trench etc mostly found on the upper hillside of the catchment. In most
cases, physical conservation measures are implemented in an integrated manner according to the
sub-watershed plan. In some cases, the physical SWC structures are complemented by biological
measures to make them more effective.
Table 1.2 Type of structures implemented under two contrasting status
Type of structure
Soil bund Fanya juu Stone bund Trench Half moon Micro-basin Eye-brow basin Check dams
Good
Frequency of occurrence
Exclosure FarmlandPoor Total Good Poor
4 43 3
Total
1.3.1.2 Evaluation of structures in the sampled sub-watershed
Trench: Trenches are large and deep pits constructed along the contour with the main purpose of
collecting and storing runoff in order to improve soil moisture that support the growth of plants
or recharge ground water. Trenches are rainfall multiplier system which can store considerable
amount of runoff The structures are mostly found in area exclosures and in some of the study
sub-watersheds (in Damot Gale, Garo sub-watershed) these structures are installed on the upper
part of the farmland to replace cut-off drains where safe disposal points are unavailable.
41
Table 1. 3 Mean values of trench dimensions measured m the study sub-watersheds (in cm)
Trench Sub-watershed
Woliata Siltie
Garo(poor)
Garo(good)
Tibe(good)
WormumaGashu(poor)
Cbunko(poor)
Ayte(good)
Slope % Ditch
20 24 21 8 7 32
Depth 62 68 85 68 28 68Width 123 112 76 112 110 104
Berm . 15 17 15 33 34Length 713 300 304 313 527 408Tie spacing Embankment
- - 47 - • 67
Height 58 15 30 65 25 23Width top 68 15 51 67 57 56Width bottom 143 15 134 192 127 89
Trenches can have flexible design and are applicable on wide range of slopes. As can be seen
from Table 1.3 the depth, width and the length and as well the embankment height and the width
of water collection trenches from Ayte sub-watershed (Siltie zone) and Garo sub-watershed
(Wolaita zone) has been found to be within the range of the specification (50 cm deep, 50 cm
wide and length up to 3m). Maintaining the depth of the trenches for maximum runoff collection
is crucial. In this regard both study sites Ayte sub-watershed (Siltie zone) and Garo sub
watershed (Wolaita zone), the depth is well maintained and this indicates that farmers have
removed the soil deposited in the pit before the onset of the rainy season. However, certain
variations can be observed on the embankment bottom width, berm and tie spacing. Farmers on
these sub-watersheds indicated that water collection trenches have especially helped to reduce
runoff and conserve water and replenish spring water. In Ayte sub-watershed the trenches are
constructed in staggered arrangement to ensure zero runoff system.
42
In this sub-watershed the structures are well constructed and vegetated both on the embankment
and the space between them. Trees species commonly grown include Casuarina equisetifolia,i
Acacia saligna, Acacia decurrens, Erythrina bnicei and Hagenia abyssinica while desho grass
{Pennisetum pedicellatum) is planted not only to stabilize the embankment but also to harvest
grass for livestock. As noted in field observations, the trenches have been an integral part of area
exclosure, and have proven effective in reducing runoff and harvesting water. On other cases
technical standard of the structures built in some sub-watershed are of poor quality mainly due to
lack of follow up and maintenance. For example in Boloso Sore woreda Tibe sub-watershed the
embankment of the trench neither maintained nor vegetated.
Fanya juu: Since their introduction three decades ago, fanya juu terraces are widely practiced in
Ethiopia and they are valued for reducing soil erosion, conserving rain water and improving
farmland productivity. Fanya juu terraces are suitable on gentle slopes with well drained deep
soils. As can be seen from Table 1.4, the depth of the basin/collection ditch of fanya juu is
shallow (half of the recommended depth) when compared against the specification which is
60cm. The reason is that soil that is eroded between the inter-terraced areas is being deposited in
the basin or close ploughing may have moved the soil into the basin. The soil trapped in the
retention basin has to be removed regularly and preferably can be used to raise the height of the
embankment or simply spread over the plot. For structures that are on the process of developing
into bench terraces, the width of the basin almost remained the same as the technical
specification which is 50cm.43
Figure 1. 2 Shallow and deep trench in Wermau Gasho (Wolaita) and Ayte (Siltie) sub- watersheds
L____
Table 1.4 Mean values o f fanya juu dimensions measured in the study sub-watersheds (in cm)
Fanyajuu
Godaye(good)
Wormuma Gasho (poor)
Sub-watershed
Demeke Doii (good)
Garo(poor)
Tibe(good)
Slope %
Ditch
26 7 4 18 15
Depth 28 28 37 - -
Width 51 49 59 -
Berm 24 15 32 - -
Tie spacing
Embankment
55 26 30 • *
Height 31 22 26 64 87
Width top 48 36 55 48 60
Width bottom 111 91 102 - -
Spacing b/n structures
1100 2533 1700 1600 1600
According to guideline set by Ministry o f Agriculture and Rural Development, a fanya juu
terrace has to be constructed on gentle slope. In this regard in all sub-watershed (with the
exception of Godaye sub-watershed) most of the fanya juu terraces are constructed under 18%
slope gradient. On steep slope the embankment of fanya juu can be easily overtopped by heavy
storm and damage the lower part o f the field with concentrated flow. Therefore, to overcome this
problem, in Halaba at Muleti sub-watershed they alternatively construct soil bund on the upper
part and fanya juu on the lower part of the farmland.
44
Figure 1. 3 Fanva-juu dev loped into bench terrace stabilized with desho grass and Cajanus cajan (a) and purely desho grass (by
Progressive reduction of slope gradient can be achieved by applying correct spacing between
fanya juu terraces. This in turn depends on the gradient of the slope, the soil texture (heavy or
light soils), and soil depth. In general, it can be said that in Garo, Wormuma Gashu, Tibe and
Doli Demeke sub-watersheds the average slope gradient calculated was 10% and the resulting
spacing was 15 meter with vertical interval of 1.5 meter. Therefore, the above mentioned sub
watersheds are closer to the recommended spacing except Godave sub-watershed which is
slightly narrower. As shown on Table 1.4 above the spacing between the terraces in Wormuma
Gashu sub-watershed was about 25 meter on the 5% slope gradient which is acceptable.
The overall field assessment by large indicates that the fanya juu terraces are constructed
according to the specification. The majority of the fanyajuu constructed in 2011 in Damot Gale
(Godaye and Garo sub-watershed) and Bolso Sore woreda (Tibe sub-watershed) have already
developed into bench terraces in three years’ time. From experience in Ethiopia and elsewhere' ' i
this is very short time to change into bench terrace. The fanya juu are well vegetated mostly
wath desho grass (.Pennisetum pedicel latum), and other native grass and Cajanus cajan.
The public soil and water conservation activities promote the planting of trees, shrubs, and
grasses to stabilize and improve the effectiveness of physical SWC measures. Both physical and
biological methods are an integral part of integrated sub-watershed management in the study
sites. Integrating biological soil and water conservation measures with the physical measures is
promising as shown in the figure 1.3. The biological measures are important to stabilize the
physical structures. It has to be encouraged by incorporating more multipurpose tree species and
45
L
shrubs so that the two support each other, ensure the continued use of the fanya juu terraces aimd
as well derive other products. However, the evaluation teams observed that the fanya juu terraces
have been neither maintained regularly nor protected from destruction. The structures are partly
demolished and in few cases completely removed not only by animals but deliberately by
farmers (Wormuma Gashu sub-watershed). This undermines their ability to produce the intended
results and to function on a sustainable basis.
Figure 1.4 Structure stabilized by desho grass (a) and harvesting desho grass for animals feed
Soil bund: Sub-watershed management activities focus on rehabilitation of degraded land,
protection of sensitive areas and enhancement of water resources. Therefore, appropriate
technology and approach is required to address these issues. Soil stone/bund is one of the
technologies that often used mainly to rehabilitate or protect farmlands affected by soil erosion.
Soil/stone bund is an embankment along the contour/slightly graded side sideways, made of soil
and /or stone with a basin at its upper side. The bund reduces or stops the velocity of runoff.
Physical soil and water conservation measures needs to be tailored to local conditions. In steep
areas and where sufficient stone is available the construction of stone bunds can be more
effective than bund constructed purely from soil. This technology is widely used throughout the
country. Several studies indicate that their effectiveness can be significantly improved when
regularly maintained and combined with biological measures.
Soil /stone bunds are largely have been used in almost all studied sub-watersheds. During the
field survey, the dimension of the soil /stone bunds i.e. depth, width, height, top and bottom
width were recorded and then compared with the design specification.
46
Table 1. 5 Mean values of soil bunds specifications measured (cm) in the study sub-watersheds
Soil bund Sub-watershed
Woliata Siltie
Godaye Wormuma Demeke Doli Ayte Chunko(good) Gasho (poor) (good) (good) (poor)
Slope (%) 11 7 5 5 42Ditch
Depth - 36 40 35 40Width - 54 73 49 55Berm - 7 - 14 28Tie spacing - 35 - 24 40
Embankment
Height 66 20 23 19 20
Width top 31 44 45 40 45
Width bottom - 112 50 78 85
Spacing b/n structures 2350 2900 2315 2905 2530
Even though the depth and with of the basin of soil bund varies according to soil and climatic
conditions, the depth of the bund was found to be shallow (just above half of the recommended
specification) which 50 cm and 60 cm for stable and unstable soils respectively. The width of the
channeL'basin was within the range of the specification except Doli Demeke sub-watershd. Soil
bund to quickly develop into bench terrace, the height of the embankment has to be continuously
maintained and its height needs to be increased. If not, its water and soil retention capacity
declines. In this regard, the field assessment indicated that with exception of Godaye sub
watershed in Damot Gale woreda, the rest of the study sites/ sub-watersheds; Wormuma Gashu
(Boloso Sore woreda), Doli (Hulbareg woreda) Ayte and Chunko (Alicho Wiriro woreda) were
found to be much lower than the required standard which is 60 cm. And what is more, the bottom
width of soil bund in Doli, Ayte and Chunko sub-watersheds was not according to the
specification set to be 1-1.2m for unstable soils and 1.2-1.5m for stable soils respectively. The
narrow bottom width is not the initial dimension at time of construction of soil bund; rather it is
the result of ploughing closer to the structure. Lesser base width makes the structure unstable.
47
r
Figure 1. 5 Soil bund on the process of developing into bench terrace
Furthermore, in some farmlands in Ayte sub-watershed we have observed that the soil bund was
neither properly done nor maintained and not functioning at all. Likewise, in Garo sub-
watershed, Damot Gale woreda we have observed the soil bund was replaced by desho grass on
farm plot located on 18% slope gradient in fear o f harboring moles. In such slope gradient and
considering the farm conditions, the grass strips alone are insufficient to protect the land from
runoff and further affect adjacent farmlands. On the other hand, we have seen in Chunko sub
watershed where soil deposited in the basin was removed and used to raise the height of the soil
bund embankment to speed up its development into bench terrace. In addition, maintaining the
basin depth prevents the embankment from destruction during ploughing.
According to the technical standard, the upper slope gradient limit for soil bund is 15-20%. In
Wormuma Gashu, Godaye, Doli and Ayte sub-watersheds, the average slope gradient where the
soil bund applied was 10% and this was found to be as per the specification. However, we also
observed soil bunds constructed on 42% slope gradient in Chunko sub-watershed.
In view of the good efforts and promising achievements, the evaluation team has some concerns.
The biggest concern is lack of follow up and maintenance of the structures. This has resulted in
reduced dimension of the soil bund well below the standard, consequently reducing the
performance of the structure. The other concern is that once the structure is established with the
appropriate spacing, farmers tend to demolish the structure fully or partly and create wider
spacing as farmers do not want to lose the cropping land. Excessive wider spacing means
prolonging the progressive development of soil bund into bench terrace.
Micro basin: Micro basins are a common soil conservation activities used to store water to
speed up initial growth of tree/shrub seedlings and increase survival rate in moisture deficit
areas. To be more effective micro basins can be combined with hillside tcrraccs, stone or soil
bund and can be constructed on slopes up to 50%. In Doli Dcmekc sub-watershed micro basins
are constructed with larger diameter than recommended. The standard diameter according to the
guide line is up to 1.5 meters to grow a single tree seedling. In the site visited the diameter of the
micro basin reaches up to 5.8 m while the height of the riser is according to the specification.
Figure 1. 6 Micro basin constructed with stone on highly denuded area in Doli Demekc sub- watershed
The micro-basins in the sub-watershed arc used to grow more than a single tree seedling and this
may justify the need for larger diameter. The structures are properly constructed and functioning
very well; the riser is constructed with stone having sufficient height a large water collection
ditch. Tree species such as Acacia saligna, Sesbania sesban, elephant grass and in some cases
banana grow in the micro basin (figure 1.6).
49
Table 1.6 Mean values of the measured dimensions of micro basin (cm)
Micro-basin Sub-watershed
Godaye(good)
Wormuma Gasbo (poor)
Demeke Doli (good)
Garo(poor)
Tibe(good)
Slope %
Ditch
26 7 4 18 15
Depth 28 28 37 - -
Width 51 49 59 -
Berm 24 15 32 - -
Tie spacing
Embankment
55 26 31 -
Height 31 22 26 64 87
Width top 48 36 55 48 60
Width bottom 111 91 102 - -
Spacing b/n structures
1100 2533 1700 1600 1600
1.3.2 Evaluation of SWC activities: Sidama, Kembata Tembaro zones and Halaba special
woreda
In Sidama, and Kembata Tembaro zones two woredas each were selected. In this section the
cases of five woredas including Halaba are presented. In each woreda two sub-watershed
representing good performing and poor performing were visited. During the visit, the status,
activities carried out so far, the land uses present in the sub-watersheds and the different soil and
water conservation measures implemented were identified. Moreover, the DA’s were asked to
rate the measures in terms of their importance so that the focus of the visit rather were focused
on the most important sections and measures carried out in the sub-watershed. The sub-
watersheds visited are ten in total.
The following section present the evaluation findings in three sections; the general evaluation on
the types o f soil conservation activities, the performance and conformity to design of the specific
50
measures carried out and some general evaluation as lessons to be learned from the visited sub
watershed.
1.3.2.1. The soil conservation structures in the study areas
Soil conservation interventions observed in the regions are of different kinds including biological
measures, soil management and structures (physical measures). In the government intervention
endeavors however, the focus and activities targeted to constructing physical conservation
measures that require manipulation of the topography and movement of soil. These labour
intensive activities are accomplished by the mass mobilization campaign. The soil conservation
structures are constructed during the dry period, in a pre-planned schedule at national level,
through free labour contributed by farmers. The structures were supplemented by biological
activities (with grass, trees and shrubs plantations) for stabilization and or strengthening them.
This activity is accomplished during the wet season- rainy season.
There were varieties of soil conservation structures implemented through mass mobilization. In
the studied zones / woredas the major types, in farm lands, are soil bunds and fanya juu while
over 5 types of structures are used in exclosures. The following table (table 1.7) shows the types
of soil conservation measures used in two land use systems, their frequency and the status of the
sub-watersheds.
Table 1. 7 Type of structures implemented in the two land uses and under two contrasting status
Type of structures Frequency of occurrence
GoodExclosure Poor total Good
Farm land Poor Total
Soil bund 5 2 7 6 4 10Fanyajuu 1 1 2 3 3 6Stone bund 2 2 4 1Trench 5 3 8 1Half moon 2 2 4Microbasin 3 3Eyebrow 1 1 2Check dams (Gabions/stone) 2 1 3 1 1Cutoff drains 2 2 1 1
51
Soil bunds are preferred than fanya juu in farm lands and exclosuies. While both structures are
recommended in farm lands in the seven out of ten sub-watershed visited soil bunds are
constructed in the enclosed areas. It is claimed that soil bunds are better to control and manage
runoff than fanya juu and thus preferred in high rainfall areas. On the other fanya juu’s are
recommended for quick conversion to bench terrace. The table (Table 1.7) above suggests that
dominant sub-watershed development activities carried out in exclosures in terms of type as well
as coverage, nearly in all the visited sub-watersheds. They are areas that most woredas tend to
prove the success of the sub-watershed development endeavor. The changes in rehabilitation of
the highly degraded areas were significant, that the contrast between before and after is so
vividly recognizable declaring the achievements. Basically exclosures by definition refer to
giving rest and allowing natural regeneration through avoidance of man and animals
interference. However, there are supporting structures implemented in all areas visited and they
are over nine types. The most frequently used are trenches followed by soil bund (table 1.7).
While one or two types of structures are recorded in some sub-watersheds in some over 7
structures have been practiced. The type of structure implemented doesn’t seem varying between
the status of the sub-watershed treated, i.e. all structures are implemented in both good and poor
sub-watersheds.
Apart from the above structures there were also other structures which were implemented in the
visited areas, these include ditcheras (stone fence built around exclosures for the main purpose
of excluding animals) and horse shoe basins. Both have been recorded in Halaba. While the
former is quite successfully practiced the later is so poorly constructed that no effect could be
proved as few of them available as well as the sub-watershed were managed poorly.
132.2 . Evaluation of structures in the sampled sub-watershed
Fanya juu: Fanya juu structures were sampled in six sub-watersheds in three woredas all found
in cultivated lands. The structures interestingly have been developed into forward sloping bench
terraces with varying level of development and status. In all, except one, the ditches have
disappeared leaving the embankments functioning. The level /height of the embankments range
from 22cm in a field with slope of 5% to 74cm high in a field with slope of 13% (Table 1.8). The
traces of the Fanya juu disappeared in four of the six samples as there was no embankment with
52
distinct top and bottom widths. Increased height of the embankment is an indicator of the level of
development, as more deposition in the lower part and erosion in the upper part is taking place in
the benched section / strip.
Table 1.8 Mean values of fanya juu dimensions measured in the study sub-watersheds (in cm)
Fanya juu Sample sub- watershed
1 2 3 4 5 6
Slope 18% 5% 5% 18% 13% 9%
Height 58.3 22.2 68.9 56.0 74.2 65.0
Width-top 51.1 54.4
Width- bottom 106.1 102.2 85.6 56.0 96.7 110.6
Spacing 8000.0 2700.0 1683.3 1350.0 1450.0 1400.0
Spacing at lm VI 555.6 2000.0 2000.0 555,6 769.2 1111.1
% Difference 93.1% 25.9% -18.8% 58.8% 47% 20.6%
The spacing of the structures in the fields was compared with estimated spacing at vertical
interval of lm (recommended for use for structures). In all the structures, except one, the spacing
is higher than what they supposed to be (estimates). Wider structure spacing will increase
cultivable width and production by reducing land that would otherwise be occupied by
structures. On the other hand, effectiveness of structures in reducing and controlling erosion will
be limited. The higher the slope of the field the wider the spacing should be made and wider
discrepancy compared with the estimate. It seems that in relatively flatter slopes the
recommended spacing seems to be respected (in relative terms) than in steeper slopes.
The findings indicate that unless additional fanya juus are constructed in between the structures
development in to bench terrace could not be achieved. The present situation needs to be
improved in consultation with farmers for fully exploitation of the dynamics of the structures to
the most effective form-benching.
In the visited fanya juu treated fields, interesting and innovative local practices have been
observed in sampled watershed of Kembata Tembaro zone. Phalaris grass was planted on top of
the structure as well as whole section between structures for the production of animal feed
53
(figure 1.5a). This system is a fallow system to last for about 4yrs after which it will be used or
crop production. There is also alternate planting of phalaris with beans in rows whereby .rop
production combined with forage (Figure 1.5b). It is claimed that the grass will hold water and
make it available for the beans (width of beans/grass =40cm) moreover increased the diversity of
crop as well as optimizing small area (land holding) for various production purposes. All these
seem a local innovative practice that has to be adapted by fanners and transferable in to other
areas.
„ * r ' ^ • - a)
Figure 1 .7 Strip o f phalaris grass between structures (a) and of combining grass with bean (b) in Oreta sub-watershed. Kembata Tembaro
Soil Bund: The soil bunds measured in the field have been constructed in varying slope ranges,
from flatter slopes of 7% to steep slopes up to 48% (Table 1.9). Most of the soil bunds are
constructed in the cultivated lands. The ditch and embankment of the structures were
distinctively noted and measured in most of the sampled bunds while the last three have been
observed to develop into bench terrace. The rate of benching is so slow that in four years period
the change has not brought development of benching in the area. Benching is faster in steeper
slopes than medium to flat slope conditions; this perhaps might be explained by the higher rate of
erosion and deposition within the bund area.
In steeper slopes where the measured spacing ranges from 11 to 26 m which are very wide while
expected to be not exceeding one digit. However, generally soil bunds are not recommended in
slopes greater than 30%. In cases where slope exceeded 15% the use of stone faced version is
recommended. Thus the use of non- stoned faced soil bunds is not appropriate but the quicker
change into bench terrace on the steep slopes is a paradox
The spacing of the structure was found to be lower in some structures and higher on others with
no consistent pattern (Table 1.9). For example, at 10% slope the recommended spacing is 10 -
15m but bunds were constructed at narrower spacing of 8.5m. On the other hand, at gentle
slopes, 7 and 8% the spacing was 32m and 60m respectively which is 2 to 5 times more than the
recommended spacing (14.3m and 12.5m).
Embankments of the bunds were stabilized by desho, vertiver, elephant grass and Pigeon pea.
Farmers maintenance endeavor vary among the visited farms. While the structures are
maintained and protected in some in others basins filled with sediment, part of the bunds
damaged or deliberately demolished, discontinuous bunds that do not extend the whole field
width and ploughing close to the structures to the extent of decreasing the size have been
observed.
Table 1. 9 Mean values of soil bunds specifications measured in the study sub-watersheds (cm)
Soil bund 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Land use Exclosure cultivated
Slope 15%
9-15%
16% 8% 7% 10-12%
Ditch
15% 15% 10%
48% 35%
45% 38%
Depth 40 51.1 66.7 48.3 40.6 24.4 51.1 58.2 40 47.1 30.6
Width 58 71.4 133.3
49.4 57.8 46.1 80.0 69.3 61.7 67.1 51.7 84 98.9 53.3
BevnV lip 22.2 27.0 18.3 24.7 12.2 25.6 40 25.7
Tie width 35 43.9 50.0 27.5 30.6 16.9 48.6 80 54.3 53.3 44.2
Embankment
Height 19.4 22.6 56.7 13.9 36.1 20.0 34.1 30.0 24.4 33.3 15.6 73 102 31
W-top 108 45.7 63.3 56.1 56.1 37.8 65.0 75 44.4 26.7
W-bottomSpacing
51.7 110.7
190 78.9 123
6000
123.3
3200
80.0 120.0 67 111
850
70.0
800 1100
1300 2568
Compared to the recommended design 50cm depth of the ditch at the time of construction, after
four years the ditch depth became in the range of 40-60cm except only one structure (soil bund
6-Tachignaw Bcdcne, Halaba) with slightly less than 25cm (Table 1.9). It was supposed to
reduce as a result of the deposition of sediments every rainy season. The current ditch widths of
most bunds were found between 50 -80cm wide. Considering narrowing as time elapsed, the
original sizes would have been wider than the current one. The current widths are much higher55
than compared to the design width of 50cm. Thus both the depth and the width of the bunds
likely were deeper and wider than the recommended / design values. On the other hand, the
height of the embankments in most structures was 14 -30cm (except one with 56cm in Hatche)
compared to the recommended 60cm after compaction during construction. It is expected that the
embankment should be raised and increased while the ditch depth reduced and diminish but the
reverse is being happening. This perhaps indicates that the structures were not designed and or
managed properly.
Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) guidelinenecommends that
soil bunds should be ‘upgraded’ / modified to Fanya juu to enhance the development of bench
terrace. This has not been done in all of the soil bunds visited. Such practice would have been
enhanced development as well as protect the land better that the present situation.
It has been also observed that there are inappropriate planning and design, as well as
maintenance and management. These include laying structures on gradient while claimed to be
level. This has resulted in breaching structures and creating eroded waterways initiating gullies
and or high sheet erosion (figure 1.8). The case depicted in the figure was in farm lands where
boundary lines neglected from being included in the layout thus where runoff breach.
Figure 1.8 Poorly constructed structures and flood damages on crop lands, Wosherana Koro sub- watershed, Halaba.
Trench: A trench is a structure widely used in exclosures but also applied in cultivated field as
well. In the sampled sub-watersheds, h o w le r all the trenches are found in the exclosures. As per
the CBPWD standard trenches are 2.5 to 3m long, 50cm deep, 50 cm wide and spaced 2 to 3m.
Trenches are recommended for slopes ranging from 5 to 50% and varying alternatives as
modification of the standard also available. The specification used in the different sub
56
watersheds visited ! studied lack uniformity and has no consistent form as well as dimension.
The depth of the ditch is less than the recommended depth o f 50cm which may be due to
deposition of sediment for the last four years. The measured width ranges from 50 to over 100cm
and wider in most of the structures than the recommended. A standard trench should be 2.5 -3m
long, however the recorded values indicate that out of the sampled deep trenches two third of
them are either longer or shorter and the remaining are within the recommended range. The
result signifies that there is no consistent technical specification used in the different sub
watersheds visited as well as in the same sub-watershed. In some sub-watershed (Hawassa Zuria-
Lebu Kormo) poor maintenance and absence of vegetation was observed. Some of the structures
do not have berm while others lost their embankments totally. Such varying and haphazard
dimensioning in the construction will negatively affect the proper functioning and efficiency of
the structures to control soil erosion.
Table 1.10 Mean values of the measured dimensions of trenches (cm)
Trench 1 2 3 4 5 6 Small trenchSlope 15% 9-10%
Ditch20% 18% 14%
Depth 14.4 69.2 43.8 30.0 38.3 41.1 34.7Width 61.7 93.8 48.8 105.0 64.2 50.0 50.8Length 320.0 482.5 127.6 200.0 325.0 406.7 122.8Berm/ lip 18.1 30.0 10.8Tie / spacing 52.5 52.6 48.3 25.0 33.0
EmbankmentHeight 19.3 28.8 45.0 29.2 8.9Width-top 43.6 61.7 45.0 48.3Width- bottom 114.3 117.2 135.0 125.0 61.1Spacing 266.7 263.3 550.0
The most important tree and shrub spccies observed in the trench treated area are Accacia
saligna, Acacia tortolise, Acacia albida, Grevillea robusta, Jacaranda mimosifolia, Eucalyptus
spp, Casuarina equisetifolia, Olea africana, Dodonaea viscosa and Cajantis cajan (pigon peas).
The trees are planted in between the structures while pigeon peas used on the embankments of
the trenches. As observed in most of the sub-watersheds, Grevillea robusta are dominant as they
arc preferred by the fanners and the extension bccause of high rate of germination during57
seedling preparation and high emergence after planting as well. Moreover, it has been claimed
that it grows fast and serve as multipurpose trees for fuel, mulching and shade. Most of the
trenches are filled with sediments (Figure 1.6) indicating effectively controlling erosion while
maintenance is required before the next rainy season to serve properly. It has also been observed
that the embankments are not compacted thus susceptible to damage by runoff that would
overflow the ditch during heavy rain storms.
Figure 1. 9 Sediment filled trench, Sheshera Dudeye sub-watershed, Kededa Gamela
Half moon: This structure is commonly practiced in dry and denuded areas with gentle or flat
slope. The table below (table 1.11) indicated the mean values of the measured half moon in the
studied sub-watersheds. This structure called micro-pond by the locals and sometime may
confuse from the water harvesting structure that has been described in the CBPWD
guideline/manual. The structures are not commonly found but were limited to two sub
watersheds in Sidama zone. The structures size (diameter) do not exceeded 6m and they are in
the acceptable range except in one sub-watershed where the size is less than 2m. In all the cases
the depth to which they have been dug is more than required, being in the range of 40 to 90cm
which is after four years of excavation and considerable soil is silted in them. While the general
recommendation of such structures is limited to be used in slopes less than 5% but all observed
areas are greater than 10%.
58
Table 1. 11 Mean values of the measured dimensions o f half moon (cm)
Sampled sub-watershedsHalf moon I 2 3 4Slope 9-15% 14% 10%Depth 48.9 96.1 96.1 40.0Diameter 596.7 570.6 570.6 190.0Embankment Height 38.2 38.8 31.3Embankment Width-top 71.7 77.2 77.2 47.5Embankment Width- bottom 200.0 165.6 165.6 135.0
The structures embankments were planted with grass and pigeon peas thus quite sufficient for
stabilization and protection. The semi-circular area also observed harvesting water and retain it
for possible use, however it is not vegetated as supposed to be.
Check dams: Check dams in Kededa Gamela are excellent examples for the successful
protection o f highly eroded and dissected lands. Runoff flow line (drainage paths) that had
created gullies was successfully rehabilitated by gabion check dams. It has been observed that,
the check dams treated considerable portion in the visited catchment that affected by gullies.
Series of check dams are constructed along the water ways (drainage lines) which are highly
eroded and seem to be effective. Well constructed and functioning check dam, sediment trapped
and good grass/vegetation growth both at the upper and lower sections of the check dam was
observed at Sheshera Dudye sub-watershed, Kededa Gamela (figure 1.10).
Figure 1.10 Check dam at Sheshera Dudye sub-watershed, Kededa Gamela
The height of the check dams ranges from 2 to 3 m high, thus capturing sediment for deposition
in the up-slope section effectively. Elephant grass and trees were well established at the upper59
pan strengthening / stabilizing the structure. While most of the check dams were well performing
and in good condition, odd observation was in one check dam that the spillway was leveled by
additional gabion for no explainable reasons. This prevents water from concentrating at center
and side bank erosion started where eventual damage of the structure would be caused. In some
of the check dams, water flow at the sides eroding the soil was observed. In others due to lack of
apron small gullies are created along the flow lines in the downstream section (figure 1.10).
Figure 1.11 Ineffective check dam, Sheshera Dudye sub-watershed, Kededa Gamela
Check dams that are poorly made either because of construction problem or design are
ineffective in protecting the area from erosion damages. Figure 1.11 depicts simple check dams
made of only stone but all check dams along the gully bed were collapsed. The ineffective check
dams failed / collapsed either due to the spacing, and or design making them unable to withstand
the flow.
60
Figure 1. 12 Damaged check dams along gully line, Wosherana Koro sub-watershed, Halaba
During filed visit, it was observed that community by-laws in some watersheds were commonly
violated by farmers. For instance, at Damot Gale and Hawassa Zuriya some farmers are not
respecting closed area from interference' like cutting grass letting animals tied on embankments
(figure 1.13). While animals tied to restrict their movement for appropriate and effective
utilization of grass and fodder on boarder areas, the animals need to be kept away far from
structures to avoid damage and weakening of the structures. Farmers from self-centeredness or
economic reasons have been seen to violate exclosure principles.
Figure 1.13 Heifer tied for grazing on the structure (a) and theft of grass from exclousre (b).
61
1.4. Conclusion and Recommendation
The overall aim o f the community-based participatory sub-watershed development was to
address the prevailing environmental threats and improve the social wellbeing of the community.
In general, the current evaluation confirms that good progress has been made towards reducing
land degradation through sub-watershed approach. In many instances the evaluation team
observed that physical soil and water conservation structures, and biological measures, are built
according to guidelines set by Ministry of Agriculture. Most are of good quality and
improvements have been observed, and technical specification has been maintained over the four
years o f implementation period.
Desho grass (Pennisettun pedeciiatum) is a very famous grass used by farmers for stabilization of
structures in the visited sample sub-watersheds. Apart from stabilizing the structures, the benefit
as fodder for animals is highly recognized that it is effectively used by farmers. Moreover, it has
been reported that cultivation of the grass is being used as an income generating activity, sale of
harvested grass to neighbors as well as in the local market. Cognizant of the importance of the
grass other zones and regions also demanding it for planting materials and thus sales of grass
locally and across the region is becoming important activity among the knowledgeable farmers.
The study sub-watersheds have been showing visible improvements in reducing runoff, soil
erosion and increased water availability. The active and well-organized sub-watersheds such as
Godaye in Damot Gale woreda have employed good quality of physical soil and water
conservation structures along with biological measure. The farmers are maximizing the benefit
by utilizing the soil bunds embankment while stabilizing the structure and reducing the
maintenance cost
In all the visited sub-watersheds the structures are well managed. The sub-watersheds in most
cases are treated in a planned way considering the different requirements entailed because of
topographic, soil and climatic variables / variations. The number of structures implemented in a
sub-watershed could be one indicator for such consideration. For instance, in Halaba Mulete sub
watershed (Misrak Gortancho) eight different structures were recorded, there were 7 structures in
Kembata Tembaro in Sheshera Dudiye and six different structures in Hawassa Zuria Muleti sub
watershed. In the case of Muleti sub-watershed, Hawassa Zuria, the land is highly degraded as
62
well as the topography is undulating in short distances. Thus the different land forms have been
treated in the best way to control erosion and rehabilitate the area. Six different structures were
implemented such as half moon along a valley line in staggered pattern and appropriate distance
apart, thus capturing runoff that would otherwise erode and damage the lower areas. On the other
hand, the upper part was treated with trenches enabling to prevent flow and allowing infiltration
of large volume of water into the soil. Soil bunds and fanya juus also used appropriately to
manage the water and trap the soil in most of the visited sub-watersheds. The structures
embankments are planted with grass and or trees and shrubs.
The public work activities have clearly demonstrated the positive impact of soil and water
conservation measures. Farmers have reclaimed unproductive land such as gullies and eroded
hillsides. A combination of gabions, rock check dams, trenches and live vegetative barriers
(trees, shrubs and grasses) planted in the gullies and considerable silt deposited behind these
barriers and effectively mitigating gully erosion in area closure. This is evident from area
exclosure in Alicho Wiriro and Halaba woreda. The interventions also brought positive impact
on water resources, experts and farmers in Allicho Wiriro claimed that springs that dried up in
the past, now coming back as a result of the sub-watershed restoration, even during the dry
season.
The structures are breached at certain locations (commonly at boundaries), which was due to
poor layout and construction of the structures. Moreover, at some points it seems the gap left
between farm boundaries facilitated runoff collection and channeling. In some of the observed
bunds the tied ridges are made lower than the surface which allows sideways channeling of
water, however there is no waterway. Other bunds are not laid on the contour but with gradient
because of wrong layout and / or construction and no waterway.
Embankments of the soil bunds, fanyajus and trenches are supposed to be compacted just after
the construction. However, during the field visit it was observed the embankments were not
compacted and left loose. The rule to compact embankments should be respected and taken as
one of the important steps to be accomplished during the construction. Checking during the hand
over step by the group of farmers may resolve the problem.
63
In some fields, ploughing close to the structure and even ploughing the ditch itself is commot as
the development o f the structure progresses towards benching. This happened before the pr( cess
is completed and without proper maintenance i.e. reducing the embankment width will lead to
recession of the benching effect. However, farmers may benefit from increased cropped land.
During the field survey this was more obvious in the lower flatter areas/farms of the sub
watershed than in the upper part which is probably because of the reduced effect of runoff /
importance of controlling runoff in the lower part compared to the upper reaches.
It is observed that poor layout resulting to damaged structures during the field visits. One case is
in undulating topography a layout is carried out using a string length of 10m. This length cannot
capture the undulations in between rather leading to have a straight line (while depression exists
in between). Bunds or fanya juu constructed with the assumed straight Line create concentration I
channeling of water. In such small area and undulations string length (space between poles in the
layout) should be reduced to 3 to 5 m. Therefore, the blanket recommendation o f a 10m long
string should be amended as modification is required as per the condition of the area being
surveyed.
Laying structures off the contour seems a common mistake that arise from carelessness and or
inability to lay contour lines or use instruments. An example is from Hawassa zuria, (upper
Muleti sub-watershed) where excellent soil conservation activity has been observed (in terms of
the type and construction), the layout of trenches and bunds were found being off the contour
line. Though the present situation on the ground didn’t show the negative consequence, un-
doubtfully such practice will endanger the structures and generally the sub-watershed.
In a well maintained and good functioning rehabilitation work, there seem improper treatment of
biological measure where planting of grass being practiced on the top of a stone bund rather than
planting at the upper part behind the stone wall where soil is deposited. The top of the stone bund
is so poor with soil that the grasses are not growing rather most dried out (case of Doli sub-
watershed-HuIbareg, Siltie zone).
As a good practice it has been observed that in between stone bunds micro basins and trenches
are constructed in staggered fashion (case of Siltie zone in both study woredas). This will enable
the control of runoff more efficient and effective. Regeneration of the area enhanced fast
64
vegetative growth was observed. The mixing of different practices as need arises is a good
practical approach to successfully control erosion and runoff and quick recovery of denuded
areas.
Some remarks
Training in layout of structures: Training of farmers how to design and layout the
structures, availability and proper organization of the labour force, and input and
continuous training at various levels has enabled not only to accomplish the activities
within the specified time but also helped to improve the quality of soil and water
conservation measures over the implementation period. However, the team observed that
there is a need for sufficient training of the farmers to properly layout structures. This
should include laying level / graded structures and their spacing. Moreover, checking
faulty line level and using spacing of less than 10m under undulating field conditions and
small sizes is crucial.
Spacing of the structures: Proper spacing for soil and water conservation structure is
crucial for the efficiency of the structures, it is advisable to follow guideline for the right
spacing. Too wide spaced physical structures arc insufficient to reduce erosion. On the
other hand, farmers may complain when the spacing is narrow. Therefore, in such
situation compromise farmers’ needs and the technical requirements may be required.
Compacting embankments: This is a critical activity but missing in most structures as
observed during the field visits. This is crucial as it determined the stability and strength
of the structures.
Maintenance activities: While commendable activities have been done every year in the
short massive campaign, which were well organized and well thought prior to the
activities, follow up of the ground work do not seem to have been well organized or
implemented. It is obvious that the successes of the activities depend on the maintenance
and follow up of biological interventions during the rainy seasons. Moreover, every year
the previous SWC measures should be maintained. The maintenance works generally do
not have well organized planning as well as implementation guideline. Lack of setting
maintenance norms e.g. PD can be mentioned.65
A guideline how to manage the structures after construction is missing. Various
structures do require different treatments; Trench versus bunds/fanya juu. The former one
mainly serve facilitation of establishment of trees I shrubs etc while bunds I fanya juus
continuously changing to develop into benches. The requirements in terms of what, when
and how should be identified as spell out. These need for the various treatments after
construction should be well established and if possible a guide book prepared.
Benching: It is the ultimate goal to see bunds and fanyajus develop in to bench terrace.
This process requires proper maintenance and additional activities in the fields; such as
increasing the embankment to form a riseT, constructing additional fanya juu in between
the existing structures and converting bunds after a year or two into fanya juu. While in
most fields visited the development of the fanya juus is encouraging but none of them to
have completed the development. This was mainly because of the wide spacing between
structures. In the case of the bunds the development is slow that it seems never to be
converted into benches in most fields. This is mainly because of lack of conversion of the
bunds in to fanya juu. Therefore, the above deficiencies should be considered in the
subsequent year maintenance package of a treated area.
2. ASSESSMENT OF SOIL FERTILITY ENHANCEMENT
2.1. Introduction
Low soil fertility has been recognized as a fundamental biophysical cause for declining crop
production. According to Tilahun (2004), soil fertility decline is the major constraint to
agricultural production and food security in the Ethiopian highland farming systems. Fanners
have very limited capacity to invest in fertilizers or soil conservation measures. As a result,
yields arc low and many farmers arc forced to put fallow and marginal lands into production to
meet their food needs (Tilahun, 2004). The problems might be more in the case of the central
part of Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State (SNNPR) due to high
population density and fragmented farm land as well as continues fanning.
As a fundamental solution to the above problem, today, community based participatory
watershed development has become the main intervention for natural resource management. And
as an important development program it received much attention from the regional government
of SNNPR. To increase the overall agricultural production by improving environmental
condition in general and soil fertility in particular, participatory watershed development is being
widely implemented in different parts of the region sincc 2011.
Different types of interventions have been carried out in the watershed including soil and water
conservation measures in agricultural lands and cxclosures which explicitly influence soil
fertility. To evaluate the changc in soil fertility enhancement due to public based participatory
watershed development organic matter, total nitrogen and phosphorus can be considered as key
indicators. Particularly, organic matter has a number of roles to play in soil, both in their
physical structure and as a medium for chemical and biological activities (Zia et al., 1998).
Soil organic matter also plays an important role in soil fertility as it contains almost all of the
soil's nitrogen, 20-80% of its available phosphorus and most of the sulfur in soils (Stevenson,
1982). Hence the present study considered these nutrients to examine the performance of the
public watershed development for its contribution in soil fertility.
67
2.2. Methods
Private and communal lands treated with different soil and water conservation measures for three
consccutive years (2011-2013) and those remained untreated in the sub-watershed were
identified under Hawassa zuria, Bensa, Kedida Gamela, Kachabira, Damot Gale, Boloso Sore,
Hulbareg, Alicho Woriro woreda and Halaba special woreda. Under each sub-watershed, both
land uses (farm lands and exclosures) subdivided in to two appropriate sections i.e. upper and
lower and soil samples were collected from each section of treated and untreated areas for
comparison. The samples were taken from 0-20 cm soil depth using hand auger from 5-8
randomly selected spots and composited. The samples were replicated 3 times across each
stratum and geo-referenced.
Soil sampling, preparation, and analysis: Soil sampling was based on taking samples to
represent the entire watershed. The soil sampling units in farmlands were decided on the basis of
crop type and slope while slope and vegetation cover were considered for exclosures. Stratified
random sampling methodology was used for collecting soil samples from the watershed. A total
of 185 soil samples were collected from the surface (0 to 20 cm) layer using hand Auger to
represent the entire watershed.
Soil samples were analyzed in soil laboratory of Wondogenet College of Forestry and Natural
Resources following the standard methods developed for each parameter. Organic carbon was
determined using the Walkley and Black (1934) whereas total N was analyzed by the Kjeldhal
method (Jackson, 1958). Available P was extracted following the Olson method (Olson and
Dean, 1954).
2.3. Result and Discussion
2.3.1. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Sidama zone
Laygnaw muleti and Koromo danshe from Hawassa /uria and Huro adilo from Bensa were
among the selected sub-watersheds evaluated to reveal changes in soil fertility. In Laygnaw
muleti, the intervened farm land and exclosures exhibited higher value of the selected soil
nutrients compared to the non-intervened areas of both land uses. Soil analysis result indicated
that the mean organic matter (OM) and total nitrogen (TN) increased from 2.8 (control) to 3.8%
and from 0.14 to 0.18% in farm land, respectively. In the same manner these nutrient showed
higher value in the intervened exclosure compared to the adjoining non-intervened area of the
sub-watershed (table 2.1).
Similarly, in the intervened areas of Koromo danshe, comprehensible change in nutrient
accumulation was obtained in both land uses except in the lower section of the farm land.
Analysis result of intervened and non-intervened areas revealed that OM improved from 4.9 to
6.5%, TN from 0.27 to 0.33% and available P from 16 to 23 mg/kg in the upper section of the
farm land (Table 2.1). Conversely, in the lower part of the sub-watershed non-intervened areas
showed higher value of OM (4.069%) and TN (0.199%) compared to the intervened areas ins.
accumulated 3.655 and 0.175% OM and TN, respectively. This incidence might be observed due
to deposition of fertile soil eroded from the upper untreated farm lands and possibly due to the
initial difference in degradation level of both areas. In cxclosurc without any irregularity in the
upper and lower sections appreciable accumulation of nutrients were obtained in the soil. OM,
TN and available P enhanced from 0.21 to 4.88%, 0.21 to 0.25% and 10 to 12 mg/kg in the upper
section and from 2.3 to 3.9%, 0.16 to 0.18% and 2 to 12 mg/kg in the lower section, respectively.
However, in Huro adilo sub-watershed both the intervened and non-intervened farm land
accumulated high amount of OM and TN and met the requirement to be rated as very high based
on Murphy 1968 classification. This indicated that initially the fertility level of both areas were
at better stage which might be attributed from high vegetation cover of the area, decomposition
of litter falls and due to natural protection from soil erosion. On the other hand, in the upper pari
of the exclosure the intervention brought considerable change in the selected soil nutrients (table
2.1). In general, in sidama zone 89% of the sampled site in the intervened area rated from
medium to very high in OM and TN content while most of the sampled site of non-intervened
classified as very low and low.
69
Table 2.1 The selected chemical properties of soils in Sidama zone
Subwatershed
Land use Mean OM (%) Mean total N (%) Mean available P mg/kg)Non
intervened IntervenedN on-
intervened IntervenedNon
intervened IntervenedHawassa Zuria woreda
Laygnaw Farm land 2.793 3.836 0.143 0.182 — 9Muleti Exclosure 1.853 2.500 0.096 0.141 22 16
Farm landUpper part 4.896 6.508 0.271 0.330 16 23
Koromo Lower part 4.069 3.655 0.199 0.175 — 24Danshe Exclosure
Upper part 0.207 4.879 0.210 0.251 10 12Lower part 2.293 3.905 0.163 0.181 2 12
Bensa woredaFarm land 8.654 5.896 0.462 0.310 16 12
Huro ExclosureAdilo Upper part 0.534 2.250 0.030 0.112 - -
Lower part 1.396 0.724 0.072 0.033 14 10
The community based participatory sub-watershed development activities have considerably
positive impacts on soil fertility status. Similarly, various studies supported the current study that
sub-watershed treatment activities improve conservation of soil, moisture and soil fertility status.
Sikka et al (2000) reported that the organic carbon increased by 37% due to sub-watershed
intervention. Furthermore, Dhyani et al (2002) stated that soil of sub-watershed project area
showed significant difference in organic carbon, available nitrogen, and phosphorus and
potassium status. Organic carbon increased by 7.7 to 31%, available nitrogen by 10 to 35%,
available phosphorus by 8 to 23% and available potassium by 3 to 7% over the control (outside
of the sub-watershed area). As a result, improvement in soil fertility coupled with increased
water resources in the sub-watershed area led to expansion in cropped aTea and cropping
intensity, and increase in production and productivity of crops (Sikka et al., 2000).
2.3.2. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Halaba special woreda
Two sub-watersheds, Wushirana Koro and Mulele were considered for this study in Halaba
special woreda. The community based participatory sub-watershed development campaign
brought considerable change in cxclosurcs compared to farm lands in both sub-watersheds. The
result presented in table 4 indicate that in Wushirana Koro organic matter (OM) and total70
nitrogen (TN) increased in the upper part of the farm land compared to the control. However, in
the lower section relatively high nutrients were accumulated in the non-intervened areas than the
intervened side (table 2.2). This occurrence may be taken place due to deposition of fertile soil
eroded from the upper untreated farm lands and may be due to the initial difference in
degradation level of both areas and the difference in farmers’ management. In the exclosures,
soils are well developed in relation to the selected nutrients in the upper and lower parts the
intervened area. Soil analysis result revealed that in the upper section of the sub-watershed OM
and TN increase from 4.1 to 5.1% and from 0.21 to 0.31%, for untreated and treated exclosurcs,
respectively, and similar trend was also rccordcd in the lower part of the sub-watershed.
In Mulete, the farm land was not well developed in relation to selected chemical properties of
soil compared to the untreated sites. However, either upper or lower section of the exclosure
nutrient status of soil was improved (table 2.2). Based on the soil analysis result, OM increased
by 10.25 and 9.66%, and TN by 2.88 and 10.54% in the upper and lower parts, respectively,
compared to imtreated sites.
Table 2.2 The selected chemical properties of soils in Halaba special woreda
Sub-Mean OM (%) Mean total N (%) Mean available P
(Mg/kg)watershed Land use Non-
intervened IntervenedNon-
intervened IntervenedNon-
intervened Intervened
WushiranaFarm landUpper part 2.991 3.741 0.151 0.190 12
koro Lower part 3.017 1.474 0.153 0.080 2 8ExclosureUpper part 4.069 5.069 0.212 0.310 4 5Lower part 2.414 4.422 0.122 0.228 5Farm land 3.370 2.707 0.165 0.145 18
Mulete ExclosureU p p e r p a r t 5.551 6.120 0.312 0.321 4 15Lower part 6.603 7.241 0.351 0.388 12 6
2.3.3. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Kembata Tembaro zone
Sheshera Dudiye and Oreta from Kedida Gamela, and Gute and Senbete sub-watersheds from
Kachabira were selected for evaluation. In general, based on the soil analysis result the
71
intervened area of both land uses (farm land and exclosure) showed higher value compared to
non-intervened adjoining areas in all selected parameters.
In Sheshera Dudiye, organic matter (OM) increased from 1.2 to 1.6%, total nitrogen (TN) from
0.06 to 0.08% and available phosphorus from 20 to 28 mg/kg at intervened farm land compared
to the non-intervened. In this sub-watershed, soils of the intervened exclosure also exhibited
similarly higher value compared to the adjacent non-intervened area both in the upper and lower
section of the sub-watershed (table 2.3). In Oreta sub-watershed, analyzed soil result from
intervened farm land indicated that OM rise from 2.3% (control) to 3.974%, TO from 0.116 to
0.198% and available P from 14 to 26 mg/kg in the upper section. However, unlike the upper
part, in the lower section more nutrients were accumulated m non-intervened farm land.
In Kachabira woreda, in both sub-watershed (Gute and Senbete), high value of soil nutrients was
obtained in the intervened area compared to the adjoining non-intervened side. In Gute
exclosure, soil analysis result indicated that OM increased from 2.845 (control) to 4.735%
(intervened), TN from 0.146 to 0.413% and available P from 2 to 5 mg/kg in the upper section.
Similarly, appreciable result was also obtained in the lower section of the sub-watershed. In
Senbete sub-watershed higher value of all selected parameters were obtained from intervened
farm land both in the upper and lower sections. In the upper section, OM changed from 2.414 to
7.18%, TN from 0.122 to 0.35% and available P increased from 32 to 55 mg/kg. Alike the upper
section, in the lower part of the intervened farm land higher values of nutrients were obtained
compared to the control (table 2.3).
In general, in the selected sub-watersheds of Kembata Tembaro zone, soils of intervened area
exhibited an improvement in all parameters which indicate build up of soil fertility. Based on soil
analysis measured from the intervened area of farm land and cxclosure, OM and TN contents of
the surface layer (0-20 cm) is classified from medium to very high while most of the non
intervened area rated as low and medium. This result testifies that the public based participatory
sub-watershed development played a great role to enhance soil fertility in particular and
productivity in general. As a result, it can contribute a lot in crop and forage productions as
fertile soil is key element in agriculture.
72
Table 2.3 The selected chemical properties of soils in Kembata Tembaro zone
Sub- Land use Mean OM (%) Mean total N (%) Mean AP (Mg/kg)watershed Non Non Non
intervened Intervened intervened Intervened intervened IntervenedKedida gamela woreda
Farm land 1.224 1.603 0.062 0.083 20 28Sheshera Exclosuredudiye Upper part 1.621 1.741 0.086 0.130 8 6
Lower part 2.552 3.241 0.124 0.455 10 14Farm land
Oreta Upper part 2.396 3.974 0.116 0.198 14 26Lower part 3.948 2.638 0.210 0.133 10 15
Kacha bira woredaExclosure
Gute Upper part 2.845 4.735 0.146 0.413 2 5Lower part 4.200 5.725 0.370 0.502 28 48Farm land
Senbete Upper part 2.414 7.180 0.122 0.350 32 55Lower part 4.775 5.241 0.237 0.342 - -
2.3.4. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Wolaita zone
Wormuma Gasho and Tibe from Boloso Sore, and Garo and Godaye sub-watersheds from
Damot Gale were evaluated to know change in soil fertility. Result presented in Table 2.4
indicate that the status of selected soil chemical properties improved in both land uses in upper
and lower sections of most sub-watersheds.
In Wormuma Gasho, OM increased from 4.0 to 4.9% and from 3.5 to 4.7%, TN from 0.21 to
0.25 and from 0.17 to 0.24% in the upper and lower parts, respectively, at farm land whereas
available P showed an improvement at the bottom of the sub-watershed. Based on this result,
OM and TN content of the surface soil (20 cm) under this sub-watershed is categorized as high.
In both treated and untreated areas. However, this could probably indicate that the treated area
was initially in severe condition compared to the untreated one. But comprehensible difference
was observed in available P between intervened and non-intervened areas. Available phosphorus
in the treated site is classified as adequate for high demanded crops while in the non-intervencd
can be adequate only for low demanded crops. The intervened exclosure also showed appreciable
73
value of selected soil nutrients in both lower and upper sections compared to the untreated area
(table 2.4).
However, in Tibe disparate other sub-watersheds studied under Wolaita /one, expected outputs
were not obtained rather the non-intervened areas accumulated relatively high value of nutrients
compared to the intervened sides except in the upper part of the farm land (table 2.4). Among
many reasons, the result obtained in this sub-watershed possibly due to initial difference in
degradation level and farmers management, thus the non-intervened areas were enhanced in
relation to soil fertility whereas the intervened side started from severe condition.
In Damot Gale, farm lands were evaluated in both sub-watersheds. Based on the result presented
in table 2.4, soil fertility was enhanced in the intervened farm lands compared to the adjacent
untreated area. In Garo, OM increased from 2.367 (control) to 2.545% (intervened) in the upper
and from 1.022 to 3.614% in the lower section. Total nitrogen and available P also exhibited
similar trend (table 2.4). Similarly, in Godaye sub-watershed high soil nutrients were
accumulated in the intervened farm land compared to the control in both section. The soil
analysis result indicates that in the intervened farm land, OM increased from 1.655 to 2.648%,
TN from 0.083 to 0.103% in the upper section. The result also revealed that OM, TN and
available P noticcably enhanced in the lower section compared to the adjacent untreated site
(table 2.4).
In general, in most area of Garo sub-watershed OM and TN contents of the surface soil (0-20
cm) is changed from low to high while in Godaye the nutrients changed from low to medium. In
all sub-watersheds available P in the treated site is classified as adequate for high demanded
crops while in some area of the non-intervened are not adequate even for low demanded crops.
This achievement probably obtained due to reduction in soil erosion, minimizing free grazing,
and application of nutrient in the form of fertilizers which would have been washed by erosion
and possibly due to decomposition of litter fall specifically in exclosures.
74
Table 2.4 Selcctcd chcmical properties of soils in Wolaita zone
Sub-watershed Land use
MeanOM (%) Mean TN (%) Mean available P (Mg/kg)
Non-intervened Intervened
Non-intervened Intervened
Non-intervened Intervened
Boloso Sore woredaFarm landUpper part 4.043 4.896 0.205 0.251 — —
Wormuma Lower part 3.474 4.681 0.I7I 0.239 9.0 26.0Gasho Exclosure
Upper part 0.379 0.862 0.015 0.036 10.0 17.0Lower part 1.707 4.586 0.085 0.228 9.0 20.0Farm land
Tibe Upper part 2.241 3.345 0.114 0.165 6.0 20.6Lower part 2.941 2.143 0.146 0.112 25.3 18.0ExclosureUpper part 5.077 4.112 0.242 0.182 10.0 8.0Lower part 6.155 3.862 0.309 0.190 8.0 15.0
Damot Gale woredaGaro Farm land
Upper part 2.367 2.545 0.120 0.125 9.3 26.6Lower part 1.022 3.614 0.054 0.183 2.7 22.0
Godaye Farm landUpper part 1.655 2.648 0.083 0.103 3 22.6Lower part 1.112 2.298 0.055 0.068 16.7 28.0
2.3.5. Soil nutrient status of sub-watersheds in Siltie zone
Four sub-watersheds namely Chunko, Ayte, Doli (Demeke) and Doli (Bilwanja) were evaluated
under two woredas (Alicho Woriro and Hulbareg) of Siltie zone. Result presented in table 2.5
revealed that in all sub-watershed soil nutrients increased in the intervened areas compared to the
control (non-intervened) except in some parts of Chunko and Doli (Demeke).
In the upper section of the farm land at Chunko, OM increased from 4.62 to 10.11% and TN
from 0.401 to 0.885% whereas in the lower section higher nutrient accumulation were recorded
in the adjoining non-intervened sites. This result might be occurred due to deposition of fertile
soil eroded from the upper untreated farm lands and possibly due to the initial difference in
degradation level and farmers’ management. Ayte is the sccond sub-watershed evaluated for soil
fertility improvement in Alicho Woriro where high value of OM, TN and available P was found75
in the intervened side in the upper and lower section of both land uses. In the upper section of
farm land OM, TN and available P improved from 6.14 to 6.88%, 0.317 to 0.345% and 32 to 36
mg/kg, respectively. Similarly, in the lower section high value of selected parameters were
recorded in the intervened areas compared to the adjacent non-intervened site. In exclosure, in
the upper and lower sections, soil fertility improved due to the intervention executed in the sub
watershed. The soil analysis result revealed that OM enhanced from 1.017 to 6.387%, TN from
0.052 to 0.322% and available P from 10 to 12 mg/kg in the upper section, and the same trend
was observed in the lower section (table 2.5).
Soil nutrients similarly improved at Doli (Demeke) and Doli (Bilwanja) sub-watersheds in both
land uses except in the upper section of exclosure at Doli (Demeke). In the farm land of Doli
(Demeke) OM, TN and available P increased from 1.4 to 2.1%, 0.07 to 0.11% and 10 to 11
mg/kg, respectively, in the upper section. Similarly, high v alue of soil nutrients also obtained in
the lower section of the farm land compared to the non-intervened areas. At Doli (Bilwanja) only
exclosure was assessed and based on soil analysis result OM, TN and available P showed high
value in the upper section and lower sections of the sub-watershed compared to the control (table
2.5).
In the intervened area, 60% of the sampled sites classified from medium to very high in OM
content whereas 70% of the sampled area in the non-intervened sites rated as very low and low.
Similarly, 58% of the sampled site TN content of the soil classified from medium to very high
while 58% of the sampled site rated as low in the non-intervened area. This result implies that
the community based participatory sub-watershed development carried out for four years brought
considerable improvement in soil fertility which can play a great role in crop and forage
production, and improved natural resource management.
76
Tabic 2.5 Sclccted chemical properties of soils in Siltie zone
Subwatershed
Land useMean OM (%) Mean TN
(%)Mean available P
(Mg/kg)Non-
intervened IntervenedNon-
intervened IntervenedNon-
intervened IntervenedAlicho wiriro woreda
ChunkoFarm landUpper part Lower part
4.62011.53
10.119.565
0.4010.995
0.8850.842 4 4
Farm landUpper pari 6.137 6.879 0.317 0.345 32 36Lower part 0.224 3.655 0.012 0.176 2 28
Ayte ExclosureUpper part 1.017 6.387 0.052 0.322 10 12Lower part 4.362 5.413 0.218 0.271 18 23
Hulbareg woredaFarm landUpper part 1.379 2.060 0.067 0.114 10 11
Doli Lower part 0.172 0.759 0.008 0.038 2 6Demeke Exclosure
Upper part 2.483 1.741 0.126 0.085 14 9Lower part 0.741 1.715 0.035 0.090 6 10Exclosure
Doli Upper part 0.896 1.621 0.042 0.082 8 20Bilwanja Lower part 0.207 1.931 0.011 0.096 4 12
2.3.6. Overall status of selected soil nutrients
Based on the overall findings of this evaluation, the community based participatory watershed
development implemented for four years (2011-2015) has encouraging impact in soil chemical
properties which indicates the buildup of soil fertility. Although the impact of the intervention is
more pronounccd in farm lands, but in both land uses (farm land and exclosure) most of the sub
watersheds accumulated high to very high organic matter and total nitrogen (figure 2.2 and 2.3).
This implies that the capacity of the soil is enhanced to support crop and feed productions in the
farm land, and to improve vegetation cover and micro-climate of exclosures. In general, the
impact achieved in buildup of soil fertility could contribute towards to the improvement of
household food security. This study revealed, only small number of sub-watersheds classified as
low in OM and TN contents compared to the sub-watersheds met the requirement to be rated
from high to very high. Similarly, most of the farm lands accumulated high amount of available
phosphorus whereas exclosures not well developed and relatively high number of sub-
watersheds laid on low to very low. The present result can be acceptable for this (four year) short
rehabilitation period and the difference in nutrient status might be occurred due to initial
degradation level between the selected sub-watersheds. Particularly, the exclosures were
extremely degraded and gradual rehabilitation is expected.
Organic carbon
QFann land
a Exclosure
Medium Higli-verv high
Figure 2.1 Overall organic matter statuses of the studied sub-watersheds
1098
t > ?
£ 6
£ 5* 1
2 1 0
T o ta l n itro g en
■ Farm land
□ E xc losu re
M ed ium H ig h -ve ry h igh
Figure 2.2 Overall total nitrogen statuses of the studied sub-watersheds
Figure 2.3 Overall available phosphorus statuses of the studied sub-watersheds
78
2.3.7. Reflection of farmers
The soil analysis result also supported by household survey which was conducted in all selected
sub-watersheds. A total of 1080 farmers were asked if they recognize soil fertility status
improvement on farm lands and exclosures after the implementation of public based
participatory watershed development. Out of the interviewed farmers 1040 (96.3%) and 1017
(94.2%) recognized fertility improvement on farm land and exclosures, respectively. With regard
to crop production, about 87% of the interviewed farmers witnessed that increment of crop
production due to the watershed intervention. This evidence coupled with soil analysis result
magnified the positive impact achieved due to the intervention.
2.4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the findings of this evaluation, the community based participatory watershed
development implemented for four consecutive years brought noticeable improvement in soil
chemical properties which indicate the enhancement of soil fertility. Most of the intervened sub-
watersheds accumulated medium to very high soil nutrients which play an important role in soil
productivity. Thus in conclusion, in most of the sub-watershed considered in this evaluation
positive change has been realized which this change inretum reflects in crop production
increment.
Despite this success, the study also revealed that some sub-watersheds which classified as low
nutrient status requires due attention in maintaining the physical and biological soil and water
conservation measures from all actors and stakeholders. In addition, in few woredas both land
uses (farm land and exclosure) have not been received equal attention even though soil
degradation is clearly observed. This study also provides evidence that high soil nutrients
accumulated in the bottom of some sub-watersheds which led to conclude upper side of
watershed were not intervened in top-dow'n approach.
79
References
Dhyani, B.L., Juyan, G.P., Ralan, S. & Razada, A. 2002. Impact Evaluation Report of KhootgadIndia.
Jackson, M.L., 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, New Jersy,
USA. 582p.
Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA (1954). Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil by Extraction with NaHC03; U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. p. 939.Sikka, A. K., Subhash, C., Madhu, M. & Samra, J.S. 2000. Report on evaluation study of DPAP
watershed s in Coimbatore District. Udagamandalam, India: Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute.soil organic matter and proposed modification of the proposed chromic acid titration
Stevenson, F. J. 1982. OM and nutrient availability. J. Soil Sci., 2: 137-151.
Tilahun, A. 2004. Soil fertility decision guide formulation: assisting farmers with varying objectives to integrate legume cover crops. African Highlands Initiative /Tropical Soils Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT. Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
Walkley A. and Black C. A., 1934, An examination of Digestion method for determiningwatershed, Alemora National Watershed Development Program for rain fed areas, New Delhi,
Zia M S, Baig M B, Tahir M B. 1998. Soil environmental issues and their impact on agricultural productivity of high potential areas of Pakistan. Sci Vision, 4: 56-61.
80
3. ASSESSMENT OF VEGETATION STATUS ON EXCLOSURES
3.1. Introduction
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for most of Ethiopian population. The sector plays
paramount role in satisfying the demand for food, fibre and other goods. However, diminishing
productivity, resulting from degradation of agricultural land is still a major concern (Admasu,
2005; Aklilu and Graaff, 2006a; Tcshomc et al, 2012). Land degradation has also been
identified as the most serious environmental problem in Ethiopia and severe in highlands where
the average soil loss from farm land is estimated to be 100 tons/hectare/year (FAO, 1986; Hagos
2003). Deforestation, overgrazing and inappropriate agricultural practices are reported to be the
major human-induced factors of land degradation (UNFPA and POPIN, 1995).
To combat land degradation and ensure sustainability of agricultural production, rehabilitation
efforts has been made in Ethiopia by means of different approaches and programmes. The largest
soil and water conservation (SWC) activities in the country were those implemented during the
1970s and 1980s, mainly in a food-for-work programme (Woldeamlak, 2006). Recently, the
government of Ethiopia has started watershed based intervention through mass mobilization of
farming communities. As elsewhere in the country, participatory watershed based intervention
has been started in 2011 in southern region.
Establishcnt of exclosures are the major activitcis implemented during the watershed
development intervention. Exclosurcs are a type of land management, implemented on degraded
land for environmental restoration (Tucker and Murphy, 1997). Area cxclosures in the Ethiopian
context can be defmed as the degraded land that has been excluded from human and livestock
interference for rehabilitation (Nedessa et al, 2005). In some areas, both physical and biological
soil and water conservation activities are also being undertaken. Establishment of area exclosures
has been an important strategy for the rehabilitation of degraded lands and is one of the major
interventions that have been carried out mainly in the centeral part o f southern region, due to its
remarkable contribution for improvement of productivity and reduction in soil erosion.
Better understanding on the status of current intervention of area exclosure in southern region is
very crucial for developing strategies and technical guidelines for their conservation, and
81
sustainable utilization. Few case studies have been conducted in different parts of the country to
investigate the importance of area enclosure to improve vegetation cover, composition, density,
richness, diversity, and providing economic and ecological benefits to local communities (Emiru,
2002; Mengistu et al, 2004; Tefera, et a l, 2005; Emiru et a l, 2006; Ambachew, 2006; Mekuria
2007; Yimer et al, 2015). However, the findings from these studies hardly hold true for area
exclosure in southern region, as the interventions tend to vary across regions and among agro
ecology. Furthermore, since exclosure is a new management option and a rapidly evolving
complex ecosystem, it demands more investigations in the areas of its potential in maintaining
vegetation diversity (Yimer et al., 2015). Thus, this warrants further empirical investigation on
the potential contribution of cxclosure as alternative strategy for rehabilitation of degraded land
in Southern Ethiopia. This study could provide information for better intervention in terms of
area exclosure and implementation of land resources management in the region. Therefore, the
objective of this study was to assess the potential contribution of area exclosure in improving
vegetation cover and diversity in southern region.
3.2. Methods
For vegetation survey, from 18 sub-watersheds selected for the whole evaluation of watershed
intervention five sub-watersheds namely Mulete, Shershera Dubiye, Tibe. Doli, and Wishra Koro
were selected.
3.2.1. Data collection and analysis
Data collection: A systematic sampling method was used in this study to collcct data on woody
species and grass biomass. Since there was no baseline documented information about the
exclosrues before the interventions, previous vegetation status of the selected exclosures was
collected from communities and experts to consider as a control. Accordingly, nearlly all
exclosures have little or no woody species. Following the line transect method described by
Bullock (1996) a parallel line transects were laid across the exclosure for woody species
inventory and grass biomass data collection. Depending up on the size of exclosures 2-3 parallel
transects were laid down in each exclosure at a distance of 100 m. Plots, measuring 50 * 50 m,
82
were established along the line transects approximately at 75 m intervals. The number of plots
per exclosure ranged from 14 to 18 and totally 77 plots were sampled from the five exclosures.
In each plot (50 X 50 m), all tree and shrub species with diameter at breast height (DBH) > 5 cm
were identified, counted and DBH measured. Number of seedlings and saplings (< 5cm DBH)
were counted as per species. Key informants were used to provide local names of the
encountered woody species. After local names were known, scientific names were indentified
with the hlep of publication of Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea (Hedberg et al., 1989 ; Edwards et
al., 2000 ; Hedberg et a l 2003 ; Hedberg et al., 2004 ; Hedberg et al., 2006). For grass biomass
estimation, five sub-plots (lm * lm) were nested in the main plot. Accordingly, all grass
vegetation inside the sub-plots were totally harvested above ground, bagged, oven-dried, and
measured.
Data analysis: Diversity of woody species was determined using species richness and Important
Value Index (IVI). The IVI (Lamprecht, 1989; Kent and Coker, 1994) for each woody species
was computed using the following formula:
Relative dominance = (basal area for a species/total basal area) x 100;
Relative density = (number of individuals of a species/total number of individuals) * 100;
Relative frequency = (frequency of a spccies/sum of all frequencies) x 100 and
Importance value Index = Relative density + Relative dominance + Relative frequency.
Oven-dried grasss biomass data from plots were converted to tonnes per hectare. Microsoft
Office Excel software was used for the analysis of vegetation data and the results of the analysis
were presented using descriptive statistics.
3.3. Results
3.3.1. Vegetation status of Mulete exclosure, Hawassa Zuriya
Species richness: A total of 32 woody spccies including seedlings were recorded at Mulete sub
watershed exclosure of Hawassa Zurya woreda. These identified woody specics represent 24
families. Fabaceae, Oleaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Anacardiaceae were the most abundant
families. Among these woody species 28 species are indigenous and the other 4 are exotic. The
83
indigenous woody species, which were found in larger proportion, were naturally regenerated.
This indicates human and livestock interference from the exclosure was avoided and natural
regeneration allowed. Moreover, large number of woody species identified in < 5 cm DBH class
revealed that natural regeneration was initiated due to good management of the exclosure.
Density, frequency and dominance of woody species: The total density of all woody species
was 500 stems ha'1. Of this woody species diameter class > 5 cm and < 5 cm accounted for 35
stems ha'1 and 465 stems ha'1, respectively. Woody vegetation of the exclosure was dominated
by four woody species and represented 69% of the woody vegetation. These dominant woody
species were A. saligna (42%), C. equesitifolia (10%), G. robusta (9%) and A. tortolis (8%). In
this exclosure the extent of seedlings planting was high and A. saligna was the most planted and
survived species due to its ablity to wtihtstand highly degraded and stony areas. Among all
woody species highest frequencies were recorded in A. tortolis followed by D. angustifolia,
Strychnos spinosa, M. arbutifolia and A. persiciflora and A. salgna. Indigenous woody species
such as A. tortolis, A.seyal, and A.perisiciflora were found in the lower diameter class
abundantly while A. saligna, C.equstifolia and G. robusta were exotic woody species that were
found abundantly in lower diamter class (with DBH less than 5 cm). Thus, for exclosure
establishement, the contribution of both naturally regenerated indigenous and planted exotic
woody species were notably immense.
Figure 3.1 Average stem number of woody species per ha at different DBH classes
84
Basal area and Importance Value Index (I VI) of woody species: Basal area for woody spccies
with DBH > 5 cm was estimated. The total basal area was 0.15 m2 ha'1. The species with the
highest basal area was A. tortolis (0.08 n r ha'1) and followed by A. saligna and A. seyal (0.03 n r
ha'1 each), and G. robasta (0.02 m2 ha'1). The highest basal area obtained for A. tortolis was due
to the highest density and frequency and the largest size as compared to other woody species. A.
seyal had higher basal area because of higher frequency and larger size even though it had
smaller density. A. saligna had higher basal area because of higher density even though it had
lower frequency and smaller size. On the other hand, G. robusta had smaller basal area due to
lower density and frequency and smaller size.
At DBH > 5 cm woody species with high IV1 was A. tortolis and followed by, A. saligna, A.
seyal, and G. robusta (table 3.1). Though A. tortolis was recorded the highest IVI due to
significant natural regeneration and good exclusion from livestock and human, still plantation of
other seedlings such as A. saligna and G. robusta found to be important that played crucial role
in increasing the vegetation cover and rehabilitating the exclosure. Naturally regenerated woody
species like A. tortolis and A. seyal contributed for rehabilitation of the exclosure and production
of wood for possible utilization.
Grass biomass estimation: Grass biomass at the exclosure was estimated and the result showed
that the total average oven dry grass biomass was 2.49 ions ha'1, and ranged between 0.34 and
6.6 tons ha'1.
Table 3.1 Relative density, frequency, dominance and IVI for woody species at DBH > 5cm
Species name RelativeDensity
RelativeFrequency
RelativeDominance
Important Value Index
Acacia tortihs 40 41 52 133Acacia saligna 23 16 17 56Acacia seyal 15 22 17 54Gravillea robusta 17 12 12 41Acaciapersiciflora
5 9 2 16
85
Species richness: A total of 26 woody species including seedlings were recorded at the
exclosure of Wushirana Koro sub-watershed, Halaba special woreda. Among these woody
species 19 species were found to be indigenous while the other 7 exotics. Out of twenty-six,
fourteen woody species with DBH > 5 cm recoded and among these 12 were also found in the
lower DBH classes.
Density, frequency and dominance of woody species: The total average density of all woody
species was 419 stems ha'1. Of this woody species diameter class > 5 and < 5 cm DBH accounted
for 100 and 319 stems ha'1, respectively. Woody vegetation of the exclosure was dominated by 7
species and represented 91% of the whole woody vegetation. These dominant woody species
found were Acacia abyssinica (46%), Acacia saligna (14%), Acacia seyal (12%). Dodonaea
angustifolia (8%), Grevillea robiista (5%), Sesbania sesban (4%) and Acacia tortilis (3%).
Among all woody species highest frequencies were recorded in A. abyssinica (100%) and A.
seyal (89%) followed by Maytenus senegalensis (67%), Sesbania sesban (61%). and A. tortilis
(50%). In woody species > 5 cm DBH the highest frequencies occurred for A. abyssinica, Acacia
seyal and followed by D. angustifolia and Acacia saligna, Ficus sur, Croton rnacrostachyus and
Sesbania sesban.
Average stem number of naturally regenerated woody species such as A. abyssininca, A. seyal
and D. angustifolia were larger compared to DBH class > 5 cm. The same holds true for planted
woody species such as A. saligna, C. equisetifolia, G. robusta and S. sesban (fig 3.2). In the
exclosure, it is observed that seedlings of D. angustifolia and S. sesban grown from dispersed
seeds of mature tTees.
3.3.2. Vegetation status of W ushirana Koro sub-watershed, Halaba special woreda
86
16 0
Woody species
Figure 3.2 Average stem number of woody species per ha at two DBH classes
Basal area and Importance Value Index (TVI) of woody species: Basal area for woody species
with DBH > 5 cm was estimated. The total basal area was 0.5 n r ha'1. The species with the
highest basal area were A. abyssinica (0.27 n r ha'1), A. saligna (0.13 m2 ha'1) and A. seyal (0.03
m2ha'’).
Importance value index (IVI) computed for woody species were A. abyssinica (139.83), A.
saligna (56.65), A. seyal (36.53) and B. aegyptiaca (20.98). Most of the exotic woody species,
which were planted, had the lowest IVI. The indigenous species, which were not cultivated by
the community, exhibited highest IVI.
Grass biomass estimation: Grass biomass at the exclosure was estimated and the result showed
that the total average oven dry grass biomass was 18.95 tons ha'1, and ranged between 7.09 and
42.9 tonnes ha'1.
3.3.3. Vegetation status o f Shershera Dubiye sub-watershed, Kedida Gamela woreda
Species richness: A total of 22 woody species including seedlings were recorded al Sheshera
Dudiye sub-watershed exclosure of Kedida Gamela woreda. Among these woody species 16
species were found to be indigenous and the other 6 exotic. Eleven woody species with DBH > 5
cm rccoded and all of these species also exist in < 5 cm DBH class. About 11 woody spccies
87
found only in < 5 cm DBH class. All exotic woody species were planted while almost all
indigenous woody species were naturally regenerated.
Density, frequency and dominance of woody species: The total density of all woody species
was 811 stems ha'1. Of this woody species, the upper (> 5 cm) and lower (< 5 cm) DBH class
accounted for 202 stems h a 1 and 609 stems ha'1, respectively. The larger number of stems at < 5
cm DBH class shows existence of large number of seedlings and saplings due to significant
natural regeneration and planting. Three woody species namely A. abyssinica (41.1%), A.
saligna (20.3%), and D. angustifolia (17%) dominated woody vegetation of the exclosure. These
woody species were also the most abundant with 333, 165, and 138 stems ha'1, respectively.
Among planted species A. saligna contributed larger proportion (20%) followed by L.
leucocephala (1%). This demonstrates the exclosure vegetation at Shershera Dubiye was mainly
covered by naturally generated indigenous woody species.
In DBH class > 5 cm the highest frequency was recorded for A. abyssinica (100%) and followed
by A. seyal (71%), A. saligna (57%), and B. aegyptica (43%) and A. dolichocephala (43%). The
woody species with the highest frequency in DBH class < 5 cm were A. abyssinica and D.
angustifolia (100% each) and followed by Goforo (89%), A. seyal and A. saligna (71%), B.
aegyptica and O. africana (64% each). The high frequency shows regular horizontal distribution
of the species in the sub-watershed. Woody species such as A. abyssinica, A. seyal, A. saligna,
and B. aegyptica consistently highly distributed in both diameter classes.
After excluding the area from human and livestock interference, and conducting planting
activties, the woody vegetation cover at Sheshera Dudiye sub-watershed were increased (figure
3.3). It is evident that the abandanc of woody species like A. abyssinica, D. angustifolia and B.
aegyptiaca with DBH class less than 5 cm was higher than the upper diamter class (>5c m) that
testify the contribution of excosures for natural regeneration. In addition to natural regeneration,
higher individuals of A. saligna in the lower diamter class indicate that planting of excotic
woody species were implemented abundantly in the exclosures.
88
Figure 3.3 Average stem number per ha at different DBH classes at the exclosure of Sheshera Dudye sub-watershed
Basal area and Importance Value Index (IVI) of woody species: Basal area for woody species
with DBH > 5 cm was estimated accordingly the total basal area was 29 m2 ha'1. The species
with the highest basal area was A. abyssinica (16.53 m2 ha'1), A. seyal (9.53 m2 ha'1) and A.
saligna (2.33 m2 ha'1). The highest basal area obtained for A. abyssinica was due to the highest
density and frequency, and the largest size as compared to other woody species. A. seyal had
higher basal area as compared to A. saligna because of higher frequency and larger size even
though it had smaller density. On the other hand, A. saligna had higher density, but the basal area
was low due to the lower frequency and the smaller diameter.
Importance value index (IVI) for woody species of > 5 cm DBH class was calculated. A.
abyssinica, A. seyal and A. saligna accounted for about 83% the IVI with 155.74, 58.12 and
34.46 values, respectively. Among planted woody spccics A. saligna was the only species with
the highest IVI. This result shows similar trend with the density, dominance and frequency of A.
saligna against the total vegetation of the sub-watershed.
Grass biomass estimation: Grass biomass at the exclosure was estimated and the result showed
that the total average oven dry grass biomass was 1.75 tons ha'1, which ranged between 1.0 and
4.05 tons ha"1.
89
3.3.4. Vegetation status of Tibe sub-watershed, Boloso sore Woreda
Species richness: A total of 46 woody species including seedlings were recorded at Tibe sub
watershed exclosure of Boloso Sore woreda. Among these woody species 41 species were found
to be indigenous and the other 5 exotic.
Density, frequency and dominance of woody species: The total density of all woody species
was 737 stems ha'1. All of these woody species were found in diameter class < 5 cm at DBH that
indicates seedlings were planted and regeneration was taken place recently. Woody species such
as G. robusta, A. schimperi, C. lusitanica and S. guineese were the most abundant with 163, 79,
66 and 59 stems ha'1 respectively. G. robusta was also the most dominat species followed by C.
lusitanica, 0. africana and A. saligna. These four planted woody species represent 40.9% of the
whole woody vegetation.
The highest frequency was recorded for C. lusitanica (100%) and followed by Syzyguim
guineese, Acokanthera schimperi and Rytigynia neglecta (93% each). As the high frequency
shows regular horizontal distribution of the species in the sub-watershed, these woody species
were distributed in the exclosure of Tibe sub-watershed consistently. Though G. robusta was
dominant species of the exclosure, frequency of the species was only 43%. This indicates that the
species was densely planted in some part of the exclosure.
Grass biomass estimation: Grass biomass at the cxclosure was estimated and the result showed
that the total average oven dry grass biomass was 3.79 tonnes ha'1, which ranged between 1.85
and 8.21 tonnes ha'1.
3.3.5. Vegetation status of Doli sub-watershed, Hulbareg Woreda
Species richness: A total of 21 woody species including seedlings were recorded at Doli sub-
watershed exclosure of Hulbareg woreda. Among these woody species 14 species were found to
be indigenous and the other 7 exotic. Most of the exotic woody species were planted. However,
regenerated seedlings of L. leucocephala were observed on the field because of seed dispersal.
Density, frequency and dominance of woody species: The total density of all woody species
was 646 stems ha'1. Of all woody species diameter class > 5 and < 5 cm at DBH accounted for
90
21 stems ha'! and 625 stems ha'1, respectively. Existence of large number of seedlings and
saplings indicate that there were recent natural regeneration and planting. Three woody species
namely S. seshan (34%), A. abyssinica (28.0%), and A. saligna (24.0%) dominated woody
vegetation of the exclosure by representing 86% of the whole vegetation. These woody species
were also the most abundant with 221, 181, and 155 stems ha'1, respectively. Most of A. saligna
species were planted while the major proportions of S.sesban seedlings/saplings were
regenerated from seed disperasal of previously planted mature trees.
In DBH class > 5 cm the highest frequency was recorded for A. abyssinica (60%). In contrary'
frequency of the other three woody species was less than 13%. In lower DBH class, the woody
species with the highest frequency were A. abyssinica and A. seyal (100% each) and followed by
D. angustifolia (80%) and A. saligna (73%). Acacia abyssinica was the only species with high
distribution in both diameter classes.
Figure 3.4 Average number of stems per ha at different DBH classes at the exclosure of Doli subwatershed
Like other exclosures woody species numbers of stems with DBH < 5cm were higher compared
to the larger diamter class [figure 3.5). Acacia abyssinica is the leading naturally regenerated
woody species with quite large number of stems. In the exclosure of Doli sub-watershed, the
number of stems of planted species with DBH > 5cm such as S. sesban and A. saligna was by far
91
less than stems with DBH < 5cm. This indicates many planting activitides was not took place in
early years of exclosure establishement. Mature Sesbania sesban trees were found in the
exclosure and seeds dispersed from these stems contributed for increased species stocks. On the
other hand, low performance of E.camaldulensis, C. iusitamca and A. decurrence were
obeserved. This might be associated with shallow soil depth of the exclosure.
Basal area and Importance Value Index (FVI) of woody species: The total basal area of the
exclosure of Doli sub-watershed was 13.3 m2 ha'1. The species with the highest basal area was A.
abyssinica (9.6 m2 ha'1) and followed by A. saligna (2.7 n r ha'f). The highest basal area obtained
for A.abyssinica was due to the highest relative density and the largest size as compared to
A.saligna.
Importance value index (IVI) for woody species of > 5 cm DBH class was calculated and
accordingly only A. abyssinica accounted for about 67% of the IVI. This species also recorded
the highest IVI (201), which followed by A. saligna (53.75). The higher IVI and Basal area of A.
abyssinica demonstrated that naturally regenerating species from seed bank rapidly grow and
increase vegetation cover for degraded exclosures. Furthermore, it also indicate that the existence
of few species before exclousre establishement.
Grass biomass estimation: Grass biomass at the exclosure was estimated and the result showed
that the total average oven dry grass biomass was 1.87 tons ha'1, which ranged between 1,08 and
3.61 tons ha'1.
3.4. Discussions
Woody species across exclosures: In degraded land the top priority is restoration. Accordingly,
selecting woody species that can perform well in harsh environmental conditions such as drought
and moisture stress is crucial. Moreover, woody species that can adapt on shallow, rocky, and
sloppy land, and nutrient poor soils is important. Fast growth is also an important attribute of
woody species. Woody species with fast growth habit can shorten establishment period and
protect the soil from excessive soil erosion (Mehari and Giday, 2014), and thus selecting fast
growing woody species is imperative. Nitrogen fixing trees could be used to improve soil
properties through maintenance of soil organic matter (Cossalter, 1987). Moreover, protection
92
and reclamation value, socio-economic benefits like fodder, fuel and construction wood, timber,
fruit, etc of woody species is vital. Therefore, selecting multipurpose woody species that fulfill
most of the above-mentioned benefits is essential.
The M s of woody species found across Mulete, Wushirana Koro, Sheshera Dudiye and Doli
sub-watersheds exclosures were analyzed. Only woody species with DBH > 5 cm considered for
IVI analysis. IVI and relative density of woody species for all size of stems were used to identify
important woody species in exclosures (table 3.2). The IVI and relative density showed A.
abyssinica was the leading important woody spccics in woody vegetation covcr of cxclosurcs,
and followed by A. seyal and A. saligna. Native woody spccics like D. angustifolia and B.
aegyptica were also found in relatively good proportion. Though A. tortolis recorded only in
Mulete sub-watershed exclosure it was significantly dominated the woody vegetation. Many
native woody species with less dominance on woody vegetation namely C. macrostachyus,
Fahderbia albida, Olea europana, and Juniperus procera were recorded. Most of the indigenous
woody species were naturally regenerated. Especially Acacia species were found dominanlty
from natural regeneration. It was reported that many Acacia species use soil seed bank as one of
mechanisms to regeneration after disturbance (Eriksson et al, 2003, Teketay, 2005a).
93
Tabic 3.2 IVI for woody species > 5cm DBH and relative density (%) for woody species of all size across the five exclosures
Scientific name Wushirana Sheshera Muletc Doli TibeKoro Dudiye
IVI RD IVI RD IVI RD IVI RD IVI RDAcacia abyssinica 139.8 45.8 156 41.1 0.3 201 30.2Acacia seyal 36.5 11.9 58.1 2.80 53.7 3.4 10.4 2.7Acacia tortolis 133 8.2Acacia saligna Grevillea robusta
56.72.6
13.84.7
34.52.5
20.30.70
3441.4
4210.2
53.8 24.0 3.222.1
Casuarina 8.2 1.8 0.2 9.6equisetifoliaDodonia 7.9 2.2 17.1 1.6 2.3 1.8angustifolia Sesbania sesban 5.6 3.6 31.9Croton 5.1 0.3 1.8 1.6macrostachyusBalanites 21 2.0 14.4 6.9aegyptiacaEucalyptuscamaldulensis
4.8 0.9 2.2 0.2 0.3 34.8 1.5 2.0
Faderbia albida 3.3 0.4 0.1Juniperus procera 0.8 0.2Olea europana 6.5 0.8 0.8
It is possible to understand that among the indigenous woody species Acacia species namely A.
abyssinica and A. seyal significantly contributed for the rehabilitation of degraded lands.
Moreover, these woody species exhibited their capability to perform well on highly degraded
lands; rocky, shallow and poor nutrient soils. These species with high IVI and relative density
demonstrated their adaptation on highly eroded and degraded lands (Fikadu, et al, 2014).
Additional benefit of these multipurpose Acacia species was also reported. The nitrogen fixing
ability of these species helps improve soil characteristics of the poor nutrient soils (Cossalter,
1987). Improvement of soil characteristics, in turn, would assist regeneration and performance of
other planted woody species through creating conducive soil environment. In other word, these
species would be used as nursing plants for encouraging natural regeneration and better survival
of planting seedlings.
Planted exotic woody species also significantly contributed to the woody vegetation of the
exclosures. Among exotic woody species A. saligna remarkably dominated the woody vegetation
94
almost in all study sites, which was followed by G. robusta. Woody spccics like E.
camaldulensis, C. lusitanica and S. sesban were among few exotic woody species with less
dominance on woody vegetation cover of the exclosures.
Acacia saligna is the widely used woody species for rehabilitation of degraded lands. A. saligna
is a hardy, highly adaptable, fast growing and nitrogen-fixing tree. The species has been used to
remedial degraded sites, including sandy soils (Doran and Turnbull, 1997). According to various
literatures this woody species has additional benefits. It could be used for wood, fodder, soil
fertility improvement and its seeds have potential as a source of food and bark yield tannin
(Doran and Turnbull, 1997; Maslin, et al, 1998; Masli and McDonald, 2004; Hobbs, et al, 2006).
Grevillea robusta is the other important exotic woody species in tenns of woody vegetation
cover dominance next to A. saligna. It provides multiple uses such as firewood, timber and
fodder in dry season. It has also fast growth rate and the performance on degraded poor soils is
considerably good.
Exclosures management (Seedlings management and water conservation structures across
the exclosures)
The woody vegetation and grass cover recorded in all study exclosures indicates the exclosures
were properly avoided both from animals and human interference. However, in some cases both
animals and human interference of exclosures was observed. For instance, cattle and donkeys
dung was observed in the exclosure of Wushirana Koro sub-watershed of Hawassa Zuryia.
Moreover, illegal grass harvesting at the Mulete and Tibe sub-watersheds exclosures of Hawassa
Zuriya and Boloso Sore woredas, respectively, was observed. Few stumps of Acacia species
trees were also seen in selected sub-watersheds of Hawassa Zuriya, Halaba special, Kedida
Gamela and Wulbareg woredas. Therefore, though the effort made by the experts and the
communities to excludc degraded sites from openly accessing of animals and humans was
remarkable, still additional works remain to be done is this aspect.
Different soil and water conservation structures were built almost in all study exclosures.
Namely the structures built were micro-catchments (micro-basin, eye-brow basin and half
moon), trenches, stone and soil bunds, and check dams. These structures contributed for better
natural regeneration of woody and grass species, and survival of planted species. For instance,95
most of woody species planted nearby trenches were survived and grown well. Moreover,
vigorously grown grasses around trenches and bunds were also observed. Th result of the present
study is in line with Descheemaeker et al, 2006, those micro-catchments and bunds increase soil
water infiltration and moisture availability to the vegetation.
3.5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion: This study showed that exclosures played a vital role m rehabilitating degraded
lands. Exclosures were complemented by different interventions such as soil and water
conservation structures, enrichment planting of different woody and grass species. The record of
woody species diversity showed the high species richness level across all study sites. The woody
species number ranged from 21 at Doli sub-watershed of Hulbareg woreda to 46 at Tibe Sub
watershed of Damote Sore woreda. The number of native woody species was exceedingly larger
than the exotics. This was mainly due to enhanced natural regeneration of native woody species
from seed rains and/or soil seed banks. With regards to woody species density higher values
were rccoreded though differs across excloures. The average density was ranged between 419 at
Wushiran Koro Sub-watershed cxclosure of Halaba spccial woreda and 811 at Sheshera Dudiye
sub-watershed exclosure of Kedida Gamela woreda. Density of small sized (DBH < 5 cm)
woody species was higher than larger size stems (DBH > 5m). Basal area of woody species with
DBH > 5cm recorded for all exclosures except Tibe exclosure of Boloso Sore Woreda. The
average basal area per ha ranged between 0.15 m2 at Mulete sub-watershed exclosure and 29 m2
at Sheshera Dudye exclosure. Few woody species across exclosures were found to be highly
important. Based on IVI and relative density results A. abyssinica was found to be ecologically
important woody spcecies followed by A. seyal and A. saligna. Soil and water conservation
structures such as micro-catchments, trenches, stone and soil bunds, and check dams were
assisted regeneration of seedlings and grasses.
Recommendation: This study showed that though significant effort put forward in exclosing the
degraded sites from animals and humans still there was sign of free grazing, illegal woody
species cutting and grasses harvesting. Therefore, the districts office of agriculture and
communities need to strengthen to realize complete exclusion.
96
In all study exclosurcs, native woody species with natural regeneration played crucial role in
rehabilitating the degraded lands. Hence, attention should be given to ecollogically important
native woody species such as Acacia species that may hasten recovery of degraded land.
Acacia saligna was the most dominant planted species almost in ail exclosures. Other planted
woody species were nearly incomparable with relative density of A. saligna. Thus, especially at
later stage when soil conditions of degraded land improved it is imperative to select
economically important woody species for plantation.
Though environmental contribution of exclosures was seen, economic aspects o f the exclosurcs
were not well utilized. Thus, in addition to ecological advantages of the exclosures economic
benefits that could be gained at later stages need to be well defined. Communities and/or youths’
association should benefit from the exclosures through fuel, chip and construction wood, timber
and fruits production. Moreover, producing adequate fodder from fodder trees and shrubs, and
feed from grasses communities/youths can profit from dairy and fattening. Apiculture is also
good opportunity that can change livelihoods of communities/youths through having adequate
amount of honey bee fodder plants in the exclosure. Producing quality forest seed in exclosures
provides an excellent opportunity and this should reccive attention as one economic option.
Though in some areas exclosures were given to communities for managing and utilizing, clear
direction on ownership of exclosures in managing and utilizing was not seen. Since tenure play
significant role in exclosures management and utilization, clear rules and regulations should be
set by the government. If it is owned by government management plan should be developed and
managed based on the plan. On the other hand, if communities are subject for managing and
utilizing, clear strategy and mangement plan should be designed and agreement should be made
between government and communities/youths so as to ensure sustainability of the exclosures.
Rehabilitation of degraded lands should balance between ecological services (watershed
protection, ground water recharge, biodiversity, etc) and provision of goods (such as fuel and
construction wood, timber and fodder). Balancing ecological services and provision of goods and
services depend on management options. At the first stage of degraded land rehabilitation
priority should be given for quick recovery of degraded site. Only excluding degraded sites from
animals and humans could not result in prompt rehabilitation. Therefore, complementing natural97
recovery with additional management options such as enrichment planting, plantation and
constructing soil and water conservation structure is very important.
Mainly two stages are needed to speed up rehabilitation of degraded lands for enhancing
ecological services and provisioning of goods for socioeconomic benefits of communities. The
first one could be attaining quick recovery of the degraded land. Promotion of fast growing
native early succession and harsh environment tolerant woody species is useful. In addition to
natural regeneration it is imperative to undertake enrichment planting wilh the right selection of
woody species to match the harsh condition of the site.
In the second stage after ensuring recovery of degraded lands, it is important to establish
plantations. Plantations on exclosures may have many benefits. They catalyze successions in
understory through increased vegetation and improving raicroclimatic conditions. In addition to
catalyzing recovery of the degraded lands, plantations would benefit the communities of the
exclosures with various ecological services and provisioning of economic goods.
References
Adal, Y. 1999. Rural organization in Ethiopia: their conditions and role in sustainable natural
resource use and enhancing food security, in Food Security through Sustainable Land
Use: Policy on Institutional, Land Tenure, and Extension Issues in Ethiopia, Taye Assefa,
editor, NOVIB Partners Forum on Sustainable Land Use, Addis Ababa.
Admasu, A. 2005. Study of sediment yield from the Watershed of Angereb reservoir. M.Sc
thesis, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 98 p.
Aklilu, A. and Graaff, J. 2006a. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for
soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecol. Econ. 61 (2-3):294-
302.
Ambachew, W. 2006. Vegetation and soil property changes following degraded hillsides
exclosure and its socioeconomic significance in east Shewa, Ethiopia. Masters thesis,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU.
Berhanu, D., Regassa, F. and Wassie B. 1998. Regional conservation strategy. Volume 0:
Identification and analysis of constraints and issues. Land Use Planning and Resource
98
Management Project. Oromiya National Regional Government, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
66 pp.
Bezuayehu, T., Gezahegn A., Y,igezu A., Jabbar, M.A. and Paulos, D. 2002. Nature and causes
of land degradation in the Oromiya Region: A review. Socio-economic and Policy
Research Working Paper 36. ILRT (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi,
Kenya. 82 pp.
Constable, M. 1985. Ethiopian highlands reclamation study: Development strategies. Ethiopian
Highlands Reclamation Study Working Paper 24. Land Use Planning
Debele, B. 1994. The Soils of Ethiopia: Annotated Bibliography, Published by SIDA’s Regional
Soil Conservation Unit, Nairobi, Kenya.
Dejenc, A. 1990b. Peasants, Environment and Resettlement in Pausewang, S., F. Cheru, E. Chole
and S. Brune, Ethiopia: Options for rural development, bZed Books Ltd, London
Edwards, S., Tadesse, M., Demissew, S. & Hedberg, I. (Eds.) 2000. Flora of Ethiopia and
Eritrea, Vol. 2, Part 1: Magnoliaceae to Flacourtiaceae. The National Herbarium, Addis
Ababa and the Department of Systematic Botany, Uppsala.
Emiru, B. 2002. Actual and potential contributions of enclosures to enhance biodiversity in dry
lands of Eastern Tigray, with particular emphasis on woody plants. SLU (Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences), Sweden.
Emiru, B., Demel, T. & Barklund, P. 2006. Actual and potential contribution of cxclosurcs to
cnhancc biodiversity of woody species in the drylands of Eastern Tigray. Journal o f the
Drylands, 1(2): 134-147.
Esser, K., Vagen, T., Yibabe, T. & Mitiku, H. 2002. Soil conservation in Tigray, Ethiopia
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala, Sweden.
FAO (Food and Agriculural Organization). 1986. Highlands Reclamation Study. Ethiopia. Final
Report, Volumes 1 and 2. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Getachew, A. 2005. Determinants of Land Degradation in the Lake Tana Basin and its
Implications for Sustainable Land Management: The Case of Angercb and Gish-Abbay
Watersheds. MSc thesis 52-91
Hagos, F. 2003. Tenure security, rcsourcc poverty, risk aversion, public programs and household
plot level conservation investment in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. In: Poverty,
99
Institutions, Peasant Behavior and Conservation Investment in northern Ethiopia. [PhD
Thesis]. Agriculture University of Norway. As. Norway.
Harrison, P. 1987. The Greening of Africa: Breaking Through in the Battle for Land and Food.
Great Britain: Paladin Grafton Books
Harrison, P. 1990. The Greening of Africa: Breaking Through in the Battle for Land and Food.
London.
Hedberg, I., Edwards, S. & Nemomissa, S. (Eds.). 2003. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Vol. 4,
Part 1: Apiaceae to Dipsacaceae. The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa and the
Department of Systematic Botany, Uppsala.
Hedberg, I., Friis, I. & Edwards, S. (Eds.) 2004. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, Vol. 4, Part 2:
Asteraceae (Compositae). The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa and the Department of
Systematic Botany, Uppsala.
Hedberg, I., Kelbessa, E., Edwards, S., Demissew, S. & Persson, E. (Eds.) 2006). Flora of
Ethiopia and Eritrea, Vol. 5. Gentianaceae to Cyclocheilaceae. The National Herbarium,
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa and Uppsala.
Herweg, K. 1993. Problems of acceptance and adoption of soil conservation in Ethiopia. Topics
in Applied Resource Management 3; 391-411
Humi, H. 1985. Erosion-productivity-conservation systems in Ethiopia. IV. International
Conference on Soil Conservation, Venezuela, 20.
Humi, H. 1987. Applied soil conservation in Ethiopia. Department of Agricultural Engineering,
Nairobi, University, Kenya. 15 pp.
Humi, H. 1988. Degradation and conservation of resources in the Ethiopian highlands. Mountain
Research and Development, 8(2/3): 123-130.
Humi, H. 1988. Ecological issues in the creation of famine in Ethiopia, National Conference on
Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Strategy in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa
Humi, H. 1990. Degradation and conservation of the soil resources in the Ethiopian highlands, in
African Mountains and Highlands: Problems and Perspective (Messerli, B. and Humi,
H.eds.). Marceline, Missouri (USA).
Humi, H. 1990. To wards sustainable development in Ethiopia, Office of the National
Committee for Central Planning, Addis Ababa
Humi, H. & Tato, K. 1992. Soil conservation for survival, Soil and Water Conservation Society100
Humi, H. 1993. Land degradation, famines and resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimentel, D.
(Ed.), World Soil Erosion and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
p p .27-62.
Kejela, K., & Fentaw, B. 1992. Ecologically sound, economically viable, and cost effective
method of soil conservation - The case of grass strips in Gojam region, 7th ISCO
Conference on People Protecting their Land, Sydney, Australia
Kent, M. & Coker, P. 1994. Vegetation Description and Analysis. John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Kruger, H., Berhanu, F., Yohanncs, G. M. & Kcfenc, K. 1996. Creating an inventory of
indigenous SWC measures in Ethiopia.ln C. Rcij 1. Scooncs, and C. Toulmin (eds.)
Sustaining the Soil: Idigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa (pp. 170-180).
London, UK: IIED.
Lamprecht, H. 1989. Silviculture in the Tropics: Tropical Forest Ecosystems and Their Tree
Species-Possibilities and Methods for Their Long-Term Utilization. Federal Republic of
Germany, Eschbom.
Mallarino, A.P. & Blackmer, A.M. 1992. Comparison of methods for determining critical
concentration of soil test phosphorus for com. Agro. J. 84:850-856.
Mckuria, W.2007. Vegetation Restoration in Area Closures: The Case of Douga Tembein,
Central Tigray, Ethiopia. Conference on International Agricultural Research for
Development Octobcr 9-11,2007, University of Gottingen
Mengistu, T., Teketay, D., Hulten, H. & Yemshaw, Y. 2005. The role of enclosures in the
recovery of woody vegetation in degraded dryland hillsides of central and northern
Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 60:259-281
Murphy, H.F. (1968). A report on soil fertility status and other data on some soils of Ethiopia.
College of Agriculture HSIU. Experiment Station Bulletin. No. 44.
Nedesa, B. 2002. Homestead Development, National Food- f o r - Work Project Service Unit,
Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa.
Nedessa B., Ali J., and Nyborg I. 2005. Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the
Improvement of Area Enclosure Management: A ease study from Ethiopia. Drylands
Coordination Group Report No. 38, V 05, 2005, Oslo, Norway
101
Pender, J. & Ehui, S. 2000. Polices for sustainable land management in the highlands of
Ethiopia, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC.
Shiferaw, B. & Holden, S.T. 1999. Soil erosion and smallholders’ conservation decision in the
Ethiopian highlands. World Development, vol. 24: 739-752.
Sonneveld, B. 2002. Land under pressure: Impact o f water erosion on food production in
Ethiopia, Shaker publishing the Netherlands
Tato, K. 1991. Ethiopia’s experience in conservation: The Ethiopian soil conservation
programme and its trends, Conference in National Conservation Strategy, Vol5., Office
of the National Committee for Central Planning, Addis Ababa.
Tefera, M., Demel. T„ Hulten, H. & Yonas, Y. 2005. The role of Communities in Closed Area
Management in Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development, 25:44-50.
Teshome, A & Rolker D, de Graaff, J. 2012. Financial viability of soil and water conservation
technologies m northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Applied. Geography. 37:139 -49
Tucker, N.I. & Murphy, T.M., 1997. The effects of ecological rehabilitations on vegetation
recruitment: some observations from the wet Tropics of North Queensland. Forest
Ecology and Management 99: 133-144.
UNFPA and POPIN, 1995. Population and Land Degradation,
http ://www .undp.org\popin\faol\land\land.html
Wegayehu, B. 2006. Determinants of Fanners’ Decision on Soil and Water Conservation
Practices in Dire Dawa Administration. M. Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
WFP. (2005). Report on the Cost-Benefit Analysis and Impact Evaluation of Soil Conservation
and Forestry Measurement. MERET. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Woldeamlak, B. 2003. Land Degradation and Farmers’ Acceptance and Adoption of
Conservation Technologies in the Digil Watershed, North western Highlands of Ethiopia.
Social Science Research Report Series -no 29. OSSERA Addis Ababa.
Woldeamlak, B. 2006. Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies
in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia, acceptance and adoption by farmers’. Land Use
Policy 24(2):404-416.
Wright, C. and Adamseged, Y. 1984. Ethiopian highlands reclamation study: an assessment of
the causes, severity, extent and probably consequences of degradation in the Ethiopian
highlands, Working Paper 3. Land Use Planning and Regulatory Department, Ministry of
Agriculture, Government o f Ethiopia, and Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.77
Yeraswork, A. 2000. Twenty Years to Nowhere: Property Rights, Land Management and
Conservation in Ethiopia. Asmara: The Red sees press. Lawr.
Yimer, F., Alemu, G. & Abdelkadir A. 2015. Soil property variations in relation to exclosure and
open graing land use types in the Central Rift Valley area of Ethiopia. Environmental
Systems Research. Vol 4:17 DOI 10.1186/s40068-015-0041-2
103
PART II: SOCIOECONOMIC PERFORAMNCE OF COMMUNITY BASED WATERSHED MANGEMENT
104
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Ethiopia is among few countries well endowed with natural and environmental resources in sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA) countries. The majority of the population in the country relies on
agriculture as its major livelihoods activity and the rich natural and environmental resources base
of the nation has been serving to fulfilling the basic needs and food security of the population in
particular and the development of the country in general. For more than half a century, however,
land degradation coupled with extreme poverty has been affecting the country. Indeed, land
degradation in Ethiopia is largely an outcome of the existing ‘resource-poor’ agricultural
production system, which is a characterized by uncertain rainfall, low inherent land productivity,
lack of capital, inadequate support services and poverty” (Mekuria, 2005; Gete, 2006; Humi et
al., 2010).
Ethiopia is believed to be one of the Sub-Saharan African countries seriously affected by land
degradation, which accounts for 8% of the global total (Habitamu, 2010). Notably, land
degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining fertility is serious challenge to agricultural
productivity and economic growth in Ethiopia (Mulugeta, 2004). Extensive areas of the
highlands in the country experienced high rates of erosion. In the mid-1980s it was estimated that
4% of the highlands (2 million ha) had been so seriously eroded to the extent of not supportig
cultivation, while another 52% had suffered moderate or serious degradation (Wood, 1990;
Ktivaruger et al, 1996). Regarding soil loss, average soil loss rates 21 to 42 tones per hectare per
year on cultivated lands (Humi, 1988; Kebede 1996).
Land degradation in Ethiopia is also intensified by soil nutrient depletion, arising from
continuous cropping together with removal o f crop residues, low external inputs and absence of
adequate soil nutrient saving and recycling technologies (Bojo and Cassels, 1995; Sahlemedhin,
1999). The aggregated national scale nutrient loss was 41 kg/ha per year for N, 6 kg/ha per year
for P and 26 kg/ha per year for K (Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990). In Ethiopia, the impact of
land degradation has reached to the extent of affecting livelihoods of the people in particular and
the national economy (Tadesse, 2001). The immediate consequence of land degradation includes
105
reduction in crop yield which, in turn, resulting economic decline and social stress. The impact
of erosion is particularly severe in the highland parts of the country where farming is practice for
many centuries (Lakew et al., 2005).
To change the situation of land degradation, the concept of watershed management was
implemented in Ethiopia in 1980s as a way of redressing the degradation of the natural resource
base and increasing land productivity (Gete, 2006). Watershed management is the process of
guiding and organizing land and other resources use in a watershed to provide desired goods and
services without adversely affecting land resources (Brooks et al., 1994). Thus, watershed
management implies the judicious use of natural resources such as land, water, biodiversity and
biomass in a watershed to obtain optimum production with minimum disturbance to the
environment (Binyam and Desale, 2014). It is a ho!i lie approach to managing watershed
resources that integrates hydrology, ecology, soils, physical climatology and other sciences
(Pandit et a l 2007). Watersheds are complex systems where water, soil, geology, flora, fauna,
and human natural resource use practices interact. Watershed management is the integrated use
of land, vegetation, and water in a geographically discrete drainage area for the benefit of its
residents, with the objective of protecting or conserving the hydrologic services the watershed
provides and reducing or avoiding negative downstream or groundwater impacts (Darghouth et
al., 2008).
In the developing world, watersheds are increasingly being managed for both environmental
conservation and poverty alleviation. Since the 1980s there has been a growing awareness that
watershed development is more than maintaining or improving the productivity of natural
resources. This includes multiple objectives such as productive, social, ecological/environmental,
and equity dimensions (Pudasaini, 2003). In terms of livelihood strategies, watershed
development can open up new opportunities that lead to substantial improvements. Notably,
protection of watersheds is crucial for rural people that base their livelihoods on diversified
activities owing to the insufficiency of income obtained from any single strategy for survival and
reducing risks. In many mountainous countries like Ethiopia, watershed management has
become an increasingly important issue as it encompasses approaches to managing watershed
106
resources that integrates forestry, agriculture, pasture and water that have strong link to the
livelihoods of the local people in particular and rural development in general (Pudasaini, 2003).
Although attempts to reverse land degradation by following watershed approaches dated back to
1980s in Ethiopia (Lakew et al., 2005; Gete 2006; Tongul and Hobson, 2013), many programs
were unsuccessful and the technologies and practices were often abandoned by farmers as soon
as they stopped being forced or paid to adopt them. Several reasons were put forward. The first
reason is the concentration of the programs on selected large watersheds loeated in the highly
degraded parts with the purpose of implementing natural resource conservation and development
programs (Lakew et al., 2005; Gete, 2006). Second reason is the fact that the major part of the
watershed management was supported by the World Food Programme’s (WFP). The food for
work rehabilitation project was designed to provide employment for chronically food insecure
people (Gete, 2006; Tongul and Hobson, 2013). The third reason is that the watershed
development was applied in a rigid and conventional manner without community participation
and hence lack of attention to farmer objectives and farmer knowledge as important reasons for
these failures. In contrast, where user participation was incorporated, performance of the
watershed projects improved (Kerr, 2002). The fourth reason is the limited range of interventions
and the less attention made to post rehabilitation management aspects (Lakew et al, 2005).
Finally, watershed management was viewed as an engineering problem until the 1990s, and
technical solutions for controlling erosion, reducing runoff and flooding, and enhancing
groundwater recharge were often designed and implemented with little regard for their impacts
on people’s livelihoods, on farm profitability, or on social equity (Pretty and Shah, 1999;
Johnson and Knox, 2002).
Cognizant o f these limitations, the government of Ethiopia launched a massive community based
participatory watershed development programs since 2010/11 in four regional states: Southern
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples, Oromia, Amhara and Tigray as part of strategy to protect the
environment while achieving food security. The farming communities in the rural areas were
highly mobilized to implement both physical and biological soil and water conservation
measures on farm and communal lands. The SNNPR implemented this community based
participatory watershed development as part of the national strategy anticipating the potential of
107
practicing different soil and waters conservation technologies that can turn the situation of the
watershed in all zones to not only rehabilitating and conserving the resources in the watershed
but knowing its potential to increase production and productivity of both crops and livestock and
ultimately contribute to increase food security and the development of the region in particular
and the country as a whole. So far, the socio-eonomic aspects of the watershed management of
SNNPR has not been studied well. Thus, this study was designed and coducted to assess the
process in community based participatory watershed development, and examine the social and
economic impacts in central zones of the region.
1.2. Objectives
1.2.1. General objective
The major objective of this evaluation was to assess the process in community based
participatory watershed development, examine the ear! social and economic impacts in SNNPR
of Ethiopia, and identify the best practices that can be scaled up.
1.2.2. Specific objectives
• To examine the level of community participation and their perception to community
• based watershed development
• To examine the institutional environments and arrangements
• To identify the resources contributed by farmers and other stakeholders
• To examine the early environmental, social, and economic impacts observed due to
watershed development.
• To identify the opportunities and constraints
2. METHODS
This study was carried out in central zones of the SNNPR, where the severity o f the watershed
degradation is reported to be high and massive watershed development interventions have been
practiced. Multi-staged sampling technique was employed to select the study areas. In the first
108
stage, four zones and one special woreda2 from central zones of the SNNPR were selected based
on severity and the extent of the watershed development interventions. In the second stage two
woreda from each zone following agro-ecology (highland vs mid land) and eight woreds from
four zones and one special woreda and a total of 9 woredas were selected on die basis of the
same criteria mentioned for the selection of zones. Finally, two watersheds (intervened vs non-
intervened) were chosen in each woreda and sample households were selected from the
intervened watershed for household survey.
2.1. Data Collection
Both secondary and primary data were employed for this evaluation. The secondary data were
obtained from government offices especially Bureaus of agriculture and Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Agency at regional, zonal, and district levels. The primary data were
obtained from both formal and informal interviews, discussions, and observations made at
regional, zonal, Woreda and Kebele, community, and household levels. Primary data at regional,
zonal and district levels were obtained from both formal and informal interviews and discussions
with experts and administrators in charge of the watershed development. At these levels the
interviews and discussions points included the process, the resources used, the challenges, and
performance of the watershed development in the region. However, the primary data at
community and household levels were collected only in selected zones and districts in the central
zones of the region. The most important PRA techniques used in this study were focus group
discussions (FGD), key informant interview (KII) and observations. The details of each data
collection methods and type of primary data collected are indicated below.
2.1.1. Focus group discussions
The focus groups discussions were held to investigate the history of natural/environmental
resources, types of land use in the watershed, causes and impacts of the degradation of the
watershed resources, how and by whom resources are used, what trends in land-use and resource
use take place, causes and impacts of the degradation of the watershed resources, process and
i woreda is the lowest administrative level next to kebele, i.e. equivalet to district
109
perception of the community in the development of the watershed development, the institutional
issues that affect the management and utilization of the watershed resources, the institutional
environment and institutional arrangement followed in developing the watershed, the resources
contributed and invested, and the impacts so far due to the sub-watershed development and how
the developed watersheds is utilized and managed. FGDs were held in the selected sub
watershed with separate groups of community elders, women and youth. At each sub- watershed
three FGDs were carried out.
2.1.2. Key informant interviews
In this study, key informant interviews weTe employed to get more information on community
level issues. The issues included were how and by whom resources are used, what trends in land-
use and resource use take place, causes and impacts of the degradation of the watershed
resources, process and perception of the community in the development of the watershed
development, institutional issues that affect the management and utilization of the watershed
resources, institutional environment and institutional arrangement followed, the resources
invested, the impacts so far due to the watershed development and how the developed watershed
is utilized and managed. For this interview, knowledgeable people on community level issues
were used including elders, kebele leaders, and development agents. In each sub watershed, three
key informants were selected. Moreover, experts at different levels (region to kebele) were
interviewed.
Besides, field observations were made to examine the status of natural resources use and
management, the interventions used to develop the watershed, and the impacts due to the
development of the watershed. During the transect walks in field observations, informal
interviews were made.
2.1.3. Household survey
For the household survey both probability and non-probability sampling techniques were
employed. The study zones, i.e. central zones of SNNPR are selected purposively on the basis of
the severity of land degradation and the intervention made to reverse or mitigate the problems.
110
From the central zones of the region, Sidama, Wolita, Silitie, Kembata Tembaro and Halaba
were selected purposively. After selecting the zones, a two stage sampling technique was used to
select the woredas and sub-watersheds. In the first stage, 9 best performed watersheds
intervened woreda was identified and in the second stage within the selected woreda 18
representative kebele with best and poor watershed performance was selected randomly. Lastly
representative sample households were selected using simple random probability sampling
technique.
2.2. Data Analysis
The quantitative data from the household survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The
descriptive analysis was used to compare the information with respect to differences among the
watersheds and districts as well as pre and post watershed development era. The raw data was
edited, coded and entered to computer and Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS)
version 20 and STATA were employed for data entry and analysis. Finally, the data was
analyzed and reported using graphs, tables, averages, percentages, t-test and chi-square tests. In
addition, qualitative data from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and
observational notes were transcribed, categorized, enumerated, looked for relationships, and
interpreted. The responses of all the interviewees were sorted under different headings that arc
based on the intcrvicw-guide topics as well as on categories emerging from the intcrviwecs
themselves. Relationships were established using categories and cause-and- effect relationships.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of households in central zones of SNNPR
are presented and discussed here. This part is comprised of 5 sections. Section one is about the
socioeconomic conditions of the respondents in central zones of the SNNPR. The causes and
consequences of the degradation of the watersheds arc presented and discusscd in section two.
Section three deals with the process, community participation and perception. In section four the
social, environmental and economic impacts due to community based watershed development
are presented. The opportunities due to watershed development are presented in section five.
i n
3.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics
3.1.1. Socio-demographic characteristics of households
In this section the soico-demographic characteristics of the respondents (age of the household
head, family size, education, gender and marital status) in the central zones of SNNPR is
presented and discussed.
Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of households in central zones of SNNPR
Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev
Age of the household head 18 90 41.97 11.09
Family size 1 17 6.90 2.50
Size of male family members 0 12 3.52 1.65
Size of female family members 0 10 3.47 1.60
Size of male family members (16 to 64 years) 0 11 2.08 1.39
Size of female family members (16-64 years) 0 9 1.94 1.23
Education level 0 12 3.33 3.33
Age of the household head: The result in table I shows that the age of the households ranges
between 18 and 90 years with mean age of about 42 years. This shows there is a big difference
between the minimum and maximum age of the household heads involved in watershed
development. Although the age range is very high, the distribution of the age of the households
in table 1 shows that the majority of the households are in the age range between 18 and 64
years. Accordingly, about 95 % of the household heads are in working age category. On the
other hand, less than 5 % of the household heads are in the dependent age category. This means
that the household heads whose ages are greater than > 64 years are not greater than 5 % and the
result implies the presence of big potential in the zones with respect to human resources that can
be employed in watershed development.
112
Tabic 2 Distribution of household heads with respect to age category
Age category % Cumulative %<18 0 018-64 95.4 95.4>64 4.6 100
Family size: The average family si/.e of the households is about 7 persons, ranges between 1 and
17 (Table 1). The family size distribution also revealed that the households almost have equal
male and female family members i.e., 3.52 and 3.47, respectively. The result of family size of
this study (7 persons) is higher than that of the national average (4.9 persons) and the regional
average (4.7 persons) (CSA, 2007). The finding showed that ccntrai parts of the region are highly
populated. This calls for due attentions of both the federal and regional government to employ
the labor for development interventions including watershed development as it is an important
capital.
Education level of the household head: The result in table 1 showed that the average grade
attended by the household heads in the central parts of SNNPR is 3 and ranges between 0 and 12
grades. More than one third (36%) of the respondents did not attend any formal education. But
more than half of the respondents (56%) attended elementary and junior education, and only 8%
attended high school education. The majority of the households attended formal education
indicates that it has its own contribution for watershed development in the case of training,
record keeping and measurement, specifically, for surveyor farmers who need to measure various
parameters and keep records.
Table 3 Proportion of households according to the level of education
Category % Cumulative %
Not attended formal education 36 36
Elementary and Junior (1-8) 56 92
High school (9-12) 8 100
113
Sex of the household head: The majority of the respondents (87.7%) were male headed,
whereas female headed households were about 12% (table 4). Regarding marital status, 90 % of
the household heads were married and only 10 % are in the category of others.
Table 4 Gender and marital status of the households’ heads
Variable Frequency % Cumulative %
GenderMale 919 87.7 87.7Female 129 12.3 1.00
Marital statusSingle 20 1.9 1.9Married 952 90 91.9Divorced 3 .3 92.2Widowed 56 5.3 97.4Widower 27 2.6 100.0
According to information obtatined from FGD and KII. gender and marital status have important
contribution for watershed development. As watershed development needs a huge labor force,
there is a big potential in the areas that allows the majority of the households to participate in
watershed development activities both in men and women andleamisi and Limat Budin
institutional arrangements. As it was clear from the KIT and FGD made at different levels, the
watershed development used to be carried out only by the men institutional arrangements such as
andleamisi and Limatiaw Budin. But now it is being carried out by both men and women
institutional arrangements. Thus, the fact that about 88 % of the respondents were male headed
households means that there is a good opportunity for watershed development by employing
both men and women in their respective institutional arrangements. Moreover, the involvement
of both sexes in watershed development ensures the sustainability of the developed watershed as
it improves the sense of ownership.
3.1.2. Livelihood activities
Both the FGD and KII as well as household survey results revealed that the livelihoods strategies
of the households in the study areas is based on three livelihood activities namely crops
cultivation, animal husbandry and off-farm activities. But livelihood in the area is mainly based
on crops and livestock production. Both off-farm and non-farm income generating activities
were practiced in rare cases. As it is indicated in table 5, the majority of the households (98.2%)
were engaged in crops cultivation. These households mentioned that crops cultivation was their
first major livelihood activity. Households who also reported animal husbandry and off-farm
activity is their first major livelihood activity is only 1.3% and 0.5%, respectively (table 5).
Table 5 Livelihood activities of households
Livelihood activity F’rsl major livelihood activity Second major livelihood activity
Frequency % Cum. % Frequency % Cum.%
Crop cultivation 1042 98.2 98.2 108 10.2 10.2
Animal rearing 14 1.3 99.5 830 78.4 88.7
Off-farm activity 5 0.5 100.0 66 6.2 94.9
Non-farm acitivity - - - 54 5.1 100.0
Total 1061 100.0 100.0 1058 100.0 100.0
The result showed that the households reported about four different livelihoods activiies as their
second major livelihoods activities. About 78%, 10%, 6% and 5% of the respondents have been
engaged in animal husbandry, crop cultivation, off-farm and non-farm activities, respectively, as
their second major livelihood activity. The non-farm activity includes petty trade and micro
businesses whereas, the off-farm activities includc sell of grasses, fuel wood, seeds/seedlings and
others (table 5).
The result indicated that, the majority of the households in the study areas are not specialized in a
single livelihood activity. Rather they were engaged in diverse livelihood activities in which
mixed farming, i.e crop production as their major livelihood activity and animal husbandry as
their second major livelihoods activity. In rare cases, there were households who practiced off-
farm as their primary livelihoods activities. Households in the study area also known to be
engaged in productive safety net programs (PSNP) and other projects like MERET. Table 6
shows that about one fifth of the households (20%) were beneficiaries of PSNP. Besides, about
6% o f the households were beneficiaries of projects other than PSNP. However, the majority of
the households, i.e 79.6% and 93.9% were not beneficiaries of PSNP and other projects (e.g
MERET, SLM), respectively.
115
Table 6 Distribution of respondents with respect to the types of projects
Variable Frequency % CumuL %PSNP Yes
No217845
20.479.6
20.4100.0
Other projects Yes No
63967
6.193.9
6.1100.0
3.1.3. Land use and land use arrangements
Land holding, land use type and land use arrangements of the households in the study areas are
disscussed below.
Land holding
The majority of the households (98.4%) have their own land (table 7) and only less than 2 % of
the respondents do not have their own land. From the PRA survey, landless househods engaged
in farming using the land either inherited from their family or acquired via share cropping or
renting arrangements.
Table 7 Proportion of households with respect to land holding and land certificate
Variable Frequency % Cum. %Land holding
Own land 1047 98.4 98.4
Other Land certificate
16 1.6 100.0
Own certificate 845 80.2 80.2
No certificate 209 19.8 100.00
The majority o f housholds (80.2%) own land certificate while the remaining (19.8%) do not have
land certificate. The possible reasons for non-certificate ownership could be reluctance of
1 1 6
farmers to rccieve land certificate and in some caseses households were not able to rccieve
certificate due to technical and administrative reasons.
Land use types
In this sub section the types of land uses, the amount of land under each land use type as well as
the number of parcels of each land use type is presented. The average land holding of the
households in the study area is about 9.84 timad (2.46 ha) ranging between 1 timad (0.25 ha) and
35 timad (8.75 ha). The land of housholds were allocated to the various land uses such as land
for annual and perennial crops, grazing land, fallow land, woodlot, boundary plantation and other
land uses. According to the result, the averge land holding (2.46ha) is higher than both the
national (1.23 ha) and regional average (0.76ha) (CSA, 2010).
Table 8 Descriptive statistics ofland use types (in timad)
Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Std. DevTotal land holding (timad) 1 35 9.84 6.20Total cultivated land {timad) 1 18 3.46 2.22Total cultivated land (parcel) 1 8 1.67 .91Total cultivated land under annual crop {timad) 1 16 2.46 2.11Total cultiv. land under annual crops (parcel) 1 7 1.37 0.76Total cultiv. land under perennial crops (timad) 1 12 0.99 1.02Total cultiv. land under perennial crops (parcel) 1 5 0.94 0.62Area under grazing land {timad) 0 8 0.34 0.55Area under grazing land (parcel) 0 5 0.48 0.58Area under fallow land {timad) 0 8 0.14 0.42Area under fallow land (parcel) 0 I 0.12 0.33Area under woodlot land (timad) 0 6 0.34 0.52Area under woodlot land (parcel) 0 6 0.34 0.52Area under boundary plantation (timad) 0 1 0.16 0.27Area under boundary plantation (parcel) 0 1 0.16 0.27Homestead (timad) 0 9 0.67 0.91Homestead (parcel) 0 9 0.67 0.91
The result in table 9 shows that about 16 % of the households have land less than 1 hectare but
the majority of the households has between 1 and 3 hectares. About 13 % the households have
land between 3 to 4 hectares and the remaining 17.1 % owned more than 4 hectares.
117
Table 9 Distribution of households in different land holding category
Land holding (ha) Frequency % Comm. %<1.00 173 16.00 16.821<X<2 320 29.60 45.612<X<3 266 24.60 70.213<X<4 137 12.67 82.91>4 185 17.11 100.00Total 1080 100.0
Cultivated land: In table 8 above, the size of land that has been allocated for cultivation is about
3.46 timad (0.87 ha) ranging between 0.25 and 4.5 hectares. This average land holding is lower
than the national average (1.03 ha) but higher than the regional average (0.76ha) (CSA, 2010).
From the total land holding, the cultivated land for annual crops is about 35.37%. The land under
annual crops is abotu 71 % of the total cultivated land. Whereas the land under perennial crops is
about 29 % of the total cultivated land. In general, the land use data revealed that the majority of
the cultivated lands are in annual crops production, which could contribute the watershed to be
susceptible to soil erosion.
Grazing land: Grazing lands are important land use types in the study areas. The average land
holding for grazing land was about 0.34 timad (0.1 ha). There were some households who have
about 8 timad (2 ha) of grazing land. On the contrary, there were households who do not have a
grazing land.
Fallow land: Among the land use types indicated in table 8 above, the fallow land was very
scant as the average land for fallow in the area is only 0.14 timad (0.035 ha). The result showed
that there were households who do not have fallow lands and there were also households who
allocated up to 8 timad (2 ha). Farm land to be fallowed could be in areas where there is high
erosion and land degradation that affect soil fertility. There were also cases where farmers allow
their lands to be fallowed due to water logging. This was especially true in Siltie Zone, Alicho
Woreda.
Woodlots and boundary plantations: Woodlots as land use types are practiced in the study
areas. The result in table 8 showed that the average land allocated for woodlots by households
was about 0.34 timad (0.1 ha) ranging between 0 and 6 timad (1.5 ha). Regarding the boundary118
plantation, the average land allocated to boundary plantation was only 0.16 timad ranging from 0
to 6 timad.
Homestead: This category includes areas that are allocated for residential places and
compounds. The average land allocated for this land use is about 0.67 timad (O.I7ha). As some
households have only few land allocated for homesteads, on the contrary some households have
as large as 2.25 ha of their land holding.
Land holding arrangements
In the study areas there are diverse forms of land holding arrangements. These include
inheritance, land re-distribution, land rent and share cropping. The land acquired via inheritance
and land distribution are considered conventionally as a private property though land and natural
resources are considered by the Constitution of Ethiopia as the property of State and the Nations,
Nationality, and People of Ethiopia (Article 40 (3)3. As indicated in table 10, about 98% of the
households have their own land (land acquired via inheritance and land redistribution). But the
proportion of the households who acquired land via share cropping and renting was very low.
Table 10 Proportion of households engaged in share cropping and land renting
Land Arragement Frequency % Cum. %Own land 707 66 66.6Other ArragementShare Cropping 60 16. 57 16.57Renting 263 72.65 89.22Both 39 10.78 100.0Total 1069
The result in table 10 showed that among those households who also practice share cropping and
land renting (33.4 %), the majority (72.65 %) acquired farm land via rent. Land acquisition via
share cropping, however, is very small and amounts to 16.57 % of the households. The result
also shows that there are some households (10.78%) who have acquired land both by
3 Constitution of the FDRE 'The right to ownership of rural and urban land property' stated that' land is a common
property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subjected to sell or to other means
of exchange'
119
sharecropping and rent. The possible reason for the majority of the households to acquire land
via rent than cash cropping is due to the fact that those household heads who what to rent are
very poor households who are highly constrained by cash and draft poweT and who can easily
rent out their lands than share cropping by contributing resources.
Land rent: In table 11 below, the result shows that the average land holding acquired by renting
was about 1.35 timad (0.34ha) with a range of 1 to 8 timad. The duration of rent varied among
households ranging from 1 to 10 years. The land arrangement type has its own positive and
negative implication on land management and use.
Table 11 Descriptive statistics of land under various land tenure than own land
Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev
Rent in land in timad 1 8 1.35 0.69
Rent in land in parcel I 3 1.35 0.69Rent in land duration I 10 3.52 1.94Share cropping (timad) I 8 1.91 1.04Share cropping (parcel) 1 5 1.34 0.65Share cropping duration 1 16 3.08 2.34
Share cropping: The average of land under share cropping arrangement (1.91 timad) is higer
than that of the rented (1.35 timad). However, there are households who acquired land as large as
2 ha (8 timad) and as small as 0.25 ha (1 timad) through share croping. The data also showed that
share cropping is an old age practice in the area. There are cases where some households have
been practicing share cropping for more than 16 years.
3.2. Natural Resources and Environmental Status
The results from both FGDs and KIls revealed that all the watersheds in the study areas used to
be covered by dense natural vegetations before 1970s. Notably, natural forests with trees, shrubs,
and bushes of indigenous species were common. Regarding the natural environment, there was
little incidence of soil erosion, flooding, deforestation, landslides, and other environmental
problems.
120
3.2.1. Environmental problems
In central zones o f SNNPR diverse environmental problems are commonly reported. The major
environmental challenges arc soil erosion, deforestation, soil fertility decline, flooding, over-
grazing and land slide. The survey result indicated that, soil fertility decline, overgrazing, have
been a severe problem since twenty-five years and deforestation, flooding and land slide have
been a severe environmental problem for the last fifty years. These environmental problems are
severe to the extent that they become threats to the livelihood of people in particular and the
development endeavors of nations in many circumstances in general. Specifically, the problems
have negative effect on agricultural productivity and production; destruct both renewable and
non-renewable natural resources, cause migration, and other social instability.
Soil erosion has been one of the major problems challenging farmers in study area. Even though
a number of soil and water conservation technologies were introduced and practiced, sustaining
the application of these measures is far below expectations and soil degradation is still a
persistent problem to this country m general and SNNPR in particular. For the last three decades,
different strategies and measures have been taken to halt soil erosion there by improve
agricultural productivity through maintaining and protecting the natural resource base
particularly land. However, the problem still persists and yet there are farmers who are not fully
aware and perceive the problems in their locality. The formal survey result indicated that 94.7%
of the respondents perceived soil erosion problems while the remaining 5.3% do not perceive the
soil erosion as environmental problems challenging and impacting their livelihoods. As shown in
table 12, about 52% of the respondents reported that soil erosion has became a severe problem
for the last 25 years due to agricultural intensification complemented with poor and/or absence of
integrated watershed development to halt and mitigate the problem.
Continues cropping as a result of population pressure in the study area has exposed top soil to
sheet and rill erosion. Due to loss of top soil and removal of crop residues for fire wood, animal
feed and construction of house the soil fertility of the area has been declined. Farmers in the
study area reported occurrence of frequent flooding at lower course of watershed during rainy
season.
121
Siltation is one of the problems reported in some parts of the study areas with lakes. For
example, Boyo Lake (Hadia Zone) and Lake Hawassa have been severely affected by sediments
due to high soils erosion from upper stream as a result of vegetation removal and inappropriate
farming. In the case of Boyo Lake, high siltation affected the lake due to the removal of soils
from highlands of Kembata Tembaro, Hadiya, Siltie, and Guraghe zones. Focus group
discussants expressed the extent of siltation in Boyo Lake as:
“this is the soil of Kembata1 to explain that the sill came from the highlands of Kembata
due to vegetation removal and fanning of steep slopes.
Most of the respondents (64.5%) perceived that deforestation is the major environmental
problem in the area whereas one third of them do not perceive deforestation as the major
environmental problem. This could be due to absence of forests and bushes in the area as there
are no communal forest lands that make them to appreciate the problem. Since the study area is
highly populated and located in highlands, there is expansion of fanning even in steep slopes and
marginal lands. In other words, the land use type in the areas is majorly allocated to agricultural
crops and there is very little option for grazing and other land use types. The majority (82.6%) of
the farmers appreciated soil fertility decline as major environmental problems declining crop
productivity.
Deforestation and heavy runoff in the study area influenced underground and surface water
availability which resulted in scarcity of water both for humans and livestock. As a result:
springs have been dried up, river and natural springs after rainy seasons immediately withered,
reverine forests, shrubs and grasses dwindled and occurrence of severe incidence of water borne
diseases occurred around dried up water bodies.
Morethan half (55.9%) of the respondents perceived overgrazing the major environmental
problem in the study area. The rest did not perceive it as a major problem This could be due to
the difference in respondents' herd size and the carrying capacity of their lands. The fact that the
study watershed is located in different agro ecological zones make the carrying capacity of the
grazing lands to be different and ultimately for the difference in susceptibility to over grazing.
About 68% of the respondents reported flooding as major problem in the area This is manifested
122
by the impacts it caused on assets and lives of human and their animals especially on those
inhabitants located in downstream part of the catchment.
However, other environmental problems such as landslide and wildlife attack are less perceived
by the respondents. About 32% and 30% of households responded that land slide and wild life
attack respectively are environmental problems (Table 12). This is also substantiated by the
observation made during the field work in different watershed.
Table 12 Environmental problems (n=1080)
EnvironmentalProblems
PerceivedFrequency %
Not-pcrceived Frequency %
Duration (years) Since 25 25-50 Before
50Soil erosion 1023 94.7 57 5.3 51.8 36.7 11.5Deforestation 697 64.5 383 35.5 29.8 43.0 27.2Soil fertility decline 892 82.6 188 17.4 55.2 33.2 11.7
Flooding 735 68.1 345 31.9 39.7 42.0 18.2Over grazing 604 55.9 476 44.1 42.9 41.9 15.2Land slide 350 32.4 730 67.6 35.4 44.3 20.3Wild life attack 328 30.4 752 69.6 54.3 24.1 21.6
3.2.2. Causes of environmental problems
As perceived by farmers in the study areas, agricultural expansion, improper farming,
deforestation, tenure change and/or problems, and investment expansions are the main causes of
environmental problems. Land degradation particularly soil erosion is a severe environmental
problems affecting the well being of society. 61% of the respondents reported that the main
causes of soil erosion are agricultural expansion followed by inappropriate fanning practiccs.
With respect to other environmental problems, 55.5%, 42.8% and 47.2% of the respondents
revealed deforestation, flooding and overgrazing respectively are the major problems mainly
caused by agricultural expansion. The severity of the environmental problems ranges from more
to less severe depending on the type of agro-ecology and over exploitation o f natural resources.
123
Tabic 13 Causes of environmental problems and its severity level
MajorEnvironmentalProblems
Causes in % * Severity of the problem in %
1 2 3 4 5 6 High Medium low
Soil erosion 60.5 6.1 22.5 - 2.1 8.9 65.1 29.6 5.3Deforestation 55.8 7.9 9.6 3.2 23.5 - 42.8 40.6 16.6Soil fertility decline
43.0 11.1 39.6 0.6 2.0 3.7 39.2 46.9 13.9
Flooding 42.8 14.9 37.5 1.1 2.0 1.6 28.4 51.8 19.7Over grazing 47.2 10.8 26.3 6.5 3.6 5.6 30.5 31.1 38.4Land slide 53.7 2.9 39.4 2.3 1.7 - 10.3 32.3 57.4* 1= Agricultural expansion, 2=Tenure change/problems, 3= Inappropriate fanning 4 - Expansion for investment 5^Need for fuel and construction wood, 6^ Combination o f all
3.3. Impacts of Environmental Problems
In the study are the environmental problems have been manifested in both direct and indirect
impacts. As it can be observed from table 14, the most widespread impact of environmental
problems is declinc in agricultural productivity notably in crop production. For instance, about
90 percent of respondents reported that the impact of soil erosion is expressed by low crop
productivity. Agricultural productivity has been declining in the area as the top soil removed and
hence resulted in low soil fertility and moisture to support crop and livestock production.
Reduced ground and surface water availability, loss of assets, migration and in rare cases human
loss due to flooding and land slide are the common impacts caused by environmental problems.
The existing environmental problems observed and impacting the well-being of farming
community are interlinked and interdependent. All environmental problems are responsible for
yield reduction, decrease livestock production, loss of assets and human lives, migration, and
low water availability (table 14). The degree of the impact varies from one environmental
problem to another.
124
Tabic 14 Impacts of environmental problems
Environmental Impacts of the problems in % of respondents response*problems i 2 3 4 5 6 7
Soil erosion 90.4 2.7 1.2 1.2 4.5 - -
Deforestation 36.2 32.9 4.4 16.8 8.2 1.6 -Soil fertility decline
86.8 4.8 1.0 2.8 4.6
Flooding 54.1 10.1 13.4 8.5 8.0 3.3 2.6Over grazing 30.1 40.1 15.2 3.5 10.1 1.2 -Land slide 17.1 26.0 35.1 4.9 4.9 7.4 4.6
*]=Crop yield decline, 2 - Reduced animal productivity and herds, 3=Loss of assets, 4=Reduced water availability, 5= Change land to stony and dry, 6=Migration, 7= Loss of human lives
To maintain and use the natural resources of the region, there are some efforts by governmental
and development practitioners to conserve and manage the resources in sustainable manner. The
government of Ethiopia has also given special attention in its "Climate Resilient Green Economy
Strategy (CRGE)". In CRGE the essence of community watershed development has been
underlined (FDRE, 2011). Consequently, community based watershed development across the
country in general and South Nations Nationalities, and Peoples' Regional State (SNNPR) in
particular has been initiated and implemented since 20II.
To alleviate and reverse environmental problems in general and soil erosion and deforestation in
particular, different efforts have been made both on private and communal lands. Different soil
and water conservation (SWC) measures like traditional and improved soil and water
conservation practices and tree planting are the main notable practices implemented by the
community. The main objectives of these practices were to reduce soil erosion thereby increasing
agricultural productivity, increase the vegetation cover, maintain the bio-diversity, and fulfill the
growing fuel wood and construction wood demand of the community. The formal survey
conducted in 9 woredas of the region indicated that about 97% of the respondents practiced soil
and water conservation measures. Only 3% of the eases were not practicing SWC measures
neither on their farms nor on communal lands. While 29.7% of the respondents practiced
indigenous SWC practices, about 24 % and 46% practiced improved SWC measures and both
traditional and improved types respectively on their farms and communal lands (table 15).
125
Table 15 Types of soil and water conservation measures (n=120 per woreda)
WoredaName
Number % Types of SWC measures in % Traditional Improved Traditional & SWC SWC Improved
No action Number
Hawasa Zuria 120 100 22.5 308 46.7 -- _Bensa 120 100 28.3 38.3 33.3 -- _Halaba 112 93.3 45.5 5.4 49.1 8 6.7KedidaGamela
120 100 2.5 34.2 63.3 — —
Kacha Bira 117 96.7 47.9 15.4 36.8 4 3.3Damot Gale 117 97.5 3.4 40.2 56.4 3 2.5Boloso Sore 113 94.2 41.2 23.7 35.1 7 5.8Wulbareg 117 97.5 37.6 6.0 56.4 3 2.5AlichoWarario 106 89.1 41.0 21.9 37.1 13 10.9
Total 1042 96.5 29.7 24.2 46.1 38 3.5
The green economy strategy of the country devised watershed development as one of the strategy
to mitigate climate change in the country. Based on this strategy a general direction is given from
the government and each woredas identified the environmental problems and set priority for
action. There after the implementation starts at the community level in sub-watershed. Contrary
to the past watershed development interventions, the current massive community based
integrated watershed development participate all stakeholders, specifically farmers in their
locality are active participant starting from planning to implementation. As the current watershed
development, the households included in the survey have different perceptions and knowledge
regarding the approach and initiative of the watershed development. For instance, from the total
household interviewed about 63.2%, 25% and 10.3% of them perceive the watershed
development as government initiative, self motive, and both self and government motives
respectively (table 16). However, the role of projects and non-government organizations with
respect to watershed development is very minimal.
126
Tabic 16 The initiator of different soil and water conservation measures
Type of SWC _______ Share with respect to stakeholders in catalyzing SWC (%)measures Self motive Government Government
& self motiveProjects NGOs Total
Traditional SWC 12.7 15.5 1.3 0.3 — 29.8Improved SWC 1.6 20.0 2.1 0.3 0.1 24.1Traditional & 10.7 27.7 6.9 0.4 0.4 46.1improved SWC Total in % 25.0 63.2 10.3 1.0 0.5 100.0
Incentives in the form of cash, in-kind like grain and oil have been practiced in Ethiopia since the
outbreak of famine in Ethiopia in 1973 (Genene and Abiy, 2014). In spile of huge amount of
money allocated for farmer’s incentives participating in different types of watershed
development, the impact is insignificant and the threat have been severe and severe. As opposed
to the past inccntivized watershed development campaign works, the current watershed
development has been conducted without providing any incentives to farmers. HoweveT, farmers
are benefiting from rehabilitated farm and communal land widi agreed institutional laws drafted
and approved by the watershed residents. The formal survey result revealed that 40.6%, 10.6%
and 37.5% of the households have benefited from private farm, community communal and
combination of private and communal land respectively (table 17). The share of benefit from
communal land is too small due to some woredas have no communal land and even those with
communal land the deliverable is small due its carliness.
Table 17 Distribution of benefits with respect to tenure arrangements (n=1080)Woreda Beneficiaries of watershed development Total
Private land Communal land Private & communalNumber % Number % Number % Number %
Hawasa Zuria 25 20.8 32 26.7 59 49.2 116 96.7Bensa 25 20.8 31 25.8 61 50.8 117 97.5Halaba 9 7.5 3 2.6 107 89.2 120 100.0Kedida Gamela 77 64.2 — 0.0 43 35.8 120 100.0Kacha Bira 58 47.9 22 18.2 40 33.3 120 100.0Damot Gale 120 100.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 120 100.0Boloso Sore 40 33.3 12 10.0 54 45.0 6 88.3Wulbareg 30 25.0 3 2.6 80 66.7 113 94.2Alicho Warario 55 46.2 11 9.2 45 37.5 111 92.5Total 438 40.6 114 10.6 489 45.3 1042 96.5
127
Equally importance like economic and environmental impacts, watershed development is
primarily expected to have social benefits and impacts. Social amenity value, socio-cultural
service, creating accessibility and proximity to natural resources, reducing migration and
conflicts are some of the main tangible and intangible benefits of watershed development.
The ecological and social services of developed watersheds have multiple direct and indirect
benefits. The ecological service of watershed products like trees and shrubs create recreation and
attractive landscape to watershed residents. The formal survey conducted in 9 woredas on 1080
households indicated that 87.3% of the cases got amenity values from developed watershed in
their respective localities.
The population pressure on one hand and the erosion effects on downstream of watershed on the
other are casual effects for conflicts in natural resource management particularly on land and
water. Theoretically, development practitioners who are not following watershed guidelines like
slope, gradient and land use type will end up with negative outcomes and impacts, that the
erosion and flooding will severely damage the downstream dwellers and result with migration
and conflicts. Contrary to the facts, the current watershed development strictly follows the
principle and guidelines of integrated watershed development that in intervened areas of the
region conflicts were not raised. The survey conducted on 1080 households indicated that 88%
of the cases replied that there is no conflict in and nearby sub-watershed residents.
Access and proximity to natural resource includes grass for animal feed, housing, roofing, fuel
wood and other purposes. Farmers who have access to such benefits increases their off-farm
income through sale of grass, fuel wood, and other products and they can also earn additional
income through fattening of their animals. Moreover, rehabilitated watersheds improve
underground and surface water availability. From the survey conducted in sampled woredas,
80.6% of the respondents have replied positively as if they are benefited from the sub-watershed
they have engaged and developed.
3.4. Community Based Participatory Watershed Development
In the central zones of the SNNPR, degradation of the watersheds has gone to the extent that
human and animal lives be threatened and lots of assets damaged. Then community in the study
128
zones has come to understand the severity of the problem. They described the severity and the
need to rehabilitate the watershed by the following slogan “watershed development is the issue
of security and survival”. This implies that the challenges and threats forced the community to
actively participate and involve in community watershed developments. This community based
participatory watershed development has been mainly initiated due to the environmental
challenges facing the country in general and that of the farming community in particular.
3.4.1. Process of watershed development
The watershed development activity is a national level program comprising different
stakeholders at different levels. The process mainly comprises preparation and implementation
phases.
3.4.1.1.Preparation phase
The preparation or planning phase includes document preparation, resource identification,
materials (local and industrial) preparation, training, and formation of institutional arrangements.
This preparation phase is the prime responsibility of the watershed committee comprised of
different social strata of the community with the representation of gender, age, and etc.
Document preparation: Before the watershed intervention, document preparation is carried out
at (sub) watershed level. The document prepared following guideline 9 adopted from Ministry of
Agriculture. During the document preparation the following major components are addressed:
participatory watershed problem identification, watershed development mapping, resource
(labor, farm implements, local and industrial construction materials, surveying tools, seeds and
seedlings, etc) identification and analysis.
Participatory watershed problem identification: Identification of watershed problems is one
of the major tasks of the watershed committee with the participation of the local community. The
watershed with critical problems are identified and then prioritized for development based on the
severity of the problems.
129
Preparation of watershed development map: In the preparation phase watershed development
map is produced after collecting pertinent information on both biophysical and socioeconomic
profile of the watershed. This map is known to be produced in participatory way by involving
watershed committee, the local community and other stakeholders. In this regard three maps
namely sketch map, base map, and watershed development map are produced. Then after the
maps are reviewed and approved by community and posted at the Keble office.
Resource identification for watershed development: Contrary to the conventional watershed
development campaign works which was mostly top down, the current watershed development
has critically considered resource availability, quality and type of resources and its gap. The
major resources required for implementing watershed development activities include labor force
(15 to 64 years old), farm implements (spade, hoe, pick txe, lever, and etc) local and industrial
construction materials, brushwood for delineation, see. . nursery sites for seedling raising and
surveying materials (water balance, meter, ranging p< !e{jalo, sprit level, water level and etc).
These surveying materials are dispatched to each kebele before implementing the actual
intervention.
Setting institutional arrangements: In the preparation phase of watershed development,
establishment of the formation of institutional arrangement to implement the watershed
management activities is the major task. In all surveyed central zones, it is found that the
development of watershed is carried out using the existing institutional arrangements such as
andleamest budin (one two five), ye limat budin, watershed committee, and etc. Watershed
committee is a working group that facilitates and coordinates community for collective action in
all stages of community watershed development. Especially their role in planning phase is
magnificent. The committee is commonly consisting of 9 members from different groups of the
Kebele. These are Kebele chairman and vice chair persons, manager of the kebele, development
agent working in natural resource management, health extension worker, women representative,
youth representative, public affairs and head of the justice.
The watershed committee involve in identifying watershed problems, planning of watershed
activities, identifying resources, drafting community by-laws, facilitating public meetings and
discussions, assigning field surveyors, monitoring day to day activities, monitoring and
130
evaluating the progress of the achievements of watershed development and the success of the
various institutional arrangement involving in watershed development such as one to five
working groups, and limat budin and reporting the day to day progress to the Kebele council.
The one to five is the first level institutional arrangement in community watershed development.
In the preparation phase, this working group is formed on the basis of neighborhood and gender.
Developmental team (Ye limat budin) is the second higher level working groups composed of 5-7
groups of one to five budin. In terms of the number of members, it consists of 30-42 members.
Awareness creation and training: Before the implementation of the watershed development,
awareness creation platform was prepared. Moreover, public conferences are made in which the
community make major decisions for implementation and post implementation. Each year such
type of awareness creation platforms and conferences at Kebele level is carried out. This include
both on its success and limitations. The timing of the actual work and number of man days for
each activity is dccided by the community during this event. Besides, the site to be rehabilitated
is approved by lemat budin. With respect to awareness creation, at the beginning of the
watershed development, i.e., in 2011, there were different exposure visits to Tigray regional state
to learn the art of state of soil and water conservation lessons and experiences on the process and
status of the rehabilitated watershed. Selected farmers, kebele council members, development
agents (DAs) and experts were participated in the exposure visits.
Thereafter, training for development agents and kebele council members has been given at zonal
and woreda levels on various aspects of the watershed development. Besides, training on how to
use the surveying materials is given to selected surveyor in each sub-watershed. On average 3
local surveyors (foreman) at each limai budin were trained at sub-watershed level by
developments agents with close mentoring of woreda subject matter specialist (SMS) team. The
local surveyors are trained on SWC structure types, layout and design of structures, placement of
designs in different slopes and land use types, delineating sub-watershed, and other relevant
skills of watershed development.
Training of field surveyors, DAs and experts: Semi-skilled farmers are selected and trained so
that they can get skill for surveying and delineation of the watershed. Moreover, DAs and
131
experts who supervise and guide the whole process of watershed development were trained in
various aspects of the watershed development.
Site selection: In the preparation phase the (sub) watersheds that are developed are identified and
prioritization among the selected watersheds is made based mainly on the severity of the
problems in the watershed. In both the mid and high lands of the central zones of the region, soil
erosion severity, fertility loss, decline in crop and livestock productivity are the commonly used
criteria in selecting sub-watershed for interventions.
Technology choice and suitability: Choice of technology, its appropriateness to specific agro-
ecology, the placement of soil and water conservation structures as per its design are of
important issues resolved in the preparation phase of watershed development. Hence, the types
of physical and biological SWC practices and technologies are selected by involving experts and
watershed committee before implementation. Specifically, what type of structures and species
are to be used are decided on this phase. Finally, the technologies and practices selected for
specific sub-watershed are evaluated by collecting feedback reports from the community living
in and surrounding the intervened watershed.
3.4.I.2. Implementation
The implementation phase includes community mobilization, delineating, designing and lay
outing, constructing the physical structures, augmenting physical structures with biological
stabilizers, handing over and maintenance of the developed physical and biological SWC
structures.
Community mobilization: The implementation phase starts with community mobilization
followed by immediately by other interventions. Mobilization is carried out majorly for the aim
of ownership sense creation. It is carried out at peak period via public conferences, using local
and religion institutions, announcement using local musical instruments, traditional songs, and
slogans. In community mobilization, awareness creation about the essence of watershed
development, the benefit obtained from it and impacts of watershed development. The need of
public participation, community by-laws in implementing and maintaining watershed is
132
highlighted and aware to the community. Moreover, community by-laws for implementing,
maintaining and benefit sharing of rehabilitated land is drafted and approved for its functioning.
Design and layout of physical structures: In this sub phase for top prioritized watershed areas,
delineation, design and layout of physical structures are carried out by surveyors with active
participation of the community.
Construction of soil and water conservation structures: Immediately after lay out of the
appropriate structures, construction of different physical structures is carried out using the
existing institutional arrangement such as one to five, ye limat budin, watershed committee and
other stakeholders. The constructed physical SWC structures are stabilized by biological measure
such as multipurpose trees, shrubs and forage species. The biological measures start with
seedling raisings during the short rainy season and the actual plantation is done in the main rainy
season starting mainly in June.
Handing Over: In each watershed development campaign, the intervened watershed is handed
over to the community as well as individual land owners. They make agreement and commit
themselves to protect and conserve both physical and biological structures. In each intervention
year of watershed development, handing over of the intervened watersheds is carried out by
watershed committee. In this regard, the completed structures on communal lands are protected
and managed by the community itself through the established institutional arrangements. In some
areas after handing over the intervened watershed, maintenance is carried out by beneficiaries of
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP).
3.4.1.3. Monitoring and evaluation
From project management point o f view, monitoring and evaluation is done to check status,
identify drawbacks and strength, modify the methods and approaches, offer corrections and build
experience from the on-going project. In all phases of watershed intervention, there has been
continuous and intensive monitoring and evaluation by DAs, woreda SMS, and kebele and
woreda administration. Though il is no frequent, monitoring and evaluation is also performed by
zonal SMS groups. When document preparation is done at community level by watershed
133
committee, cross checking of each step is done by DAs and woreda SWC experts. While
implementing the actual watershed development work, after delineating the watershed boundary
using GPS, the focus point of which the intervention is started is checked. In all the intervened
area of the central zones of SNNPR, the principle of watershed development, i.e, starting at
upper course of the catchment is carefully considered. The technology choices and their
appropriateness to the specific sub-watershed, organizational set up, resource availability and its
gap (active labour, farm implements, handicraft availability, traditional healers, and preparation
of nursery), design and placement of structures as per its standards and other relevant things are
frequently monitored.
The person per day (PD) vs total labour for each structure, technology choices vis-a-vis land use
type and slope, the efficiency of skill training given to surveyor were frequently monitored by
woreada SMs and DAs. Apart from the actual assessment and monitoring of watershed activities
at field level, written report is submitted to both woreda administration and Agricultural office
every week. Moreover, daily communication using telephone (both fixed and mobile) is also
done vertically and horizontally. Monitoring is done while the activity is underway taking
sample achievements. Visual observation, taking witness of participating and non- participating
fanners, referring report are some of the commonly methods employed for monitoring.
Monitoring and evaluation is also carried out at different levels starting from one to five to limat
budin to Kebele (cabinet) level. Accordingly, one to five working groups are evaluated on daily
basis by ye limat budin leaders; Ye limat budin is evaluated on daily basis by the Kebele
watershed committee. However, evaluation at woreda level is carried out on weekly basis.
Whereas, Zonal level evaluation is carried out every 15 days and sometimes in 3 days depending
when urgent cases emerged. Then ranking of the institutional arrangements is carried out and
finally grade A for best performing, B for medium and C for least performing one to five budin
will be given in every three days. Similarly, the ranking at Kebele level is done by SMS.
Regarding reporting, different mechanisms arc employed. Apart from telephone communication,
day to day activities, progress and achievements, working group (one to five and Ye limat budin)
achievements and challenges are reported every five days to woreda administration and Office of
134
Agriculture in written form. Based on the report and observation, feedback report is sent back to
kebele for taking correctivc actions.
3.5. Community Participation and Perception to Sub-Watershed Development
In this section the level of community participation and perception at the beginning of the sub-
watershed development and at present is discusscd as follows.
3.5.1. Community participation
Community participation from planning to implementation is instrumental in watershed
development programs. The community has participated and contributed its labor, time, skill,
farm implements, construction materials, seeds and seedlings and etc as inputs in the process.
Without these inputs sub-watershed development is hardly possible. It is known that the
community participation level varies over time since the launch of the sub-watershed
development. The FGDs and KIIs results revealed that the participation level of the community
at the beginning of the process was weak. Data from the household survey also indicates that
(table 18) 78.4% of respondents reported that community participation in the sub-watershed
development during the initial year was low or medium; of which 51.7% reported it to be low.
40.5% of respondents also reported that they themselves were not willing to participate in the
sub-watershed development works in the initial year. The reason they provided for their
unwillingness is that they did not understand the benefits of sub-watershed development
(96.3%), and few perceived that there is no problem associated with sub-watershed in their area
(2.3%).
Table 18 Respondents view on community participation in sub-sub-watershed development
Level At launch (2011) Frequency %
Currently (2015) Frequency %
High 234 21.6 872 80.7Medium 288 26.7 188 17.4Low 558 51.7 20 1.9Total 1080 100.0 1080 100
135
However, the level of community participation has been improved over time. 80.7% of the
respondents reported that community participation is high in 2015. The possible reasons put
forward for this change by the community are:
(i) The sense of ownership created due to regular training, awareness creation, and early
impacts observed on the rehabilitated sub-watershed areas
(ii) The transparency and governance created for benefit sharing from the rehabilitated
exclosures
(iii) Mobilization of the community via different institutional arrangements such as one to
five and limat budin, and etc
(iv) Lessons drawn from 2011 sub-watershed development limitations and drawbacks
(v) The functioning of work norms based on the type of soils and land uses
(vi) The establishment of appropriate ratio of labor force to farm implements.
This data is further consolidated by the response from the household survey in that 83.8% of the
respondents indicated that the observed change in the participation of the community is due to
observed improvements and benefits gained as a result of the sub-watershed development. 16.2%
of the respondents also indicated that it is the result of due to the frequent trainings given by
woreda agricultural office (table 19).
Table 19 Reasons for participation of the community in the sub-watershed development in 2015
Reason Frequency %Due to trainings given by woreda agricultural office 141 16.2Observed improvements and benefit gained as a result of the sub-watershed development
731 83.8
Total 872 100.0
The result showed that it was not only the level of participation but also the quantity and quality
of the structures developed at the beginning of the sub-watershed development was poor. This is
because the community participation was in mass and not based on institutional arrangements at
different levels. As a result, unnecessary labor force was spent in small area. Moreover, the
training carried out to bridge the skill gap of farmers, DAs, experts and other stakeholders in
various aspects of the sub-watershed development was not holistic. This means that the scope
136
and quality of the training was not based on critical need assessment vis-a-vis sub-watershed
development. As a result, the sub-watershed developed during then was with less quality as
compared to the standard one. There was also wastage of human resource and materials as the
ratio between labor and farm implements is very high which implies that the available farm
implements were not sufficient to utilize the available labor resource efficiently. Besides, there
was also a problem of not implementing the activities based on standard sub-watershed
principles and approaches. For instance, there was a problem of starting the implementation from
the down and middle stream contrary to the principle that requires the development from
upstream and peak of watershed.
3.5.2. Community perception
During the start of the campaign in 2011, the level of community perception in sub-watershed
development was low. At the launch of watershed development, most farmers were reluctant to
actively engage in the program. About 40% of the respondents were not willing to participate in
watershed development in 2011 (table 20). The major reason for the unwillingness is lack of
awareness about the benefits of the watershed management. They were unwilling to work for
free, contribute their farm implements, participate on trainings and public meetings, and even
they were not allowing their private farm land for watershed intervention. In this regard, the
results showed that there was lack of understanding about physical soil and water conservation
structures as well as enclosures. They perceived that SWC structures compete their farmland,
limit the short term benefits (such as free grazing and fire wood collection), host rodents and
pests, create difficulty in farming like movement of draught animals and livestock, demands
intensive labor, and cumbersome activity to be carried out in dry and sunny days (table 20).
Tabic 20 Perception of respondents on watershed development in 2011 (n=1080)
Perception Frequency %Intervention limits immediate economic bcnefits/access from enclosures 192 17.8Intervention restricts free mobility of draught animals 171 15.8Interventions host pests and rodents 55 5.1Intervention demands intensive labour 131 12.1Top down approach 335 31.0Intervention diminishes area for cultivation 71 6.6All 125 11.6
137
But through time the perception of the community towards sub-watershed development has been
improved. About 95% of the respondents are now willing to participate in watershed
development.
Table 21 Respondents willingness to participate in watershed development (2011 to 2015)
Response 2011Frequency %
2015Frequency %
Willing 643 59.5 1031 95.5Unwilling 437 40.5 49 4.5Total 1080 100.0 1080 100.0
The reasons contributed for the change are (a) continuous awareness creation (b) technical
backstopping (c) ownership sense development on rehabilitated areas (d) observation of some
early economic, social and environmental impacts. .As indicated in table 22, 71.9% of
respondents were convinced by the economic and social benefits obtained from the developed
sub-watershed. Relatively quick rehabilitation of the previously degraded lands has changed the
perception of about 22% of the respondents from their previous perception.
Table 22 Reasons for (un) willingness to participate in watershed management (2011 and 2015)
2011Reason for unwillingness Frequency %Willing 643 59.5I did not understand the benefit 421 39.0No interest 6 .6No problem in my area 10 .9Total 1080 100.0
2015Reason for willingness Frequency %Unwilling 49 4.5Economic and social benefits obtained 777 71.9Rehabilitation of degraded lands 233 21.7Frequent trainings given 21 1.9Total 1080 100.0
The result showed that perception of farmers also differs among sub-watersheds, woredas and
zones. For instance, in areas where there are severe soil erosion problems, farmers easily
observed the benefit of sub-watershed development. In such cases, farmers request the kebele
administrators and DAs to have the sub-watershed development work conducted in their own
farm lands before the intervention reaches their area.
3.6. Institutional Environments and its Arrangements
The process of sub-watershed development starting from planning to implementation is governed
by different institutional environments and arrangements. In this section, the institutional
environments and arrangements arc presented and discusscd.
3.6.1. Institutional environments in watershed management
In the central zones of SNNPR, there are different institutional environments that govern the
overall process of the sub-watershed management. These are both formal and informal rules of
the game that guide various phases of the sub-watershed development starting from planning to
implementation. These are rules of the game regarding (a) the area/extent of the sub-watershed
(b) prioritization of the sub-watershed to be rehabilitated (c) timing of rehabilitation (d) the
participants or players in the sub-watershed management (e) managing and conservation of the
rehabilitated sub-watershed and (f) resource contribution.
a) Institutional environment regarding the extent of the sub-watershed
Suitable watershed size is required for effective planning for conservation and maximum
production. Efficeinct managment of watershed resources is possible through an appropriate unit
so that the resources are managed and handled effectively, collectively and simultaneously. In
Ethiopia, the maximum size of the watershed that should be taken as a planning unit is suggested
to range from 200 to 500 ha (MoARD, 2005).
b) Institutional environment to prioritize the sub-watershed
The rule of the game in the selection of the sub-watershed for rehabilitation is based on the
severity of degradation. Sites that are highly degraded are given high priority to be developed
and rehabilitated. Another rule of the game is starting the intervention from the top of the sub
watershed. Key figures in the community such as elders, religions leaders, youth and women
representatives arc involved in problem identification. Thus, problem identification is carried out
139
by ranking the problems in farms and exclosures. This include soil erosion, deforestation,
flooding, and siltation, land slide and the associated productivity decline of both in crop and
livestock production. The sub-watershed committee is in charge of this assignment and conducts
observation on transacts. Then the history of the area is recorded by making informal discussions
such as what resources were in the area before in terms-forest, wildlife, and etc.
c) Institutional environment with timing of the (sub) watershed rehabilitation
The rule in this regard, off-season where there is little agricultural activities is selected in all
intervention zones. Consequently, February to March is the best season when farmers are
relatively free from agricultural activities. However, in some areas the time could vary as there is
variation in threshing time. Still in the majority of the zones February is the best season for mass
mobilization. The selected time for the sub-watershed development particularly that of the
physical works is reported to be much compatible time for the farmers as it is an off time shortly
after the harvest. Consequently, 96.5% of the respondents indicated that the campaign period is
acceptable (table 23). Timing of physical and biological measures establishment is also among
the rules of the game. As a result, plantation mobilization week is in June & July. Plantation of
seedlings of different tree and grass species as well as sowing of seeds as stabilizers in both the
private plots and the exclosures is part of mobilization. Regarding the campaign period, it is
decided via community conference that is conducted in each Kebele few days before the
launching day. A minimum of 20-40 days are allocated as campaign period. The data also
indicated that average number of working days in all the study areas was 30 working days with
five or six man-days per week. With respect to launching date, the campaign started in the same
day in all Kebele of the woreda with some variation Regarding the number of days, the rule
requires the actual work to be carried out every day in the first week of the day. But as of the
start of the short rainy season, belg, the frequency of the actual work day becomes 2 days per
week in some woredas. The completion of the campaign also completed in the same day in all
Kebeles in a given woreda.
The planning of the biological measures such as site preparation (site clearing and digging holes,
and etc) starts in March. Planting starts in main rainy season, i. e., between June to August.
Plantation on exclosures is carried out by the various institutional arrangements with close
140
supervision of worda experts. Seed distribution (trees, shrubs, and grass) is done in belg season
for community nurseries. Regarding the types of species, the species should be environmentally
friendly, stabilize the structures and socially acceptable.
d) Institutional environment regarding work norms
The institutional environments of the sub-watershed pertaining to the work norms are the key
components of the overall intervention process. Generally, the work norms for construction of
the physical structures differ based on the land use type and type of soils. Based on this, the
amount or size of physical structure to be undertaken is decided by watershed committee taking
the regional standard into account. In some cases, the amount of work to be done by a person
differs based on gender. For instance, a deep trench to be dug by three males is given to five
females to be dug in a day. The work nonns are in harmony with the demands of the community.
This is confirmed by the household survey that 95.1% of respondents revealed the work norm is
acccptable (table 23).
Table 23 Acceptability of campaign time and work norms in 2014
Campaign time Frequency % Work norms Frequency %Acceptable 1042 96.5 Acceptable 1027 95.1Unacceptable 38 3.5 Unacceptable 53 4.9Total 1080 100.0 Total 1080 100.0
e) Institutional environment regarding participation
There is also an institutional environment with respect to the participants in (sub) watershed
development especially in the implementation phase. The rule of the game in this regard is:
■ The presence of the elders so that they share their experience and blessings to encourage
the youth. They are not expected to carry out the actual construction of the physical SWC
structures.
■ All members of the society in the productive age group should involve in all SWC
activities.
■ Religious leaders arc engaged in encouraging the active labor force.
141
■ Most of employees from different sectors of the government involve on a launch day.
The administrations of the zone and woreda also play the mobilization role.
■ Students: students are involved in a launching day. In this case a separate parcel of land
mass in the sub-sub-watershed is assigned to them so that they accomplish it on the
launching day. Accordingly, students who are in 4th grade and above are made to
participate.
■ Health extension workers and black smith are made to serve with their profession. They
are made to host in temporary service giving stations.
■ Traditional healers (wogesha) who have skill of healing or restoring injured people
during the campaign.
f) Institutional environment for managing biological conservation measures
According to the rule, planting of grasses and trees is carried out on farm land by the owners
themselves and on exclosure by the community. There is an obligation for individual farm
owners to stabilize physical structures using their own stabilizers. The seedlings to be planted
particularly in the community lands are brought from the commun’ty nursery sites and in some
cases it is purchased and distributed by the woreda agricultural office. There is also a possibility
to get support from PSNP budget to buy grass or tree species. Contract agreement is made by
individual farmer to stabilize the established structures and protect on their farmlands. The
community in the vicinity also makes agreement to protect for structure on exclosures.
g) Institutional environment for resource contribution
All groups are expected to supply some resources required for the sub-watershed development.
For the biological stabilization, seedlings of trees, shrubs and fodder/grassed are supplied by
NGOs and GOs. The NGOs include: World Vision Ethiopia, Catholic Church, and Inter Aid
France. Industrial materials are also provided by regional government from revenue of treasury
and PSNP budget. The provision of materials such as GPS, gabion and water levels from
regional government. In some cases, farm implements and equipment are bought via PSNP
budget. Then after the completion of the sub-watershed development, the farm implements were
made to be returned back to Farmer Training Center (FTC) for future use.
142
Resource identification is carried out by one to five (and leamist). The institutional environment
in this regard is that each participant is expected to have at least one farm tool. In the case of
spades, each 1 to 5 group is expected to have two. However, sometimes there emerges a
mismatch between this ratio. Now, this ratio is being increased partly due to supports from the
woreda agricultural offices. The issue of farm tools seems resolved but there is still shortage on
spade and digging hoe in many woredas.
3.6.2. Institutional arrangements in developing the watershed
It is not only the institutional environment but also diversity of institutional arrangement
characterizes the process of sub-watershed development from preparation to implementation to
post implementation. These institutional arrangements are watershed committee, one to five
budin, ye limat budin, youth associations, women association, and Kebele administration.
Regarding the overall arrangement and the interaction among them, one to five arrangements is
comprised of 6 members and one is the leader. Ye limat budin is comprised of a group of one to
five arrangements ranging from 5-7 one to five groups.
a) Watershed committee
Watershed committee is a group of people comprised of different representatives from the
community. There are different watershed committees at different levels. These are woreda
watershed committee, Kebele watershed committee and sub-watershed committee at village
level.
The watershed committee at woreda level is consists of different members representing different
deciplines. These include; experts from soil and water conservation, agro-forestry, crops,
livestock, irrigation, and agronomy, gender expert from office of agriculture, public work
coordinator and experts from office of cooperatives.
Whereas, Kebele watershed committee is comprised of (a) DA especially that of the natural
resources sectors, (b) chairperson of the Kebele, (c) youth representative, (d) women
representative, (e) woreda expert, (f) religious leaders, and (g) selected elders. Furthermore, sub-
watershed committee at village level is comprised of DAs, youth representatives, women
representatives, selected ciders, religious leaders and Kebele cabinet.
143
a. One to five budin (Ande le amist)
It is the lowest level institutional arrangement. It is a team of six individuals that is organized
based on neighborhood, i.e., geographical proximity. It is established for carrying out various
social and economic tasks. The social tasks undertaken by this group include maintaining peace
and security in their area. Among the economic tasks, they involve in infrastructural and social
services construction, sub-watershed development, undertaking agricultural activities and so on.
From the available data, majority of respondents (88%) reported that the interaction among
members of the one to five groups is strong and cooperative making the institutional arrangement
well-functioning (table 24).
Table 24 Interaction among 1 to 5 members
Interaction level Frequency %Strongly cooperative 952 88.1Weekly cooperative 121 11.2Medium 7 .6Total 1080 100.0
a. Ye limat budin
This institutional arrangement is comprised of a group of one to five budin. From five to seven
ande leamist budin forms one ye limat budin. In general, on eye limat budin is comprised of 30 to
42 members.
b. Youth association
Members of the youth association at kebele level are engaged in implementation of the sub
watershed development activities. For the youth association a parcel o f land allocated to develop
both physical and biological structures.
c. Women association
Members of the women association are also participating in the implementation phase. The sub
watershed committee in each kebele, assign a particular area of land for the women association to
develop both physical and biological SWC structures.
144
3.6.3. Organizational set up and its functioning
The organizational set up has a paramount importance in implementing developmental works.
Unlike the past campaign of watershed development, the current public watershed development
program has its own organizational set up. The organizational set up of watershed development
in each woreda starts from village, and ends up at woreda level. The limat budin is accountable
to kebele command post and it in turn is accountable to woreda committee and finally it is
directed to woreda command post.
Figure 1 Organizational setup
Institutional arrangements for planning: Among the institutional arrangements the watershed
committee is an arrangement that is mainly involved in the planning phase of the watershed
development.
Institutional arrangements for implementing: In the implementation phase of the watershed
development, it is known that all the existing institutional arrangements at different levels are
engaged. The sub-watershed committee is engaged in supervising and guiding the
implementation process. Whereas, the one to five budin and ye limat budin are mainly engaged
in the actual construction of the physical and biological SWC structures.
In 2011 all people without any institutional arrangement used to engage in the sub-watershed
development activity in mass. They used to move into one place in mass. There was no
institutional arrangement that increase the efficiency of the people. As a result, there was loss of
labor power and consequently there was inefficiency. However, in the consequent years, taking
into consideration the gap in 2011, the sub-watershed development was made to be implemented
a new institutional arrangement that made people to work efficiently. These institutional
arrangements established as of 2013 are sub-watershed committee, one to five budin, and ye
limat budin. As there arc a minimum of 3 sub-watersheds in a kebele, people were made to work
in the sub-watershed in their vicinity. The dynamics in the case of institutional arrangement with
respect to sub-watershed development campaign in the area was indicates in table 25.
145
Table 25 Dynamics in institutional arrangements
Year Institutional arrangement Remark2011 Kebele community The whole Kebele2012 Kebele community Working in the sub-watershed in their vicinity2013 Different institutional arrangements The institutional arrangements include: Limat
were established budin, one to five budin2014 Ye limat budin, one to five budin,
sub-watershed committee
As of 2013, the new institutional arrangements came into place and increased the efficiency of
the campaign. In the process training and experience sharing activities have been carried out in
model sub-watersheds developed by different projects. There was also a video from Tigray
region for experience sharing. Training was conducted for 15 days for farmers in order to
increase their awareness on the level of watershed degradation, its impacts and the need to
rehabilitate watersheds.
After functioning of the different institutional arrangements, the approaches with respect to
different activities were changed. These include;
• Human power allocation and utilization was made based on PD and not only number
• Farm implements and Instruments were identified
• No prioritization because the sub-watershed is divided among the various limat budin and
each limat budin is made to work in its vicinity.
Institutional arrangements for managing and maintaining the rehabilitated sub-sub-
watershed: The completed sub-watersheds at each woreda are protected and managed. Every
institutional arrangement at different level is responsible.
Maintenance: Maintenance is also part of the mobilization process. Maintenance on farmlands
is carried out by farmland owners themselves. But those structures on exclosures can be
maintained via the institutional arrangement. Since the community owned it, they have their own
by laws. The role of one to five budin/ limat budin in post sub-watershed development is very
high. The community is mobilized through this institutional arrangement. The community
themselves are patrolling agents as they are using the rehabilitated areas for alternative
livelihood strategies besides agriculture. All the administrative council at zonal and woreda level
146
arc cxpcctcd to avail themselves on daily basis at Kebele to support. Representatives of all
religious sects and non-governmental organizations also support the intervention.
Rules and norms: Both forma) and informal rules were employed for the effectiveness of
massive community watershed development. The formal rules applied were standard norms
based on gender and land use type, and conflict resolution rules. The informal rules were
endorsing most of the community ider laws. The community ider laws restrict and mentor every
member of the institution to involve and participate in each phase of the watershed development
works. It forces its member to work as per the norm, standard and quality of structures stated
and written in the community by-laws. In addition to the existing local ider laws, the sub
watershed committee drafts a community by-law and approves it by community by calling public
meetings and/or conferences. In most cases the community by-laws are written and documented
at lower kebele level. The community by-law includes;
• For late comers: fine in birr and other penalty, an individual who failed to come on time
for the first time was forced either to pay birr 5 per day or forced to work the same norm,
i.e., forced to compensate the amount other members of the one to five have done. In
some areas late comers are forced to dance cultural songs after the completion of the
daily work both as punishment and as a means to recreate the one to five group members
or ye limat budin members.
• Absentee individuals: fined in birr or other penalty, in most cases absentees arc forced to
pay birr 10 for a day or if it is for the first time he/she is forced to do the required norm;
or forced to complete the task to the required standard.
• Rules for failure to fulfill quality’ or standard work: he/she is forced to re-work the
same norm as per the required standard.
• Rules for conflict resolutions: both the formal and informal types of conflict resolution
mechanisms are applied by elders, sub-watershed committee, kebele or woreda courts. In
the initial years, when some farmers refused to have the physical structures constructed in
their private farms, they were advised first by the elders, then by watershed committee
and finally brought to kebele administration. Now such conflicts have been eradicated as
the perception of the farmers has markedly changed.
147
• Rules for benefit sharing: In some sub-watersheds the benefits are shared equally, but in
some cases youths are organized in working group to share such tangible benefits
obtained from exclosure in equitable manner. Fines collected from the community are
utilized for community infrastructural development and in some cases some amount is
utilized for operational expenses in the kebele.
• Open and/or free grazing: individual farmers who used to graze his/her cattle and small
ruminants are fined 50 and 30 birr per head, respectively. Repeated violation of the by
law to lead to out casting or ostracism of the individual from local institutions.
3.6.4. Enforcement mechanisms
The by-laws with respect to the implementation and protection of the established physical and
biological structures are affected through the local institutions in the area. Edir has its own
contribution in enforcing the by-laws using fining mechanisms.
3.6.5. Institutional environment and arrangements for conflict resolution
During the implementation of watershed development and benefit sharing there is some conflicts
raised within the community. Some of the causes for conflict are: demanding grass for their
cattle, land for farming and grazing, and other tangible benefit from exclosures. Elders and
kebele council members are taking the leading role in conflict resolution.
3.7. Resources Requirement, Identification and Mobilization
The results of both formal and informal survey showed that different resources are employed in
participatory watershed development work. These include labor, farm implements, local
construction materials (e.g. stone, wood and etc), industrial construction materials (e.g. gabion
and, etc) and planting materials. Almost all households interviewed reported that they know the
types of resources involved in watershed development although some of the households did not
exhaustively list the resources required. Table 26 shows that the experience or knowledge of the
community regarding the types of resources used vanes. For instance, the majority of the
community (64.5%) knows that labor, farm implements, local construction materials, and
planting materials are the resources employed in watershed management. About 15 % of the
respondents indicated that industrial construction materials are also used in watershed148
development activities in addition to the above mentioned resources. About 20 % o f the
household mentioned that finance is also an additional resource used in watershed dvelopment.
Table 26 Types of resources used in watershed development with respect to zones
Type of resources Overall%
Sidama(%)
Kembata Tembaro (%)
Wolaita(%)
Siltie(%)
Halaba(%)
Labor, farm implements, local construction materials, planting materials* 64.5 67.1 70.8 58.8 65.7 65Labor, farm implements, local construction materials planting materials, industrial construction materials 15.4 17.9 11.9 12.1 14.2 16.7Labor, farm implements, local construction materials, planting materials, industrial construction materials and finance 20.1 15.0 17.3 29.2 20.1 18.3Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
♦ Incudes seeds, seedlings and cuttings
The reason for the incomplete list of the resources used might be due to the severity level of
watershed degradation that does not require industrial construction materials. In those cases, only
locally available materials are sufficient to develop the watershed (table 26). About 15 % and 20
% of the households who respectively mentioned the use of industrial construction materials and
finance arc supposed to be the households who experienced severe problem of watershed.
The result in table 26 shows that the type of resources used in watershed development varies
across zones and Woreda. This is due to the fact that the type of soil as well as the degradation
status may vary. For instance, in the case of Kembata Tembaro and Wolaita zones the farmers
know that watershed development is mostly carried out by using more of local resources.
Whereas in the case of Sidama, Siltie and Halaba the farmers also know that watershed
development is carried out by using industrial construction materials as well as finance in
developing watershed development activities. In the ease of Kembata Tembaro and Wolaita
zones only 11.9 and 12.1 % of the households respectively reported that industrial construction
materials arc also used for watershed development. But in the case of Sidama, Silitc and Halaba
relatively more respondents talk about the use of industrial materials, 17.9, 14.2 and 16.7 %,
respectively. The possible reason could be due to the degradation o f the watershed and formation
149
of very wide, deep and long gullies. The above difference in resource use with rcspect to Zone
also corresponds with the difference in woreda. For example, in the case of'Sidama zone the case
of Hawassa Zuria and Bensa woreda show that the use of industrial materials for watershed
development is common. This is also true with that of Halaba special woreda and Wulbarag
woreda of Siltie zone. But in the rest of the woreda, the use of industrial materials is relatively
low in comparison with the woreda of Sidama, Siltie and Halaba Special woreda (table 27).
Table 27 Types of resources used and their proportion with respect to Woreda
Types o f resources
Proportion with respect to WoredaHawasaZuha
Bensa Halaba Kedida JCachaBira
DamotGale
BolosoSore
Wulbarag AlichoWorero
Labor, farm imple localconstructionmaterials,plantingmaterials
52.5 71.7 55.0 71.7 70.1 67.1 70.0 64.2 87.3
Labor, farmimplements,local andindustrialconstructionmaterials,plantingmaterials
36.8 35.0 36.7 9.2 15.0 14.3 16.0 30.8 7.1
Labor, farmimplements,local andindustrialconstructionmaterials,plantingmaterials andfinance
10.7 13.3 8.3 19 2 15.0 18.6 14.0 5.0 5.6
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3.7.1. Types of resources contributed by households
The types of resources contributed by households are labor and farm implements. About 82 % of
the households are engaged in contributing labor and farm implements. Besides, it is known that
some households also engaged in contributing other resources such as local construction150
materials and seeds and seedlings. The result showed that about 18 % of the households were
engaged in contributing local construction materials, seeds and seedlings in addition to labor and
farm implements (table 28).
Table 28 Resources contributed by households
Resources contributed____________________ Frequency_____________________ %________LaborFarm implements LaborFarm implements Local construction materials Seeds, seedlings and cuttings Total____________________
3.7.2. Availability of resources for watershed
About 80 % of the households in the study area indicated the resources available for watershed
development are enough. Only one fifth of the households mentioned the resource available is
not enough. In the latter case, shortage of some farm implements such as digging hoe (doma) and
dijino was reported. Due to the price of the materials and the rare use in farm activities, many
households do not have such farm implements. Another reason for the shortage of farm
implements is the engagement of more than one household member in the watershed
development activities.
Table 29 Availability of resources for watershed development
Resource Availability Frequency % Cumulative %Available 856 80.1 80.1Not available 213 19.9 100.0Total 1069 100.0
The qualitative data collected indicated that in all intervention areas industrial construction
materials were very scarce. Similarly, planting materials (seeds, seedlings and cutting) are in
critical shortage for some households (21 %). The proportion of households who mentioned the
shortage of local construction, industrial construction materials and farm implements is about
24%, 31 % and 23%, respectively.
191
1080
82.3
17.7
100
151
Table 30 Gaps of resource availability
Resource Types of resourcesavailability Farm Local construction Industrial Seeds, seedlings,
implements materials construction materials and cuttings
Enough 76.7 75.8 68.7 78.7Not enough 23.3 24.2 31.3 21.3Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
As it is indicated in table 31 below, the availability of the resources varies among the types of
resources. Among the resources, industrial construction materials are relatively in high shortage
followed by local construction materials, farm implements and planting materials respectively.
Similarly, the availability of the resources varies among the zones. The result shows that the
shortage of farm implements is high in Halaba special woreda followed by Sidama, Wolaita and
Siltie. In Halaba, about 39 % of households mentioned the shortage of farm implements. In
Sidama, Wolaita and Siltie zones, the proportion of households who mentioned shortage of farm
implements were 28.3%, 28 % and 20.9%, respectively. On the contrary in Kembata Tembaro
zone, the shortage of farm implements was relatively low (17.5%).
Table 31 Gaps in resource availability among zones
Types of resources ZoneSidama Halaba KembataTembaro Wolaita Siltie Total
Farm implements 28.3% 39.2% 17.5% 28.0% 20.9% 23.4%Local construction materials 32.9% 5.8% 23.0% 18.4% 31.8% 24.2%
Industrial construction materials
17.9% 22.5% 44.9% 36.4% 20.5% 31.0%
Planting materials 20.8% 32.5% 14.6% 17.2% 26.8% 21.3%Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
In the case of local construction materials such as stone, the shortage was more in Sidama and
Siltie zones, followed by Kembata Tembaro Wolaita, and Halaba special woreda (table 31). With
respect to industrial construction materials, 44.9% and 36% of the respondents mentioned the
shortage of the resources in Kembata Tembaro and Wolaita zone, respectively. According to the
respondents, shortages of planting materials were 32.5%, 26.8% and 20.8%, in Halaba special
woreda, Siltie and Sidama zones respectively, whereas, in Woliata and Kembata Tembaro zones
152
the gap was relatively low. The source of plating materials such as grasses and shrub specics
were obtained via cash and/or farmers in the area.
3.8. Socioeconomic and Environmental Impacts
The result obtained from FGD, KII, household survey and observations showed that in each
intervened watershed there are indicators that confirm the impacts of watershed management in
social, economic, and environmental dimensions.
3.8.1. Social impacts
The result from both PRA and household survey revealed that diverse social benefits have been
observed since implementation o f watershed development although they are at early stage. These
include amenity and shade value, meeting places for various social events, recreational purposes,
and etc. With respect to amenity value, degraded lands have now become rehabilitated and
becomc beautiful landscape that gives spiritual satisfaction. The vegetation regenerated after
intervention also serves as shade and meeting places for various cultural and religious events. As
opposed to the past watershed activities particularly SWC works, the current community based
watershed development have created ownership sense among the community. This is due to the
aforementioned social impacts the community experienced in practice due to the development of
watershed.
Table 32 Social impacts from watershed development in % (n=1080)
Woreda Social amenity value
Socio-culturalservices
Reducedmigration
Reducedconflict
Accessibility and proximity
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes NoHawasa Zuria 86.7 13.3 94.2 5.8 99.2 0.8 95.0 5.0 90.8 9.2Bensa 97.5 2.5 95.8 4.2 98.3 1.7 98.3 1.7 96.7 3.3Halaba 97.5 2.5 98.3 1.7 72.5 27.5 76.7 23.3 88.3 11.7Kedida 97.5 2.5 55.0 45.0 95.8 4.2 91.7 8.3 79.2 20.8Gamela Kacha Bira 83.5 16.5 55.4 44.6 70.2 29.8 83.5 16.5 82.6 17.4Damot Gale 82.5 17.5 76.7 23.3 99.2 0.8 85.0 15.0 56.7 43.3Boloso Sore 70.0 30.0 67.5 32.5 57.5 42.5 82.5 17.5 69.2 30.8Hulbareg 88.3 11.7 66.7 33.3 90.8 9.2 90.8 9.2 84.2 15.8Alicho Wiriro 82.4 17.6 60.5 39.5 57.1 42.9 88.2 11.8 77.3 22.7Total 87.3 12.7 74.4 25.6 82.3 17.7 88.0 12.0 80.6 19.4
153
In this section the early economic impacts due to watershed management are presented based on
qualitative and quantitative data. The impact of watershed management on crop productivity,
livestock production, soil fertility enhancement and its impact on household incomc are
presented and discussed. The impact of watershed management on both off-farm and non-farm
income is presented and discussed as follows.
3.8.2.I. Impact of watershed development on crop production
The focus group discussion and key informant interview, household survey, and observation
showed that the productivity of both annual and perennial crops has been changed after
watershed development. The increase in crop productivity was reported due to construction of
SWC measures. This means that both the physical and biological SWC structures contributed in
reducing soil erosion significantly and thereby increased infiltration which enhanced soil
moisture. Moreover, it has also contributed in increasing soil organic matter that enhanced soil
fertility. Above all, the households reported that inorganic fertilizers that used to be eroded are
maintained on the farm due to the physical and biological SWC measures applied on farm lands.
During the formal survey, households were asked whether there is change in crop productivity
following the development in their respective watersheds. The result in table 33 showed that
about 87 of the households perceived that there is change in crop productivity following the
development of watershed.
3.8.2. Economic impacts
Table 33 Households who perceived change in crop productivity
Variable Frequency % Cum. %Change in crop yield 937 87.1 87.1No change in crop yield 139 12.9 100.0
For crop productivity change various explanations were given by the households (table 33). For
instance, both biological and physical SWC measures (a) reduced run off and made the soil stay
in the farm land (b) allowed infiltration and increased soil moisture (c) improved growth of
vegetation and organic matter content of the soil.
154
Table 34 Production of crops before and after watershed development
Variable Mean Mean diff t-value
Maize production before WM 4.22 + 4.88 3.531 12.264***Maize production after WM 7.76 + 7.29
Teff production before WM 2.33 + 2.42 1.469 8.157 **Teff production after WM 3.79 + 3.14
Wheat production before WM 2.68 + 2.54 2.576 12.117**Wheat production after WM 5.30 + 4.98
Sorghum production before WM 2.38 + 2.94 1.845 5.038***Sorghum production after WM 4.21+4.99
Barely production before WM 2.08 + 1.65 1.674 8.630**Barely production after WM 3.73 + 2.65
Faba bean production before WM 1.49+1.06 1.356 7.859***Faba bean production after WM 2.87 + 2.69
Table 34 showed that for all major crops such as maize, teff, wheat, sorghum, barely, and faba
bean, there is a change in yield following SWC interventions. The mean difference in yield
before and after watershed development for maize, teff, wheat, sorghum, barely, and faba bean is
3.53, 1.47, 2.58, 1.84, 1.67, and 1.36 quintals, respectively. The mean difference in the case of
all major crops in the study areas is statistically significant.
3.8.2.2. Farm land under cultivation
It is not only the production of the annual and perennial crops that has been increased but also
there is an increment in size oflands allocated for annual and perennial crops. In this section, the
farm land allocation before and after watershed development, productivity of both annual and
perennial crops, and the value of crop before and after watershed management will be presented
and discussed.
Farm land holding under annual crops: The result in table 35 show that the average size of
farm land under annual crops cultivation before watershed development in the study area is about
155
2.8 timad ranging from 1 to 16 timad. On the other band, the land put under a n n u a l crops
cultivation after watershed development is slightly higher than the land allocated before
watershed management. In this case the mean land holding under annual crop cultivation is 3.01
timad ranging from 1 to 26 timad. This difference could be due to the development of the
watershed that allows degraded land rehabilitated and made ready for cultivation.
Table 35 Farm land size under annual crop cultivation in timad (n=822)
Variable Min. Max. Mean StDev MeanDiff.
t-value p-vale
Farm land under annual crops before WMFarm land under annual crops after WM
1
1
16
26
2.83
2.99
2.262
2.365
0.16 1.417 0.157
The mean land holding under annual crops after and before watershed development is not
significantly different (table 35). This may be due the intensity of land degradation used to be so
severe that in the three years’ period of the watershed development since 2011. The time period
is too short and too early to see farmlands recovered and converted for annual crops cultivation.
Farm land holding under perennial crops: The result in table 36 shows that the average size of
land allocated for perennial crops before watershed development was 1.41 timad ranging from I
and 20 timad. In post watershed development, the average land holding under perennials is
increased to 1.59 timad.
Table 36 Farm land size under perennial crops before and after watershed management (n=744)
Variable Min Max Mean St.Dev Mean Diff t-value p-valueFarmland under perennial crops before WM Farmland under perennial crops after WM
1
1
20
20
1.41
1.59
1.36
1.38
0.18 2.529 0.012
The increase in the land allocated for the perennials in the post watershed development could be
due to the rehabilitation of degraded farm lands. This means that the reduction of runoff and
sedimentation in the downstream due to watershed development allowed households to recover
the land under sedimentation to be used for cultivating multi-purpose tree and shrubs that
provide fruits and fodder.
156
The difference in mean land holding under perennial crops before and after watershed
development is statistically significant. This study found out that mean landholding under
perennial crops before watershed development (1.41+ 1.36 timad) is significantly less that the
mean iand holding under perennial crops after watershed development (1.59 ± J .38 timad).
3.S.2.3. Impact of watershed development on household income
During the household survey the household heads participated in the survey were asked whether
the watershed development intervention introduced to the areas have brought impact on the
income obtained from crops or not. The result in table 37 verified that the average income
obtained from crops sales before watershed management intervention was less than 1900 bin-
ranging from 90 to 40300 birr. In the post watershed development, the income from crops sale
has been increased. The average income from crops sale following the watershed intervention is
about more than 4200 birr ranging from 200 to 50800 birr.
Table 37 Monetary value of crop production before and after watershed managemenVariables Min Max Mean St.Dev Mean diff.
------------t-value P value
Total value of crop sale before WM 90 40300 1857 2570
Total value of crop sale after WM 200 50800 4269 4561 2412
13.03 0.000
3.8.2.4. Livestock production and income
Similar to crop productivity, the watershed development has also brought significant change in
livestock productivity. The factors that contributed for the increased livestock productivity are
increased capacity of the farm land and grazing land for feed availability and accessibility.
Moreover, biological conservation measures planted on physical SWC structures both on private
and communal lands has increased the feed availability. In some cases, grasses and fodder oti
soil and water conservation structures are also supporting the farming community to earn
income. The formal survey result revealed that, 90.2% of the household reported that livestock
productivity and herd size o f watershed has increased due to the availability of grasses from
enclosure communal land and forage grass that was applied as biological stabilizers.
157
Table 37 Livestock productivity due to watershed management
Zone Positive response Negative response Over all Positive
Overall Negative
Number % Number % Number % Number %Sidama 210 87.50 30 12.50Wolaita 218 90.83 22 9.17Kambata 218 90.46 23 9.54 974 90.2 106 9.8TembaroSilitie 211 88.28 28 11.72Halaba 115 95.83 5 4.17
The number of livestock in tropical livestock unit (TLU) for each zones and woreda included in
the study areas showed increasing trend after the launch of watershed development.
Table 38 Livestock statistics m TLU before and during the implementation of watershed
Zone Statistics TLU 2011 TLU 2012 TLU 2013 TLU 2014Sidama Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum 23.47 22.46 23.13 26.3Mean 3.09 3.63 4.60 5.75SD 3.00 3.28 3.64 4.44
Wolaita Minimum 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00Maximum 24.23 28.25 30.32 36.72Mean 2.46 2.82 3.74 4.90SD 2.71 3.12 3.59 4.16
Kambata Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Tembaro Maximum 10.12 13.10 13.75 14.38
Mean 2.44 2.93 3.42 3.86SD 1.9 2.24 2.47 2.6
Silitie Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Maximum 17.81 19.85 16.93 19.1Mean 2.85 3.29 4.29 5.28SD 2.85 2.98 3.02 3.32
Halaba Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Maximum 16.47 13.19 15.76 17.67Mean 3.45 4.03 5.27 6.36SD 2.78 2.90 3.45 3.53
Overall N 1080 1080 1080 1080Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Maximum 24.23 28.25 30.32 36.72Mean 2.85 3.29 4.15 5.10SD 2.68 2.96 3.29 3.77
158
As shown in tabic 38 above, before the launch of the watershed development the overall TLU
mean was 2.85 and reaches 5.10 TLU (an increment of 79%) after three years of watershed
development interventions in 2014. Moreover, there is an increasing trend of TLU for all the
intervened central zones of the region. The possible reason for an increasing trend of TLU is the
access and availability of animal feed both in communal and private farm land.
The grazing lands in sample woredas of the study areas showed decreasing trend. The mean
difference (MD) before the launch of watershed development and the average for three
consecutive years is negative value that indicates grazing land might change to farm land after
rehabilitation. The information obtained from the discussants indicated that before 30 years,
when the per capita farm land was higher, fanners practiced fallowing for soil fertility
enhancement for at list four to five years. But in recent years, due to population pressure, farmers
allot small parts of their land for grazing.
Table 39 Grazing land before and during the implementation of watershed development
Description Unit Min Max Mean SD MD t- value P valueGrazing land before 2011 Ha 0 6.25 0.15 0.23 -0.011 -1.4 0.16Average grazing land (2011 -2014) Ha 0 0.75 0.14 0.13
The mean livestock holding for households in 2011 and for an average of three years (2011 to
2014) in TLU was found to be 2.85 and 4.18, respectively. The mean difference for an average
livestock holding of three years and for year 2011 of sample households was 1.33 TLU which
shows statistically significant at 1% significance level. The statistical result revealed that
household who practice more watershed development either in farm or communal land owns
more livestock as compared to the same households who owns less before the implementation
of watershed development.
Table 40 Livestock ownership status before and during watershed management (n=1080)
Description Min Max Mean SD MD T-value P valueLivestock in TLU before 2011 0 24.23 2.85 2.68 1.33 10.556 0.000***Livestock in TLU (201 1-2013) 0 31.76 4.18 3.17* * * Significance at 1% probability level
159
Watershed development has short, medium and long term benefits and impacts to the local
communities i.e., farmers while protecting, maintaining and enhancing the sustainability of
environment and the agricultural resource base. One of the immediate benefits of watershed
development is increasing farm income of the inhabitants of the given watershed. Beekeeping,
grass sale, seed and seedling sale are the common practices of farmers in rehabilitated watershed
areas. The result o f formal survey conducted in sample woredas, indicated that the mean
beehives in 2011 and for the average of three consecutive years was found to be 0.79 and 1.57
respectively. The mean difference for average beehives holders of three years and for year 2011
was found to be 0.93 which shows statistically significant at 1%. The result is supported by FGD
that they reported due to the increase of vegetation cover beekeeping practices increased in
rehabilitated watersheds.
Table 41 Beehives numbers before and during watershed intervention (n=1080)
Description Min Max Mean SD ID t-value P valueBeehives before 2011 0 18 0.79 1.52Beehives (2011-2014) 0 20 1.57 2.15 0.93 4.42 0.000****** Significance at 1% probability level
Watershed development has a positive impact to improve the livelihood of farmers living in and
surrounding intervened watersheds. Obviously, it contributes for increasing livestock
productivity. The availability of grasses obtained from cut and carry system and an alternative
supply of improved forage grasses from a rehabilitated and enclosure watershed contributes for
its improvement. The household survey result revealed that the mean annual sale of live animals
prior to the watershed development was Birr 1217 and the average for year 2011 to 2014 was
found to be Birr 1692 with a range of 120 and 11,333 Birr. The positive mean difference
between the two groups is statistically significant at 1% significance level. On the other hand,
increasing the farm income of watershed residents obtained from sale of animals is an engine to
livelihood and economic wellbeing of the people which has a long term impacts for its
sustainability.
160
Table 42 Average annual sale of animals before and after watershed management
Description Min Max Mean SD Mean Diff. t-value P valueAnnual sale of animals 80 900 1217 1498before 2011 in Bin- 474 368 0.001***Average sale of animals 120 11333 1692 1849in 2011-2014 in Birr** * Significance at 1% probability level
The other economic indicator of watershed management is off-farm income to families of
watershed dwellers. Those activities performed out of the usual farming business such as selling
of grasses, fuel wood, seeds and seedlings are known as off-farm income. Due to the short time
span of the watershed development, most farmers have not been engaged and benefited from off-
farm activities. Only 12.6 % of the respondents have been engaged and benefited in off-farm
activities of watershed development. Though, most farmers have not been engaged in it, the
mean ofT-farm income before the launch and during the three consecutive years was Birr 809 and
1373, respectively showed positive significant difference between the two groups (table 43).
Table 43 Off-farm income (in birr) before and during watershed development
Description Min Max Mean SD Mean diff. t-value P valueOff-farm income before 2011 Off-farm income in 2011 -2013
80100
45008600
8091373
7661376
564 4.034 0.000***
*** Significance at 1% probability level
3.8.2.5. Farm and off-farm income
Farm income gained from sale of crop, livestock and animal products has increased. About 91%
of the respondents included in the study areas have testified that farm income showed an
increasing trend. On the other hand, 12.6% of the respondents revealed that the share of off-farm
income of watershed residents gained from sale of grasses, fuel wood, seedling raising and seed
collection are the direct outcome of watershed development in study areas (table 44). In rare
cases, wild fruits and medicinal plants are also reported to be means of off-farm income for the
local people in the rehabilitated watershed.
161
Tabic 44 Observed changes in farm and off-farm income m watershed management
Zone Description Positive response Negativeresponse
Over all Positive
OverallNegative
Number % Number % Number % Number %Sidama 222 92.50 18 7.5Wolaita 219 91.25 21 8.8Kambata 224 92.95 17 7.1 998 91.5 92 8.5Tembaro FarmSilitie income 215 89.96 24 10.0Halaba 108 90.00 12 10.0Sidama 16 6.67 224 93.3Wolaita 30 12.50 210 87.5Kambata 37 15.35 204 84.7Tembaro Off-farm 136 12.6 944 87.4Silitie income 47 19.67 192 80.3Halaba 6 5.00 114 95.0
3.83. Environmental impacts
Based on both qualitative and quantities data, lots of environmental impacts were reported.
Among them change in soil fertility and moisture, vegetation cover, increase in surface and
ground water recharging capacity are some of the early impacts reported by the discussants and
respondents of the household survey.
The improvement in soil fertility was reported to be due to increase in vegetation cover and
moisture availability. The vegetation cover improvement is also associated with reduced soil
erosion, increased infiltration and soil moisture which support vegetation growth. The
observation revealed that it is not only the growth in biomass but also the area has become ever
green. In most of the intervened sub-watershed areas, change in vegetation cover has positive
impacts on climate change by lowering the atmospheric temperature.
The improvement in surface and ground water recharging capacity and the resulting long staying
of water flow in river during dry season is also the outcome of the watershed development. This
means that the developed physical and biological SWC structures contributed in reducing run
off, increasing infiltration and enriching the smaller tributaries that supply water to river. The
same is true with respect to springs. In some areas, springs dried before 10 years has re-emerged
and serve as source of drinking water for the inhabitants. The respondents indicated that due to
watershed development the capacity of rivers to irrigate the farmlands has increased.
The reduced runoff due to SWC structures has also contributed for reduced flooding and
siltation. Before the sub-watershed development in some areas, flooding and siltation reported to
be a pressing problem. The problem reported to be pressing to the extent that it displaced the
inhabitants from their home and also their farms. In some areas households have completely lost
their farm land and other assets due to flooding and siltation. For example, Hawassa zuria
(Mulate sub-watershed), Kedida Gamcla (Chacha sub-watershed), and Halaba (Ayemele area)
Improvement in both plant and animal biodiversity is also reported as the outcome of sub-
watershed development specifically in exclosures. In the case of plant diversity, the extinct
species that disappeared were reversed. The result showed that the number of plant species is
very high when compared to the period before 2011. Similarly, improvement in animal bio
diversity has been observed. Particularly, the type and number of wildlife has been increased. In
this case diverse species of birds, insets, vertebrates especially carnivores can be mentioned.
They mentioned that the increase in wildlife biodiversity is become pests for crops. Some of the
wild lives mentioned are ape, monkey, warthog, and antelope.
3.9. Opportunities Due to Watershed Development
Both the PRA and household survey result revealed that lots of opportunities have been observed
since the launch of community based watershed management. These opportunities are achieved
at different levels such as household, community, organizational and policy levels.
3.9.1. Opportunities at household level
The focus group discussion, key informant interviews and household survey result showed that
watershed development carried out in the ccntral zones of SNNPR has brought diverse
opportunities at household level since inception. These include increased capacity of households
to natural resources management, integration of SWC with livelihood activities, technology
transfer, reduction of fodder problem in densely populated highlands of central zones,
introduction of new commodities, and introduction off-farm and non-farm activities.
163
Increased capacity of households for natural resources management: The watershed
development intervention is known to involve people with diverse knowledge, skills and
capacities from different organizations. This could help the participants to get information and
knowledge, and bought die spirit of competition among the neighbors. Regarding the training
and awareness creation, it helped them to change the perception towards the environment and
natural resources management. This knowledge and information ultimately changed perception
hence built their capacity in different activities at their farm.
Integration of SWC activities with household livelihood activity: In all the watersheds,
degraded lands have been rehabilitated using physical and biological SWC practices. Apart from
stabilizing, biological SWC have multipurpose roles and integrated into the livelihoods of the
households. The developed areas and structures provided economically important goods that are
used for livelihood diversification. Among this apiculture, dairy farm, fattening of oxen and
small ruminants can be mentioned. The biological stabilizers have made possible ample grasses
to be available for both their own cattle and also for sale. It is not only grasses but also they
exercised fruit trees in their farm as biological stabilizers and this also helped them get additional
products for sale and food. The increased production of grasses also helped them to increase the
productivity of their cattle. In addition, some of the areas are developed to attract tourism and to
practice different off-farm activities.
Transfer of technologies: Prior to the watershed development, households had limited
opportunities of SWC technologies. Before 2011, households in the central zones of the region
have limited knowledge on double dividend role o f the SWC structures. Rather, they used to
classify watershed development as antithesis of agricultural production. They perceive that the
structures compete farm plots, harbor rodents and pests, and create difficulty for movement of
draught animals. But now farmers understand that soil and water conservation structures have
additional roles and they started to practice the technology by themselves.
Reduction of fodder problems; Before the development of the watershed, the degradation of
the environment coupled with the population density of the areas has reached the extent that
livestock number and productivity has almost become very minimal and almost reached the
extent that the areas could not support livestock production. As a result, they destocked the
164
livestock number and even the productivity of the available livestock used to be very low due to
fodder and grazing land problem. One of the most pressing problems solved due to the
development of watershed is feed (fodder) problem in densely populated areas.
New commodity for market: After the launching of watershed management in 2011, new
grasses, annual and perennial crops were introduced. Notably, the grass species has shown
remarkable contribution to the economy of the households by minimizing the amount of
expenditure with respect to grass and by increasing the productivity of their livestock. Above all,
some of the introduced grasses have become important sources of income as they arc sold in the
market. This means that the development of watershed has brought important commodities to the
households that are marketable.
Opportunity for off-farm and non-farm livelihood activities: The development of watershed
has brought important off-farm and non-farm opportunities for the households. The opportunity
of grass selling, apiculture and fattening of small ruminants and oxen as off-farm livelihood
activities becomc possible due to the development of watershed. The developed SWC measures
have supported the availability of grasses, annual and perennial crops more than ever and
favored various off-farm activities in the area.
3.9.2. Opportunities at community level
Availability of water for domestic and other uses: Before the development of watershed, it
was mentioned that the community has repeatedly experienced water shortage for both their
livestock and other uses. But after the development, surface water availability for domestic use
and other uses has been increased. Now the community gets surface water in short distances and
this has saved both their time and energy to use their time for other productive household
activities. It helped the community to understand the essence of natural resources management as
they saw rivers are following continuously, fodder is easily available, apiculture is easily
practiced, and grasses are grown in the previously exposed mass of rocks.
Making watershed development the issue of all citizens: Previously the issue of natural
resources in the area was the issue of heads of the households who arc in charge of such
activities. Women and youth had only subordinate role though today have been changed.
165
Currently, the management is not bounded by gender and socioeconomic status and strata. Thus
women and youth have been actively engaged in watershed development. In all the study areas,
all people irrespective of age, gender, and qualification have seen talking and concerned about
watersheds. Knowledge on essence of watershed has been improved for all of them.
Sense of ownership increased: Communal resources in a given watershed used to be considered
as every ones’ resources. As a result, they used to suffer from the tragedy of the commons. As
every ones’ property is no one’s property, various communal resources in the ccntral zones of the
region have been shrinking progressively from time to time. But after the launching of massive
watershed management program, the attitude towards communal resources has been improved
and now the community made SWC activities their own. They are now considering the soil and
water conservation structures as their own resources whether they are in some ones farm or on
communal lands. Now the sense of ownership for communal resources has been improved.
Highly degraded areas are now being rehabilitated: The watershed development has brought
lots of early impacts especially with respect to environmental dimension. In this regard, the
community in many of the watershed has come to see that areas witr mass of exposed rocks and
gullies have been rehabilitated. These has given them hope and aspiration that areas a lot of
unproductive and waste lands can also be restored.
Employment opportunity for youth: Since the development of watershed improved natural
resource in the area, improved resource has started to give economic opportunity for youth. For
instance, the rehabilitated watershed has becomc sources of grasses and also hosted apicultural
activities.
Tourism opportunity: The outcome of watershed development work has come to create
beautiful and attractive environment. This beautiful landscape is now being used by the local
community for recreation and making them gfet satisfaction and spiritual strength. The beautiful
landscape is now being used by even visitors. Above all. now it has become a beautiful
landscape that has become a place for study by students.
166
3.9.3. Opportunities at organizational level
Opportunities at organizational levels are magnificent in terms of strengthening institutional
arrangements. Moreover, the capacity of experts in the region has been capacitated by training
and exposure visit. Various governmental and NGOs have been involved in the watershed
development activities. This is a stepping stone for further development activities.
3.9.4. Opportunity at Policy level
In the past, watershed development activities have been difficult to accomplish. The primary
reasons for these were: inputs were not available as required, all activities of watershed were
supported by incentives in cash or kind items, and the communities were not actively
participating in all process. But currently, the whole watershed management program comes to
be successful without using incentives and active participation of the community. Conse :uently,
this approach can be used as important inputs for policy and strategies so as to scale up in other
collective action intervention.
3.10. Sustainability of the Rehabilitated Watershed
3.10.1. Dimensions of sustainability
Most of the physical structures constructed both on farrr jid communal land arc supported with
biological stabilizers. The biological stabilizers planted in different agro-ecology of the central
zones include: multipurpose trees aimed to be utilized for construction, source of fuel, timber and
for social values, forage grasses and species for animal feed and source of income, and bushes
and shrubs for live fences. Apart from the biological stabilizers, the sense of ownership created,
the community-bylaws forcing the community to maintain and protect structures, the
transparency and governance created for benefit sharing obtained from the communal land, the
absence of payment for individuals in implementing watersiied activities, the continue follow up
and inspection of rehabilitated watershed areas arc indicators for its sustainability.
Moreover, the involvement of the community at a grass root level in each phases, careful
consideration of social and agro-ecologieal profile of the identified watershed, awareness and
frequent training, monitoring and evaluation of the progress, technical and administrative
167
backstopping arc instrumental phenomena for its sustainability. In addition, the incentive
mechanisms applied to best performing individual farmers, one to five working groups, limat
budin are of paramount importance for sustainability of the on-going watershed development.
Incentives in the form of farm implements, seed and seedlings, cultural dressings and flags,
recognition certificates, and in rare cases cash payments are the commonly used forms of
incentives given to best performer individuals or groups during the annual ceremony of handing
over of the completed watershed.
3.10.2. Limitations to sustainability of the rehabilitated watershed
In this case the turnover of members of the one to five budin, and surveyor farmers are common.
But in the case of surveyor farmers the case is pressing. This is because the surveyor farmers are
those with relatively better education level and trained specifically with surveying techniques.
Notably, they move to other areas in the off-season which exactly matches to the period of
watershed development. In most areas, the maintenance and management of intervened areas are
given for PSNP beneficiaries during off-season of watershed development. This could influence
the sustainability of intervened watershed.
3.10.3. Limitation of the existing watershed development
• Shortage of farm implements to dig and excavate terraces in stony and gully areas;
• Lack of local and industrial construction materials for heavy gully areas;
• The reluctance of community in allocating working days freely due to the long
experience of food aid incentive for SWC work
• The low landholding ratio of farmers make them unwilling to implement different SWC
structures on private farm land
• Low attention has been given in managing (cultivating, watering, fencing, protecting) and
maintaining intervened watershed areas.
• From monitoring and evaluation perspective, no essential benchmark data was obtained
from each sub-watershed.
• The work norm is common for all soil and land use type for each structure.
168
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
4.1. Conclusion
This study assessed the socioeconomic aspects of community based participatory watershed
development that was implemented in SNNPR since 2011. In this evalauation, the process,
institutional environments, institutional arrangements, social and economic impacts, the
opportunities, limitations, and the best practices experienced due to community based watershed
development were assessed. The assessment identified two major soil and water conservation
technologies. These are (a) physical soil and water conservation technologies, and (b) biological
soil and water conservation technologies.
The findings show that the central zones of SNNPR ones were known for the diverse natural
resources and clean environment. Before 1970s, most of the watersheds in these zones used to be
covered by dense natural vegetations, notably, natural forests, shrubs, and bushes of indigenous
species were common. As a result, there was little incidence of soil erosion, flooding,
deforestation, landslides, and other environmental problems. At the present, however, diverse
environmental problems: deforestation, soil erosion, soil fertility decline, flooding, over-grazing
and land slide are omnipresent. Before the implementation of community based participatory
watershed development in the region, degradation of the watersheds has gone to the extent that
human and animal lives to be threatened and lots of assets damaged. Agricultural expansion,
improper farming practices, cut of trees and bushes for fuel and construction purposes, tenure
change and/or problems, and investment expansions were identified as the major causes of
environmental problems.
The participation of community in the process has been instrumental and dynamic over time.
The community has participated and contributed its labor/time, skill, farm implements,
construction materials, seeds and seedlings and etc as inputs in the proccss. Without these inputs
sub-sub-watershed development is hardly possible. At the beginning of the watershed
development process, the level of participation community was very weak. However, it has been
clear that the level of community participation has been improved over time. The improvement
in the sense of ownership, the transparency and governance created for benefit sharing from the
rehabilitated exclosures, mobilization of the community via different institutional arrangements169
such as one to five and limat budin, and etc, lessons drawn from the limitations and drawbacks as
of 2011 when the watershed development started, development of the work norms based on the
type of soils and land uses and the establishment of appropriate ratio of labor force to farm
implements were mentioned as factors associated with the improvement. The result shows that
it was not only the level o f participation but also the quantity and quality of the structures
developed at the beginning of the sub-sub-watershed development was poor
It was not community participation but also community perception in community based
watershed development was low at the beginning. There were understanding that physical soil
and water conservation structures as well as enclosures eat up (consume) farmland, limit the
short term benefits (such as free grazing and fire wood collection), host rodents and pests, create
difficulty in farming activity such as movement of draught animals and livestock, demands labor.
Over time, however, this perception has been improved. The Teasons contributed for the change
are (a) continuous awareness creation, (b) technical backstopping, (c) sense of ownership
development on rehabilitated areas, (d) observation of some indicators of the watershed
development early impacts such as economic, social and environmental. Today the majority of
the residents arc convinced by the environmental, economic, and social benefits they are
enjoying from the developed (sub) watersheds.
The result shows that diverse resources (labor, farm implements, local construction materials
(e.g. stone, wood and etc), industrial cons Unction materials (e.g. gabion and, etc) and seeds,
seedlings) are employed in participatory watershed development work. Among them all
household heads contributed their labor and farm implements in the process of watershed
development.
The finding shows that the process of watershed development has been characterized by
diversity of institutional environments and institutional arrangements. The findings show that at
the beginning of the watershed development, there was no specific institiional envorinment and
institutional aarrangement. Rather, every operation was carried out by mobilizing the whole
Kebele people in mass and hence there was inefficiency. The development of specific
institutional enviro nmcnt and specific institutional arraangment (e.g watershcrd committee, Ye
170
Limat Budin, Ande Le Amist, and etc) has enabled the effectiveness of the watershed
development activities both in quality and quantity. As there are specific institutional
arrangements, the bylaws regarding any activity for watershed development become well defined
and become easy to enforce. Above all, one of the unique issues in watershed development was
linking the rule making and enforcement with that of the traditional/indigenous institutions (e.g.
SeeralEdir).
This study shows that in each intervened watershed there are indicators that confirm the impacts
due to watershed development in different dimensions such as social, economic, and
environmental. Contrary to the past watershed activities particularly soil and water conservation
works, the current community based watershed development have created sense of ownership
among the community while they are using and managing the intervened watershed and reduced
conflict in access to and control over communal resources in the area. Above all, temporary
migration that used to characterize some of the zones was reported to be reduced due to the
aforementioned social impacts the community in practice experienced due to the development of
watershed.
The community in all the watersheds witnessed that diverse economic impacts have been
observed after watershed development. The result shows that crop and livestock productivity
after watershed development is significantly higher than that before the development of
watershed. The number of livestock owned by households after watershed development is
significantly higher than the number owned before the development of watershed. Above all, the
mean farm and off-farm income after the watershed development is significantly higher than
before the watershed development. These changes in the above mentioned parameters are known
to be due to two major factors. The first factor is soil and water conservation structures that
maintained fertility in the farm lands by reducing soil erosion significantly and thereby increased
infiltration which enhanced soil moisture and the growth of annual crops, perennial crops, and
grass biomass. The second reason is the maintenance of inorganic fertilizers on the farm due to
the physical and biological soil and water conservation structures constructed both on farm and
communal lands. Opportunities for off-farm income are also reported to be in place due to the
rehabilitated watershed.
171
With respect to environmental impacts, lots of environmental impacts have been registered.
Among them improvement in soil fertility, vegetation cover, increase in surface and ground
water recharging capacity, increase crop productivity, improvement in soil moisture are among
the environmental impacts that can be mentioned.
Although major socioeconomic and environmental benefits due to CBWD have been
conspicuous in the SNNPR, in some areas it was hardly successful due to both internal and
external factors. The finding shows that in some cases the CBWD was conducted in areas that
are not priority and as a result people did not appreciate them. Even in those cases where the
watersheds were developed, the structures constructed were not owned and maintained.
Furthermore, in some of the watersheds the people were not permanent residents and did not own
the structures. Above all, in some of the areas the community is still reluctant to practice SWC
practices in their farms. There are watersheds in which soil and water conservation structures are
not practiced due to the reluctance of the farm owners. Fourth, there are watersheds in which the
farm land owners are reluctant and incomplete SWC structures in farm plots created erosion that
was not common in the area. Also there are cases where structures that are not based contour
lines have been constructed and even aggravated erosion.
Indeed, external factors are also important in this regard. Among them is lack of coordination
between WD and other development activities (e.g. road construction). This can be associated
with lack of capacity including technical, financial and etc; lack of integrating other
infrastructural development (e.g. water, road, etc) with watershed development. The other
external problem is the problem that emerged from the characteristics of natural resources that
made them to cross political boundaries. As one watershed can be situated in two different
administrative regions, these have limited watershed development as the bottom of the watershed
can be a priority in certain administrative region. Whereas, the pick of the same watershed in
other administrative zone or region were not developed. As a result, the success of the watershed
development at the bottom of the watershed is not successful.
172
4.2. Recommendations
The following are the major recommendations drawn from this study:
In some of the areas CBWD was conducted in areas that are not priority and consequently the
inteventions were not appreciated by the local people. The implication is that prime importance
should be given in studying both the environmental and socioeconomic forces behind it. This
means that while the (sub) watersheds are identified, care should be given to prioritization of the
watershed development
The fmdings from this study show that in areas where the watersheds were developed, the
structures constructed were not owned and maintained. So continuous awarenens creation and
law enforcement should be carried out to increase the sense of ownership by the community.
Exposure visit to watersheds with major socioeconomic and environmtnal impacts should be
carried out to change the perception of the community. Also intensive work should be carried out
at the level of demonstration so that the local people can easily understand the socioeconomic
and environmental impacts of the watershed development. In this case engaign the FTC’s as
demosnstration sites including the practices of watershed development in the FTC is crucial.
The result shows that in some of the watersheds the people are part time residents and did not
own and maintain the watershed structures. There are cases where some of the households who
permanatly live in highlands but use the midlands only in few crop seasons. As a result, the
management of the watersheds in the mid and low lands was hardly done. In this case cohersive
regualtions and directives following the Rural Land Use and Adminstration proclamation should
be established. That is well defined rules and regualtions should be in place that forece every
land owner to conserve and develop his farm as well as the watershed adjacenet to it.
It was known that in some of the areas the community is still reluctant to practice SWC practices
in their farms. There are watersheds in which soil and water conservation structures are not
practiced due to the reluctance of the farm owners. This calls for intensive training, exposure
visit, and FTC demonstration activities in the area
173
There are watersheds in which the farm land owners are reluctant and incomplete SWC
structures in farm plots created erosion that was not common in the area. Also there are cases
where structures that are not based contour lines have been constructed and even aggravated
erosion. This calls for regular monitoring and evaluation of the camapgin during the surveying
phase, while the structures are being constructed, and right after construction of the struructures.»
Lack of coordination between watershed developlent and other development activities (e.g. road
construction) was identified as one of the bottlcncecks for the success of watershed development.
This lack of integrating other infrastructural development (e.g. water, road, etc) with watershed
development should be minimized by establishing a plat form that can coordinate this activirty.
Design for any development activities should be evaluated considering its positive and negative
impacts. This plan should be prepared considering the whole (sub) watershed. This means that
road network design should be evaluated not only in terms of the route of the road but also
considering the whole (sub) watershed or landscape. The same should be applied for other
development intemventions
This study identified that the characteristics of the watershed and the natural resources in the
watershed as one of the problems for successful watershed development As watershed can cross
political boundaries and hence one watershed can be situated in two different administrative
region/zone/worada, the watershed that is situated in two administrative regions may not get
equal priority by two different administrative units. As the watershed that gets a top priority by
one worada/zone/region may less priority by another worada/zone/region and these has already
limited watershed development. As a result, the bottom of the watershed can be developed as it
can become a priority in certain administrative region. Where as, the pick of the same watershed
in other administrative zone or region may not be developed. As a result, the watershed
development in such types of sitiation can be hardly successful This calls for coordination of the
watershed development activities beyond specific worada/zone/region. Therfore,
interworda/zonal/regional comittte that prioritize the wateersheds to be developmed is crucial/•
The findings this study show that watershed development in central zones of the SNNPR
played a double dividend role. On one hand, the interventions helped to conserve soil and water
both on private farm and communal lands. On the other hand, the watershed development has
174
been linked with livelihood improvement of the households by becoming sources of both off-
farm and non-farm activities. In this regard, the following should be done. Two points are
important in this regard. First the current success histories should be scaled up to other zones and
districts. Second in central zones of the SNNPR this assessment was carried out, integration of
watershed development should be more intergrated with livelihood generating activities. In this
regard more productive grass, fruits and other tree species should be sought and supplied for.
This also calls research organizations to supply such species based on findings that takes into
consideration biophysical and socioeconomic situations of the areas to be intervened.
175
REFERENCES
Amsalu, A and Jan de Graaff. 2006. Farmers’ views of soil erosion problems and theirconservation knowledge at Beressa watershed, central highlands of Ethiopia. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 99-108
Assefa, H. 1999. "A Lack of Visionary Statesmanship and Democratic Leadership" in Searching for Peace in Africa Utrecht: European Platform on Conflict Prevention and Transformation
Bezuayehu, T. Gezahegn, A. Yigezu, A. Jabbar, M. and Paulos, D. 2002. Nature and causes of land degradation in the Oromiya Region: socio- economic and policy research working paper 36. International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa
Binyam, A., Desale, K. 2014. The Implication of integrated watershed management for rehabilitation of degraded lands: Case study of Ethiopian Highlands. J. Agric. Biodiver. Res. 3(6): 78-90.
Bojo J., and Cassels, D. 1995. Land degradation and rehabilitation in Ethiopia: a reassessment. AFTES Working Paper No. 17. World Bank, Washington DC
Brooks, K., Ffolliott, N., Gregersen, H., Easter. K. 1994. Policies for sustainable development: The role of watershed management. EPAT/MUC1A Policy Brief No. 6, Department of State, Washington, DC, USA.
Campbell, J. 1991. Land or Peasants: The Dilemma Confronting Ethiopian Resource Conservation, African Affairs, 90,5-21.
Constable, M. et al, 1985. The Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study, Development Strategy, Working Paper 24, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa
CSA (Centeral Statistical Agency), 2010. Agricultural Sample Survey 2008/2009. Satistical Bulletin No 446, CSA, Addis Ababa.
Darghouth, S., Ward, C., Gambarelli, G., Styger. E„ Roux, J. 2008. Watershed management approaches, policies, and operations: lessons for scaling up. Water sector board discussion paper series. Paper No. 11. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Debele, B., 1994, The Soils of Ethiopia: Annotated Bibliography, Published by SEDA’s Regional Soil Conservation Unit, Nairobi, Kenya
Dejene, A. 1990a. Environment, Famine and Politics in Ethiopia: View from the Village, Lynn Rienner, London.
176
FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), 2011. Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green
Economy. Green economy strategy, Addis Ababa.
Getachew, A. 2005. Determinants of Land Degradation in the Lake Tana Basin and Its Implications for Sustainable Land Management: The Case of Angereb and Gishe, Abbay Watersheds [MSc thesis]. Haramaya, Ethiopia: Haramaya University.
Gete, Z. 2006. Integrated management of watershed experiences in Eastern and Central Africa: Lessons from Ethiopia. In Shiferaw B and Rao KPC (eds): Integrated management of watersheds for agricultural diversification and sustainable livelihoods in Eastern and Central Africa: Lessons and experiences from semi arid South Asia. Proceedings of the international workshop held at ICRIS at Nairobi, 6-7 December 2004. 120pp
Habitamu.2010. Assessment of sustainable watershed management approach case study Lenche Dima, Tsegur Eyesus and Dijjil Watershed, MSc thesis, Cornell University.
Hans, H. and Tato, K. 1992. Erosion, Conservation, and Small-scale Fanning. Berne: Geographica Bemensia, 1992, 595 pp.
Harrison, P. 1987. The greening of Africa: Breaking through in the battle for land and food. New York, Penguin Books.
Humi H. 1988. Degradation and Conservation of the Resources in the Ethiopian Highlands. Mountain Research and Development 8 (2/3): 123-130
Humi, H. 1990. Degradation and conservation of soil resources in the Ethiopian highlands. Mountain and Research Development, 8 (2-3): 123-130.
Humi, H., Solomon, A., Amare, B., Berhanu, D., Ludi, E., Portner, B., Birru, Y., Gete, Z. 2010. Land degradation and sustainable land management in the highlands of Ethiopia. In Humi H, Wiesmann U (ed) with an international group of co-editors. Global change and sustainable development: A synthesis of regional experiences from research partnerships. Geographica Bemensia. 5:187-201.
Johnson, N. and Knox, A. 2002. Participatory natural resource management in watersheds: Concepts, issues and challenges for research. Annals of Arid Zones 40(3): 1-20. Kerr,J.M. 2002. Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India. World Development 30(8): 1387-1400.
Kebede, D. 1996. Brief Account on Soil Conservation Research Program and its activities. Paper presented at the Workshop on Soil and Water Conservation Research, Nazereth, Ethiopia
177
Kejela, K., & Fentaw, B., 1992. Ecologically sound, economically viable, and cost effective method of soil conservation - The case of grass strips in Gojam region, 7th ISCOConference on People Protecting their Land, Sydney, Australia
ye ni s
Kerr, J. 2002. Watershed development, environmental services, and poverty alleviation in India, World Development, Vol.30, No. 8, 1387-1400
Kruger et al., 1996. Creating and inventory of indigenous soil and water conservation measures in Ethiopia, in Scoons et al, Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa, Earthscan, London
Kruger, H.} F. Berhanu, G. M. Yohannes, and K. Kelene. 1996. ‘’Creating an inventory of indigenous SWC measures in Ethiopia. In C. Reij I. Scoones, and C. Toulmin (eds.) Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa (pp. 170-180). London, UK: IIED
Lakew, D., Carucci, V., Asrat, W., Yitayew, A. (eds). 2005 Community Based ParticipatoryWatershed Development: A Guideline. Ministry ol Agriculture and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Lakew, D., Menale, K., Benin. S., Pender J (2000). Land degradation and strategies forsustainable development in the Ethiopian highlands: Amhara Region. Socioeconomic and Policy Research Working Paper 32. International Livestock Research Institute
Mekonnen G. and G/Michael A. 2014. Review on overail status of soil and water conservation
system and its constraints in different agro ecologv of southern Ethiopia, Journal o f
Natural Science Research, 4(7):59-69.
Mckuria, A. 2005. Forest conversion-soil degradation-farmers” perception nexus: Implication for sustainable land use in southwest of Ethiopia: in: WECD (ed), our common future, oxford university press, UK
MoARD (Minstry of Agriculture and Rural Development) 2005. Community Based
Participatory Watershed Development, A guideline, pan I, First edilon, Adiss Ababa.
Mulugeta L. 2004 Effects of land use change on soil quality md native flora degradation and restoration in the highlands of Ethiopia. Implication for sustainable land management.PhD Tnesis. Swedish university of Agricultural Science. Uppsala, Sweden
Nedesa, B., 2002. Homestead Development, National Food-l’or-Work Project Serv ice Unit, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa
Sli
178
Osman, M. and Sauerbom, P. 2001. Soil and water conservation in Ethiopia: Experience and lessons. Journal o f Soil and Sediment, 1 (2): 117-122.
Pandit, H., Wagley, P., Neupane, P., Adhikary, R. 2007. Watershed management and livelihoods: Lessons from Nepal. Ministry of forest and soil conservation
Pender, M.A. J. and Ehui, S.K. 2000. Policies for sustainable land management in the highlands of Ethiopia: Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 30. Summary of papers and proceedings of a seminar held at the International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Pretty, J and Shah, P. 1999. Soil and Water Conservation: A Brief History of Coercion andControl. In: Hinchcliffe, F., Thompson, J., Pretty, N., Guijt, I. and Shah, P. (eds). Fertile Ground: The Impacts of Participatory Watershed Management. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd., London, pp. 1-12
Pudasaini, P.P. 2003. Dynamics of Flow Avalanches over curved abd Twisted Channels: Theory, Numerics and Experimental Validation, PhD. Thesis, Darmstadt University of Technology
Ramakrishna G. and Demeke A. 2002. An Empirical analysis of food insecurity in Ethiopia: The case of North Wello. African Develoipment, 1(2): 127-143.
Sahlemcdhin Sertsu.1999. Draft guideline for regional soil testing laboratories. NFLA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Shiferaw, B., Holden, S. 2000. Policy instruments for sustainable land management: the case of highland smallholders in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 22: 217-232.
Shiferaw, B., Holden, S. 1999. Soil Erosion and Smallholders' Conservation Decisions in the Highlands of Ethiopia. World Development 27,4: 739 - 752.
Sonneveld, B.G.J.S. 2003. Formalizing expert judgements in land degradation assessement: A case study for Ethiopia. Advanced Sustainable systemes, 14(3):347-361.
Stoorvogel, J.J. and Smaling, E.M.A. 1990 Assessment of Soil Nutrient Depletion in Sub- Saharan Africa: 1983-2000, Vol. 1. Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen
Tadesse, G. 2001. Land degradation: a challenge to Ethiopia. Environmental Management, 27: 815-824.
Tato, K., 1991. Ethiopia’s experience in conservation: The Ethiopian soil conservation programme and its trends, Conference in National Conservation Strategy, Vol 5., Office of the National Committee for Central Planning, Addis Ababa.
179
Tongul H. and Hobson M. 2013. Scaling up an integrated watershed management approach through social protection programmes in Ethiopia: the MERET and PSNP schemes.
WFP (World Food Programme), 2005. Report on cost - benefit analysis and impact evaluation of soil and water conservation and forestry measures. Managing environmental resources to enables Transition to More Sustainable Livelihoods (MERET) Project. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, World Food Programme.
Wood, A. 1990. Natural resource management and rural development in Ethiopia. In:Pausewang, S., Fantu, C., Bruce, S. and Eshetu C. (Eds.) Ethiopia: Options for Rural Development. Zed Books Ltd, London and New Jersey
180
ANNEX
Appendex table 1 Species richness at Hawassa Zuriya, Mulete subwatershed
Species name Family name Local nameAcacia abyssinica Benth. Fabaceae OdorichoFaidherbia albida (Del.) Fabaceae BuraAcacia saligna (Labill.) H. Wendl. Fabaceae SalignaAcacia seyal Del. Fabaceae WachoAcacia tortilis (Forssk.) Fabaceae TedechaAcacia persiciflora pax Fabaceae BateAningeria adolfi-friederici (Engl.) Robyns & Gilbert Capparidaceae QararchoApodytes dimidiata E.Mey. ex Am. Icacinaceae DhokonoCalpurnia subdecandra (L’Herit) Schweikerdt Leguminosae CheketaCasuarina equisetifolia L. Casuarinaceae Shews h eweCeltis africana Burm.f. Ulmaceae ShishoCombretum molle (R. Br. Ex. G. Don.) Engl & Diels Combretaceae RokesaCroton macrostachyus Del. Euphorbiaceae MesinchoDodonaea angustifolia L.f. Sapindaceae EtelchaEucalyptus camaldulensis Myrtaceae BahrzafGravillea robusta A.Cunn. Ex R.Br. Proteaceae GrabilaHypericum revolutum Vahl Clusiaceae MendureshaJusticia schimpercma (Hochst. Ex Nees) T.Anders. Acanthaceace ChukoMaytenus undata (Thunb.) Blakelock Celastraceae ChuchoMillettia ferruginea (Hochst.) Bak Fabaceae GiainchoVernonia auriculifera Hiem Asteraceae Rejicho/RejiiMyrsine africana L. Primulaceae ChekesaNuxia congesta R.Br. ex Frcsen. Loganiaceae BurchenaOlea europea L. Oleaceae EjersaRhamnus staddo A.Rich. Rhamnaceae QedidaRhus natalensis Benth. ex Krauss. Anacardiaceae TatesaRhus vulgaris Meikle Anacardiaceae DawawesaRytigynia neglecta (Hiem) Robyns Rubiaceae MiqiyaSapium ellipticum (Hochst.) Pax Euphorbiaceae GalichaSchrebera alata (Hochst.) Welw. Oleacea Dhama'eeStrvchnos spinosa Lam. Loganiaceae OtilaClerodendron myricoides (Hochst.) R.Br. ex Vatke Verbenaceae Medissa
181
Appendex table 2 Species richness at Halaba, Wishirana Koro sub watershed
Scientific name Family name Local nameStrychnos spinosa Loganiaceae AtulaAcacia decurrens Fabaceae deccurrensAcacia saligna Fabaceae salignaAcacia tortilis (forssk.) Hayne Fabaceae AjoAlbizia gummifera Fabaceae SesaEucalyptus camaldulensis Myrtaceae barzafBalanites aegyptiaca Balanitaceae BedenoFicus sur Moraceae OfondichoFaidherbia albida Del..A. Che\> Fabaceae gerbiGrevillea robusta A.Cunn. Ex R.Br. Proteaceae gravileaGrewia bicolor Juss. Tiliaceae HarureshaJacaranda mimosifolia Bignoniaceae JacarandaAcacia Senegal (L.) Willd. Fabaceae kertefaDodonea angustifolia Sapindaceae KitikitaMaytenus senegalensis Celastraceae KombolaAcacia lahi Fabaceae laftoCroton macrostachys Euphorblaceae MesenaAcacia abyssinica Fabaceae , Odor aOlea africana Mill. Oleaceae weyraSesbania sesban Papilionoideae \ SesbaniaCasuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae shewsheweAcacia seyal Fabaceae WachoUnidentified Unidentified Chorns her aUnidentified Unidentified GoforaUnidentified Unidentified NoqoraUnidentified Unidentified Tephe
182
Appendex table 3 Spccics richncss at Boloso sore, Tibc sub watershed
Scientific Name Family Name Local NameSolamim incanwn L Solanaceae B ubCordia africana Lam. Boraginaceae MoqottaSclerocarya birrea (A. Rich.) Hochst. Anacardiaceae Tunk'aluwaErythrina bnicei Schweinf. Papilionoideae BortuwaaVernonia amygdalina Del. in Caill Asteraceae GaraMilletia ferruginea(Hochst.) Bak. Fabaceae ZagiyaaVangueria apiculata K. Schum. Rubiaceae JijjuwaaVepris danellii Rutaceae C'awulaAcanthus pubescens (Oliv.) Engl. Acanthaceae OhaaRuta chalepensis L. Rutaceae SaloEhretia cymosa (Thonn.) Boraginaceae IttriwanjjiyaCroton macrostachys Hochst. ex Del. Euphorblaceae AnkaAcacia saligna (Labill.) H. Wendl. Fabaceae SalignaVernonia theophrastifolia Schweinf. ex Oliv. &Hicm Asteraceae BozoaVangueria apiculata (Verde.) Lantz Rubiaceae ChechowaFicus thonningii Blume Moraceae DambiyaApodytes dimidiata var. acutifolia (A. Rich.) Boutique Icacinaceae DongoEucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. Myrtaceae BaraazaafiyaAnnona senega lens is Annonaceae EtaZiziphus mucronata Rhatmaceae GamogadiyaMaytenus serrata Celastraceae GerchuaDodonea angustifolia L f Sapindaceae GergechoClausena anisata (willd.) Benth. Rutaceae Gesha LomiGrevillea robusta A.Cunn. Ex R.Br. Proteaceae GrabilaGrewia ferruginea Hochst.exA. Rich. Tiliaceae GumeriyaDov)>alis abyssinica (A. Rich.) Warb. Flacourtiaceae HaglaAcokanthera schimperi Apocynaceae LadiFicus elasiica Moraceae MariwaPtvnuss africana (Hook. f.) Kalkm. Rosaceae MichekoRytigynia neglecta (Hiem) Robyns Rubiaceae MiqiyaSyzygium guineense (Wild.) DC. Var. Myrtaceae OchaAcacia seval Del. Fabaceae OdoroLonchocarpus laxiflorus Guill. & Perr. Fabaceae OanqarsaSchrebera alata (Hochst.) Welw. Oleacea QaraaCell is africana Burm.f. Ulmaceae ShewaBuddleja polystachya Fresen. Buddlejaceae ShinkaMyrsine africana Primulaceae Shiyato
183
Scientific Name Family Name Local NameBtvcea antidysenterica J.F.Miller Simaroubaceae ShurushuldhiaCombrelum molle (RBr. ex Don.) Engl. &J)iels Combretaceae SobuwaRhamnus prinoides L'Herit. Rhamnaceae TandoMaytenus obscura (A.Rich.) Cut. Celastraceae TutuwaBersama abyssinica Fresen Melianthaceae WelesenoOlea africana Mill. Oleaceae WogeraPhoenix reclinata Jacq Arecaceae ZambaPodocarpus falcatus (Thunb.) Mirb. Podocarpaceae ZigaCupressus lusitanica Mill. Cupressaceae Tida
Appendex table 4 Species richness at Kedida Gamela, Shershera sub watershed
Scientific Name Family Name Local NameGaliniera saxifraga Rubiaceae DongichoBalanites aegyptiaca Balanitaceae BedenoDodonea angustifolia Sapindaceae KitikitaAcacia abyssinica Fabaceae OdoraOlea africana Mill. Oleaceae WeyraLeucaena leucocephala Fabaceae LuceneaCupressus lusitanica Mill. Cupressaceae HomaAcacia seyal Fabaceae WachoAcacia saligna Fabaceae SalignaMyrica salicifolia Myricaceae GawadaAcacia Senegal (L.) Willd. Fabaceae KertefaAcacia spp Fabaceae Bula OdoraCasuarina equisetifolia Casuannaceae ShewsheweFicus sur Moraceae OfondichoRapanea simensis (Hochst. ex DC.) Myrsinaceae A tulaTeclea nobilis Rutaceae ChoeaJmiperus procera Hochst. Ex Endl. Cupressaceae HomaEucalyptus camaldulensis Myrtaceae BarzafAcacia dolichocephala Fabaceae LaftoSesbania sesban Papilionoideae SesbaniaUnidentified Unidentified DuqechoUnidentified Unidentified Goforo
i
Appendex table 5 GPS data collected from all selected sub-watersheds
N
0.Zone/specia
1 weredaW e r e d a Kebele Sub
watershedStatus GPS Data
X Y Z1 K e m b a t a K a c h a b i r a H o d a G u t e G o o d 0 3 6 3 2 8 4 0 8 0 6 5 6 3 2 6 0 7
E t a S e m b c t a Poor 0 3 6 5 7 3 3 0 8 0 3 9 9 5 2 4 8 1
K e d i d a g a m e l a Sheshera Shesherad u d u y e
Good 0 3 8 7 9 4 3 0 8 0 0 8 8 1 2 0 1 3
A b o n s a Qreta Poor 0 3 8 0 3 0 4 0 7 9 9 1 0 9 2 1 3 6
2 Wolayita Boloso sore Wormuma Wormomagasho
Poor 0 3 6 1 7 6 3 0 7 6 8 6 6 1 2 1 0 6
Gurmokoisha
Tibe Good 0 3 6 2 0 7 5 0 7 6 8 5 2 7 2 1 1 3
Damot gale Akabilo Garo Poor 0 3 6 5 9 5 6 0 7 6 7 6 0 9 2 2 6 5
Wandaraboloso
Gudaye Good 0 3 6 7 9 6 5 0 7 6 7 1 9 2 2 1 8 8
3 Silte Hulbareg Dameke Doli Good 0 4 0 3 5 4 2 0 8 4 4 1 0 8 1 9 8 2
Bilwanja Doli Poor 0 4 0 7 5 5 0 0 8 4 4 5 7 5 1 9 0 4
Alich Guguso Chunko Poor 0 4 1 7 1 1 3 0 8 9 5 8 2 3 3 3 2 9
Wezeri-2 lyite Good 0 4 0 4 5 9 7 0874152 2 6 9 9
4 Sidam Hawassa zuria Kcjima Mulate Good 0 4 2 4 1 6 7 0 7 8 0 2 0 6 1 9 1 5
Lebukoromo
Koromodanshe
Poor 0 4 2 7 9 7 3 0 7 8 2 1 3 5 1 9 2 2
Bensa Shantagolba
Hodamokonkuana
Poor 0 4 7 9 9 4 6 0 7 2 3 3 7 7 1 9 4 7
Ache Huro adilo Good 0 4 8 0 1 5 9 0 7 1 6 8 5 2 1 7 9 6
5 Halaba Ilalaba Tachigna w bedene
Wushiranakoro
Poor 0 4 0 1 1 1 7 0 8 1 8 0 9 4 1 8 4 7
Misrakgortancho
Mulete Good 0 3 9 2 0 7 8 0 8 1 3 6 6 8 1 9 7 2
Appendix table 6 Conversion factors used to estimate Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU)
Animal Category___________________________TLUCalf 0.34Heifer or bull 0.75Cow or Ox 1.0Horse 1.0Mule 1.15Donkey 0.65Sheep or goat 0.15Poultry 0.005Source: Ratnaknshina and Demeke, 2002
185
