African Crop Science Conference Proceedings Vol. 8. pp. 1541-1545 Printed in El-Minia, Egypt ISSN 1023-070X/2007$ 4.00 © 2007, African Crop Science Society
Challenges of Collective Action in Soil and Water Conservation: The Case of Gununo Watershed, Southern Ethiopia Waga Mazengia1, Deribe Gamiyo1, Tilahun Amede2, Matta Daka3 & Jermias Mowo4 Areka Agric. Res. Centre, P.O. Box, 79, Areka , Ethiopia , Email:
[email protected] 2 CIAT/AHI, Email:
[email protected]; 3Boloso District Office of Agric., Areka, Ethiopia; 4AHI, P.O. Box 26416, Kampala, Uganda 1
Abstract:Gununo Watershed is one of the benchmark sites of the African Highlands Initiative in collaboration with Areka Agricultural Research Centre. It is located in the densely populated area of Wolayita zone in Southern Ethiopia. The area of the watershed is 544ha with over 622 households residing in it. Low productivity mainly attributed to low soil fertility is one of the major factors constraining crop production. The major cause of low soil fertility is soil erosion due to mainly run off. To tackle this problem collective action (CA) was initiated in the watershed for soil and water conservation (SWC). Frequent meetings were held with farmers to chart out the plan of action. Farmers selected local institutions that could effectively lead the CA. SWC structures were constructed for two seasons-2004/2005 and 2005/2006. Soil bund stabilizers were planted on the bunds to stabilize, intensify and increase the productivity of the bunds. Participatory monitoring and evaluation was conducted at different stages and processes were documented eventually. As a result, close to10km length of SWC structures were constructed in the two seasons. Thousands of seedlings of elephant grass and banana were planted on the soil bunds. Some farmers also adopted and constructed additional length of soil conservation structures individually and some others also planted sugar cane and elephant grass as bund stabilizer. The soil has started changing and crop productivity improved within short period. These achievements were characterized by series of challenges and this paper is addressing the lessons learnt on collective action on SWC in Gununo Watershed. Key words: African Highlands Initiative, Areka, local institutions, bund stabilizers, conservation, erosion (CFSCDD) implemented largely engineered soil Introduction conservation structures and Soil Conservation Research Gununo Watershed is one of the benchmark sites of the Project (SCRP) conducted experiments to identify the African Highlands Initiative (AHI) which is working in best conservation structures. Experimental results collaboration with Areka Agricultural Research Centre. It revealed that soil loss could be reduced as much as 80% is located in a densely populated area of Wolayita zone in (Grunder, 1992). Experiment results on cover crops Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region around Holeta area showed that grass cover minimized (SNNPR) of Ethiopia. The area of the watershed is 544ha soil loss to 1 t/ha per year while the loss on bare fallowed with over 622 household residents. Its altitude ranges plots was 28 t/ha per year (Asrat, 1992). Tripathi and between 1950 and 2100 meter above sea level receiving Singh (1993) also reported in other country that natural annual rainfall of 1350mm. Low soil fertility is one of the cover and Dub grass (Cynodon dactylon) were effective in major problems affecting agricultural productivity in the controlling soil erosion. Studies on graded bunding watershed. According to BOPED (1999), the major conducted at Kota Centre on sloping cultivated2 lands problems regarding soil resources in SNNPR include (slope up to 4%) showed that graded bunds of 1m cross sever soil erosion due to steep cultivation, over grazing in section with 0.5 to 1.0m vertical interval were for mid and highlands, deforestation and planting of checking soil erosion (Tripathi and Singh, 1993). Graded eucalyptus causing high moisture stress. The major cause bunding or terracing has been use full in areas receiving of low soil fertility in the watershed is soil erosion due to more than 800mm rainfall per year. Run off and soil run off. As a result, crop productivity remains very low conservation studies on 8% sloping land showed that up and because of that some farmers were registered even for and down cultivation of maize in Doon valley caused about 28.5 t/ha soil loss which was reduced by 30% when migration (AHI, 2004). Soil erosion is also one of the major constraints in maize and cowpea were grown together across the slope agricultural production in the highlands of Ethiopia. Loss (Anonymous, 1979). Contour cultivation has been found of forest cover in Ethiopia in the last centuries (from 75% to reduce run off and soil loss in all major soil groups in to 4%) caused rapid runoff and soil loss and the India (Raghunath, et al., 1967). At Ootacamund, the run highlands, particularly Amhara Plateau, are now very off was reduced from 52 to 29 m and soil loss from 39 to severely eroded (Fredric et al., 1999). Because of the 14.9 t/ha by adopting contour cultivation. Public policy plays a major role in soil conservation steep slopes, which are cultivated in Ethiopian highlands for both public and private lands (Terrence, et al., 2002). and high, often intensive rainfall, it is obvious that run off Although the principal responsibility for soil conservation control is essential in soil conservation. Thus, Community lies with those who use the land, the public has assumed a Forest and Soil Conservation Development Department
Waga Mazengia joint responsibility with both land owners and users. Soil conservation practices vary in cost, return and effectiveness (Fredric et al., 1999). The easiest of practices to promote are those like a good fertilizer program that will both conserve soil and return a profit with in a short time. The benefits of larger-term practices like terracing may not be recognised with in short period. The economic value of many conservation practices is further complicated by benefits that accrue to persons other than those who install the practices. According to Stonehouse & Profz (1993), consideration of externalities shows that many conservation practices are economically desirable for society as a whole even tough their costs exceed the on-farm benefit. The farmer should not be the only one involved in the decision or only one involved in paying for practices. This kind of situation may be solved by governmental involvement in the form of laws and cost sharing for conservation practices. A study conducted by Shiferaw and Holden (1998) shows that the problem of soil erosion is compounded by the fact that some farmers dismantled the conservation structures built through food for work incentives. Until early 1990s, farmers were not allowed to remove the conservation structures. However, the introduction of economic reform program in 1990 and subsequent liberalization of the economy brought freedom and hence structures removed based on the wish of the land user. The major factors influencing adoption of physical soil conservation measures around Gununo area include farmers’ perception of erosion problem, technology attributes, the number of economically active family members, farm size, family size wealth status of the farmers and the location of the farm land (Tadesse and Belay, 2004). The average land holding in Gununo area is very low as a result of population pressure and thus soil conservation technologies, which take some land out of production, like construction of soil conservation structures, have little acceptance by farmers in the area (Tadesse and Belay, 2004). Previous efforts to address soil and water conservation through food for work programs failed mainly due to minimum participation of farmers in planning and implementation stages. The approach followed was topdown approach (Yohannes, 1992). The community of Gununo watershed prioritized soil conservation as one of the watershed management issues (AHI, 2004). Hence, using collective action and linked technologies for integrated natural resource management (INRM), AHI initiated a process to address soil and water conservation in the area. Achievements were characterized by series of challenges. This paper focuses on the challenges of collective action in soil and water conservation.
Materials and methods Research team was established mainly from two partner organizations – Areka Research Center & Bloso Sore District Office of Agriculture. Frequent meetings were held with the community of Gununo watershed in different villages and Kebeles (the lowest governmental administrative structure) to explore problems and to chart out the plan of action. The type of soil and water conservation (SWC) measure was identified by farmers.
et al.,
They also identified local institution that could effectively lead collective action (CA). The kebele leaders allotted working days in a week for identified working months. Contributions of farmers & research team were identified. Accordingly, farm implements were distributed to farmers through Sub-kebele leaders. Farmers selected highly liable areas to erosion to begin with. Slope was measured by the research team. Then the type of conservation measure and contour intervals were determined based on the slope, the type of the soil and farmers’ interest. Collective action was initiated to construct conservation structures for two seasons-2004/2005 and 2005/2006. Negotiation was made with farmers to solve some challenges of CA. Farmers were oriented to plant crops on the bunds to stabilize, intensify and increase the productivity of bunds. Seedlings of elephant grass and banana were dispatched to some farmers to show their benefits on the bunds. Participatory monitoring and evaluation was conducted at different stages and processes, challenges and lessons were documented eventually
Results Achievements The watershed community selected construction of soil bund as conservation measure. The convenient working months were November & December when farm lands were not covered with annual crops and when farmers are relatively free.
Fig. 1. Collective action in progress Mengistawi budin (a development unit of the government at village level which comprises 50 household heads) was selected and used as local institution to lead the CA. As a result, close to 10km length of conservation structure was constructed in four villages of the watershed (Table 1). The slope was less than 15% in most cultivated lands, thus the type of measure constructed were level Fanya-juu (66.9%) and soil bund (30.5%) depending on the texture of the soil. The contour distance ranged between 7 to 30m depending on the slope and farmers’ interest. In addition, cut off drain (2.6%) was constructed on farm boundaries and grass lands where runoff was sever. A total of 5684 man day labor was involved to construct the structures on 32 working days in two years. An individual worked with in the range of 1.6 m to 2.5 m length of structure per day. Seedlings of about 34, 000 elephant grass and 1588
1542
banana were planted as stabilizer and to address feed and therefore some farmers started constructing new income shortage at the same time. Farmers also tried to structures individually. Farmers witnessed that their plant other crops like sugarcane, susbania and sorghum, individual efforts were not successful as compared to the cassava to make the bunds productive. Improvement in current CA. soil productivity was observed with in two years and Table 1. Types & lengths (m) of conservation structures constructed over villages, (2005 and 2006) Type of structure Villages Soil bund Fanya-juu Cut off drain Total Ofa 330 1490 30 1850 Gegecho 890 2942 -3832 Lower Busha 1565 1241 232 3038 Lay Busha 250 995 1245 Total 3035 6668 262 9965 team explained the failure of the previous conservation Challenges at planning stage Challenges of CA on SWC and resolutions made at programs using food incentive alone. Realizing the different stages were summarized in Table 2. First of all severity of the problem, the farmers decided to work farmers’ dependency to aid has greatly affected the CA at without food aid. The second challenge raised by farmers planning stage. Farmers raised a question of food for was provision of implements to dig and excavate terraces. work justifying that such types of works have been They reasoned out that the farm implements in their hands accomplished through such aid in earlier times. It has are less effective and most farmers have no spades to been reported that introduced soil and water conservation excavate soil. Finally, agreement was reached to provide measure started in 1970s with the assistance of some implements to be owned by the community. development food aid (Dessalegn, 1998). The research Table 2. Challenges of soil and water conservation at different stages and resolutions Stages Challenge How solved Resolution Request of farmers for Discussion with the Farmers decided to work without food food aid community grain aid Planning Request of farmers for Discussion and aid from The research team promised to implements AHI provide some implements Re-request for food aid Negotiation with local Divert some money from PSNP to leaders SWC Allocating working days Discussion with the Allotted 2 days for collective action and starting time community and local and time fixed based on interest and Implementation leaders religion Difficulty of controlling Orienting better farmers Better farmers assigned to follow the quality of the work others Resistance of land users to Negotiation between land SWC resumed in most cases SWC owners and users The other challenge was allocation of days in a week beneficiaries in building roads and other infrastructures) for the CA. Three days per week were allotted as or ‘for free’, on a regular predictable basis for five years development days through the government program. Thus (FAO/WFP, 2007). Community meeting was held to it was difficult to assign the rest days of a week (on which discuss on the issue, however, farmers confused the farmers work individual routine farm activities) for the mission of PSNP with the current CA. Therefore, the CA. Based on discussion held with the local leaders, two research team discussed with local leaders and days from the three days were allotted for the CA. development agents and allotted some budget obtained Because of variable interests of farmers in different from PSNP to the current CA. As the community was villages, it was challenging to determine the starting time divided in to beneficiary and non-beneficiary of PSNP, it in the morning. Up on discussion, agreement was reached was challenging to continue the CA with the two groups. to start at 6:00am for some villages while 7:00am for Therefore, the community and the local leaders agreed to others based on their interest. Some villages preferred to continue the CA with beneficiary farmers group. This has start at 9:00am for one day and 7:00am for the rest day modified the original objective of the CA in to “to show due to religious purpose. the benefit of SWC so that farmers would be more interested and continue the exercise by their own without Challenges during implementation The CA was run for some days smoothly as planned. food incentive in the long run”. Accordingly, construction However, because of a newly appearing Productive Safety of soil bunds resumed in different villages with full Net Program (PSNP) of the government, farmers re- empowerment of farmers in decision making. initiated the question of food incentive and became again As such food for work program will have negative a challenge to proceed the CA. In 2005, the government impact on similar CA works, discussion was made with of Ethiopia has launched PSNP as the main component of twenty farmers on how to improve for the future. Most of Food Security Program in which case chronic food them suggested that food aid should be separated from insecure families receive cash or food transfer, either ‘for development works. Development works must be work’ (through a public work program to employ compulsory while food aid should be optional. Food aid
1543
Waga Mazengia should be forwarded for those who are identified to be food insecure and they should be given for free and should not be attached with any work. Although food appears to be an appropriate development incentive for food insecure areas and labor intensive rehabilitation programs, farmers in previous in different parts of the country misconceived the payment for conservation work on their land as legitimate right and such perception certainly affected the objective of food for work programs (Betru, 2003) It was difficult to the research team to control the quality of the bund structure when large number of farmers came out for CA in different villages. In this case better farmers were selected, further oriented and assigned to follow others. Poor coordination of the local leaders due to overlap of other development plans weaken the participation of farmers in the CA. Overlap of unscheduled meeting also interrupted the exercise. However, the local leaders themselves insisted special incentive and this might have negative implication on the coordination. On the other hand, some local leaders were reluctant to work on farm lands of individuals who were in conflict with them previously. Most land users were reluctant to get the land conserved and to plant bund stabilizers. Thus women and poor farmers whose lands were sharecropped with other farmers were some times forced to follow the wishes of the land users as they have no enough labor and drought oxen to plow their lands and cash to buy inputs. This challenge was partially solved by letting the land owners to negotiate with the land users. There was a tendency to privatize communal farm implements. The implements provided by the research team were assumed to be the property of the community. However, some tool carriers tend to privatize implements and become non voluntary to pass over the implement to other farmer when required. There was also a tendency of stealing the implements at the time of CA. Some registered implement carriers even sold the implements in their hands. These all shows the severity of poverty and the bad culture of the society. There were also technical challenges related to the implementation of conservation measures. Farmers in most cases do not accept the horizontal distance suggested by the research team justifying that the recommended distance is too narrow to allow oxen turn while plowing and conservation structures consume and fragment their land. Farmers need the contour to lay along their farm boundaries & the existing traditional soil conservation measures (biological and physical). This has affected the implementation of the recommended contour interval. In some farms the contour lie on growing annual crops. This hindered the construction of soil bunds continuously. In few cases the working group convinced the crop owners and construction resumed by up rooting the crops. Some farmers residing on the top of hill opposed the conservation structures saying that they have no soil erosion problem on their farmers. However, flood starts form these farms. Negotiation was made with such farmers. Challenges after implementation The major challenge after the implementation of CA was that most farmers were reluctant to maintain the
et al.,
conservation structures individually. An assessment conducted in one village after one season showed that only 29% of the interviewed households have maintained the structures on their private lands. Perception of farmers to consequences of erosion, age, land ownership and family size were some of the factors listed by farmers for not maintaining the structures individually. In most cases land users were not voluntary to maintain structures. Most of them responded that they were still in need of CA to maintain the structures. However, the heterogeneity of the problem over landscape, variability in the size of land holding per household and difference in perception to soil erosion have limited the success of CA. Similar findings were also reported previously (Tadesse and Belay, 2004; Yohannes, 1992). Lessons Involving community leaders was very important to the success of CA. Farmers have other traditional institutions like Idir and debo which serve mainly for funeral ceremony, implementing some farm activities and house construction. If a farmer has an activity that calls for idir, he has to traditionally invite the farmers working in his farm. Currently, such invitation has become beyond the capacity of the farmers. This hinders farmers’ interest to work using CA. Thus, involving local leaders in the implementation of CA helped to break such traditions. Farmers had different interest in SWC. Some farmers showed high interest to conserve their soil while others were reluctant. Most farmers whose lands were seriously affected by water erosion were highly interested. These farmers were those residing in the hill bottom. Whereas those on the top of the hill were less affected by erosion showed less interest. Farmers’ attitude to SWC could be changed after seeing the effects of conservation structures on soil and crop yield. As a result copy farmers started constructing soil bunds individually. The degree of cooperation differs over villages. Those farmers nearby the previous SWC structures of AHI are highly interested and cooperative than those far away. This might show that farmers in the vicinity of AHI works have been more exposed and drew lessons from AHI works.
Conclusion and Implications Most farmers have realized the importance of CA for soil and water conservation. Thus most farmers witnessed that their previous individual efforts to construct soil bunds were futile exercise as compared to the current CA. They have also realized the importance of the conservation structure from the improved changes they have observed on the soil productivity with in two years. However, the CA was highly affected by the dependency of farmers to aid coupled with other multiple factors. The food security program of the government involving incentives for work has also affected the CA. Such programs will have negative impact for future CA works on different natural
1544
resource management issues. Interviewed farmers suggested to separate development works from food aid. The degree of cooperation was variable over villages mainly as a result of previous exposure to similar works. Some of the farmers were reluctant for the CA. Farmers used to implement such CA for other issues through enforcement by governmental bodies. Thus the involvement of local leaders some how enhanced the current CA. The great weakness of implementation of the current CA was that it lack binding norm. The only binding force was that the issue of soil erosion was common problem. Thus it will be important to have community based bylaw to improve CA in SWC. The CA should also be considered in the annual development agenda of the kebele. Farmers need the guidance of technical people to maintain and improve conservation structures. Thus, there should be a mechanism to follow up conservation structures until farmers fully understand the benefits.
Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge African Highlands Initiative (AHI) for introducing the approach and sponsoring the study, Southern Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) for allocating human resource and facilities and Bolos sore District Office of Agriculture for providing human power and seedlings.
References African Highlands Initiative (AHI). 2004. Annual report2003, Gununo Watershed, Areka Agricultural Research Centre, Ethiopia. Anonymous. 1979. Brochure, Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Research Centre, Ootacanund Asrat Abebe. 1992. Assessment of run off and soil loss under different cover crops and slope length. In: Institute of Agricultural Research. 1992. Natural Resource Management for Conservation & Development. Proceedings of the 2nd Natural Resource Conservation conference, 7-10 May 1990, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp.3-6. Betru Nedassa. 2003. Soil and water conservation program in the Amhara National Regional State. In: Tilahun Amede (ed). 2003. Natural Resource Degradation and environmental concerns in the Amhara Regional State: Impact on food security. Proceedings of the Natural Resource Management Conference, July 24-26, 2002, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. pp155-172. Bureau of Planning and Economic Development (BOPED). 1999. Regional conservation strategy. Volume I: The resource base, its management and
utilization for sustainable development. SNNPR. Awasa, August, 1999. Dessalgn Rahmeto. 1998. Littering the landscape: Environment and environmental policy in Wello (north Ethiopia). Paper for international symposium on African Savannas: New perspectives on environmental and social change held at the university of Illionis, Urbana-Champaign, April 1998. Fredric, R.T., Hobbs, J.A. & Donahue, R.L. 1999. Soil and Water Conservation: Productivity and Environmental Protection. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. 610pp. FAO/WFP. 2007. Special report: FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment mission to Ethiopia, 23 February 2007. Grunder, M. 1992. Results of soil conservation experiments in Ethiopia. In: Institute of Agricultural Research.1992. Natural Resource Management for Conservation & Development. Proceedings of the 2nd Natural Resource Conservation conference, 7-10 May 1990, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp3-6. Raghunath, B., Sreenatan, A., Das, D.C. and Thomas P.K. 1967. Conservation evaluation of various land use practices on moderately steep sloping lands in Nilgris. Parth I & II. Presented at 6th annual meeting of ISAE, Bangalore. Shiferaw, B. and Holden, S.T. 1998. Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies by small holders in the Ethiopian highlands. A case study; Agricultural Economics, 18, 233-247. Stonehouse, D.P. & Profz, R. 1993. Socioeconomic perspective on making conservation practices acceptable. In: Baum E., P. Wollf and M.A. Zobisch (eds), Acceptance of soil and water conservation: Strategies and technologies. DIJSL, Eitzenhausen, Germany. 458 pp. Tadesse, M. & Belay K. 2004. Journal of Agricultural and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. 105(1), 49-62. Terrence, J.T., George, R.F. & Kenneth, G.R. 2002. Soil Erosion: Process, Prediction, Measurement and control. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 338pp. Tripathi, R.P. & Singh, H.P. 1993. Soil erosion and conservation. New Age International (P) Ltd Publisher. New Delhi. 305pp. Yohannes G. Michael. 1992. Barriers of the adoption of Fanya-juu and contour bund soil conservation measures in northern Shewa. In: Institute of Agricultural Research.1992. Natural Resource Management for Conservation & Development. Proceedings of the 2nd Natural Resource Conservation conference, 7-10 May 1990, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp57-67.
1545
