Evaluation of Soil and Water Conservation

Measures in Dejiel Watersheds, Choke Mountains,

East Gojjam Zone of Amhara Region, Ethiopia

Biele Masresha

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June, 2014
 Evaluation of Soil and Water Conservation
Measures in Dejiel Watersheds, Choke Mountains,
East Gojjam Zone of Amhara Region, Ethiopia.

Biele Masresha

A Thesis Submitted to

Center for Environmental Science, College of Natural Science

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of

Science (Environmental Science)

 ABSTRACT

A field study was conducted in Dejiel watershed, East Gojjam, Ethiopia to assess the existing soil
and water conservation practices and evaluate their sustainability. The study included
biophysical field surveys, soil laboratory analyses and household level survey. Soil and water
conservation (SWC) structures were widely practiced such as fanya juu terrace on cultivated
lands and trench on closure areas in the watershed. A total of 80 fanya juu terraces and 29
trenches that lie in three randomly selected transect lines on farm lands and closure areas,
respectively were investigated. Vertical interval, height (length for trench) and collection ditch's
width and depth were measured against the standard values provided by MoARD.

Soil samples were collected on cultivated land which SWC measures practiced with fanya juu
terraces composed of seven, six and five years old fanya juu terraces stabilized with tree lucen
(Chamaecytisus palmensis) and compared it with cultivated area where no SWC measures practiced through
selected soil nutrient parameters. For each treatment, minimum of 5 representative samples were

collected from 5 spots 20 m distance from each other. A total of 54 Household heads were
interviewed through open-ended and close ended questionnaires to assess the community
based watershed management practices in Dejiel watershed.

Evaluation of SWC measures indicated that the quality of structures practiced in closure area
was in good position compared to SWC structures implemented on cultivated lands. Fanya juu
structures that were implemented on cultivated lands showed very significant differences in
vertical back height and collection ditch’s width and depth. The existing fanya juu structures
only met 20.6% and 9.16% with the recommended standard in vertical height and collection
ditch’s depth respectively. The quality of trenches constructed on closure area fulfills the
recommended standard.

Soil analyses showed that organic matter (OM), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus, pH,
and electrical conductivity are significantly (p≤0.05) affected by soil conservation measures. The
non-conserved fields had significantly higher OM, TN, and electrical conductivity; compared to
the conserved cultivated lands, perhaps due to prior differences of the lands at the start of the

iii
treatments, since areas already seriously affected are chosen for conservation. The crop field
conserved in 2007 with fanya juu terrace had significantly higher OM content than all other
conserved fields. Farmlands treated in 2009 (5-year old fanya juu bunds) had lower OM and
total nitrogen when compared to 7-year old fanya juu bunds (2007 treated). However no
significant difference occurred among conserved lands in total nitrogen and pH value.
Farmlands treated in 2009 had the highest available phosphorus compared with the remaining
conserved and non conserved cultivated lands. The household participation in the
implementation of SWC plans was high while their participation in the planning and designing
(61.1%), in monitoring and evaluation (64.8%) and taking corrective action (70.4%) was low. In
terms of community benefits, 88.9% of the household respondents replied that the
conservation works practiced fairly decreased the land degradation and plant depletion.
Similarly 18.5% and 59.3% of the household respondents believed that SWC had improved and
fairly improved their livelihood, respectively.

From the study it was possible to conclude that, since SWC conserved cultivated lands
differentiated across the years of constructed structures (stabilized with tree Lucerne), the
measures had better held the soil in-situ and improved inter-terrace soil physical and chemical
properties. This suggests that by applying soil conservation measures upstream, the erosion
rate and the amount of silt entering streams has been reduced. Improving land productivity
through SWC in the upstream areas is the means to cut the huge costs of silt cleaning in dams
and irrigation canals of the downstream areas.

Key words: SWC, land degradation, SWC sustainability, community participation

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Satishkumar B. and Dr. Mekuria
Argaw, for their constructive guidance, encouragement and critical comment on the thesis. Dr
Belay Simane has been very generous in supplying me with relevant literature, field support and
respond to all inquires by devoting his precious time.

I extend my gratitude to Ato Getahun Yemata for his advice and encouragement and follow up
throughout the research process and for reading the manuscript. I extend my great
appreciation to all Gozamen Woreda Agricultural Office experts and development agents for
their support during fieldwork and for the information they provided me with. I would to thank
Negrewu Beryhun, my field guide, who assisted me by touring all the study sites with me. I
extend my special thanks to Migbaresenay Children and Family Support Organization (MSCFSO),
and Debre Markos University. I thank Awol Assefa for his help in the soil analysis.

My deep gratitude goes to my family who encouraged and supported me throughout the
conduct of this study.

Finally, I thank the almighty God for giving me health and strength to start and complete this
study.

v
Table of contents
List of figures ........................................................................................................................ ix
List of tables .......................................................................................................................... x
List of acronyms ................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ....................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Statement of the problem ............................................................................................... 3

1.3. Objective of the study ...................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER TWO ...................................................................................................................... 6

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Land degradation in Ethiopia ............................................................................................... 6

2.2. The Concept of Sustainability............................................................................................... 8

2.3. Concept of sustainable watershed management ................................................................ 9

2.5. Soil and water conservation practice in Ethiopia............................................................... 14

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................. 16

MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................................. 16
3.1. Description of the study area ............................................................................................. 16

3.2. Data collection and Analysis .............................................................................................. 22

3.2.1. Description of Soil and Water Conservation measures............................................... 22

3.2.2. Evaluating the Quality of Soil and Water Conservation Structures ............................ 22

3.2.3. Assessing the extent of land fertility and analysis ...................................................... 23

3.3.4. Watershed community sample survey and analysis ................................................... 24

CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................... 26

RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 26
4.1. Soil and water conservation practices in the study area ................................................... 26

vi
 4.1.1. Soil and water conservation practices in the study area ............................................ 26

4.1.2. Biological SWC measures............................................................................................. 31

4.2. Assessment of farmland terraces in soil fertility maintenance ......................................... 32

4.2.1. Organic matter content (%) ......................................................................................... 32

4.2.2. Total nitrogen TN (%)................................................................................................... 34

4.2.3. Available phosphorus (ppm) ....................................................................................... 34

4.2.4. PH value ....................................................................................................................... 35

4.2.5. Electrical conductivity (EC) .......................................................................................... 36

4.3. Socio-economic conditions in the watershed .................................................................... 37

4.3.1. General socio-economic conditions of community households ................................. 37

4.3.2. The Effect of Past - Experience Condition on community participation ..................... 40

4.3.3. Community Benefits from SWC ................................................................................... 42

4.3.4. Community Empowerment and Organization ............................................................ 44

4.3.5. Unity and Solidarity of the Village Community ........................................................... 46

CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................................... 49

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 49
5.1. Technical sustainability ...................................................................................................... 49

5.1.1. Performance of fanya juu terraces.............................................................................. 49

5.1.2. SWC Evaluation of Closure areas................................................................................. 51

5.2. Environmental sustainability .............................................................................................. 52

5.3. Socio-economic condition .................................................................................................. 53

5.4. Past experience situation and community benefits .......................................................... 53

5.5. Community empowerment and organization.................................................................... 53

5.6. Monitoring and evaluation................................................................................................. 54

vii
CHAPTER SIX ....................................................................................................................... 55
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION............................................................................... 55
6.1. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 55

6.2. Recommendation ............................................................................................................... 56

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 62

viii
List of figures

Figure 1: Map of the study area .....................................................................................................17

Figure 2: The studied treated (a) and untreated (b) cultivated lands used as the baseline for
soil parameter analysis around Melit micro-catchment ........................................... 21
Figure 3:The change through time in fanya juu terraces constructed at Melit micro-catchment
a) at its first year of construction b) fanya juu structures filled with sidiments (Source,
MSCFSO, 2007) c) fanya juu structures filled with sediments (February, 2014) ........ 27
Figure 4:Closure area rehabilitation of Terarit sub-watershed in Dejiel watershed................ 30
Figure 5:Effects of SWC interventions on cultivated land at Melit micro-catchment before
2007 showing active gulley (a) and after 2013 depicting stabilized gulley (b) in Dejiel
watershed .............................................................................................................. 32
Figure 6:Average OM (%) values of different treatments on cultivated farmlands ................. 33
Figure 7:Average TN values of soil at two depths collected from cultivated lands receiving
different degree of treatments ................................................................................ 34
Figure 8: Average available phosphorus values of different treatments on cultivated lands .. 35
Figure 9:Average pH values of different treatments on cultivated lands ............................... 36
Figure 10:Average electrical conductivity values of different treatments on cultivated lands 36
Figure 11: Educational level of household heads by percentage............................................ 39
Figure 12: Household working age level .............................................................................. 40

ix
List of tables

Table 1: Major tree and shrubs of the study area ..............................................................................20

Table 2: Comparison of average values of the existing fanya juu structure with standard values. ....... 28
Table 3: Comparison of average values of the existing trench structure with standard values............. 29
Table 4: Household income status of the respondents .......................................................................37
Table 5: Household heads’ domestic animal holding by Village ..........................................................38
Table 6: Responses of households on their past experiences towards SWC practices .......................... 41
Table 7: The benefits of SWC practices to the community..................................................................43
Table 8: Data on CP in the planning process ......................................................................................45
Table 9: Data on community empowerment and organization ...........................................................46
Table 10: Responses on unity and solidarity of the village community members ................................47
Table 11: Responses of sample households on concluding remarks....................................................48

x
List of acronyms

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ANRS Amhara National Regional State
av. P available Phosphorus
CFSCDD Community Forestry and Soil Conservation Development Department
Cm centimeter
DA Development Agent
EC Electrical Conductivity
EHRS Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Studies
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation
FFW Food for Work
FTC Farmers’ Training Center
GWARD Gozamene Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IWM Integrated Watershed Management
Km Kilometer
LSD Least Significance Difference
M meter
MSCFSO Migbaresenay Children and Family Support Organization
MOA Ministry of Agriculture of Ethiopian
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
OM Organic Matter
SCRP Soil Conservation Research Program of Ethiopian
SIDA Swedish International Development Authority
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
SSA Sub-Saharan African
SWC Soil and Water Conservation
TN Total Nitrogen
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNDP United Nation Development Program
USAID United State Agency for International Development
WFP World Food Program

xi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background

Land degradation is a serious global problem, particularly in Africa, where almost all inhabited
lands in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) are prone to soil and environmental degradation (Nana-Sinkam
1995; Scherr 1999; FAO, 2004; Vlek et al., 2008). In Ethiopia, land degradation has become one
of the most important environmental problems, mainly due to soil erosion and nutrient
depletion. Coupled with poverty and the fast-growing population, land degradation poses a
serious threat to national and household food security. The 2008 report of FAO indicated that
during the period 1981–2003, the total land degraded in Ethiopia is estimated to be 297,000
km2 (Bai et al., 2008).

The Ethiopian highlands are affected by deforestation and degraded soils, which have eroded
the resource base and aggravated the repeated food shortages caused by drought. Although
the highlands occupy 44% of the total area of the country, 95% of the land under crops is
located in this area, which is home to 90% of the total population and 75% of livestock (SCRP,
1996). In the Amhara Region, where Excess removal of forests is contributing to land
degradation For instance, based on population growth (demand) and forest increment (supply),
the region recorded a deficit of about 16.6 million cubic meters of wood for fuel and
construction in 1996 alone (BoA, 1997). About 20 thousand hectares of forest are harvested
annually in the Amhara Region for fuel wood, logging and construction purposes. Since
harvested trees are not replaced adequately by tree planting, soils are exposed to high intensity
of rainfall and about 1.9 to 3.5 billion tones of fertile topsoil are washed away annually into
rivers and lakes due to deforestation alone (BoA, 1997).

1
The Choke Mountain and its associated watersheds, located in the Blue Nile (Abay) Highlands
region of Ethiopia, is broadly representative of many of these soil erosion challenges. The
landscape is dominated by low-input subsistence agriculture, with cultivation extending from
the Blue Nile gorge up to near the peak of the mountain. Choke ecosystems are under threat
from multiple sources, each posing its own management challenge the natural resources base
(land, water, and biodiversity) is under intense pressure from population growth and erosion-
inducing traditional farming and management practices. The livelihoods of farming
communities face severe constraints related to intensive cultivation, overgrazing and
deforestation, soil erosion and soil fertility decline, water scarcity, livestock feed, and fuel wood
demand (Belay et al., 2013).

In coping with these problems, soil and water conservation (SWC) measures have been
implemented to alleviate both the problems of erosion and low crop productivity, which are
symptoms of two different extremes of rainfall conditions in Ethiopia since the 1970s.The
interventions were focused on both mechanical and biological measures (Tamene et al., 2006;
Babulo et al., 2009). The major mechanical measures include construction of bunds, check
dams, micro-basins and hillside terraces. The biological measures include enclosure of degraded
land from human and animal interferences (exclosures), tree seedling production, planting of
tree seedlings on farmlands (agro-forestry), afforestation, and tree plantations around the
homesteads and tree plantation in exclosures as enrichment to the natural regeneration
(Badege, 2001; Feoli et al., 2002; Mekuria et al., 2011).

The impacts of physical SWC measures can be classified into short- and long-term effects based
on the time needed to become effective against soil erosion. According to Bosshart, the short-
term effects of stone bunds are the reduction in slope length and the creation of small
retention basins for run-off and sediment. These reduce the quantity and eroding capacity of
overland flow. Such effects appear immediately after construction of the stone bunds and
reduce soil loss. The medium- and long-term effects include the reduction in slope angle by
formed bench terraces, development of vegetation cover on the bunds and gullies, and change

2
in land management. Very few studies have been done to analyze the impacts of the measures
with respect to restoration of degraded lands. For example, Woldamlak (2007) reported that
SWC measures were inefficient in reducing soil erosion and restoring soil fertility, while
Hengsdijk et al. (2005) criticized the validity of his model. Similarly, Zewdu (2004) reported that
planted treesdid not result in significant changes in organic carbon, nitrogen and soil-organic
matter inputs and did not improved soil fertility during a 25-year forest growth.

Conversely, other studies indicated a positive contribution of SWC measures to the reduction of
soil erosion, conservation of soil moisture, and restoration of vegetation cover and diversity
(e.g., Asefa et al., 2003; Hengsdijk et al., 2005; Vancampenhout et al., 2006; Mekuria et al.,
2007; Gebreegziabher et al., 2009). Shimeles (2012) stated that most plot-based studies are
focused on assessing the severity of soil erosion in physical terms and there is a lack of
information on the impact of SWC on soil fertility and agricultural production. There are also
gaps regarding the effect of the service time of SWC and difference in agro-ecological and
topographic conditions.

The present study is focusing at contributing towards the evaluation of the quality and
appropriateness of different soil conservation measures and assessing the effectiveness and
variability of conservation/land management measures at Choke Mountain areas of East
Gojjam, Ethiopia.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Land degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining soil quality seriously challenges
agricultural productivity and overall economic growth of the country. The highland region,
suffers from extreme land degradation since steep slopes have been cultivated for many
centuries and are subjected to serious soil erosion. Hurni (1988) estimated that erosion is most
severe on cultivated lands with the average of 42 tons/hectare/year. The amount of yield
reduction as a result of loss of topsoil each year is increasing substantially. This makes the issue

3
of soil conservation not only necessary but also a vital concern if the country wants to achieve
sustainable development of its agricultural sector and its economy at large.
Since effort has been done to conserve resources and prevent degradation, many public
organizations and NGOs have been involved in addressing the widespread problem of land
degradation. The conservation measures were in most of the cases physical structures namely
stone or soil bunds. However, the efforts put towards promotion of technologies so far seem
below the threshold which has limited the sustained use of natural resources for a better
production. Where appropriate measures practiced results in reducing soil erosion and
changing the soil properties for agricultural productivity.

To ensure the sustainability of the renewable resources, sustainable conservation techniques

and practices should be adopted. In addition, communities should be aware of the necessities
and effectiveness of their active participation in their own development so as to ensure
continuity of effective and efficient SWCM. Hence, it is important to investigate the
sustainability of soil and water conservation measures on selected sub watersheds to evaluate
the benefit of treating lands with biophysical SWC measures. Therefore, this study attempts to
assess and draw conclusions on the sustainability of soil and water conservation measures on
Choke Mountain Watersheds, East Gojjam zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia.

1.3. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The general objective of this study is to assess the existing soil and water conservation practices
in Choke Mountain areas of East Gojjam and evaluate their sustainability.

The specific objectives of the study are:

• To compare the effectiveness of some selected introduced soil conservation

technologies against the standard.
• To assess and conduct a synthesis of the implications of SWC measures on land
restoration in the Choke watershed.

4
• To evaluate the performance of farmland terracing in soil fertility and crop yields
maintenance and/or improvement in the Choke watershed, East Gojjam,
Ethiopia.
• To investigate problems and opportunities in the application of soil conservation
practices in the study area and draw conclusions that might help in the design
and implementation of future conservation programs; and
• To identify effective strategies for future conservation intervention

5
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Land degradation in Ethiopia
Land degradation can be related to both natural and human induced processes. According to
the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), land degradation is defined
as a natural process or a human activity that causes the land to be unable to provide intended
services for an extended time (FAO, 2004). On the other hand, according to Douglas (1994) and
Hurni (1993) the unhindered degradation of soil can completely ruin its productive capacity for
human purposes and may be further reduced until steps are taken to stop further degradation
and restore productivity.

In Ethiopia land degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining fertility is serious
challenge to agricultural productivity and economic growth (Mulugeta, 2004). Several studies
have shown that extensive areas of the highlands have high rates of erosion. The average
annual soil loss from arable land in the highlands of Ethiopia was estimated to be about 42 tons
per ha per year and the average annual productivity decline in cropland was 0.21% (Hurni,
1993). Furthermore the value of the total agricultural production loss due to soil erosion in the
1990s was estimated to be 32.2 million Ethiopian Birr, which according to Sutcliffe (1993)
constitute 1.1% of the 1990 agricultural GDP.

The speed and extent of soil degradation depend on different factors, such as soils, relief,
climate and farming systems (intensity of use). Soil loss can be 20 to 40 times higher than the
rate of soil formation, which means there is no hope of restoring destroyed soils within a time
span that bears any relations to human history (Steiner, 1996).
Deterioration of crop production particularly in the highlands is cited as a major and prime
impact of the land degradation, where soil and soil nutrient loss due to erosion is a leading
cause (Badege, 2001; Nyssen et al., 2004).

6
The main causes for land degradation are complex and attributed to a combination of
biophysical, social, economic and political factors. There are different views on the causes of
land degradation: many indicate that population pressure to be the main cause for
deforestation, overgrazing and expansion of cultivation into marginal lands.

Soil erosion varies with soil types (erodibility) and erosive factors like slope of the land (length
and steepness), rainfall characteristics (volume, intensity and duration), soil cover and land
management (Prasannakumar et al., 2012). Among the soil types, Luvisols and Nitosols were
found to be most vulnerable to water erosion, while Vertisols and Phaeozems were less
vulnerable (Herweg and Ludi, 1999). The same study indicated that rainfall erosivity and very
high erosion rates were observed in high rainfall areas. This is in line with the estimation by
Prasannakumar et al. (2012) using a universal soil loss model. This indicates that in the
Ethiopian highlands, soil formation is much lower than the erosion rate.

The impact of soil erosion is complex leading to reduction in soil depth and moisture storage
capacity together with soil-nutrient losses, and ultimately results in reduced agricultural
production and productivity (Vancampenhout et al., 2006). Soil erosion is a threat not only to
agriculture but also to the economy, as the country´s economy depends on agriculture.

To address the land degradation and loss of soils, extensive conservation schemes were
launched in Ethiopia, particularly after the famines of the 1970s. Since then, huge areas have
been covered with terraces, and millions of trees have been planted (Yeraswork, 2000). These
projects have made use of farmer labor under the ‘’food-for-work’’ project funded by the World
Food Program.

However, the success rate has been minimal. This fact is frequently attributed, among other
things, to the top-down approach in extension activities, standard – mainly structural – soil and
water conservation technologies, lack of awareness of land degradation by the land users, and
land security issues. Several approaches to extension delivery systems were exercised in

7
Ethiopia. In most of the cases they were focused on either crop production or livestock
husbandry. Extension on natural resources management was neglected at most, and if
addressed, it was marginalized (EARO, 1998).

2.2. The Concept of Sustainability

A recognized definition of sustainability is that of the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED). The Commission defined sustainable development, as “development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations
to meet their own needs (UNDP, 1987 in Turner, 1993)”. The notion of sustainability applies
most conveniently to the replenishable use of renewable resources such as land/soil, water and
plants. The aim is to benefit from the advantages provided by such resources to the point
where the rate of “take” equals the rate of “renewal, restoring or replenishment”.

This means environmental and natural resource degradation directly affects the rural peoples’
means of subsistence if it is not corrected in due time`. It reduces their supply of energy
through reduced crop production, reduced animal holdings, reduced biomass and water supply.

On the other hand, the central rationale for sustainable development is to increase peoples’
standard of living and in particular, the well-being of the least advantaged people in societies,
while at the same time avoiding uncompensated future costs.

Thus, any sustainable strategy of the future should have to confront the question of how a
vastly greater number of people can gain at least a basic livelihood in a manner, which can be
sustained (Chambers and Canway, 1992 in Turner, 1993). Therefore, to ensure the sustainability
of the renewable resources, sustainable conservation techniques and practices should be
adopted. In addition, communities should be aware of the necessities and effectiveness of their
active participation in their own development so as to ensure continuity of effective and
efficient SWCM.

8
Not only should the natural resource be sustainable but also CP should be effective and
sustainable (McArther, 1993 in Awortwi, 1999:16). CP should have continuity and longevity.
Sustainability, which involves here continuity, sees participation as fundamental to developing a
self-sustaining momentum of development in a particular area (Oakley et al., 1991:18). The
factors that give it longevity includes organization, empowerment, homogeneity, tangible social
and economic benefit, threat to survival, policy support, positive experience with past collective
actions, etc. (McArther, 1993 in Awortwi, 1999).

2.3. Concept of sustainable watershed management

The Ethiopian government has for a long time recognized the serious implications of continuing
soil erosion to mitigate environmental degradation and as a result large national programs
were implemented in the 1970s and 1980s. However the efforts of these initiatives were seen
to be inadequate in managing the rapid rate of demographic growth within the country,
widespread and increasing land degradation, and high risks of low rainfall and drought.

Since 1980, the government has supported rural land rehabilitation, these aimed to implement
natural resource conservation and development programs in Ethiopia through watershed
development (MoARD, 2005). The institutional strengthening project was implemented by FAO,
and was principally aimed at capacity building of Ministry of Natural Resource’s technicians and
experts and development agents in the highland regions of the country.

Watershed management implies the wise use of natural resources like land, water and biomass
in a watershed to obtain optimum production with minimum disturbance to the environment.
In the past, the concept of watershed management focused mainly on the management of
these resources in medium or large river valleys, designed to slow down rapid runoff and
excessive soil erosion, and to slow the rate of siltation of reservoirs and limit the occurrence of
potentially damaging flash flooding in river courses (Paul, 1997).

At present, the overall objectives of watershed development and management programs take
the watershed as the hydrological unit, and aim to adopt suitable measures for soil and water

9
conservation, provide adequate water for agriculture and domestic use, and improve the
livelihoods of the inhabitants.

To achieve sustainable development, sustainable technologies need to be developed,

transferred and adopted. Natural resources can potentially be used in a sustainable way
through appropriate technology. Following the sustainability pattern, “appropriate” would
require that a technology should be ecologically protective, socially acceptable, economically
productive, and economically viable and reduce risk (Hurni, 1988). Management of watersheds
can be made possible by using a variety of technologies such as vegetation conservation like
grass contours, alternative tillage techniques and physical structures like terraces, stone bunds,
gabion box etc. But the essence is to achieve sustainable development that can replicate by the
inhabitant of the watershed after the project left.

In Ethiopia Watershed management was merely considered as a practice of soil and water
conservation. The success stories of early watershed projects were marked as the basis of
major watershed initiatives in Ethiopia. But only technological approaches were adopted from
those early successful projects and the lessons related to institutional arrangements were
neglected.

The newly implemented projects neither involved nor took effort to organize people to solve
the problem collectively. Where village level participation was attempted they typically
involved one or two key persons like village leaders. These projects failed due to their
centralized structure, rigid technology and lack of attention to institutional arrangements.
Communities’ participation is essential not only for implementation of soil and water
conservation activities like terracing, bunding but also during planning of sustainable
management of land and water resources. Besides, farmer’s participation in conservation work
is also considered important in improving the adoption of the recommended technology
(Ashby, 1996).

10
Participatory watershed management involves all actors to jointly discuss their interests,
prioritize their needs, evaluate potential alternatives and implement, monitor and evaluate the
project outcomes (Azene and Gathriu, 2006).

User participation is vital for the success of watershed development projects. A participatory
approach implies a major role for the community and involves partnerships with other
interested groups, from bottom to top, and with policy makers. But the key concern is to
identify approaches that can attain an efficient, effective and accountable line between the
community, the local bodies, the state and the central bodies (Carney and Farrington, 1998).

Therefore, it is important to develop and implement appropriate indicators for monitoring and
evaluating the effectiveness of community participation so as to enhance sustainable SWCM.
The process of implementation and its impact should also be monitored and evaluated using
appropriate indicators. There should also be an adequate time frame to assess the impact of
participation (Oakley et al., 1991). In this case, the following are considered as major indictors
of real Community participation in this research.

Socio-economic characteristics of the community households: The internal socioeconomic

characteristics of community households like, level of education and skill & income influences
degree of community participation (Awortwi, 1999). When the level of education, health
condition and occupational and income situation of the community members is low people feel
that they have no economic power and knowledge and skill to organize themselves and run
development activities and manage the same. When people have low economic power, they
commit less time and resources to community work. Participation increases with better
education because it enhances better organizational leadership and educated people are more
likely to be receptive to new ideas, more communication and human relation skills and more
understanding.

11
The effect of past - experience situation on community participation: Where in the past a
community has been able to safeguard common interests through collective action, community
members tend to be more willing to devote their time and energy to promote community
activities (Awortwi, 1999:16-17). Thus, positive past experience condition suggests that there is
likely to be effective Community participation.

The amount of benefit the community and its members receive: The community's social and
economic benefit refers to the social services and economic outputs such as products, financial
income or an increase in the productivity of land or labor that the community tangibly gains.
Tangible and fair social and economic and environmental benefits are fundamental
determinants of CP SWC activities (Pretty and Shah, 1996:53-54). People engage in
development activities only when they see clear preferably tangible net benefit in terms of
production, income and services.

The degree of empowerment of the community: Empowerment, the community's

participation and power to decision making on matters important to them such as over
resources and benefits, ensures genuine participation. Empowerment strategies use group
based actions in order to achieve access to decision making the final beneficiaries being the
collectivity and individual members (Wils, 2001). The empowerment of a community includes
issues such as, increased level of awareness, increased decision-making and improved access to
resources and institutions (Wils, 2001).

Community organization: Viable, sustainable organizations which can be run by the rural poor
and exert an influence in the wider development arena are the mechanisms for participation
(Shepherd, 1998). To exercise the right of participation, people should have the power to
organize themselves and create institution for sustainable future. On the other hand, structure
and mode of formation of the community organization may have an effect on CP (Oakley et al.,
1991). Thus, in order to undertake work effectively, the CP needs to be organized and have
elected and trusted leaders.

12
Size and solidarity of the community: Community size refers to the geographic and
demographic characteristics of the community. Where the geographic and demographic unit is
small effective participation is likely to take place (Lee, 1994 cited in Awortwi, 1999). Where
geographic and demographic unit is small, effective participation is likely to take place.
Solidarity of the community involves the ability of the people of the community and its
organization to handle conflicts and tension - consensus that all should advantage together
(Lee, 1994 in Awortwi, 1999). Thus, cohesiveness and solidarity of the community significantly
contribute to effective CP and thereby to the management. Local people's homogeneity,
coherence and solidarity contribute to CP. However, it should be also understood that a
community is made up of agglomeration of different interest groups often, locked in
competitive relationships (Smit, 1990:1 in Awortwi, 1999). Therefore, it must be accepted that
the development of effective participation will cause conflict in some form.

Policy environment: Policy and legislative frameworks that support CP are basic requirements
in participatory development efforts. Conservation and rehabilitation policies and programs
have to balance environmental protection and human welfare if they are to effectively arrest
environmental degradation and to rehabilitate the natural resource bases (Utting, 1993).

Land tenure rights enhance long-term investment. Where land tenure is expected over the long
term, farmers will adopt durable soil conservation measures; where land tenure is expected
only for the short term farmers will either adopt cheaper, less durable soil conservation
measures or else they will refrain altogether from investing in soil conservation (Berhanu and
Swinton, 2002). Tenure insecurity decreases the concern of farmers for the future well being of
the land and makes them to maximize their short-term gain (Berhanu and Swinton, 2002).

13
2.5. Soil and water conservation practice in Ethiopia

Land degradation is a serious problem in eastern Africa: easily 14 percent of its total area
suffers from severe to very severe degradation (FAO, 2004). In Ethiopia, as the government
realized the problem of land degradation, it took policy actions. In this regard, a forest and
wildlife conservation and development policy was declared in 1980 (Anonymous, 1980).
Following this policy, the government initiated various studies and capacity-building programs
involved training of professionals at the national level and farmers on the local and massive
SWC interventions (Herweg and Ludi, 1999; Shiferaw and Holden, 1999; Tekle, 1999).

The SWC measures have been implemented on farmlands and communal lands. Farmlands
received mainly terraces and check-dams. Communal lands are used for free livestock grazing
and wood collection, and first mechanical structures such as hillside terraces, micro-basins,
cutoff drains and trenches were constructed, and then these lands were excluded from human
and animal interference. The vegetation cover of these enclosures improved through
enrichment tree plantation. The agriculture offices are responsible for overall coordination,
monitoring, technical guidance and implementation of the program, while local and
international NGOs support the program through finance, FFW commodities, logistics and
project implementation (Herweg and Ludi, 1999; Tekle, 1999).

In the highlands, drought affected areas such as Harerghe, Wello, Gonder, north Showa, Tigray
and north Omo were targeted (Herweg and Ludi, 1999; Mekuria et al., 2011). The SWC activities
were carried out using food aid in the form of food-for-work (FFW); the basis for the
implementation of the SWC interventions on a large scale was the 1975 land reform and the
establishment of peasant associations (PAs). Between 1976 and 1990, 71,000 ha of soil and
stone bunds, 233,000 ha of hillside terraces for afforestation, 12,000 km of check dams in
gullied lands, 390,000 ha of closed areas for natural regeneration, 448,000 ha of land planted
with different tree species, and 526,425 ha of bench terrace interventions were completed
(USAID, 2000).

14
In an evaluation of World Food program supported conservation in Ethiopia monitoring
indicated that 40% of terracing was broken down the year after construction. Many reasons
could be mentioned for the failure of the program; among which lack of participation of local
people and lack of maintenance schemes may be cited. Another very significant reason for the
poor performance of soil and water conservation structures was failure in designing structures
correctly.

On the hand the SWC interventions showed an inconsistent adoption trend over time. Initially,
farmers viewed the structures as showing limitations, as they were not getting immediate
returns (Amsalu and de Graaff, 2007). Among the limitation farmers mentioned were that the
mechanical structures on farmlands reduced the area of cultivable land, harbored rodents, and
the construction was labor intensive (Amsalu and de Graaff, 2007).

It is no doubt that SWC measures have positive impacts such as reducing runoff and soil
erosion, improving basin hydrology, maintaining and/or improving farmland soil fertility and
thereby improving/maintaining agricultural production, reducing sediment load to natural and
human-made reservoirs and reducing further degradation (Nyssen et al. 2006; Vancampenhout
et al. 2006). For instance, soil loss estimates from Soil Conservation Research Project
experiments in the northwestern and northeastern highlands of Ethiopia indicated that fanya
juu bunds, on average, could reduce soil loss by 65 percent, or 25–72 tons per hectare per year
(Grunder and Herweg 1991a; 1991b).

In spite of what may be important ecological benefits and substantial efforts to promote bunds,
the reality is that SWC technologies have not been widely adopted by smallholders in Ethiopia.

15
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the study area

A) Location, physiography and soil

The study site, Choke Mountain Watershed, is located approximately between coordinate
10033'06'' to 10050'24'' North latitude and 37042'36'' to 37058'24'' East longitude.
Topographically, the watershed lies at an altitude ranging from 2100 to 4413 m.a.s.l. Because of
these altitudinal variations, about 27%, 82%, and 9.7% of the watershed is found in W/Dega
(Midland), Dega (Highland) and Wurch (Hail) traditional agro ecological zones respectively. The
watershed is found entirely in Eastern Gojjam Zone of six Woredas such as; Bibugne,
DebayTilatgin, Gozamen, HuletEjuEnssie, Machakel, and Senan (Bewket, 2010).

The specific site where Degiel Watershed is located in Gozamen Woreda (district) Enerata
kebele (10027'01'' North latitude and 37044'05'' East longitude) Situated 7 km North of Debre
Markos town, which is about 300 km North West of Addis Ababa (Figure 1). The watershed
forms part of the northwestern highlands of Ethiopia amongst the headstreams of the Blue
Nile. The Degiel watershed is part of this degraded and degrading basin, which will be
representative of the conditions in large parts of the temperate climatic and agroecological
belts of the northwestern highlands.

According to Belay (2013), the prevailing soils are volcanic in origin, derived from Mio-Pliocene
shield volcano lavas, and at lower elevations, Oligocene flood basalts. Under undisturbed
conditions, soils tend to be deep: natural depths can extend to several meters, with rooting
depths in this portion of the Ethiopian Highlands extending to one meter. These deep,
weathered tropical soils are highly susceptible to erosion, and on lands in the western Ethiopian

16
Highlands cultivated using traditional methods the rate of soil loss can exceed the rate of soil
generation by a factor of 4 to 10.

Figure 1: Map of the study area in which the arrow shows Dejiel watershed, Choke Mountains.

B) Climate
The study area is characterized by sub-humid climatic condition and typically represents the
“Dega” zone of the traditional agro-climatic classification system of Ethiopia. The climatic
condition is generally humid. As measured at Debre-Markos weather station, mean annual
temperature is 14.50C with a range from 13.2°C in July and August to 17.3°C in March. Average
annual total rainfall is 1300 mm. The rainfall pattern is unimodal, with a rising limb starting in
May and reaching to a peak between July and August. More than 75% of the total rain falls in
June, July, August and September (locally known as kiremt season).

17
C) Population and socio economic features
Population
According to data obtained from the Gozamin Rural development office for the year 2013, the
study catchment has 523 households, with 3044 population size.

Land holding
The average annual cropland holding is about 1.6 hectares per household, according to the
woreda’s agricultural office data. However, this size is diminishing from time to time. The
farmers are losing their lands to degradation, particularly gully erosion. The other important
thing is that parents share their land with their sons when they get married. It is socially
obligatory that the parents give plots of land on which their children establish house and also
where they can grow something for subsistence. It is important to bear in mind that this is
unofficial family arrangement, and thus the newly married ones are not registered as land
owners by the Kebele administration.

Economic features
According to MSCFSO (2010), wealth ranking exercise conducted in the catchment using PRA
technique showed that 52.11% are poor, 35.21% medium, and 12.68% better off. Majority of
the people in the catchment do suffers from seasonal food shortage during the main cropping
season.

The livelihood of the people in the study area is exclusively based on agriculture. The
agricultural activities carried out in the area include both crop production and animal
husbandry, in which the latter plays complementary role. The farming system in the area is
therefore, denoted by close interdependence and integration of crop cultivation and animal
husbandry, where the production and productivity of one is not separated from the other.
According to data from the Woreda’s Agricultural Office, the major crops grown in the study
area are Barley (Hordeum vulgare), wheat (Triticum vulgare), tef (Eragrostis tef) maize (Zea
mays), lupine (Lupinu salbus) are the important crops cultivated. All the crops are produced

18
only once a year because of the unimodal rainfall distribution. Mixed cropping is virtually
unknown to the farmers. Pulse crops such as bean, pea, lentil and cheek pea are also produced
but, not in a large quality. Vegetable production is also practiced by few farmers during the
rainy season to supplement their income from field crops. The main vegetable crops planted by
farmers are potato, onion, and cabbage.

In terms livestock in the study area, the farmers keep cattle, equine, but small numbers of

sheep and goats are kept by few farmers. Hillside areas are used as communal grazing land. The

major sources of feed are crop residues and aftermath grazing. There is high feed shortage

throughout the year, being more severe in the dry season. There are no systematic grazing land

management practices.

D) Vegetation and land use

In the study area several indigenous tree species are found even if their abundance was very

limited. A few are found on some farmer’s farmlands, river basins, around churches and

homesteads. The most dominant tree species in the study area was Eucalyptus globulus. This is

because it grows very fast and has high economic value such as house construction, fuel wood

and can also be sold on the market serve as cash crop.

Regarding the land use pattern of the study catchment, major land use types were cultivated

land, forestland, grazing land, area for settlement and unproductive land. According to GWARD

office Dejiel watershed that covers the present study have a total of 1135 hectare and

composed of three sub- watershed includes Melit micro-catchment (360 ha), Yedemgan micro-

catchment (400 ha) and Enerata micro-catchment (375 ha).

19
Table 1: Major tree and shrubs of the study area

Indigenous Exotics
Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name
Agam Carissa edulis Nechbahirzaf Eucaluptus globulus
Kega Rosa abyssinica Tree Lucerne Chamaecytisus palmensis
Lol Ekebergia capensis Deccurence Acacia deccurence
Endod Phytolaca dodecandera Sesbania Sesbania sesban
AbeshaTid Juniperus procera Chegene Acacia malanaxilon
Semiza Adhathoda schimperiana Kundoberbere Schinus molle
Kulkual Euphorbia abyssinca Yeferengetid Cupressus lusitanica
Weyra Olea africana Casuarinas Casuarinas equisetifolia
Wulkafa Dombeya torrida Saligna Acacia saligna
Getem Schefflera abyssinica
Bisana Croton macrostachyus
Gesho Rhamnus prinoides
Chibeha Ficus thonningii
Kerkeha Arundinaria alpine
Koso Hygenia abyssinica
Koshim Dovialis abyssinica
Wanza Cordia aficana
Ahot Pittosporum viridiflorum
Shinet Myrica salicifolia
Embus Allophylus abyssinicus
Abalo Bruci antidiscentrica
YeabeshGirar Acacia abyssinica
Kusheshile Acanthus arboreus
Azamir Bersama abyssinica
Atquar Buddleja polystachya

Significant part of the study area is degraded and a very small part is used for conservation
purposes. These include areas where the community has enclosed former forest lands to allow
natural regeneration of tress and grasses, and where certain individuals have taken the
initiative to plant trees in gullies and have enclosed them. Cultivated land is the dominant land
use type while settlement, grazing area, shrub land and bare land are also other land use types
in the study catchment (Figure 2).

20
 a b

Figure 2: The studied treated (a) and untreated (b) cultivated lands used as the baseline for soil
parameter analysis around Melit micro-catchment

E) SWC measures in Dejiel watershed

Land management activities focusing on conventional measures were underway in the Degiel
watershed beginning from January 1999. The woreda agricultural office was carrying out the
work with financial support from SIDA. It was a five-year resource management and
development project where the watershed was serving as a trial site for the SIDA on-farm
research program in the Amhara Regional State. The approach pursued in was an integrated
watershed management (IWM) type, where SWC was given a central place. The components of
the project include SWC, promotion of afforestation and agroforestry practices.

Another project intervention implemented in Dejiel watershed was carried out from 2007 by
nongovernmental organization (MSCFSO) in collaboration with Gozamene woreda agricultural
and rural development office (GWARD). MSCFSO believed that appropriate and timely solution
to the problem can be delivered by designing an environmental rehabilitation project where
the target beneficiaries can rehabilitate the sub-watershed through applying both physical and
biological conservation measures.

21
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

3.2.1. Description of Soil and Water Conservation measures

Discussions were held with DAs, SWC supervisors, local people and key informants who
coordinate SWC activities at Gozamen Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development and
MSCFSO. According to the result of the discussions, SWC measures implemented in the study
area are divided into three categories depending upon the land use system in which they were
installed. These include SWC measures installed on cultivation fields, degraded areas and in
gullies.

3.2.2. Quality of Soil and Water Conservation Structures

SWC structures were implemented on cultivated land and closure areas. The dominant SWC
structure in the cultivated area was found to be fanya juu terrace and trenches were mostly
practiced in closure area.

SWC structure parameters such as fanya juu terrace back height, collection ditch’s width and
depth, and vertical interval of the selected structures were measured; similarly, ditch length,
width and depth of the selected trenches were recorded on closure areas. The sample fanya juu
terraces and trenches were located first by dividing the whole area of the catchment into four
parts. Then, plots were selected using simple random sampling method. Besides this, contour
lines that were used to construct the structures across the slope joined points of the same
elevation or not, were checked.

A total of 80 fanya juu terraces that lie in three randomly selected transect lines on farm lands
were used for the study. The transect lines extended about three kilometers. For closure areas,
a total of 29 trenches that lie on three randomly selected transect lines were used. Different
parameters of the selected structures were measured starting from the hill to the bottom. The
vertical interval, height (length for trench) and collection ditch’s width and depth were
measured at three points in each structure within the terrace or trench length. The mean
height, mean length and mean vertical interval were computed for each structure and

22
compared with the recommended (standard) value using z-test and t-test to evaluate the
quality of the structure.

𝑥𝑥−𝑥𝑥̅ 𝑥𝑥−𝑥𝑥̅
𝑍𝑍 = 𝑠𝑠 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑠𝑠
� 𝑛𝑛 � 𝑛𝑛
√ √
Where, x is the recommended standard value,
𝑥𝑥̅ is the mean of the data set,
s is the standard deviation of the data set, and
n is the total number of each data set

3.2.3. Assessing the extent of land fertility and analysis

Soil samples were collected from two major cultivated land categories; conserved (with physical
and biological measures) and non-conserved cultivated land in Dejiel watershed sites. The
criteria used to select plots for soil sample collection were availability of treated farmland with
different-aged terraces across moderately steep slope landscape positions. SWC measures such
as terracing have been implemented at different time over large areas in Melit micro-
catchment through community mobilizations. Accordingly, seven years old fanya juu terrace, 6
years old fanya juu terrace, and five years old fanya juu terrace, each stabilized with tree lucern
plot were selected in the SWC intervention farm land and the fourth sampling point was where
no SWC measures practiced cultivated land, all under the same steep slope. Non-conserved
farmland area was selected from similar micro catchment and used as control to track the
changes after the terracing of those conserved areas. The first soil sampling point was located
randomly and soil sampling points were 20 m far apart. A minimum of 5 representative samples
were collected for each treatments in the watershed. At each sampling point, soil was collected
from up to 30 cm depth, divided as 0-15cm and 15-30cm. The soil sample from each point for
every depth in each plot (7, 6, 5 years old fanya juu terrace and the untreated cultivated farm
land) was brought together, homogenized and a composite soil sample was made. This soil
sample was air dried, sieved through 2 mm mesh and preserved for the determination of
physical and chemical properties.

Various chemical and physical soil properties were analyzed for each study plot. Measured
parameters include organic matter content, pH, available phosphorus, total nitrogen and

23
electrical conductivity of the soil. The organic matter content was determined using the
Walkley – Black oxidation method (Titration method) (Brady, 1985). Organic carbon was
determined using the wet dichromate digestion followed by titration with acidified ferrous
sulphate (Okalebo et al., 2002). Soil pH was measured in 1:2.5 water mixtures as described by
Okalebo et al. (2002). Total nitrogen (TN) by the Kjeldahl method as in Black (1965) and
available Phosphorus was determined using Olsen extraction method using sodium bicarbonate
solution. The phosphate was determined colorimetrically after treatment with ammonium
molybdate, sulfuric acid reagent with ascorbic acid as reducing agent. Moreover, the mean
values of each soil parameter of the treatments were computed against the standard set by
other Authors.

3.2.4. Watershed community sample survey and analysis

A community-level survey was conducted in the research area covering the Tabias/Kebelles
(levels of government administration below the woreda level) and villages in Gozamene
Woreda in Amhara Region where Dejiel watershed management operates. Data were collected
through open-ended and close ended questionnaires to assess the community based
watershed management practices in Enerata kebele. Sample farmer households who live in the
three gots of the study area were determined following Cochran (1977) and selected using
simple random sampling techniques. A total of 54 household heads were interviewed from the
three gots in the watershed. Data recorders were appointed to go to each household and
formats were filled by asking respondents orally. The data collected through the questionnaires
were analyzed using statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS Version 16).
no
n=
z 2 pq no − 1
no = 2 1+
d  N

where, no = the desired sample size when population is greater than 10,000.
n = number of sample size when population is less than 10,000
z = 95% confidence limit i.e. 1.96
p = 0.1 (proportion of the population to be included in the sample i.e. 10%).
q = 1 – p i.e. (0.9)
N = total households;
d = degree of accuracy desired (0.05).

24
Focus group interviews
Two focus groups were organized one with farmers from the three villages and the other with
experts from Tabia SWC Development Agents (DAs). The composition of the village community
focus group members included male and female households, elders, church representatives
and youth. Village chairpersons and Tabia SWC Development Agents (DAs) were also involved in
the discussion of the village focus group members. Expert focus group was made to consist of
representatives from the kebelle agricultural office, experts in natural resources management,
plant science, animal science, and the manager from kebelle administration. Semi-structured
interview technique was adopted to collect qualitative data from the focus groups.

Village focus group discussion was conducted around churches while experts’ focus group
discussion was conducted in the Kebele Agricultural Office. The focus groups discussed the
experiences and problems of CP in SWCM and recommended possible solutions for the future
action. Thus, the focus groups were made to directly participate through the semi-structured
interviews as well as deliberations.

25
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS
4.1. Soil and water conservation practices in the study area

Different types of soil and water conservation measures were introduced to the study area. The
introduction was aimed at conserving, developing and rehabilitating degraded agricultural lands
and increasing food security through increased food production/ availability (MoARD, 2005).
Based on the land use system in which the conservation measures were installed, soil and
water conservation techniques introduced to the study area can be categorized into three:
those on farm lands, degraded lands (mainly on hillsides) and measures to rehabilitate gullies.
The practices were both physical and biological conservation measures. The physical measures
brought were installed on farmlands, closure areas and grazing land. These include; soil bunds,
fanya juu terraces, cutoff drain, artificial waterway, trenches, micro-basin and check-dams.
Moreover, the constructed SWC structures were treated with various species of plants such as
elephant grass, Chamaecytisus palmensis, Acacia malanaxilon, Acacia saligna, Acacia
decurrence, Cupresses lustanica, Vitver grass, Protokokos and local grass and Bamboo trees as
biological measures.

4.1.1. Soil and water conservation practices in the study area

Among the variety of SWC measures implemented on farmlands, graded soil, stone and fanya
juu bunds, cut-off drains and artificial waterways were the common ones. Accordingly, a total
of 64.72 hectares of soil bund, 70 hectares of fanya juu terraces and 4.51 hectares of stone
faced soil bund were constructed on farmlands in Dejiel watershed in 2007/08, 2008/09 and
2009/10, respectively, (MSCFSO, 2011). A total of 0.53 km of cut-off drains and 0.025 km
artificial waterway were also constructed in the first and second years of the project. The
change through time in fanya juu terraces constructed at Melit micro-catchment is shown in
Figure 3. Picture a in Figure 3 was taken in 2007 (MSCFSO, 2010), pictures b and c were taken in
February 2014 for this study.

26
 a b c

Figure 3:The change through time in fanya juu terraces constructed at Melit micro-catchment
a) at its first year of construction (Source: MSCFSO, 2010) b) fanya juu structures
filled with sediments (February 2014) c) fanya juu structures filled with sediments
(February 2014)

4.1.1.1 Fanya juu

In this study, the quality of the SWC practices was evaluated against the standard
recommended by MoARD (2005). The mean height of fanya juu was 0.124 m (12.4 cm). The
standard height recommended by (MoARD, 2005) is 0.06m (60 cm). The suitability of the
existing average fanya juu height against the standard was checked using z-test as the number
of samples was greater than 30 and the population was not known. From z-table, the z-value at
0.05 level of significance is 1.65.Therefore, since z- calculated was greater than z value, the null
hypothesis was rejected. This showed that the average height of the fanya juu terraces in the
catchment was significantly lower than the MoARD standard (Table 2).

Similarly, the fanya juu ditch width was compared to the recommended fanya juu width (X)
according to MoARD (2005) which is 0.6 m (60 cm). The mean fanya juu ditch width was 0.321
±0.151 m. Z-test was conducted to confirm this. However, from the z- table at 0.05 level of
significance, z-value is 1.65. Therefore, z- calculated was greater than z value and thus, the null
hypothesis was rejected. The result showed that the mean ditch width of fanya juu ditch was
less than the recommended standard (Table 2).

27
Following the same procedure, fanya juu ditch depth with the mean value of 0.055± 0.045 m
was compared against the standard (0.6 m). The analysis result showed that z- calculated was
greater than z tabulated and the null hypothesis was rejected. This implied that in the existing
fanya juu terraces, mean depth of fanya juu ditch was lower (filled with soil) than the
recommended standard (Table 2).

Table 2: Comparison of average values of the existing fanya juu structure with standard values.

Variable Existing Standard SD n Z Z Decision

average value calculated tabulated
Height 0.124 m 0.6 m 0.059 80 71.16 1.65 Ho rejected
Width 0.321 m 0.6 m 0.051 80 16.63 1.65 Ho rejected
Depth 0.055 m 0.6 m 0.045 80 88.4 1.65 Ho rejected

4.1.1.2. Trench
Different types of conservation techniques were installed on lands that have been severely
degraded. This was meant to restore their productive potential. SWC practices on degraded
hillsides include area closure, hillside terrace, and plantation. In this study, 80 hectares of land
protected from human and livestock access and 736 trenches constructed in 2007/08 and
2008/09 were assessed in the catchment. Trees planted inside enclosure areas consisted of
Eucalyptus species mainly Eucalyptus globulos, Accacia saligna, Accacia decarence, and
Omedilla oblingata. Enclosure areas in the study site were also treated with other physical
conservation measures such as trenches and micro basin (Figure 4).

Trench length: The value of the constructed trenches was weighed up in terms of minimum
standards already recommended by MoARD (2005). A mean value of 3.13±0.92 m trench length
was recorded in this SWC structure. Trenches were constructed at an interval of 3- 5 meters
depending upon on the suitability of the land. The value of the existing average trench length
was determined by comparing it with the recommended standard using student t-test. Student
t-test was chosen because sample trenches were less than 30 and the population was not
known. The t-value at 95% confidence limit and n-1 degrees of freedom is 1.701 (one tailed

28
test). Therefore, since t- calculated was greater than t- tabulated, the null hypothesis was
rejected. This showed that the average height of the already existing trenches in the catchment
was up to the MoARD recommended standard (Table 3).

Trench’s Width (collection ditch): In another measurement the mean width trenches was 0.39
m ± 0.12 m. the minimum standard trench width recommended by MoARD, (2005) is 0.5m.
The suitability of the existing average trench against the recommended was undergone using
student t-test. Trenches width is an important criterion for drainage capacity to hold runoff and
enhance water percolation that in turn improves soil moisture for planted seedlings during dry
season. According to the analysis t-calculated was greater than t- tabulated and thus, the null
hypothesis was rejected. This result depicted that the mean trench width (collection ditch) was
narrower than the recommended standard (Table 3).

Trench depth: Trench depth was the other parameter measured with respect to this SWC
structure. The mean trenches depth was 0.28 m ± 0.09 m. The standard trench depth
recommended by (MoARD, 2005) is 0.5 m (50 cm). The mean trench depth was compared
against the standard using student t-test.

The value of t- tabulated at 95% confidence limits and n-1 degrees of freedom is 1.701 (one
tailed test) and the analysis result showed that t- calculated was greater than t- tabulated.
Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. This means that the existing depth of the trenches was
less than the recommended standard (Table 3).

Table 3: Comparison of average values of the existing trench structure with standard values.

Variable Existing Standard SD n Calculated Tabulated Decision

average value t value t value
Length 3.13 3–5 m 0.92 29 0.76 1.701 Ho accepted
Width 0.39 0.5 m 0.12 29 4.9 1.701 Ho rejected
Depth 0.28 0.5 m 0.09 29 13.1 1.701 Ho rejected

Trenches spacing: In principle, the spacing between trenches should decrease as the slope
gradient goes steeper. The recommended standard vertical interval between consecutive
29
trenches ranges from 3 - 5 m. In areas where high amount of rainfall is available, 3 meters
vertical interval is appropriate and 5 meters is the recommended spacing in dry areas. In
relation to the study area, it receives 1300 mm of rainfall annually and the recommended
vertical interval between consecutive trenches is 3 meters. This breaks and holds runoff velocity
of rain water for percolation. However, trenches installed in the study area by the farmers had
longer vertical interval for steeper slopes. The spacing between existing trenches was between
5 and 13 m with an average of 7 m. The wide spacing had caused damages and instable bund
structures that lead to greater runoff and losses water and sediments through excessive
erosion that were supposed to be conserved.

Figure 4: Closure area rehabilitation of Terarit sub-watershed in Dejiel watershed

4.1.1.3. Soil and water conservation measures to rehabilitate gullies

Check-dams are structures that were established across gullies to provide a physical barrier for
the flowing water and initiate the process of sedimentation. They are built to reduce the
velocity of runoff and prevent the deepening or widening of gullies. Totally 2.29 km of brush
wood check-dams and 0.3 km rock fill check dams were constructed in 2007/08 and 2008/09 in
the catchment (MSCFSO, 2010). In both types, check-dams were installed in systems starting

30
from the mouth of the gully upstream. The vertical interval of check-dams was the same as the
height of the check-dams. The total length of check-dams constructed during the four years of
the Dejiel watershed management intervention was 2.294 km of wood supported sacks filled
with soil and 0.6km of wood supported stone check dams. Field observations revealed that
there was a dramatic stabilization of gullies in the catchment.

4.1.2. Biological SWC measures

In the Dejiel watershed, the agroforestry practice was done through planting of shrubs and
trees along the SWC structures. It was mainly meant to stabilize the bunds. Planting of trees
and shrubs of multipurpose species on the fanya juu, soil and stone bunds, the bunds of cut-off
drains, along the sides of artificial waterways and on check-dams was a component of the
watershed management activities. These agroforestry and afforestation management activities
coordinated by MSCFSO were helpful for the establishment of 10 individual farmer nurseries
(each with 100m2) and two other previously established nurseries (0.25 ha) by Swedish
International Development Agency (SIDA) fund and 0.375 ha nursery established by the Woreda
Office of Rural Development.

In the tree nursery, seedlings of different tree species were grown for the purpose of bund
stabilization and gully rehabilitation. Bunds constructed during the dry season were stabilized
by plantation of tree seedlings at different times of the project. More than 269,520 different
tree species seedlings were planted over 96 ha of farmland at second year of the project.
Similarly, more than 797,725 seedlings of tree species were planted over 104.41 ha of farmland
on the third year of the project. This had helped the farmlands to rehabilitate earlier and better
(Figure 5). The grass inside the Teratit watershed was as a source of animal fodder for 47
households in the vicinity. The grass was cut two times a year especially after a relatively short
period of rainfall and approximately 2 kimirs of grass were collected at each harvesting time.

31
 a b

Figure 5: Effects of SWC interventions on cultivated land at Melit micro-catchment before 2007
showing active gulley (a) and after 2013 depicting stabilized gulley (b) in Dejiel
watershed

4.2. Assessment of farmland terraces in soil fertility maintenance

Soil samples collected from cultivated farmland, categorized as treated (SWC measures
practiced) and untreated farmland were analyzed and organic matter content, total nitrogen,
available phosphorus, electrical conductivity and soil pH were determined. Soil samples analysis
in the treated farmland was separated on the basis of year of construction of the SWC structure
as 2007, 2008 and 2009.

4.2.1. Organic matter content (%)

The analysis of variance revealed that there was a significant difference in organic matter
content between treatment types at P< 0.05 (Fig. 6 and Annex 6). The untreated cultivated
farmland had significantly higher soil organic carbon as compared to conserved farmlands since
2007, 2008 and 2009 at p < 0.05. Moreover, significant variation in organic carbon was also
recorded between farmlands treated in 2007 and 2009. The soil sample taken from 2009
treated farmlands was more deteriorated in its organic carbon content which may be due to

32
the age of implementation of the fanya juu. The 2009 treated farmland (the youngest fanya
juu) and the untreated farmland showed highly significant difference at P < 0.01. The untreated
farmland had high organic carbon as compared to all treatments which might be due to the fact
that the nutrient content of the treated farmlands was extremely poor due to intensification of
agriculture prior to the implementation of SWC technologies.

The analysis of variance revealed a low OC content and slight decrease with soil depth
increment. Lovelend and Webb (2003) reported that a 2% soil OC is a critical level for crop
production and soil aggregate stability. As shown in (annex 11), the average organic matter
content of the 2008 treated cultivated land (1.74%) and the 2009 (1.31) treated cultivated land
were categorized as low and 2007 treated cultivated land (2%) and the untreated cultivated
land (2.65%) were categorized as medium in reference with the theoretical.
p
p
soil depth, 15-30
soil depth, 0-15

2.2
2.2
2.0
2.0

1.8 c 1.8 c
1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4
a b b a
OM(%)

1.2 1.2
OM( %) b
1.0 1.0 b
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0
0.0
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) Untreated
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) untreated
Treatments
Treatments

Figure 6: Average OM (%) values of different treatments on cultivated farmlands

33
4.2.2. Total nitrogen TN (%)
Analysis of variance revealed that mean difference between 2008 treated and untreated
cultivated land was significant at 0.05 levels (Fig. 7). Mean difference among the treated
cultivated land was not significant at 0.05 levels (Annex 7). The mean total TN difference due to
treatment effect was significant at (p≤0.05) level. Cultivated land treated with fanya juu terrace
was stabilized with tree Lucerne and showed a relatively close mean value of TN across years
but slightly increased value on untreated area. As shown in (Annex 11) the total nitrogen of the
2007 treated cultivated land (0.13%), 2008 treated cultivated land (0.11%), the 2009 treated
cultivated land (0.12) and untreated cultivated land (0.15%) was rated as low.
p )
soil depth, 15-30)

soil depth, 0-15

0.18

0.18 0.16 b
b
0.16 0.14
a
0.14 0.12
a
0.12
0.10
TN(%)

0.10
TN(%)

0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) untreated
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) Untreated

Treatments Treatments

Figure 7: Average TN values of soil at two depths collected from cultivated lands receiving
different degree of treatments

4.2.3. Available Phosphorus (ppm)

The statistical analysis result showed that the cultivated farmland treated during 2009 had
significantly higher soil available phosphorus than the other treatments at p < 0.01. This
treatment had also a significant difference with unconserved farmland at p < 0.05. This shows
that the 5 years old fanya juu terrace (2009) had the highest value of available phosphorus
(15.21) than all other treatments considered in the study (Figure 8).

34
 soil depth, 0-15
soil depth, 15-30

18
20
16 b 18 b
14 16

12 a 14
a
Av. P(mg/kg)

12

Av. P(mg/kg)
10
a a
10
8 a a
8
6
6
4
4
2
2

0 0
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) Untreated 2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) untreated

Treatment Treatments

Figure 8: Average available phosphorus values of different treatments on cultivated lands

As shown in (Annex 11) the available phosphorus content of the 2007 treated cultivated land
(7.5 ppm), 2008 treated cultivated land (7.9ppm) and untreated cultivated land (10ppm) are
categorized as low and only the 2009 treated cultivated land (15.15) was rated as medium. The
mean differences between 2009 treated and other treatments were also statistically different.

4.2.4. PH Value

The four types of treatments (7 year, 6 year and 5 years old fanya juu terrace conserved
farmland and non-conserved farmland ) on cultivated land had soil pH of 5.7, 5.8, 5.7, 5.5,
respectively. There were significant differences in pH value among the four cultivated land
types at P <0.05 level. The significant difference was observed between 2008 treatment and
untreated farmland at p < 0.05 (Fig. 9). The pH differences between treatments showed that
the soil was less acidic as compared to treated areas. This could be the result of topographic
influences. It was plausible to say that exchangeable bases were leached down the soil profile
or washed out through runoff. As a result, soil pH was increased toward the treated farmland
area.

35
 soil depth, 0-15

soil depth 15-30

7

a
7
6
b
a
6 b
5

5
4
PH

PH
3

3
2
2
1
1

0
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) untreated 0
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) untreated
Treatments
Treatments

Figure 9: Average pH values of different treatments on cultivated lands

Mean difference of pH value result showed that there was significant difference (P=0.015) only
between 2008 treated and untreated area (Annex 9). However, the difference among treated
cultivated lands (2007, 2008 and 2009 SWC implemented) was not significant at P < 0.05 level.

4.2.5. Electrical conductivity (EC)

In terms of electrical conductivity, the 5 years old fanya juu terrace had significantly lower value
than the untreated farmland and, 7 and 6 years old fanya juu terraces at P < 0.01 and 0.05,
respectively (Fig. 10 and Annex 10). However, the differences were very small, and values were
too low (mean EC of 0.03 ds/m). As shown in (Annex 11) the electrical conductivity of the 2007
treated cultivated land (0.02), 2008 treated cultivated land (0.02), the 2009 treated cultivated
land (0.02) and untreated cultivated land (0.034) was rated as very low.
soil depth 0-15cm
soil depth 15-30
0.04
0.035
a
a
0.030 a a a
a
0.03
0.025

b
EC(ds/m)

EC(ds/m)

b 0.020
0.02

0.015

0.010
0.01

0.005

0.00 0.000
2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) untreated 2007(treated) 2008(treated) 2009(treated) untreated

Treatements Treatments

Figure 10: Average electrical conductivity values of different treatments on cultivated lands

36
4.3. Socio-economic conditions in the watershed

4.3.1. General socio-economic conditions of community households

The socio-economic conditions of 54 households consisting of 267 persons were surveyed in

the Dejiel watershed. 56 % and 44 % of the household were males and females, respectively.
Data collected showed that socio-economic conditions of the sample community such as level
of income, education and working-age were detrimental to community participation in SWC
practices in the watershed. In this study, household income was one among some of the
important variables that were likely to influence watershed management (Table 4).

Table 4: Household income status of the respondents

Question Response
Fr. % NR NRR
Is your annual agricultural income Yes 22 40.7 54 -
enough to satisfy your No 32
59.3
annual consumption?
If it is not enough, how many months does For 6th months 2 3.7
it cover? 6-9th months 7 13.0
10-11 months 21 38.9
Total 30 55.6
If it is not enough, what other means do Fr. %
you have (according priorities)? First Non-farm 59.3
Means occupation
Second Food aid 42.6
means
Third means FFW

N.B Fr. = Frequency; NR= Number of respondents; NNR= Number of Non-Respondents

In the focus group discussion, the communities ascertained that the current income of the
village community was low due to shortage of land and low land productivity. The household

37
income survey result revealed that each household had 1.377 hectares on average and there
was a significant variation in the size of land holdings among households. Of the sampled
households, 42.2 % owned 0.6-1.0 ha of land and 27.8% of them owned 1.1-1.5 ha. 11.1% of
the sample household had more than 2 ha and only 5.6% of them had ≤ 0.5 ha. The average
crop yield per household was 13.85 quintals per year while the average household size was
5.17. The response of the households, 59.3 of the household heads reflected that their annual
agricultural income was not enough to satisfy their annual food demand (Table 4). According to
the survey, the average number of months the household crop yield could cover their food
demand was only 9.58. The households who had oxen, cows, sheep, hens and donkeys were
85.5%, 82.3%, 53.7%, 55.6% and 72.2%, respectively (Table 5). Households also rarely had goats
(13.1%), horse/mule (9.3%) and bee (5.6%). Since the agricultural income was not sufficient to
cover annual food demand of the households, they were engaged in non-farm occupation
(59.3%) as their first means to satisfy the food deficit while food aid (42.6%) was the second
means (Table 4).

Table 5: Household heads’ domestic animal holding by Village

Animals Village and Response

Yedemgane Enerata Melit Total % NR NNR
Ox 36 35 35 106 85.5 53 1
Cow 23 43 27 93 82.3 51 3
Sheep 35 47 34 116 53.7 29 25
Goat 26 --- --- 41 16.7 9 45
Horse/mule ---- 8 --- 8 9.3 5 49
Donkey 16 9 14 39 72.2 39 15
Hen 30 37 42 109 55.6 30 24
Bee 7 --- --- 7 5.6 3 51

N.B. NR= Number of respondents NNR= Number of Non-Respondents

38
The educational level of the household heads was also low. In the three villages, the
respondents’ educational exercise was church education for long time. The findings of the
survey showed that 83.3% the household heads were illiterate, 11.1% were grade 1- 4 and 5.6%
were grade 5-8 (Fig. 11). With regard to female household heads, all of them were illiterate (Fig.
11).

IIliterate83.3%

1-4th grade
11.1%
5-10th grade
5.6%

Figure 11: Educational level of household heads by

percentage.

Households’ labor supply

In the Dejiel watershed, like in any other subsistence economies, household members were the
suppliers of labor needed for the implementation of the SWC measures, and indeed for the
whole farming operation. The majority of households had adequate supply of labor needed for
the SWC works in their small holdings. Some 55.6% of the total households had 5 to 7 members
and 37% and 7.4% had≤ 4 and 8 to 10 members, respectively, in the family. In addition to
household members, working age of the household was vital in participation of SWC measures
taken in common area. Most of the physical SWC technologies needed a lot of manpower to
construct. The Sampled household working age level in the watershed showed that 53.7% of
the total households were between the age of 35-50 and some 20.4% were between 50-60
years (Fig. 12). These household working age levels were detrimental to the ability to maintain

39
the SWC measures already established and to construct new ones. Enerata Kebelle office of
agriculture organized and established working group composed of one group leader and four
others for implementation of SWC measures in common land area in the watershed.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
18-35 35-50 50-60 >60
years years years years

Figure 12: Household working age level

4.3.2. The Effect of Past - Experience Condition on community participation

SWC measures in the study area particularly the traditional ones were practiced for long time.
However, all the focus groups agreed that SWC was a common practice only in the three
villages since 1991, focusing on land management activities through conventional SWC
measures. Basically, SWC was a communal work intended to solve the common problem
through integrated conservation. Thus, integrated conservation was a method used to
accomplish a task that could not be done by the individual farmer alone.

The household survey showed that 40.7% of the household heads were participated in SWC
activities for 8-10 years while 31.5% of them participated for 10 years and above. The rest
20.4% and 5.6% of the household heads participated in SWC for 6-7 years and 5 years,
respectively (Table 10). Sixty (60) working days were contributed by all the respondents every
year for free in SWC works. As to the selection criteria for contribution, 77.8% of the
households responded that it was based on the amount of resource owned and 20.4% of them
responded against the above criterion (Table 6). The responses of the household heads to what
urged them to take part in the SWC measures were multi-dimensional. Out of the total

40
households, 57.4%, 33.3% and 7.4% of the respondents gave the motivation to government
decision, own willingness and village community decision, respectively (Table 6).

Table 6: Responses of households on their past experiences towards SWC practices

Question Response
Fr. % NR NNR
For how long did you participate 5 years 3 5.6 53 1
in SWCA programs? 6-7 years 11 20.4
8-10 years 22 40.7
>10 years 17 31.5
Is your contribution in SWCA Yes 53 1
42 77.8
based on your capacity?
No
11 20.4

What motivated you to Conditions Own Village Government

contribute? (according to priority willingness community Decision
if more than one conditions) decision
Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % NR NNR
1 18 33.3 4 7.4 31 57.4 53 1
2 19 35.2 16 29.6 18 33.3
3 16 29.6 33 61.1 4 7.4

According to the reaction of the focus group discussions with village community farmers,
several trainings focusing on SWC practices were given. The trainings were mainly focused on
managing farmland, rehabilitating gully lands, nursery management, and business plan
preparation. In line with this, 567 farmers who got the training were able to construct physical
structures and biological measures on their own plot of farmlands properly (on the given
standard and quality) and 70 farmers established their own nursery sites to raise seedlings. 303
farmers and 111 landless youths and women were engaged in managing environments friendly
and underwent farming activities such as rearing sheep, cow, goat, poultry and beehives,
including piloting high land fruit (apple)to generate income generating.

41
Discussions with development agents (DAs) working in the site clearly showed that the local
people were initially against to the idea of the watershed management intervention. Their
resistance stemmed from the fear that the watershed was to be set aside for community
forestry development. Convincing them about the whole purpose of the program took a great
deal of time and involved repeated meetings and thorough discussions. The final option was to
take a few influential farmers, who were selected by the local people themselves to one of the
experimental watersheds of the soil conservation and research project (SCRP), the Anjeni, to
see the outcomes of the watershed management undertaken. Then after, the local people
were then convinced by their representatives.

4.3.3. Community Benefits from SWC

The degree of community participation on SWC was dependent on the extent of tangible
amount of social and economic benefits such as agricultural yield, water supply, wood
production, fodder and other services the community members received as an individual and as
a group.

Focus group discussion results pointed out that the ‘’melit’’ micro-catchment SWC activities
currently conserved highly degraded farmlands affected by wide gully formation with
constructed fanya juu terraces stabilized with tree lucern. This had benefited the community a
lot. According to the survey 64.8% of the households responded that land fertility was
increased to some extent and the response of 20.4% of the households was that land fertility
increased only on farmlands. In terms of crop yield, 59.3% and 20.4% of the household replied
that crop yield was increased to some extent and on their farmlands, respectively. 14.8% of the
households responded that crop yield neither decreased nor increased. However, the focus
group of the village of Enerata was decided that productivity of land didn’t increase because of
soil erosion, shortage of land and repeated tilling.

42
Moreover, 33.3% of the household heads replied that the availability of fodder was increased
and 42.6% of the households replied that fodder availability was increased to some extent in
the catchment (Table 7). Similarly, 74.1% of the household heads said that restoration of
grazing land was increased to some extent. However, 9.3% and 7.4% the households responded
that grazing restoration was increased and highly increased, respectively (Table 7). Besides,
48.1% of the household heads replied that water supply was increased to some extent. 33.3%
of them replied that it neither increased nor decreased and 13% said water supply was
decreased due to SWC practices.

Table 7: The benefits of SWC practices to the community

No. Types of Response
Benefits H.I. In T.S.E. Dec Neither NR NNR
Dec nor
Inc.
1 Land fertility Fr. - 11 35 1 6 53 1
% 20.4 64.8 1.9 11.1
2 Crop yield Fr. - 11 32 2 8 53 1
% 20.4 59.3 3.7 14.8
Fodder and Fr. - 18 23 4 8 53 1
3 grass supply % 33.3 42.6 7.4 14.8
Restoration Fr. - 5 40 4 4 53 1
4 of grazing % 9.3 74.1 7.4 7.4
land
Wood Fr. 2 24 10 6 11 53 1
5 production % 3.7 44.4 18.5 11.1 20.4
Number of Fr. 2 25 13 4 9 53 1
6 Trees % 3.7 40.3 24.1 7.4 16.7
Livelihood Fr. 1 3 20 8 21 53 1
7 security % 1.9 5.6 37 14.8 38.9
Water supply Fr. 2 26 7 18 53 1
(drinking& % 3.7 48.1 13 33.3
8 irrigation.)
9 Flooding Fr. - 9 5 37 2 53 1
% 16.7 9.3 68.5 3.7
10 Soil erosion Fr. 1 1 5 42 4 53 1
% 1.9 1.9 9.3 77.8 7.4

N.B. H.I. = Highly Increased, In. = Increased, T.S.E. = To Some Extent, Dec. = Decreased,
H. Dec. = Highly Decreased

43
Fuel wood was one of the critical problems in the target villages. People used animal dung and
eucalyptus trees grown on their private plot of land. 40.3% of the household heads said that
the numbers of trees were increased. 7.4% and 16.7% of the respondents said wood production
was decreased and neither decreased nor increased, respectively. However, all the respondents
agreed that after soil and water conservation was introduced in Dejiel watershed, at least
degradation and depletion of the natural resource bases was minimized. The household survey
indicated that soil erosion (77.8%) and flooding (68.5%) was decreased (Table 7). In general, all
the households in all focus groups believed that there was fair benefit from SWC activities.

4.3.4. Community Empowerment and Organization

The degree of empowerment of the community i.e power and capacity to make decisions,
control resources and benefits and enforce decisions was detrimental to the degree of
participation in SWC practices.

In this regard, 74.1% of the household heads said that the extent of community participation in
the implementation of SWC plans was high. However, community participation in planning and
designing (61.1%), monitoring and evaluation (64.8%) and taking corrective actions (70.4%) was
low (Table 8).According to the response of the DA’s in focus group discussions, the problem in
community participation was that the village community waited for task assignments and plans
from higher levels. Assignments from higher levels were implemented very soon by the
community. Village conservation work groups were nominated to evaluate weekly physical
work performances at weekly interval while overall annual plans and performances were
evaluated by village administration executive/council.

44
Table 8: Data on CP in the planning process
Question Response
How do you evaluate the extent of your V.H Hi. Fair Low V.L. NR NN
community participation in SWCM taking R
the following indicators?
Planning and designing Fr. - - 9 33 11 53 1
% - - 16.7 61.1 20.4
Implementing Fr. 2 40 10 1 - 53 1
% 3.7 74.1 18.5 1.9 -
Monitoring and evaluation Fr. - 3 12 35 3 53 1
% - 5.6 22.2 64.8 5.6
Taking corrective action Fr. - - 11 38 4 53 1
% - - 20.4 70.4 7.4

N.B. V.H. = Very High, Hi. = High, V.L. = Very Low

The strength of community participation was evaluated by the capacity, commitment and
democratic nature of the village leadership. With this regard, 61.2 % and 51.9% of the
household responded that village leaders were capable and committed, respectively, to lead
and coordinate SWCM activities (Table 9).Those household heads who replied that current
village leaders were incapable and not committed forwarded possible reasons for their
weaknesses such as lack of training (18.5%), lack of incentives (13.%) and lack of resources
(11.1%). Furthermore, all village focus groups were agreed on the responses of the households
who said that the leaders were capable and committed to lead and coordinate the activities of
the villages. As far as decisions on resource commitment were concerned, the village
community contributed labor and land resource.

45
Table 9: Data on community empowerment and organization
Questions Response
What are the village  Village level government executive
community organizations  Agricultural executive
directly responsible for SWC  “One to five” group
management?
To what extent are the Fr. % |NR NNR
village community powerful 42 77.7 54
organizations powerful in
SWCM? Moderately 11 20.4
powerful
Less powerful 1 1.9
Are your village leaders capable 33 61.2 54
capable to lead and Fairly capable 18 33.3
coordinate SWC Incapable 3 5.6
management activities?
What about their Yes 28 51.9 54
commitment? Fairly 23 42.6
No 3 5.6
If incapable and not Conditions Lack of lack of corruption lack of NR NNR
committed, what is the Training incentive supplies
problem/s (put according Fr. % Fr. % Fr. % Fr. %
priority)?
1 10 18.5 9 16.7 2 3.7 6 11.1 27 27
2 7 13 7 13 7 13 6 9.7
3 8 14.8 6 11.1 7 13 6 11.1
4 3 5.6 5 9.3 11 20.4 8 14.8

4.3.5. Unity and Solidarity of the Village Community

Effective community participation was also influenced by cohesiveness and solidarity of the
community members. Most of the focus groups agreed that small group was manageable but
might suffer from resource limitation.

The survey result showed that 22.2% of the household heads replied that most of the
community members did not participate in SWC activities. 57.4% of the respondents replied
that only small number of community members did not participate. In addition, 59.3% of the
respondents said that there were sometimes conflicts in the process related to grazing land and
common ponds. This was also confirmed by the responses of the village community focus group

46
discussions and only 9.3% of them said that there were no conflicts (Table 10).The focus groups
and 66.7% of the household respondents indicated that government rules were applied to solve
conflicts. In general, the solidarity and cohesiveness of the village community towards collective
action in SWC was low.

Table 10: Responses on unity and solidarity of the village community members
Questions Response
Fr. % NR NNR
Do all village community Yes 11 20.4 54
members equally participate Small no. don’t 31
and contribute in SWC participate 57.4
activities? No 12 22.2
What are the methods of Village rules/norms 16 29.6 54
controlling of those who fail to Government rules 36
participate? 66.7
No controlling 2
mechanism 3.7
Are there conflicts including Yes 17 54
use of the commons such as 31.5
grazing land and sometimes 32 59.3
water sharing? No 5
9.3
What conflict resolving Steps 51 3
procedures/steps Mediation 36 66.7
are in practice in your village? Court decisions at 15 27.8
all levels

In this survey, 88.9% of the respondents replied that the implemented conservation works fairly
decreased land degradation and forest destruction while 11.1% of them said no observed
change on land degradation (Table 11). 18.5% and 59.3% of the respondents believed that their
livelihood was improved and fairly improved, respectively, by the SWC measures. However,
22.2% of the respondents believed their livelihood was not improved by the SWC measures
(Table 14). Likewise, all focus groups responded that the livelihood of the community members
was improved to some extent by SWC. They said that the improvements were evidently seen in
the quality of housing, and feeding.

47
Table 11: Responses of sample households on concluding remarks
Question Response
Fr. % NR NRR
To what extent have SWC Highly - - 54
activities carried out so far Decreased
decreased the degree of land Decreased 48 88.9
degradation and plant depletion? No change 6 11.1
Increased - -

Do SWCA activities carried out so Yes 10 18.5 54

far brought about a significant Fairly 32
improvement in your livelihood? 59.3
No 12 22.2
Are you willing and committed to Conditions Willingness Willingness Willingness NR NNR
continue with the conservation, to work on to work on to work on
maintenance, protection and farmland grazing land closure area
expansion of SWCA activities on Fr. % Fr. % 54
your own farmland if FFW and Fr. %
Other assistances are Yes
discontinued? 51 94.4 32 59.3 35 64.8
No
3 5.6 22 40.7 19 35.2

Moreover, 94.4% of the households responded that they were willing and committed to
continue with the conservation, maintenance, protection and expansion of SWC activities on
their own farm land if assistances were continued from responsible government bodies (able
14).The respondents also believed that village community were willing to conserve water in
common closures, treat gullies that affected common interest and conserve churches. In
contrast, 59.3% of them responded that they were not willing to undergo conservation
measures on communal grazing lands and 64.8 % on closures (Table 11). Similarly, responses of
the focus group discussion revealed that farmers were not capable, willing and committed to
continue the conservation, protection, maintenance and expansion of off-farm conservation
works. In conclusion, all focus group members believed that the SWC management carried on
so far decreased the degree of land degradation and forest destruction.

48
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION
5.1. Technical sustainability

5.1.1. Performance of Fanya juu Terraces

Terrace cross-section: According to MSCFSO stuff and DA’s response, Contour lines were used
to implement SWC technology in Dejiel watershed. The contour lines were graded which is
important in the area, which has high annual rainfall. During the present assessment the
contour lines of constructed fanya juu terraces were measured to evaluate whether prepared
contour lines met the same elevation (water level) and whether the lines were graded or not. A
total of 80 contour lines were checked and 63 contour lines matched with graded lines which is
78%. The main advantage of graded fanya juu is to divert excess runoff and become a bench
terrace in a short number of years if frequent maintenance is applied (MoARD, 2005).

In the study area, the measured fanya juu terrace height and ditch depth were significantly
different compared with the standard recommendation provided by Ministry of Agriculture.
The structures will no longer be effective unless they are immediately maintained. With 12.4
cm average Fanya juu height (recommended height being 60 cm), it is possible that soil
sediments accumulate on the edge of the embankments for the process of bench terraces.
However, unless the soil sediment accumulated in the fanya juu ditch is dug out from time to
time and used to increase the height of the embankment, bench terraces will not be formed
which is what is found in the study area. The existing height condition might be explained in
two ways, the first one could be that upgrading of fanya juu was not implemented by farmers
for four consecutive years and the second one could be that, during initial implementation of
fanya juu enough amount of soil was not dug out to rise the embankment height to the
recommended standard (i.e., 60 cm).

49
Drainage capacity of fanya juu ditch: Evaluation of depth fanya juu ditches revealed that
almost all ditches were filled with sediment. According to MoARD (2005) fanya juu need to be
upgraded to become level terraces 1-2 years from construction, and the upgrading should use
soil accumulated in the ditches below the bund. Most of the surveyed ditch’s depth was too
short and fulfills only 9.16% of the recommended fanya juu ditch depth (0.6m). It is, therefore,
critical that the existing fanya juu terraces constructed on the farmland of Dejiel watershed
need immediate maintenance.

Fanya juu terraces spacing

Whenever one tries to design a given fanya juu special emphasis should be given to the vertical
interval, as it is a key parameter. This is because, if vertical interval between successive fanya
juu is wider than the recommended value, huge amount of runoff with high velocity will
accumulate on the fanya juu’s bund leading to destruction of the embankment. According to
MoARD (2005) the distance between bunds depends upon the slope and may range from 5 m
apart on steeply sloping lands to 20 m apart in more gently sloping land. Hurni (1988) stated
that on 15% slope with a moderately deep soil, the recommended spacing is 12m between
structures and the vertical interval should be 1.7m.

In the study area, constructed fanya juu, on average slope of 15.5% farmland, had a spacing of
40m at maximum and 6.5m at minimum with an average of 17.8m between consecutive
terraces. A result of such wide spacing is the distraction of the structure, and the formation of
new rills and gullies which intern aggravate soil erosion (land degradation). It is obvious that
unless farmers agree to construct terraces with narrow spacing, there will be a limitation of
agricultural production.

50
5.1.2. SWC Evaluation of Closure areas
Capacity of Trenches
It is widely known that trench technologies are productive with biological treatment and this
has been observed in the present study at Terarit sub-watershed, which covers 36 hectare
owned by 47 household heads. The community participated in constructing trenches (more
than 225 trenches), and micro basins planted with seedling such as Acacia malanaxilon, Acacia
decurrence, Cupresses lustanica in 2009 and 2010. During the survey of closure area, it is
possible to ascertain that indigenous trees and shrubs such as Carissa spinarum, Rosa
abyssinica, Albizia gummifera, Acacia abyssinica) had naturally rehabilitated because the area
was protected from the interception of humans and livestock. The performance of existing
sampled trenches can be described as good in conservation of sediment and moisture since the
ground area is completely covered by grass. According to DA’s response the community gets
benefits from closure area through grasses for fodder (cut and carry system), also protecting
downstream farmlands from unwanted runoff during rainy seasons. The existing trenches,
although it has been four years since construction, they have not been upgraded once.
Sediment deposition increases from year to year in the collection ditches, which directly affects
percolation capacity in time of high amount of rainfall. Runoff that cannot be hold by the
ditches will damage the trenches embankment, making it important that the trenches be
upgraded.

Trenches spacing: In principle, the spacing should decrease as slope gradient increases. The
recommended standard vertical interval between consecutive trenches ranges 3 to 5 m. In
areas with high amount of rainfall 3 meters vertical interval is appropriate and 5 meters is
recommended in areas with low rainfall. In this respect as the study area gains 1300mm of
rainfall annually, vertical interval between consecutive trenches should be 3 meters in order to
break runoff velocity and hold runoff for percolation (MoARD, 2005). However, trenches
implemented by the farmers have shown increased trend of vertical interval for steeper slopes.
The spacing between existing trenches was between 5 and 13 m with an average of 7 m. The
wide spacing has caused damages and instable bund structures which leads to greater runoff
concentration and lose of water and sediments through excessive erosion.

51
5.2. Environmental sustainability
The values of soil nutrients of the treated cultivated lands in general were lower than that of
the untreated area for all except in the available phosphorus values. The amount of organic
carbon differed significantly among the treatments. Untreated treatment had high OC
compared with the 2007 and 2008 treated areas. It was revealed by the farmers that the
intensity of farming was much higher in the treated areas. It is possible that continuous
withdrawal of nutrients from the soil resulting from continuous crop production activity
without proper physical and biological SWC measures may have resulted in the lower values of
nutrients. As little maintenance was applied by the farmers on the constructed structures the
situation may have aggravated the reduction of soil fertility. Total nitrogen also showed similar
result between the treated cultivated land and the untreated area. This might be related with
the soil organic matter content. Tideman (1996) indicated that, chemically, organic matter is
the soil source of nitrogen.

Generally, the pH values of the soils of the study area were found to be a little acidic with a
mean pH value of 5.7. The pH of a soil in can be attributed to the type of parent material,
extent of soil erosion or the leaching of bases as a result of climatic factors. The four types of
treatments 2007, 2008 and 2009 which are treated cultivated land and untreated cultivated
land had soil pH of 5.7, 5.8, 5.7, and 5.5, respectively. The pH indicated slightly less acidic value
on untreated area as compared to treated areas. It is possible that due to the leaching down of
exchangeable bases through runoff we may have an increase in soil pH in the intensively
cultivated treated farmland areas.

In the case of available phosphorus content, no significance difference was found between
treated and untreated cultivated land. But the available phosphorous mean value in all
cultivated land was found to be low except for the 2009 treated farmland (14.5 ppm), perhaps
due to higher DAP fertilizer application on this area.

The results of the chemical analysis show that, among the treated land areas there was
statistically significant difference between the 2007 treated and 2009 treated cultivated land in

52
organic matter content, electrical conductivity and available phosphorous. The same was true
between the 2008 treated and 2009 treated areas except in organic matter content. But there
is no significant difference among the treated treatments (2007, 2008 and 2009) in total
nitrogen and pH value. The reasons for the variations may be local site differences in the area.

5.3. Socio-economic condition

In Dejiel watershed area, the socio-economic status of the community is poor. High numbers of
the households in the studied villages are characterized by low income and illiteracy. According
to Oakley et al. (1991), the low level of income limits the degree of participation of households
in community activities. Half of the households in the study area are unable to feed themselves
for the whole year with their own agricultural production (are not self – sustained). As a result
of this, they engaged themselves in non-farming activities. Furthermore, Community members
believe that their level of understanding, skill and attitude toward the long-term benefit is
partly a reflection of their level of education. There are also inadequate health services that in
turn limit the participation of the community particularly in the physical conservation works.

5.4. Past experience situation and community benefits

The survey result showed that there is general understanding in the community that the SWC
works have multi-dimensional benefits to the society. It is possible to say that the benefits
earned are fair as compared to the seriousness of the natural resource degradation and low
level of community livelihood. The SWC measures undertaken helped to mitigate and prevent
the further deterioration and depletion of the natural resources (soil, water and plants). Had it
not been for the massive mobilization and commitment of the community, the current
environmental and economic condition would have been worse. There are certain
improvements such as decreased flooding and erosion, improved closures and gullies.
However, the benefits are not yet satisfactory.

5.5. Community empowerment and organization

The village community is organized under the government structure at all levels. This
government organization is responsible for all government policies, plans and programs, and

53
community matters. Despite some issues raised, community leaders are capable and
committed to lead and coordinate SWC activities in the studied villages. The leaders are not
paid and work voluntarily.

The village community has no the opportunity to act upon village initiated tasks and programs.
However, members are dedicated to work for the community 60 working days already decided
by the government. The community does not make any resource contribution to SWC activities;
it rather expects more external support. Therefore, the community empowerment is generally
low. Likewise, it is difficult to say that the village administration is powerful and free because it
has no its own plans for the benefit and improvement of the community. On the other hand,
the village community relationship is also solid and cohesive though there are conflicts in some
cases. These conflicts are solved through discussion/mediation and court decision at all levels
depending on the nature and magnitude of the conflict.

5.6. Monitoring and evaluation

The existing monitoring and evaluation system is limited to the SWC intervention not to the
outcomes of the interventions. The large-scale SWC activities emphasized more on the
construction of physical structures with little attention paid to their impact on land productivity
and improvement in the community livelihood. There is no reported quantitative and
qualitative data used to show the change. The evaluation practices carried on so far measure
the SWC works accomplished such as number of people mobilized in terms of person per days,
length of terraces constructed, number of pits dug and seedlings planted and number of ponds
constructed, wells developed, etc. No measure is made to show the change in soil fertility, crop
yield, water supply and utilization, closure products (such as grass and trees), flood and erosion,
grazing land, etc. So, SWC impact assessment should be made as a working tool to see what can
be measured, should be measured, recorded and reported.

54
 CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1. Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to analyze the sustainability of SWC measures practiced in
cultivated land and closure area by evaluating the technical standard of constructed SWC
technologies, assessing terracing in maintaining soil fertility and evaluating the communities’
socio-economic condition with the aim of CBWSM in Dejiel watershed.
• Trenches implemented on closure areas in general were in good condition as compared
to the standard. However, the widely constructed SWC structure, fanya juu terrace on
cultivated land, characterized by back height, collection ditch width and depth, and
vertical interval between successive terraces were significantly lower than the
technically recommended standard. This implies that the structure installed was weak
and thus will have short life span and couldn’t stop land degradation.
• The impact of SWC measures on cultivated land soil fertility revealed that total nitrogen
were not improved significantly. Nevertheless, values of soil organic matter, soil pH,
electrical conductivity and available phosphorous were found to have significant
differences between treatments. SWC structures installed earlier improved soil fertility
on cultivated lands.
• The soil samples from the non-treated cultivated land showed better soil fertility
content in all chemical properties as compared to the treated ones except available
phosphorous content. This implies the need to do more work on the treated cultivated
land in terms of maintaining the constructed SWC technologies (fanya juu, cut off drain)
and construct new cutoff drain and artificial waterways.
• It is true that the large mass mobilization to undertake SWC measures has minimized
erosion, flooding and soil degradation in the farmlands, even if it was less successful as
compared to the off-farm conservation (closures). The problem for the low success was

55
 that most of the individual farmers did not take the major responsibilities to conserve,
maintain and protect their plot of land. Off-farm conservation (Closures) was found to
be effective in conserving and rehabilitating the catchment areas.
• The closures were covered by grasses and trees (natural and replanted) and farmers
started to harvest grasses for animal fodder. Therefore, closure areas are providing both
environmental and economic advantages for the community.
• Trench bunds in the closures helped to retain water and increase percolation into the
soil that in turn increases the ground water.
• The community members believed that SWC practices in the area transferred technical
knowledge that enabled them to construct SWC structures and conserve their land on
their own. The result of the survey indicated that the sustainability of SWC activities
would be achieved by the active participation of all stakeholders mainly member of the
community. The problem of fitness of the technologies to the farmers’ requirements
and the farming system circumstances is partly a reflection of a problem in the approach
followed in the planning and implementation of the SWC measures.

6.2. Recommendation
• Local governments should work harder to implement appropriately existing land use
policy, regulation and directives.
• Standardized soil and water conservation measures should be practiced in the study
catchment with a full consensus and participation of the dwellers.
• Improving popular participation: sustainable soil and water conservation will be
achieved through the participation of local people. So emphasis should be given to this.
• The existing monitoring and evaluation system is limited to the SWC intervention in
which large-scale SWC activities emphasized more on the construction of physical
structures. There should be consistent assessment with the farmers’ participation on
their own land focusing impact on land productivity and improvement in the community
livelihood.
• Further studies should be made to get more information about the soil fertility status of
the cultivated land and other related impacts on the dwellers on the study catchment.

56
 REFERENCES

Amsalu A, de Graaff J (2007).Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces

for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological
Economics, 61(2-3):294-302.
Anonymous (1980). Ethiopian forest and wildlife conservation and development proclamation,
Negarit Gazeta No. 192/1980, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Asefa DT, Oba G, Weladji RB, Colman JE (2003). An assessment of restoration of biodiversity in
degraded High Mountain grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. Land Degradation and
Development, 14(1):25-38.
Ashby, J. (1996). What do we mean by participatory research in agriculture: participatory
research and gender analysis for technology development, CIAT Publication No. 294,
Cali, Colombia.

Awortwi, N. (1999). The Riddle of Community Development: Factors Influencing Organization,

Participation and Self-Management. ISS Working Paper No. 287, The Hague: Institute of
Social Studies Publication Office.

Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega ,F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., Mathijs, E. (2009).The
economic contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern
Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(2):109-117.
Badege, B (2001) Deforestation and land degradation in the Ethiopian highlands: A strategy for
physical recovery. Northeast African Studies, ISSN 0740-9133, 8(1):7-26.
Bai, Z. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L., and Schaepman, M. E. (2008). Global assessment of land
degradation and improvement 1: identification by remote sensing, Report 2008/01,
FAO/ISRIC, Rome/Wageningen.
Belay Simane, Benjamin, F. Z. and Mutlu, O, (2013). Agroecosystem Analysis of the Choke
Mountain Watersheds, Ethiopia. Sustainability ISSN 2071-1050, pp. 596-598.

57
Bewket Amede (2010). Local Level Analysis of Farmers Adaptation to Climate Change and
variability: The case of Choke Mountain. East Gojjam: Unpublished MA Thesis in Addis
Ababa University, Ethiopia.

BoA (1997). Regional Conservation Strategy, Volumes I–III. BoA, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 254 pp.
Brady, N.C. (1985). The Nature and Properties of Soil.8th ed. Eurasia Publishing House Ltd.New
Delhi, India.
Carney, D., Farrington, J. (1998).Natural resources management and institutional change,
Routledge, London.
Cochran, W. (1977). Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. John Wiley and sons. USA.

FAO (2004).Methodological framework for land degradation assessment in dry-lands.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/lada/LADA-Methframwk-simple.pdf. Cited 12 Feb 2011
Organization site.
Feoli, E, Vuerich, LG and Zerihum W (2002).Evaluation of environmental degradation in
northern Ethiopia using GIS to integrate vegetation, geomorphological, erosion and socio-
economic factors. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 91(1- 3):313-325.
Gebreegziabher T, Nyssen J, Bram G, Fekadu G, Behailu M, Haile M, Deckers J (2009) Contour
furrows for in-situ soil and water conservation, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Soil and
Tillage Research, 103(2):257-264.
Hengsdijk H, Meijerink GW, Mosugu ME (2005) Modeling the effect of three soil and water
conservation practices in Tigray, Ethiopia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
105(1-2):29-40.
Herweg K, Ludi E (1999) The performance of selected soil and water conservation measures
case studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena, 36(1):99-114.
Hurni H (1988). Degradation and conservation of the resources in Ethiopian highlands.
Mountain Res. Dev. Stud. 8(2/3): 123-30.
Hurni H (1993). Land degradation, famines and resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimentel
(ed.) World soil erosion and conservation. Cambridge University Press,pp27-62.

58
MSCFSO, (2010).Dejiel Sub-Watershed Rehabilitation in Gozamin Woreda of Amhara Region,
annual progress report; year two.

MSCFSO, (2011).Dejiel Sub-Watershed Rehabilitation in Gozamin Woreda of Amhara Region,

annual progress report; year three.

Mekuria W., Veldkamp, E., Haile, M., Nyssen, J., Muys, B., and Gebrehiwot, K.
(2007).Effectiveness of exclosures to restore degraded soils as a result of overgrazing in
Tigray, Ethiopia.Journal of Arid Environments, 69(2):270-284.

Mekuria, W., Veldkamp, E., Tilahun, M. and Olschewski, R. (2011) Economic valuation of land
restoration: The case of exclosures established on communal grazing land in Tigray,
Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development, 22(3):334-344.
MoARD (2005). Community Based Participatory Watershed Development: A Guideline. Addis
Ababa Ethiopia.
MulugetaLemenih (2004).Effects of Landuse Change on Soil Quality and Native Flora
Degradation and Restoration in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Implication for Sustainable
Land Management. Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Uppsala, Sweden.

Nana-Sinkam SC (1995). Land and environmental degradation and desertification in Africa,

ECA/FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5318E/x5318e02.htm. Cited 20 Mar 2010 FAO
site.

Nyssen, J. Mitiku Haile, Jan Moeyersons, Jean Poesen and Jozef Deckers (2004). Environmental
policy in Ethiopia: a rejoinder to Keeley and Scoones. The Journal of Modern African
Studies, 42, pp 137-147. doi:10.1017/S0022278X03004518.
Oakley, Peter el al., (1991).Projects With People: The practices, participation in rural
development. Geneva: International Labor Office.
Paul, D. K. (1997). Rain-fed farming system development in India: retrospect and prospect, In:
Katyal, J, C., Farrington, J., Research for rain-fed farming, Overseas Development
Institute, London.

59
Prasannakumar V, Vijith H, Abinod S, Geetha N (2012). Estimation of soil erosion risk within a
small mountainous sub-watershed in Kerala, India, using revised universal soil loss
equation (RUSLE) and geo-information technology. Geoscience Frontiers, 3(2):209-215.
Pretty, J. N. and P. Shah, (1996).Making Soil and Water Conservation Sustainable: From
Coercion and Control to Partnerships and Participation. Land Degradation and
Development, Vol. 8. 39-58, (1997). London: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Scherr, SJ (1999).Soil degradation, a threat to developing-country food security by 2020? Food,
agriculture and the environment discussion paper 27. International Food Policy
Research Institute 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington DC 20006- 1002 USA, pp 13-45.
Shimeles, D. (2012). Effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures for land restoration
in the Wello area, northern Ethiopian highlands: Ecology and Development Series No.
89.
Soil Conservation Research Programme, (1996). Data base report (1982-1993), Series II:
Gununo Research Unit, University of Berne, Berne.
Sutcliffe, (1993).Economic Assessment of Land Degradation in the Ethiopian Highlands.
Tamene L, Vlek PLG, Park SJ, Dikau R (2006).Analysis of factors determining sediment yield
variability in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Geomorphology, 76:76-91.
Tideman, E. (1996). Watershed management. Guideline for Indian condition. Omega Scientific
Publishers. New Delhi, India.
Turner R. K., (1993). “Sustainability: Principles and Practice,” in R. Kerry Turner, ed.,
Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and practice. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
USAID, 2000.Amhara National Regional State food security research assessment report.
Available at: http://crsps.org/amhara/amhara_rpt.PDF.
Vancampenhout K, Nyssen J, Gebremichael D, Deckers J, Poesen J, Haile M, Moeyersons J
(2006). Stone bunds for soil conservation in the northern Ethiopian highlands: Impacts
on soil fertility and crop yield. Soil and Tillage Research, 90(1-2):1-15.

60
Vlek PLG, Le BQ, Tamene L (2008). Land decline in land-rich Africa. A creeping disaster in the
making. Center for development research (ZEF) University of Bonn, Science Council and
CGIAR, pp 12-54 Watersheds, Ethiopia. SustainabilityISSN 2071-1050, pp. 596-598.
Woldamlak Bewket (2007). Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional
technologies in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by
farmers. Land Use Policy, 24:404-416.
Wils, Frits, (2001). Empowerment and its evaluation: a framework for analysis and application.
ISS working papers No. 340. Hague: ISS.
Zewdu Eshetu (2004). Natural 15N abundance in soils under young-growth forests in Ethiopia.
Forest Ecology and Management, 187(2-3):139-147.

61
APPENDICES
Annex 1: Result of SWC evaluation of fanya juu parameter
Melit sub-watershed
No. Slope Back side fanya juu Collection ditch of the fanya juu V.I b/n
b/n f j height(m) Width(m) Depth(m) fanya juus
H1 H2 H3 H W1 W2 W3 W D1 D2 D3 D (m)
1 6.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
2 13.07 0.065 0.05 0.068 0.061 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
3 14.69 0.075 0.08 0.085 0.08 0.35 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.035 0.05 0.045 0.043 11
4 16.00 0.1 0.12 0.115 0.111 0.24 0.35 0.45 0.346 0.045 0.035 0.04 0.04 29
5 11.54 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.35 0.20 0.58 0.376 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.063 10
6 6.91 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.095 0.40 0.55 0.44 0.463 0.07 0.05 0.065 0.061 11
7 4.53 0.12 0.13 0.1 0.116 0.30 0.30 0.39 0.33 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.053 7.5
8 8.45 0.085 0.105 0.09 0.093 0.50 0.55 0.35 0.466 0.06 0.07 0.055 0.061 28
9 5.14 0.08 0.11 0.85 0.346 0.34 0.30 0.35 0.33 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.045 11.5
10 16.3 0.12 0.115 0.115 0.116 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.266 0.05 0.055 0.06 0.055 12
11 19.2 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.096 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.316 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 8.5
12 21.64 0.075 0.095 0.088 0.086 0.24 0.30 0.35 0.296 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 7
13 25.4 0.065 0.07 0.05 0.061 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
14 28.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
15 32.5 0.085 0.12 0.1 0.101 0.50 0.75 0.60 0.616 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 22.5
16 35.43 0.075 0.09 0.07 0.078 0.43 0.60 0.35 0.46 0.05 0.04 0.045 0.045 18
17 22.6 0.08 0.085 0.08 0.081 0.54 0.35 0.30 0.396 0.06 0.055 0.06 0.058 16
18 16.74 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.4 0.05 0.055 0.055 0.053 14
19 18.75 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.383 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 11
20 15.32 0.095 0.11 0.083 0.096 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.366 0.045 0.04 0.03 0.038 12
21 13.05 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.076 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.316 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 13
22 7.23 0.125 0.13 0.135 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.3 0.045 0.045 0.03 0.04 15
23 5.34 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.103 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.045 0.04 0.03 0.038 20
24 8.45 0.075 0.075 0.065 0.071 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
25 4.72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
26 7.05 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.113 0.30 0.35 0.24 0.296 0.045 0.06 0.05 0.051 11
27 15.41 0.115 0.12 0.095 0.11 0.25 0.30 0.38 0.31 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.055 12
28 11.94 0.08 0.1 0.085 0.088 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.096 18
29 15.00 0.195 0.18 0.18 0.185 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.4 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.07 12
30 13.2 0.11 0.145 0.12 0.125 0.35 0.50 0.44 0.43 0.08 0.035 0.03 0.048 6.5
31 9.31 0.21 0.2 0.195 0.201 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.366 0.07 0.08 0.045 0.065 6.5
32 6.55 0.165 0.175 0.175 0.171 0.30 0.34 0.31 0.316 0.05 0.045 0.11 0.068 12
33 7.183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
34 13.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
35 15.87 0.1 0.13 0.12 0.116 0.38 0.30 0.37 0.35 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.07 12
36 17.21 0.05 0.65 0.06 0.253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
37 16.46 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.056 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.316 0.045 0.05 0.045 0.046 7
38 18.16 0.1 0.115 0.11 0.108 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.333 0.04 0.045 0.03 0.038 8
39 26.37 0.07 0.075 0.085 0.076 0.38 0.30 0.36 0.346 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.043 7.5

62
40 28.52 0.085 0.1 0.09 0.091 0.38 0.50 0.33 0.403 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.053 8
41 31.54 0.095 0.135 0.08 0.103 0.30 0.34 0.30 0.313 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05
42 29.64 0.185 0.19 0.17 0.181 0.34 0.40 0.45 0.396 0.09 0.085 0.09 0.088 16
43 24.98 0.215 0.22 0.2 0.211 0.40 0.42 0.35 0.39 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.063 12
44 21.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
45 18.77 0.18 0.18 0.165 0.175 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.433 0.07 0.10 0.085 0.085 15.5
46 16.83 0.11 0.145 0.13 0.128 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.085 23
47 15.97 0.11 0.12 0.1 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.3 0.05 0.065 0.065 0.06 11
48 12.00 0.08 0.13 0.095 0.101 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.045 0.04 0.041 14
49 8.72 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.126 0.43 0.35 0.30 0.36 0.03 0.04 0.035 0.035 11
50 5.65 0.115 0.1 0.095 0.103 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.035 0.04 0.035 0.036
51 6.90 0.08 0.1 0.075 0.085 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15.5
52 9.41 0.135 0.14 0.15 0.141 0.34 0.55 0.45 0.446 0.08 0.075 0.06 0.071 21
53 11.41 0.19 0.205 0.18 0.191 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.496 0.075 0.06 0.08 0.071 15
54 13.5 0.21 0.18 0.2 0.196 0.26 0.24 0.35 0.283 0.045 0.05 0.065 0.053 43
55 16.7 0.15 0.15 0.125 0.141 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.316 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.046 17
56 18.00 0.105 0.14 0.145 0.13 0.35 0.30 0.32 0.323 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.036 16
57 15.34 0.135 0.165 0.17 0.156 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.316 0.07 0.09 0.085 0.081 17
58 12.71 0.155 0.16 0.15 0.155 0.35 0.56 0.35 0.42 0.045 0.08 0.045 0.056 40
59 14.97 0.115 0.125 0.11 0.116 0.49 0.34 0.35 0.393 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.063 17
60 17.86 0.165 0.18 0.175 0.173 0.43 0.51 0.60 0.513 0.03 0.055 0.03 0.038 26
61 19.69 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.193 0.30 0.35 0.59 0.413 0.067 0.07 0.05 0.062 13
62 24.34 0.2 0.185 0.21 0.198 0.30 0.40 0.45 0.383 0.06 0.08 0.055 0.065 11
63 27.84 0.12 0.15 0.155 0.141 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.366 0.045 0.04 0.06 0.048 22
64 23.56 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.133 0.40 0.55 0.48 0.476 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.076 10
65 19.47 0.115 0.1 0.11 0.108 0.40 0.43 0.40 0.41 0.04 0.035 0.045 0.04 8
66 16.53 0.165 0.18 0.18 0.175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
67 13.21 0.11 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.38 0.30 0.32 0.333 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.043 15
68 8.91 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.47 0.30 0.30 0.356 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.156 12
69 6.49 0.125 0.14 0.165 0.143 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.6 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.046 22
70 12.00 0.1 0.125 0.1 0.108 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.3 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 17
71 12.67 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.143 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.333 0.04 0.035 0.035 0.036 18
72 9.59 0.16 0.19 0.185 0.178 0.30 0.34 0.30 0.313 0.10 0.125 0.11 0.111 13
73 8.84 0.2 0.2 0.19 0.196 0.45 0.45 0.30 0.4 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.126 12
74 7.51 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.30 0.45 0.43 0.393 0.09 0.085 0.09 0.088 10
75 6.87 0.155 0.18 0.175 0.17 0.40 0.45 0.30 0.383 0.065 0.075 0.075 0.071 8
76 11.85 0.16 0.2 0.18 0.18 0.44 0.50 0.55 0.496 0.08 0.09 0.085 0.085 20
77 9.82 0.15 0.2 0.24 0.196 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.5 0.105 0.145 0.105 0.118 17
78 7.00 0.145 0.18 0.21 0.178 0.30 0.35 0.45 0.366 0.075 0.08 0.75 0.301 11
79 8.59 0.135 0.14 0.1 0.125 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.333 0.04 0.035 0.035 0.036 7
80 10.17 0.095 0.11 0.1 0.101 0.43 0.4 0.35 0.393 0.065 0.06 0.55 0.225
Average 15.56 0.124 0.321 0.055 17.08
Sta.de 9.95 0.059 0.151 0.045 8.26

63
Annex 2: Result of SWC evaluation of Trench parameter
Terarit Watershed
F.jno Slope b/nF Trenches (first column) V.I
j (runoff Collection ditch) between
Length(m) Width(m) Depth(m) fanya juus
L1 L2 L3 L W1 W2 W3 W D1 D2 D3 D
1 25.58 4 3 3 3.333 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.37 5
2 32.95 3 3.5 3 3.166 0.5 0.47 0.45 0.473 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 10
3 27.19 3 3 3 3 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.466 0.38 0.30 0.40 0.36 8
4 23.81 3 3 3 3 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.516 0.35 0.30 0.40 0.35 10
5 26.21 4 3 4.5 3.833 0.40 0.45 0.48 0.443 0.30 0.37 0.38 0.35 8
6 19.21 3 3 3 3 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.366 0.35 0.38 0.35 0.36 7
7 21.04 3 5 3 3.666 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.346 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.31 6
8 15.49 3 3 4.5 3.5 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.483 0.26 0.30 0.38 0.31 8
9 12.83 3 3 3 3 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.493 0.18 0.20 0.25 0.21 8
10 11.84 4.5 3 3 3.5 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.416 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.22 5
11 10.47 3 4 4 3.666 0.30 0.40 0.45 0.383 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.18
12 35.45 3.5 3 4 3.5 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.333 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.31 8
13 30 3 4 3 3.333 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.333 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.3 9
14 28.96 3 3.5 3 3.166 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.393 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.31 9
15 22.14 3.5 4 3 3.5 0.40 0.43 0.45 0.426 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.31 6
16 18.19 3 3 3 3 0.42 0.45 0.40 0.423 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.28 8
17 23.07 3 3 3 3 0.35 0.38 0.30 0.343 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 10
18 15.19 4 3 3.5 3.5 0.41 0.45 0.35 0.403 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.25 13
19 13.83 3.5 5 4 4.166 0.45 0.48 0.50 0.476 0.35 0.35 0.21 0.25 7.5
20 25.68 4 3 3 3.333 0.43 0.50 0.38 0.436 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.3 8
21 16.72 4 3 3 3.333 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.28 13
22 13.19 3 3.5 3.5 3.333 0.46 0.44 0.40 0.433 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.33 10
23 15.96 4 3.5 3.5 3.666 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.483 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.28 12
24 12.89 5 3.5 4 4.166 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.443 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 6
25 14.87 3 3 3 3 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.463 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.28 8
26 11.49 3 3 3 3 0.40 0.45 0.42 0.423 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.29 6
27 15.57 3 3 3.5 3.166 0.45 0.40 0.43 0.426 0.24 0.24 0.35 0.29 7
28 13.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05
29 12.58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Av. 19.50759 3.132 0.395 0.28 7.60
St.dev 7.069 0.928 0.121 0.09 3.00

64
Annex 3: Household based questionnaire

Household level questionnaire developed on technical, social, economical, and environmental

aspects of Dejiel watershed, Gozamene Woreda, East Gojam, Amhara Regional State.

Instruction
Encircle or use tick mark or write the answer as may be necessary to indicate your appropriate
response.

A. GENERAL
Date_________
1. Region: Amhara
2. Zone: East Gojjam
3. Woreda/District: Gozamene
4. Tabia/Kebelle: Enerata
5. Village __________________
6. Sex 1. M 2. F
7. Age _____
8. Level of education ____________________
9. Family size _________
10. Size of landholding (in hectares)
1. Own _____ 2. Rented ______ 3. Others _____
11. Household economic condition
1. Income in Birr or quintals ______ 2. Oxen ________ 3. Cows
4. Goat _______ 5. Sheep _______ 6. Horse and mule _______
7. Donkey _______ 8. Hen ________ 9.Bees ____ 10. Camel _____
12. Is your annual agricultural income enough to satisfy your annual consumption?
1. Yes 2. No
13. If your answer is no, for how many months is it sufficient? ________________

65
14. If your annual agricultural income is insufficient to satisfy your annual consumption, how do
you satisfy the shortage (put according to their importance)? Through:
1. Food aid 2. Food for work 3. Non-farm occupation
4. Others ________________________________________
15. Do the following constrain the degree of your participation in SWC?
1. Low income 1. Yes 2.No
2. Low level of education 1. Yes 2. No
3. Low level of health 1. Yes 2. No

B. PAST-EXPERIENCE
16. For how long did you participate in SWC programs? ____ years.
17. What was your free contribution toward the SWC programs (put according priorities)?
1. _______________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________
18. is the contribution according to your capacity?
1. Yes 2. No
19. What motivated you to contribute (put according priority if more than one answers)?
1. My own willingness 2. The decision of the village community
3. The decision of government agencies 4. Others
20. If you participate in FFW activities what is the amount of food you receive every year
(average of the last 3 years)? ________ quintals.
21. Who decides your participation in FFW?
1. Myself 2. Village community meeting 3. Community leaders
4. Government agencies 5. NGOs 6. Others

66
C. BENEFITS FROM SWCM ACTIVITIES
22. Indicate the benefit gained from SWC management using the following indicators:
Indicators Rating
Benefits Highly Increased 2 To some Decreased 4 Highly decreased
increased 1 extent 3 5
22.1 Land fertility
22.2 Crop production/yield
22.3 Fodder and grass supply
22.4 Wood production
22.5 Your livelihood
security
(reduced poverty)
22.6 Your dependency on
aid/FFW
22.7 Water supply (drinking and
irrigation)
22.8 Water use efficiency for
irrigation
22.9 Soil erosion
22.10 Number of trees
22.11 Restoration of grazing
lands
22.12 Flooding

23. If you are dissatisfied, what is the reason?

1. The benefit is inadequate 2. I didn’t get any benefit 3.others __________

D. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT & ORGANIZATION

24. What is the extent of CP in SWCM taking the following indicators?
Indicators Rating
Very high 1 High 2 Fair 3 Low 4 Very low 5
Planning and
designing
Implementing

Monitoring and
evaluation
Taking
corrective action

67
25. What are the existing village community organizations directly responsible for SWC
management?
1. _____________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________
26. To what extent are they powerful?
1. Highly powerful 2. Moderately powerful 3.Less powerful 4. Not powerful
27. To what extent are these organizations free from external influences such as government
(higher level authorities) or political organization or elite groups while making decisions?
1. Highly free 2. Reasonably free 3. Not free 4. Dominated
28. Are your village leaders capable to lead and coordinate soil and water management
activities?
1. Yes capable 2. Less capable 3. Incapable
29. What about their commitment?
1. Committed 2. Less committed 3. Not committed
30. If incapable and not committed, what is the problem/s (put according priority)?
1. Lack of training 2. Lack of incentive 3.Corruption 4. Others
31. Does your village community organization need external support?
1. Strongly need 2. Need 3. Fairly need
4. Do not need
32. If yes, what type of support (put according the priority need).
1. Finance 2. Supplies 3.Training 4. Others __________________
33. Which technique is more effective and SWC efficient for your village?
1. Traditional (e.g. earth bunds) 2. Modern (e.g. stone bunds) 3. The combination
34. Have you acquired adequate technical knowledge necessary to continue on your own with
activities introduced by SWCM?
1. Yes 2. I need more training

E.UNITY AND SOLIDARITY OF THE COMMUNITY

35. Do all community members equally participate and contribute in community works?
1. Yes 2. There are free-riders 3. A large number of people do not participate

68
36. If there are free-riders how do you control them?
1. According to village rules/norms 2. According to government rules
3. No controlling mechanism
37. Are there conflicts concerning use of the commons such as grazing land, water sharing?
1. Yes 2. Sometimes 3. No
38. What resolving methods are applied in the community?
1. ______________________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________________

F. EXTENT AND CONDITION OF OUTSIDE SUPPORT

39. Give the name of the organizations that assist your community organization and the type of
the assistance they give while your village conducts SWC activities (put according
priorities)?
1. ______________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________
3. ______________________________________________________

G. CONCLUDING QUESTIONS
40. To what extent have the SWC activities carried on so far has decreased the degree of land
degradation and plant/forest depletion?
1. Highly decreased 2. Decreased 3. No change 4. Rather increased
41. Do SWC activities carried out so far brought about a significant improvement in your
livelihood?
1. Yes 2. Fairly 3. No 4. Rather worsened
42. Are you willing and committed to continue with the conservation, protection, maintenance
and expansion of the SWCM activities on your own if FFW and other assistance are
discontinued?
1. On-farm 1.1. Yes 1.2. No
2. Grazing areas 2.1. Yes 2.2. No
3. Closures 3.1. Yes 3.2. No

69
Annex 4: Focus group discussion

Focused on Farmers

Social perspective

1. When was SWC introduced in the three villages?

2. When was SWCA begins in the kebelle?, How was the reaction?

3. Is training courses that were given in SWCA? If there was a training course given, explain the
training

4. What is the extent of capacity and commitment and democratic nature of the village
organization leadership? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the village leaders?

5. What is the extent of community participation in planning, designing, implementing,

monitoring and evaluating and executing SWCM decisions?

6. How do you evaluate the Workgroup leaders’ towards leading and organizing SWCA?

7. How conflicts do resolved when it raises during use of assets in common area closures?

8. Do women in the village equally participate in the use and control of assets (land, plants,
fodder and grasses)?

Technical perspective

1. How was the SWCM introduced in the villages? (Query for the whole process including
initiation by whom and how its introduction selection of sites contribution of resources
organization of labor etc? Explain.

2. Is there a responsible body that assesses monitoring and gives corrective action?

3. To what extent would you say have the ordinary members of the community acquired the
technical knowledge necessary to continue on their own with activities introduced by
SWCM?

70
4. Which techniques are more effective? traditional or new techniques? Do you believe the
existing conservation techniques are appropriate and sustainable? Which ones? Why?

5. It is obvious that fanya juu SWC techniques were practiced widely on Farmland, did you tried
dig out the soil from the collection ditch individually on farmland.

Economical perspective

1. What is the extent of the tangible amount of social and economic benefit the community
members received as individuals and groups (e.g. agricultural Yield, water supply, wood
production, fodder, services etc.) resulted from SWC management?

1. Did dependency on food aid decrease or increase? Why?

2. Have the benefits from the natural resource bases increased, remained the
same, or decreased after SWCM is introduced?

Environmental perspective

1. Do you believe that the SWCM carried on so far has decreased the degree of land
degradation and plant/forest depletion?

2. Do you believe that the SWCM carried out so far improved the livelihood of the community
members/decreased poverty?

3. Based on your experience, how do you evaluate the overall participation of the three
villages? If your answer is no, what is the problem/s?

4. What change has come on physical SWC practices collaborate with biological measures?

71
Expert Opinion

Social Perspective

1. What is the extent of community participation in planning, designing, implementing,

monitoring and evaluating and executing SWCM decisions?
2. How do you evaluate the community engaged in SWCA towards protecting and
controlling common closure area?
3. How conflicts do resolved when it raises during use of assets on closures areas?
4. What are the methods of controlling for those who break the low?
5. What is the extent of Women Participation in the community with regard to SWCM? Do
they equally participate?
6. Who is responsible for the conservation, maintenance and protection of the off farms/
closures? Under what arrangement?
7. How are different tasks assigned and fulfillment of responsibilities enforced?
8. How are closures protected and their protection sanctioned?
9. How are resources from closures/plantation distributed?
10. Who is responsible for the conservation, maintenance and protection of the off farms/
closures? Under what arrangement? If the external support including FFW is reduced
/discontinued, do you believe that communities will be capable, willing and committed
to continue to conserve, protect, maintain and expand
1. On-farm conservation works? 2. Off-farm conservation works?

3. Afforestation

Technical perspective

1. How are different tasks assigned and fulfillment of responsibilities enforced?

2. What method was used in involving the farmers in SWCA?
3. To what extent are the government agencies and NGOs capable of implementing the
participatory programs in terms of resources, skill, institutional strength, commitment,
policy, regulatory mechanisms and enforcement of policies and decisions?

72
 4. To what extent are government and NGO employees motivated and committed to work
closer to the community to effectively implement the participatory programs?

Economical perspective

1. What is the extent of the tangible amount of social and economic benefit the
community members received as individuals and groups (e.g. agricultural Yield, water
supply, wood production, fodder, services etc.) resulted from SWC management?
2. Did dependency on food aid decrease or increase? Why?
3. Have the benefits from the natural resource bases increased, remained the same, or
decreased after SWCM is introduced?
4. Is there economic benefit received from common closure area particularly focused on
younger society?

Environmental perspective

1. Do you believe that the SWCM carried on so far has decreased the degree of land
degradation and plant/forest depletion?
2. Do you believe that the SWCM carried out so far improved the livelihood of the
community members/decreased poverty?
3. Based on your experience, how do you evaluate the overall participation of the three
villages?
4. Do you believe that the participatory SWCM practices have attained the desired
outcome? If your answer is no, what is the problem/s?

73
Annex 5: Results of soil laboratory analysis

Results of soil chemical laboratory analysis

Cultivated land EC pHH2O Av. P % OC % TN

(dS/m) 1:2.5 (mg/Kg)
0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
Treated (2007) S1 0.03 0.04 6.20 6.06 6.44 4.14 1.02 1.18 0.12 0.13
Treated(2007) S2 0.04 0.03 5.33 5.33 0.82 1.68 1.96 2.22 0.20 0.17
Treated(2007) S3 0.02 0.01 5.79 5.77 7.59 8.91 1.12 0.96 0.13 0.12
Treated.(2007) S4 0.03 0.03 5.76 5.72 12.42 9.27 1.18 1.04 0.13 0.12
Treated (2007) S5 0.02 0.02 5.84 5.76 8.11 8.04 1.16 1.02 0.15 0.12
Treated(2007 s 6 0.03 0.02 5.58 5.58 6.28 6.81 0.93 0.94 0.11 0.11
Treated(2007) S7 0.02 0.02 5.78 5.77 6.35 5.75 0.99 1.06 0.12 0.11
Treated (2007) S8 0.03 0.02 5.64 5.75 7.93 9.64 1.06 0.92 0.12 0.12
Treated(2007 S9 0.03 0.03 5.56 5.55 6.64 7.09 1.11 1.05 0.14 0.13
Treated (2007) S10 0.03 0.03 5.91 5.68 12.46 14.54 0.84 0.78 0.12 0.11
Treated (2008) S1 0.03 0.03 5.86 5.75 12.45 12.72 0.88 0.86 0.11 0.10
Treated (2008) S 2 0.04 0.02 5.58 5.60 7.78 6.55 1.21 1.12 0.14 0.14
Treated (2008) S 3 0.02 0.03 6.00 6.00 9.32 8.37 0.71 0.56 0.09 0.09
Treated (2008) S 4 0.02 0.02 6.20 6.00 4.81 5.11 0.53 0.50 0.06 0.07
Treated (2008) S 5 0.03 0.03 5.58 5.48 5.21 3.09 1.58 1.43 0.16 0.16
Treated (2009) S 1 0.02 0.01 5.64 5.62 12.90 11.26 0.84 0.89 0.12 0.14
Treated (2009) S 2 0.02 0.02 5.88 5.76 19.67 22.42 0.71 0.71 0.11 0.12
Treated(2009) S 3 0.02 0.02 5.78 5.74 18.03 17.72 0.72 0.72 0.11 0.12
Treated (2009) S 4 0.02 0.02 5.79 5.67 14.31 17.77 0.70 0.73 0.12 0.12
Treated (2009) S 5 0.02 0.02 5.69 5.63 7.97 10.07 0.93 0.70 0.13 0.13
Untreated S 1 0.03 0.03 5.43 5.48 5.78 4.73 1.72 1.68 0.16 0.14
Untreated S 2 0.04 0.04 5.34 5.31 9.57 7.68 2.18 2.34 0.21 0.21
Untreated S 3 0.04 0.02 5.44 5.77 8.53 17.54 1.57 1.09 0.15 0.13
Untreated S 4 0.03 0.02 5.92 5.97 15.85 10.31 0.64 0.67 0.09 0.09
Untreated S 5 0.03 0.03 5.60 5.50 8.90 11.32 1.35 1.27 0.15 0.14

74
Annex 6: statistical analysis results of the soil parameters (organic matter)

Mean values of OM

Replications Treatments
Conserved farmland Non-conserved
farmland
SWC since 2007 SWC since 2008 SWC Since 2009
Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm)
0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
1 1.02 1.18 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.89 1.72 1.68
2 1.96 2.22 1.21 1.12 0.71 0.71 2.18 2.34
3 1.12 0.96 0.71 0.56 0.72 0.72 1.57 1.09
4 1.18 1.04 0.53 0.50 0.70 0.73 0.64 0.67
5 1.16 1.02 1.58 1.43 0.93 0.70 1.35 1.27
Sum 11.37 11.17 4.91 4.47 3.90 3.75 7.46 7.05
Mean 1.1370 1.1170 .9820 .8940 .7800 .7500 1.4920 1.4100
Std. deviation .30786 .40166 .41782 .38933 .10124 .07906 .56513 .63392
Std. Error of .09735 .12702 .18685 .17411 .04528 .03536 .25273 .28350
mean

ANOVA for Organic Carbon OC (%)

Source of Sum of df Mean square f-ratio Sig.

variation squares
Between
1.706 1 1.706 10.903 .002
groups
Within groups 7.510 48 .156
Total 9.215 49

75
 Mean difference of organic matter content (%) between the different cultivated land treatments

(I) Treatments (J) Treatments Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence interval
difference
(I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
*
2007(Treated) untreated -.32400 .14671 .032 -.6193 -.0287
2008 .18900 .14671 .204 -.1063 .4843
*
2009 .36200 .14671 .017 .0667 .6573
*
2008(Treated) untreated -.51300 .16941 .004 -.8540 -.1720
2007 -.18900 .14671 .204 -.4843 .1063
2009 .17300 .16941 .313 -.1680 .5140
*
2009(Treated) untreated -.68600 .16941 .000 -1.0270 -.3450
*
2007 -.36200 .14671 .017 -.6573 -.0667
2008 -.17300 .16941 .313 -.5140 .1680
*
Untreated 2007 .32400 .14671 .032 .0287 .6193
*
2008 .51300 .16941 .004 .1720 .8540
*
2009 .68600 .16941 .000 .3450 1.0270

*On the mean difference showed significant difference at the P < 0.05 level

76
Annex 7: statistical analysis results of total nitrogen

Mean values of TN

Replications Treatments
Conserved farmland Non-conserved
farmland
SWC since 2007 SWC since 2008 SWC Since 2009
Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm)
0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
1 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.14
2 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.21 0.21
3 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.13
4 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.09
5 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14
Sum 1.34 1.24 .56 .56 .59 .63 .76 .71
Mean .1340 .1240 .1120 .1120 .1180 .1260 .1520 .1420
Std. deviation .02591 .01776 .03962 .03701 .00837 .00894 .04266 .04324
Std. Error of .00819 .00562 .01772 .01655 .00374 .00400 .01908 .01934
mean

ANOVA for TN Total Nitrogen (%)

Source of Sum of df Mean square f-ratio Sig.

variation squares
Between
.005 1 .005 5.693 .021
groups
Within groups .039 48 .001
Total .043 49

77
 Mean difference of total nitrogen (%) among pairs of different cultivated land treatments.

(I) Treatments (J) Treatments Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence interval
difference
(I-J) Lower Upper Bound
Bound
2007(Treated) untreated -.01800 .01097 .108 -.0401 .0041
2008 .01700 .01097 .128 -.0051 .0391
2009 .00700 .01097 .527 -.0151 .0291
*
2008(Treated) untreated -.03500 .01267 .008 -.0605 -.0095
2007 -.01700 .01097 .128 -.0391 .0051
2009 -.01000 .01267 .434 -.0355 .0155
2009(Treated) untreated -.02500 .01267 .054 -.0505 .0005
2007 -.00700 .01097 .527 -.0291 .0151
2008 .01000 .01267 .434 -.0155 .0355
Untreated 2007 .01800 .01097 .108 -.0041 .0401
*
2008 .03500 .01267 .008 .0095 .0605
2009 .02500 .01267 .054 -.0005 .0505
* The mean difference is significant at P < 0.05 level

78
Annex 8: statistical analysis results for available phosphorus

Mean values of AV.P

Replications Treatments
Conserved farmland Non-conserved
farmland
SWC since 2007 SWC since 2008 SWC Since 2009
Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm)
0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
1 6.44 4.14 12.45 12.72 12.90 11.26 5.78 4.73
2 0.82 1.68 7.78 6.55 19.67 22.42 9.57 7.68
3 7.59 8.91 9.32 8.37 18.03 17.72 8.53 17.54
4 12.42 9.27 4.81 5.11 14.31 17.77 15.83 10.31
5 8.11 8.04 5.21 3.09 7.97 10.07 8.90 11.32
Sum 75.04 75.87 39.57 35.84 72.88 79.24 48.63 51.58
Mean 7.5040 7.5870 7.9140 7.1680 14.5760 15.8480 9.7260 10.3160
Std. 3.31108 3.46966 3.14311 3.65776 4.59342 5.11920 3.71522 4.77876
deviation
Std. Error of 1.04706 1.09720 1.40564 1.63580 2.05424 2.28937 1.66150 2.13713
mean

ANOVA for Available phosphorus

Source of Sum of df Mean square f-ratio Sig.

variation squares
Between
2.687 1 2.687 .120 .730
groups
Within groups 1074.101 48 22.377
Total 1076.787 49

79
Mean difference of available phosphorus among pairs of different cultivated land
treatments.
Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence
difference interval
(I-J)
(I) Treatments (J) Lower Upper
Treatments Bound Bound

2007(Treated) Untreated -2.47550 1.44693 .094 -5.3880 .4370

2008 .00450 1.44693 .998 -2.9080 2.9170
2009 -7.58850* 1.44693 .000 -10.5010 -4.6760
2008(Treated) Untreated -2.48000 1.67077 .145 -5.8431 .8831
2007 -.00450 1.44693 .998 -2.9170 2.9080
2009 -7.59300* 1.67077 .000 -10.9561 -4.2299
2009(Treated) Untreated 5.11300* 1.67077 .004 1.7499 8.4761
2007 7.58850* 1.44693 .000 4.6760 10.5010
2008 7.59300* 1.67077 .000 4.2299 10.9561
Untreated 2007 2.47550 1.44693 .094 -.4370 5.3880
2008 2.48000 1.67077 .145 -.8831 5.8431
2009 -5.11300* 1.67077 .004 -8.4761 -1.7499

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

80
Annex 9: Statistical analysis results of PH

Mean values of PH

Replications Treatments
Conserved farmland Non-conserved
farmland
SWC since 2007 SWC since 2008 SWC Since 2009
Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm)
0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
1 6.20 6.06 5.86 5.75 5.64 5.62 5.43 5.48
2 5.33 5.33 5.58 5.60 5.88 5.76 5.34 5.31
3 5.79 5.77 6.00 6.00 5.78 5.74 5.44 5.77
4 5.76 5.72 6.20 6.00 5.79 5.67 5.92 5.97
5 5.84 5.76 5.58 5.48 5.69 5.63 5.60 5.50
Sum 57.39 56.97 29.22 28.83 28.78 28.42 27.73 28.03
Mean 5.7390 5.6970 5.8440 5.7660 5.7560 5.6840 5.5460 5.6060
Std. deviation .23359 .18856 .26959 .23405 .09343 .06348 .22909 .26178
Std. Error of .07387 .05963 .12057 .10467 .04179 .02839 .10245 .11707
mean

ANOVA for PH values

Source of Sum of df Mean square f-ratio Sig.

variation squares
Between
.216 1 .216 5.291 .026
groups
Within groups 1.958 48 .041
Total 2.174 49

81
Mean difference of PH among pairs of different cultivated land treatments

(I) Treatments (J) Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence interval
Treatments difference
Lower Upper
(I-J)
Bound Bound
2007(Treated) Untreated .14200 .07875 .078 -.0165 .3005
2008 -.08700 .07875 .275 -.2455 .0715
2009 -.00200 .07875 .980 -.1605 .1565
2008(Treated) Untreated .22900* .09094 .015 .0460 .4120
2007 .08700 .07875 .275 -.0715 .2455
2009 .08500 .09094 .355 -.0980 .2680
2009(Treated) Untreated .14400 .09094 .120 -.0390 .3270
2007 .00200 .07875 .980 -.1565 .1605
2008 -.08500 .09094 .355 -.2680 .0980
Untreated 2007 -.14200 .07875 .078 -.3005 .0165
2008 -.22900* .09094 .015 -.4120 -.0460
2009 -.14400 .09094 .120 -.3270 .0390

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

82
Annex 10: statistical analysis results for Electrical conductivity

Mean values of EC

Replications Treatments
Conserved farmland Non-conserved
farmland
SWC since 2007 SWC since 2008 SWC Since 2009
Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm) Soil depth(cm)
0-15 15- 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30 0-15 15-30
30
1 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03
2 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04
3 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02
4 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02
5 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
Sum .28 .25 .14 .13 .10 .09 .17 .14
Mean .0280 .0250 .0280 .0260 .0200 .0180 .0340 .0280
Std. deviation .00632 .00850 .00837 .00548 .00000 .00447 .00548 .00837
Std. Error of .00200 .00269 .00374 .00245 .00000 .00200 .00245 .00374
mean

ANOVA for EC

Source of Sum of df Mean square f-ratio Sig.

variation squares
Between
.000 1 .000 6.030 .018
groups
Within groups .002 48 .000
Total .003 49

83
Mean difference of electrical conductivity (%) among pairs of different cultivated land
treatments
(I) Treatments (J) Mean Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence interval
Treatments difference Lower Upper
(I-J) Bound Bound
2007(Treated) Untreated -.00450 .00258 .088 -.0097 .0007
2008 -.00050 .00258 .847 -.0057 .0047
2009 .00750* .00258 .006 .0023 .0127
2008(Treated) Untreated -.00400 .00298 .186 -.0100 .0020
2007 .00050 .00258 .847 -.0047 .0057
2009 .00800* .00298 .010 .0020 .0140
2009(Treated) Untreated -.01200* .00298 .000 -.0180 -.0060
2007 -.00750* .00258 .006 -.0127 -.0023
2008 -.00800* .00298 .010 -.0140 -.0020
Untreated 2007 .00450 .00258 .088 -.0007 .0097
2008 .00400 .00298 .186 -.0020 .0100
2009 .01200* .00298 .000 .0060 .0180

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

84
Annex 11: literature data for different soil parameters ratings

Rating of soil organic matter

No Percent Rate
1 >10% Very high
2 5-10% High
3 2-5% Medium
4 1-2% Low
5 <1% Very low
Source: Barber (1984)

Rating of soil total nitrogen

No Total nitrogen (%) Rate

1 >0.4 Very high
2 0.3-0.4 High
3 0.2-0.3 Medium
4 0.1-0.2 Low
5 <0.1 Very low
Source: Barber (1984)

Rating of soil available phosphorus (ppm)

No Available P (ppm) Rate
1 <5 Very low
2 5-10 Low
3 10-25 Medium
4 25-50 High
5 >50 Very high
Source: Barber (1984)

85
Optimum range for Electrical conductivity

No Electrical conductivity Rate

1 0.00 - 0.25 Very low - indicates probable
deficiency.

2 0.25 - 0.75 Suitable for seedlings and salt-

sensitive plants.

3 0.75 - 1.50 Desirable level for most Ag

plants.

4 1.75 - 2.25 Reduced growth, leaf

marginal burn.

Source: Barber (1984)

86