Exploring the potential of co-investments in land management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

Like in any other part of the country, land degradation resulting from water erosion and nutrient depletion is one of the most challenging problems for farmers in the Central Rift Valley (CRV) of Ethiopia. Nevertheless, investments in land management to reduce land degradation and increase agricultural production by smallholder farmers have been limited. In addition, public and private sector organizations have never collaborated to stimulate (investments in) land improvement. This study focuses on coinvestments, which are conceived as the collaboration of different stakeholders in land management in the form of material, labour, finance, technology, knowledge and governance. The overall aim of this study was to explore the potential of co-investments to foster land management and increase land productivity in the CRV of Ethiopia. Chapter 2 presents farmers’ perceptions of crop productivity and their strategies to cope with perceived changes in the CRV of |Ethiopia. It reveals that farmers perceive a decrease in crop productivity and food production over the last decades and that they blame a decline in rainfall for this. As a consequence, farmers apply different strategies to cope with, and adapt to perceived rainfall shortages and related expected yield losses. However, an analysis of rainfall data in the CRV shows that rainfall characteristics have not changed over the last three decades. Moreover, according to analysis of official data, crop productivity per hectare in the CRV even shows a slight increase over the last decade. Therefore, farmers’ perception of a decline in crop productivity and rainfall can be explained by i) the increased demand to grow more crops to feed the rapidly growing population, and ii) the lower moisture availability for plant growth as a consequence of more intensive farming (often on less suitable fields) and land degradation. The root causes of frequent food shortages are thus not only related to rainfall, but also to soil fertility decline, soil erosion and lack of rainwater storage in the soil. Current farmers’ strategies are, therefore, not adequate to cope with the increased food demand. There is an urgent need to invest in sustainable land management (SLM) practices that enhance local food production. Chapter 3 focuses on the farmers’ perception of land degradation (especially soil erosion and nutrient depletion) and their investments in land management. If farmers perceive land degradation as a problem, the chance that they invest in land management measures will be enhanced. Results reveal that land degradation in the form of water erosion and fertility depletion is a problem and has increased over the last decade in the CRV. Farmers are aware of it and consider it as a problem. Nevertheless, farmers’ investments to control water erosion and soil fertility depletion are very limited. Results also show that farmers’ awareness of both water erosion and soil fertility decline as a problem is not significantly associated with their investments in land management. Hence, even farmers who perceive land degradation on their fields and are concerned about its increase over the last decade, do not significantly invest more in water erosion and soil fertility control measures than farmers who do not perceive these phenomena. Chapter 4 is devoted to exploring the determents of farmers’ decisions how much and where to invest in land management. The study identified five major factors that influence farmers’ decisions how much to invest in land management. These include households’ resource endowments, farming experience and knowledge, access to information, social capital and availability of family labour. This result implies that extension strategies aiming at sustainable land management should try to enhance households’ resources endowments, improve their access to information and stimulate collective action in land management. Similarly, the study revealed the decisions of farmers’ where to invest in land management is influenced by the vulnerability, accessibility and fertility condition of their plots. Farmers were more willing to invest in plots that are vulnerable to water erosion, have better soil fertility and are larger. However, the influence of all these factors on farmers’ investments in land management was highly variable across the different study sites within the CRV. Hence, the diversity in social, economic, cultural and biophysical conditions must be taken into account by rural extension programmes. This calls for site-specific land management strategies that can be planned and implemented at micro-level with active participation of farmers. Chapter 5 deals with co-investments in land management. Lack of collaboration is a growing concern for the success of SLM in Ethiopia. In Ethiopia, not only farmers but also public institutions and private sectors are hesitant to collaborate and invest in SLM. This study identified several major bottlenecks and requirements for co-investments by public institutions and private sectors. Nevertheless, the results varied across the administrative levels. As a result, macro level institutions did not acknowledge most of the bottlenecks and requirements reported by meso and micro level institutions. Therefore, a micro-mesomacro consensus is required to improve co-investments. Furthermore, most bottlenecks and requirements for public institutions were related to governance issues. This suggests the need to establish good governance at all levels in Ethiopia in order to improve co-investments in SLM. In addition to public institutions, private sectors identified major bottlenecks and requirements which are mostly related to economic issues. However, given the current socio-economic and political situation in Ethiopia, it is a long way to fulfilling the requirements proposed by public institutions and private sectors. This indicates that requirements should be fulfilled gradually and systematically for successful co-investments in SLM. Chapter 6 explores the potential of co-investments in land management for bringing change at the grassroot level in Ethiopia. First, this study explores the most important co-investment activities that trigger farmers to invest in land management based on a co-investment initiative in the Galessa watershed. Second, it assesses the impact of these co-investment activities on farmers’ investments in land management by comparing experimental (participant) and control (non-participant) groups of farmers using survey data. The case study revealed that the most important co-investment activities that triggered farmers to invest in land management include co-investments in awareness creation, water provision, technology and governance. Of these activities, co-investing in water provision is the most successful activity, because it directly solves one of the basic needs of farmers in the watershed. Results reveal that the experimental group of farmers invested more in land management practices, such as soil bunds, compost and tree planting, than the control group of farmers. The article concludes that multiple level coinvestment activities are crucial to trigger farmers to invest in land management in Ethiopia. Chapter 7 is a synthesis of previous chapters. It briefly summarizes answers to the research questions, describes the added value of the thesis in terms of knowledge generation and provides suggestions for further research and policy making. The synthesis indicates that although farmers are well aware of the land degradation problem, their investments in land management are not sufficient to reverse the situation. It also reveals that farmers’ investments are affected by highly diverse socio-economic and biophysical constraints. Moreover, public and private sectors are constrained by financial and governance factors and require several preconditions before actually investing in land management. Despite these constraints at micro, meso and macro institutional levels, this thesis shows that there is potential for coinvestments in SLM in Ethiopia. Exploiting this potential principally requires commitment of all stakeholders to co-invest in land management. </p

Farmers' investments in land management practices in the CRV of Ethiopia

ABSTRACT In order to combat land degradation in the form of water erosion and fertility depletion in the Central Rift Valley (CRV) of Ethiopia farmers are of crucial importance. If they perceive land degradation as a problem they will be more willing to invest in land management measures. This study presents farmers’ perceptions of land degradation, respective investments, and factors influencing their investments in land. In this study, water erosion and fertility depletion are taken as main indicators of land degradation. Results show that farmers perceive water erosion and soil fertility depletion as problems that have intensified over the last decade. However, despite awareness of these problems, farmers’ investments to control soil erosion and soil fertility depletion are very limited. This study shows that the major factors that positively influence farmers’ investments in land management practices are households’ resource endowments, access to information, social capital and availability of family labor. For sustainable land management strategies this implies that these should (i) be integrated within a comprehensive rural development strategy that generates improvements of farmers’ livelihoods and their financial capacity, (ii) trigger social capital and create enabling conditions for farmers to participate in different groups, cross site visits and farmer-to-farmer experience sharing, and (iii) stimulate collective action within the villages in order to enhance access to labor which is crucial for carrying out land management practices. Key words: Land degradation, farmers’ investments, sustainable land management, socioeconomic factors, factor analysi

Highlights of soil and water conservation investments in four regions of Ethiopia

This paper provides details of soil and water conservation (SWC) investments in Ethiopia over the past 20 years. It presents SWC practices and estimates the level of SWC investments in different regions. The paper focuses on four principal agricultural regions: Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray. Primary and secondary data were collected for the analysis, and consultations were conducted at regional levels. Primary data on diverse SWC practices, their numbers and areal extent were obtained from the archives of regional Bureaus of Agriculture (BoAs). The results of this study show that several projects involving significant financial investment have been implemented to reverse land degradation and improve land productivity in Ethiopia since the 1970s. The list of projects is not comprehensive due to a lack of documentation at all levels, but it does provide some insights into the scale of SWC investments and implementation. The projects analyzed in the four regions fall into the following categories: farmland management, hillside management and gully rehabilitation practices, including check dams and cut-off drains. The analysis shows that these practices involved both paid and unpaid labor, together representing an estimated investment of more than ETB 25 billion (or approximately USD 1.2 billion) per year over the past 10 years. It is clear that large investments have been made in SWC activities in Ethiopia. However, the outcomes in terms of impact on yield and livelihood benefits are yet to be fully understood. A comprehensive assessment is needed to measure the impact of SWC activities on farmers’ livelihoods and the environment. A key recommendation arising from the analysis is that more data and information are needed on the successes and failures of SWC practices, which will assist stakeholders to better guide and target future projects and investments. An additional recommendation is to consider the biophysical and financial impact of soil erosion, both on and off farm

Impacts of Soil and Water Conservation Practices on Crop Yield, Run-off, Soil Loss and Nutrient Loss in Ethiopia: Review and Synthesis

Research results published regarding the impact of soil and water conservation practices in the highland areas of Ethiopia have been inconsistent and scattered. In this paper, a detailed review and synthesis is reported that was conducted to identify the impacts of soil and water conservation practices on crop yield, surface run-off, soil loss, nutrient loss, and the economic viability, as well as to discuss the implications for an integrated approach and ecosystem services. The review and synthesis showed that most physical soil and water conservation practices such as soil bunds and stone bunds were very effective in reducing run-off, soil erosion and nutrient depletion. Despite these positive impacts on these services, the impact of physical soil and water conservation practices on crop yield was negative mainly due to the reduction of effective cultivable area by soil/stone bunds. In contrast, most agronomic soil and water conservation practices increase crop yield and reduce run-off and soil losses. This implies that integrating physical soil and water conservation practices with agronomic soil and water conservation practices are essential to increase both provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. Additionally, effective use of unutilized land (the area occupied by bunds) by planting multipurpose grasses and trees on the bunds may offset the yield lost due to a reduction in planting area. If high value grasses and trees can be grown on this land, farmers can harvest fodder for animals or fuel wood, both in scarce supply in Ethiopia. Growing of these grasses and trees can also help the stability of the bunds and reduce maintenance cost. Economic feasibility analysis also showed that, soil and water conservation practices became economically more viable if physical and agronomic soil and water conservation practices are integrated

Exploring co-investments in sustainable land management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, not only farmers but also the public and private sector partners are still hesitant to invest in sustainable land management (SLM). This study focuses on the Central Rift Valley and explores the potential for co-investments in SLM, where public and private sector partners support farmers with material, capital, knowledge, etc. A survey revealed current bottlenecks for co-investments and requirements needed to collaboratively invest in SLM. It covered 165 public sector partners (micro-, meso- and macro-level institutions) and 42 private sector partners (banks, exporters and local traders). Results for the public sector show a gap between macro- and micro-/meso-level actors concerning co-investments in SLM. Macro-level institutions do not acknowledge the bottlenecks identified by micro- and meso-level institutions (e.g. lack of accountability, top-down approaches and lack of good leadership). Similarly, opinions on requirements for co-investments in SLM differ considerably, showing that bridging the institutional micro–macro gap is crucial to co-investments. Most factors are related to the wider governance context and to different perceptions among micro- and macro-level actors as to the critical pre-conditions to co-investment in SLM. Improving governance at all institutional levels, capacity building and enhancing a common understanding on barriers to SLM is required. Results for the private sector reveal that economic bottlenecks limit possibilities to co-invest in SLM, and that enabling policies in the public sphere are required to trigger private investments. Hence, the potential for co-investments in SLM is available in Ethiopia at micro- and meso-level and within the private sector, but profound commitment and fundamental policy changes at the macro-level are required to exploit this potential

Exploring determinants of farmers' investments in land management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

Land degradation, especially water erosion and nutrient depletion, seriously affects agricultural production in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Farmers' investments to conserve their land are until now however quite limited. The objective of this study is to identify the major factors that determine farmers' decisions how much and where to invest in land management. Exploratory factor analysis and Pearson correlation were used to analyse the data from 240 households operating 738 plots in three different production domains. The study identified five major factors that influence farmers' decisions how much to invest in land management: (1) households' resource endowments, (2) farming experience and knowledge, (3) access to information, (4) social capital and (5) availability of family labour. This result implies that extension strategies aiming at sustainable land management should try to enhance households' resources endowments and improve their access to information. Moreover, the influence of social capital and availability of family labour indicates the crucial importance of collective action in land management. Similarly, the study revealed that farmers are more willing to invest in plots that (1) are vulnerable to water erosion, (2) have better soil fertility and (3) are larger. However, the influence of these factors on farmers' investments in land management was highly variable across the considered production domains. Hence, the diversity in social, economic, cultural and biophysical conditions must be taken into account by rural extension programmes. This calls for site-specific land management strategies that can be planned and implemented at micro-level with active participation of farmer

Farmers' strategies to perceived trends of rainfall and crop productivity on the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

Despite decades of international attention to find solutions for the annual food shortages in Ethiopia, the problem still persists. This study, carried out in the Central Rift Valley (CRV) of Ethiopia, focuses on farmers¿ strategies to counter yield failures and food shortages. It reveals that farmers indeed perceive a decrease in crop productivity and food production over the last decades, and that they blame a decline in rainfall for this. As a consequence, farmers apply different strategies to cope with, and adapt to perceived rainfall shortages and related expected yield losses: i.e. they sell more livestock, they migrate elsewhere, they change their crops and agricultural practices, and they rely more heavily on food relief programs. However, an analysis of rainfall data in the CRV shows that rainfall characteristics (mainly annual rainfall total) have not changed over the last three decades. Moreover, according to analysis of official data, crop productivity per hectare in the CRV even shows a slight increase over the last decade. The interpretation of this result is not straightforward. The farmers¿ perception of a decline in crop productivity and rainfall may be related to (i) the increased demand to grow more crops to feed the rapidly growing population (hence, food availability per capita has declined), and (ii) the lower moisture availability for plant growth resulted from soil fertility decline and soil erosion. Nevertheless, additional empirical research is needed to figure out the root causes of food shortage and yield failure in the CRV of Ethiopi

Effects of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia

The effects of soil bunds on runoff, losses of soil and nutrients, and crop yield are rarely documented in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. A field experiment was set up consisting of three treatments: (i) barley-cultivated land protected with graded soil bunds (Sb); (ii) fallow land (F); and (iii) barley-cultivated land without soil bund (Bc). For 3¿years (2007–2009), the effect of soil bunds on runoff, losses of soil and nutrients, and crop productivity was studied. Daily runoff and soil and nutrient losses were measured for each treatment using standard procedures while barley yield was recorded from the cultivated plots. The results showed that Sb brought about significant reduction in runoff and soil losses. Plots with Sb reduced the average annual runoff by 28¿per cent and the average annual soil loss by 47¿per cent. Consequently, Sb reduced losses of soil nutrients and organic carbon. However, the absolute losses were still high. This implies the need for supplementing Sb with biological and agronomic land management measures to further control soil erosion. Despite these positive impacts on soil quality, Sb do not increase crop yield. Calculated on a per-hectare basis, Sb even reduce crop yield by about 7¿per cent as compared with control plots, which is entirely explained by the reduction of the cultivable area by 8·6¿per cent due to the soil bunds. Suitable measures are needed to compensate the yield losses caused by the construction of soil bunds, which would convince farmers to construct these land management measures that have long-term beneficial effects on erosion control