United States Agency for International Developmen

Adimassu, Zenebe

Alene, Temesgen

Dubale, Workneh

Ellison, J.

Gurmessa, Biyensa

Ibrahim, M.

Mekonnen, Kindu

Tamene, Lulseged

Tesfahun, G.K.

Thorne, Peter J.

Woldearegay, K.

Yaekob, Tesfaye

Tamene, Lulseged D.

CGSpace

Integrated landscape management: Africa RISING R4D experiences in the Ethiopian highlandsLulseged Tamene1, Tesfaye Yaekob2, James Ellison, Kindu Mekonnen3, Kifle Woldearegay4, Zenebe Adimassu5, Temesgen Alene3, Workneh Dubale3, Mohammed Ibrahim3, Biyensa Gurmessa1, Girma Kassie6, Peter Thorne3(CIAT1, EIAR2, ILRI3, MU4, IWMI5, ICARDA6)Workshop and Exhibition on Promoting Productivity and Market Access Technologies and Approaches to Improve Farm Income and Livelihoods in Ethiopia: Lessons from Action Research Projects,        ILRI, Addis Ababa, 8-9 December 2016Due to population pressure:- Reduction in farm size- Expansion to steep slopes and marginal areas - More nutrient mining, degradation- Direct cost of soil loss and its essential nutrients reaches $106 million a year.- Rainfall variability adds more pressureSustainable IntensificationLand degradation is serious challenge in Ethiopia Intensification at plot/farm level can not be sustainable if landscapes are degrading. Need to marry intensification at plot level with integrated land and water management at landscape level. Huge effort underway in Ethiopia: climate resilient green economy. Pledged to restore 15 Mha by 2030.Sustainable land and water management should be integral component of SIGetachew Engdayehu- ANRS BoA, NRCWH Initiative 20x20Loose inter-sectoral integration undermining synergiesNo adequate strategies to manage trade-offsLimited incentives to encourage farmers as watershed managementinterventions have long-return periodIncompatibility of options – restrict adoptionAbsence of adequate indicators and monitoring mechanism – thus noclear evidences of impacts especially at landscape levelGreat impact at different levels but with challengesProblems facing the solutionsGetachew Engdayehu- ANRS BoA, NRCWH  A multifunctional landscape offers opportunities to provide multiple environmental, social, and economic functions to different users. Enhance the “economic value” of interventions - ‘profitable’ interventions while ecologically feasible.‘Solutions’ to tackle “problems of the solutions” - “multifunctional landscapes” Lovell and Johnston, 2009Mean soil Loss Cultivated - 40%Woodlot – 23%Grazing – 21%Irrigated – 2%Cultivated - 42%Forest – 9%Woodlot – 45%Grazing – 0.2%Irrigated – 1%Data collection sites are co-locatedEfforts under the Africa RISING project1. Situation analysisOne of the reasons for lack of generating adequate evidences is absence of baseline data!2. Model/framework to match option with context to facilitate implementation and out-scalingWoldearegay et al. submittedDevelop ‘recommendation domain’ to facilitate implementing site- and context-specific interventions to enhance synergyComplementary interventions across the landscape can help generate multiple services that benefit multiple users/stakeholders which can also minimize competition/conflict, etc.) and enhance sustainability3. Co-identify integrated interventions following the landscape continuumDesta, 20054. Capacity developmentTrainings and exchange visits to successful sites Seeing is believing!5a. Co-implement interventions and monitor5b. Monitor to assess status and identify gaps/issues for improvement • Graphical interface to help generate evidences related to the potential impacts of interventions and evaluate results 6a. Generate evidence - develop tools to assess the potential impacts of interventions38%18% 27%70% 76% 82%Slope > 20 %GullyGully 5m bufferHotspots >10Slope + Hotspots All optionsBAU• Through integrated SWC options, sediment yield can reduce by over 80%.• Impacts on the possible extents of cultivated/grazing areas to be foregone discussed! Tamene et al. submitted Predict the “most responsive” sites and corresponding interventions that can provide multiple benefits (ecosystem services)– onsite and offsite. Baseline/current soil loss riskThe most “responsive” sites to SWC and the recommended activities By targeting those sites, soil loss can be reduced by 35% and dry season baseflow enhanced by 30%. Ellison (2016)6b. Evidence generation – what placed where provides multiple benefits6c. Generate evidence: plot and landscape level erosion/runoff assessment and monitoringYaecob et al. in preparation“Non-treated”“Treated”Runoff and soil loss reduced by 44% & 52% on croplands with SWC practices compared to without. Grazing land shows 56% less soil loss compared to cultivated.Terraced woodlots experienced the least net soil loss The sub-watershed with no significant SWC practices showed about three fold more sediment yield compared to that of with SWC measures.More water retained in the watershed with SWC measures than withoutE = Acceptable zone (Desirable state)?DStays the sameEDegraded stateBCContinued declineEcosystem composition, structure, functionTime231Ecosystem attribute 2Ecosystem attribute 17. Next steps: monitor restoration process and levelWhen do we say our objective of ‘restoration’ is achieved?Develop Ecosystem Heath Index as a compound objective function considering the full range of key ecosystem services in a long-term perspective:If specific Ecosystem Service i in year t (tESSi), we can have Ecosystem Health Index  tEHI as a function that combines all key ecosystem services tESSi (i=1,2,...,N): tEHI = f (tESS1, tESS2, ..., tESSN)          For a long-term perspective, the objective function can be:EHI = t(tEHI)The form of function f can be defined after finalizing its concrete components (tESSi)Example ESSi components would include be:Biomass productivity (ESSVeg)Food productivity (ESSFood)Water availability (ESSWater)Structural biodiversity (ESSDiversity)Cultural landscape (ESSCultural)And others …Quantify the overall impacts of integrated interventions at different scales: ecosystem services8a. Next steps: ‘ecosystem health index’8b. Next steps: design framework and incentives to promote payment for ecosystem servicesPES schemes involve payments in exchange for the provision of specified ecosystem services (or actions anticipated to deliver these services) over-and-above what would otherwise be provided in the absence of payment.PES helps motivate landowners, communities, agencies etc. to invest in practices that lead to conservation or production of ecosystem services (Ferraro and Kiss 2002, Wunder 2005). Smith et al. 2013Requires mapping, quantifying, monitoring to incentivize those who generate multiple benefits in a sustainable manner!Acknowledgements Africa RISING/USAID Debrebirhan and Hosanna communities  Debrebirhan and Hosanna Bureau of Agriculture offices Debrebirhan and Hosanna Agricultural Research Centers  Gudoberet, Adisghe and Lemo Kebele administration Debrebirhan and Hosanna district administrationAfrica Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generationafrica-rising.netThis presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.

Integrated landscape management: Africa RISING R4D experiences in the Ethiopian highlands

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/79925/1/ar_n2africa_lives_Lulseged_2016.pdf

Integrated landscape management: Africa RISING R4D experiences in the Ethiopian highlands

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace