Abera, Wuletawu

Admassu, Z.

Alene, Temesgen

Amede, Tilahun

Demeke, G.

Dubale, Workneh

Hailu, H.

Mekonnen, Kindu

Tadesse, Meron

Tamene, Lulseged

Terefe, H.

Thorne, Peter J.

Tibebe, D.

Woldearegay, Kifle

Yaekob, T.

English

Tamene, Lulseged D.

CGSpace

Land restoration initiatives and their performances in Ethiopia: a systematic assessment based on meta-data analysisLulseged Tamene1, Wuletawu Abera1, Kifle Woldearegay2, Degefie Tibebe3, Meron Tadesse1, Zenebe Admassu4, Tesfaye Yaekob55,1, Hailu Terefe6,1, Temesgen Alene7, Workneh Dubale7, Tilahun Amede8, Habtamu Hailu9, Getamesay Demeke10, Kindu Mekonnen7, Peter Thorne7CIAT1, Mekelle University2, EIAR3, IWMI4, Jimma Agricultural Research Center/CIAT5,1, Debre birhan University/CIAT6,1, ICRISAT8, SLMP/MoA9, Inter Aide10IntroductionNatural resources and ecosystem degradation are costingEthiopia over $4.3 billion a year. The country is investing over 1.2billion a year to restore degraded areas in its four major regions.However, there are no adequate database about the spatialdistributions of those interventions and quantitative evidencesabout their performances are lacking.Results/AchievementsMethod/Approaches• Collate literature and consult partners to map the major land restoration projects across the country. • Review published literature related to the performances of land restoration efforts and create database.• Conduct meta-data analysis to assess the performances of land restoration efforts in the country. • Assess tradeoffs and synergies associated with the role of land management practices.• Over 1.6 million ha of Ethiopia is covered with SLM practices. • All interventions reduced runoff and soil erosion significantly.• Combination of bunds with biological options and CA increasedmean crop yield by 170% and 18%, respectively.• Bunds combined with biological options and exclosuresenhanced SOC by about 140% and 90%, respectively.• Enclosures have the highest impact in reducing runoff.• The impacts of single options such as Fanya juu, bunds, andbiological options on productivity are not significant.• CA had win-win impact on SOC and yield in sub-moist AEZwhile it showed tradeoff in the sub-humid zone.• Quantitative evidence would enhance government’s negotiationfor a carbon market and PES.Impacts of different SLM options on ecosystem servicesbased on 110-peer reviewed papers across 180 sites.• Continue piloting, scaling, monitoring and evidence generation through adaptive learning. • Implement SIAF across different AEZs and farmingsystems.• Conduct detailed tradeoff analysis between differentSLM options.• Quantity multiple ecosystem benefits of SLM optionsat national scale.Plan for 2019• Lack of quantitative evidences about the impactsof interventions on multiple ecosystem services.• Absence of baseline data undermines adequateevidences generation of interventions.• Reducing runoff and soil erosion are the mostachieved goals by SLM interventions.• Integrated SLM interventions have overallpositive impact.The Africa Research In Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) program comprises three research-for-development projects supported by the United States Agency for International Development as part of the U.S. government’s Feed the Future initiative. Through action research and development partnerships, Africa RISING will create opportunities for smallholder farm households to move out of hunger and poverty through sustainably intensified farming systems that improve food, nutrition, and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base.The three projects are led by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (in West Africa and East and Southern Africa) and the International Livestock Research Institute (in the Ethiopian Highlands). The International Food Policy Research Institute leads an associated project on monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment.www.africa-rising.net Key challenges and lessonsWe thank farmers and local partners in Africa RISING and other sites, WLE and CIAT for their contributions to this research.We also thank USAID for its financial support through the Feed the Future Initiative.Acknowledgement

Land restoration initiatives and their performances in Ethiopia: A systematic assessment

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/101969/1/ar_landscapes.pdf

Land restoration initiatives and their performances in Ethiopia: A systematic assessment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace