RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Problem Analysis

The soil and water degradation (SWD) in the watershed remains a challenge. Figure 6 demonstrates the major challenges in SWD in a problem tree. The diagram constituting the major causes determining the SWD in the Gumara sub-watersheds. Here the detail of each cause-effect summarized as follows:
Water resources degradation : in the selected four watersheds there existed a shortage of water supply sources for human and animal consumption. Access to water predominantly dependent on groundwater and surface water. However, having groundwater in these watersheds was prohibitively costly, so the community was reliant on seasonal river and spring flows. Groundwater recharge is affected by several reasons, hence these sources can no longer satisfy the community’s water needs. The steepness and ruggedness of the topography causing the generation of heavy run-off and excessive soil erosion and sedimentation down the slope. The steepness of the terrain contributes to increased run-off severity, leaving no room for stable soil production. Four of the watersheds have steep slopes on the upper part of the watershed and rugged topography (Figure 2 and 3). The incoming runoff washed out the fertile soil due to continuous farming and overgrazing, according to the focus group discussants (Figure S1). Over cultivation (small landholding); tillage frequency (farmers plow their lands 4-5 times); overgrazing (more livestock on degraded mountain tips and free grazing lead to erosion); complete removal of crop residues and animal dung from the field (crop residues and animal dung took away from fields).
Because of the growing human population and other economic constraints, forest resources being destroyed to expand agriculture. The key drivers of deforestation were the exploitation of wood for domestic use in the form of energy (because there were no alternative sources of energy), construction material (because there are no other sources of construction material), household utensils, farm equipment, and for sale to generate household income and support household livelihood. A wide area of the watershed is covered with cultivated land (Table 1). The exist natural forest in Wanzaye where many people illegally exploiting despite the presence of guards. Discussants voiced their concern and arguing that unless extra responsiveness is paid to the forested region, in this scenario this area remains historic. However, in Girbi, the hilliest part of the watershed totally covered with eucalyptus plantations (Table 1). It was done because of its proximity to Debre Tabor town and market access. Just a few scattered and remnant tree species were present around the church.
Low agricultural production and productivity : although population is a resource, it becomes challenging when it exceeds the carrying capacity of the supplying resources. The overall causes of land degradation are strongly linked with rapid population growth and then overexploitation of natural resources. This situation caused low productivity of agricultural services. As observed in the watersheds, cultivated lands were the most degraded land uses compared with grazing lands. The main reasons for cropland degradation were linked with poor management systems including frequent cultivation, bareness from crop residues, plowing steep slopes, and absence of physical conservation structures and none of the structures integrated with biological measures.
In the study areas, the majority of the land uses were cultivated land. According to farmers’ concern, the level of land degradation indicated by the number of inputs like fertilizers applied to a unit of land increased from year to year. In addition, the cost of fertilizer increased from 35 USD in 2019 to 50 USD per quintal in 2020. Based on field observations, most private lands were under crop production, while insignificant number of communal lands were used for grazing and artificial forest lands. The average landholding per household in the watersheds was less than one hectare and farmers level of accepting the placement of SWC measures on this piece of land remains a critical concern.
Community engagement : because of a variety of factors SWD continues without having a significant impact on previous efforts. Some of the commonly agreed factors raised by the respondents include lack of awareness about water resource degradation, technical skills, and weak and unsustainable integration among stakeholders, engagement of non-governmental organizations, and the government. The following sections go into the details of each community issue (Figure 6).

Community mobilization

As part of the watershed development plan, the community engaged in four different approaches. The first approach was, the large-scale community mobilized for 25 working days between January and February, annually. Mainly, the practices include soil and water conservation (SWC) works. Secondly, a group of farmers organized to work on conservation works seasonally like gully prevention upon request from farmers. Thirdly, year-round every farmer is assumed to engage in maintenance works on individual farm fields. Currently, the implementation of practices was focused on cultivated lands. According to Farta, Fogera, and Dera offices of agricultural NRM experts, community mobilization is critical to construct numerous structures and cover larger areas. According to farmers in the four watersheds indicated; the approach of involving households in the community mobilization was not considering to respond the concerns of the people rather satisfying the campaign. A farmer who did not participate during the working day either punished birr (600 ETB in Gena, 300 in Girbi except destitute) or arrested for four days. In Wanzaye about 50% of the community participated in punishment. In particular, enforcement was common around Wanzaye. The urban villagers near Wanzaye and admins in this area mobilized communities irrespective of their land ownership in the watershed. The reason was, these communities being benefited from the watershed directly or indirectly. In the same watershed, experts reported that all areas of the watershed covered with SWCP, however, communal and individual farmlands were observed bare (Figure 7).
Farmers organized in groups to implement SWCP having five to ten members. The group was subject to finish a predefined length of bunds for example 4 meter per individual and when a group finished early, can go to its own business. According to the Farta NRM lead indicated, in previous day’s activities done on cultivated lands were implemented privately, however, at field evaluation the structures were not well done and completely unsuccessful. Therefore, the approach changed into the group works to strengthen the community who had no able body and that may leave a piece of lands without conservation while reporting watershed management as a whole.

Challenges linked with mobilization

The above challenges were associated with the top-down approach led by the government. According to NRM district-level experts, since the mobilization was supervised by higher authorities, the focus was given on the number of people who participated and the area covered by structures, regardless of the structures’ design criteria. Besides that, the lack of an impact evaluation of SWCP in every watershed leads to poor achievement in the technical viability. Impact review helps in determining the appropriateness of the approaches used in carrying out watershed development efforts, as well as estimating the short, medium and long-term social and economic gains, efficiencies, and effects in the context of the stated objectives. Application of various approaches either led by agencies or the local community, successfully implemented watershed development efforts brought a significant change in the lives of the community in areas like India, and the USA (Alabama) (Wani, 2008; Muller & Alison 1999).

Implementation of large scale SWCP

The Gumara watershed has a higher rate of soil erosion than the other four watersheds that drain into Lake Tana (Ribb, Megech and Gilgel Abay; Zimale et al., 2018). Gumara emerged from mount Guna where the mountain remains fairly bare on the sides of the river emergence. In the rainy season with a low level of infiltration, and very steep slope the area generates high runoff. In these watersheds majority of soil was eroded in the form of sheet and rill erosion. The extent of gully erosion was incomparable with other sub-watersheds. In Gena and Girbi we observed stone outcropping in the cultivated fields that potentially retard the rate of soil erosion where conservation practices were limited. In some watersheds like Wanzaye there were no rocks in the fields and structures made with soil bunds.
As part of the integrated WMP, SWC works were substantial and the government of Ethiopia started SWCP in the 1980s (Bewket, 2007). Whereas, large-scale conservation programs further initiated since 2012. The practice continued up to 2021 for 25 days from January to February implementing various structures starting from the hillslopes to low-lying areas. All four watersheds followed the ridge to valley principle as indicated in the watershed management guideline (Desta et al., 2005). However, Fogera district natural resource management (NRM) experts explained, sometimes if there exist gullies downstream of the watershed and requested by the local farmers, priority could be given to stop gully development.
During the study period, farmers were engaged with SWC measures. The layout of conservation structures done by trained farmers selected among the community. These farmers surveyed the installation of SWCP. According to the response from trained farmers on the question of how they made the spacing between bunds and contour lines; they said, ‘the kebele experts told us to make a spacing of bunds about 10-12 m if the land is a gentle slope and reduce the spacing depending on its inclination (Figure 8).” As a result, the observed structures were made of subjective spacing than keeping its standards.
In the four watersheds, there was no plantation from constructed measures. According to FDG responses, the reason was due to no access to seedlings, unavailability of nursery sites, free grazing, and rodents like mice. Even though farmers were well aware of the importance of plantation, they were unable to practice techniques. Therefore, structures are broken down.

 Problems observed at field excursions

The overall work that was performed in the watershed was planned annually integrating SWCP with other activities like river diversion, removing exotic weeds, soil fertility management, plantation, and forest management.

Sustainability of SWC practices

According to experts from the district office of agriculture sustainability of conservation structures made so far remains a critical question. Farmers participated in the event either through volunteer or not, huge labor and time were invested. However, it was difficult to see the structures after the rainy season. These structures were broken intentionally or accidentally, nothing was observed under maintenance. According to Dera and Farta district officers, maintenance was the property of the landowner. However, “no one is doing this, and yet we are doing SWC annually”. One of the reasons was, sister stakeholders such as the Rural Land Administration and Environmental Protection (RLAEP) office were poorly involved to support development efforts. Land administers should be concerned about farmers’ responsibility to care for the land and environmental protection should worry about the remaining forest management and planned communal lands. The issuance of land-use certificates improved the confidence of farmers in the ownership of land. However, the certificate had a limitation on improving land care and enforcing farmers to keep the constructed SWC measures sustainably.  The Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) issued the RLAEP (Proclamation No.46/2000) to protect land use rights. “As long as landowners use land according to existing laws, this proclamation guarantees and secures their holding and use rights,” according to Article 6(3). The specified goals of the policy were to protect landowners’ long-term land-use rights while encouraging productivity and development. It also instills a sense of ownership in land users, encouraging them to protect the soil and thus maintain its efficiency. However, in the study watersheds, it is hardly implemented. That was the reason sloppy fields were used for annual crop production, eucalyptus plantations and overgrazed. Business as usual standards breaks at some stage between farmers and the implementing organization unless and until a mechanism is formed to keep measures sustainable. Farmers currently asking, ”When will we stop mobilizing for SWC?”.

Watershed as a development Unit

In the Gumara watershed, the WDP was a government-led top-down approach. These programs were not supported with extension service including training and hand tools. Experts indicated that farmers were resistant to new and adopted technologies, then the efficacy of invested efforts remains in question. In certain situations, model watersheds were established to expand the extension services pursuing that farmers can learn from what they observed. In addition, the implementation of SWCP at a small watershed scale is manageable and easily monitored. Even though model sites existed in some locations, their viability remained in doubt.
Therefore, shifting from business as usual thinking to lessons learned from successfully implemented areas is crucial. Research findings indicated that different areas have succeeded in establishing community governance mechanisms that were successful in resource protection and management (Pittroff, 2011; Mullen & Alison 1999). Promoting farmer to farmer learning programs starting from the modest goals (community and area coverage) to the larger scale. Attempting to achieve vague targets and accomplishments reported only numbers. To be critical in achieving the goals of watershed development, effective community-based watershed management programs should have led by the full interest of the community. Communal lands are shared resources, therefore, the community should be well understood in planning and use of resources as a management entity. Community empowerment could be seen in the forms of social mobilization, technological awareness, and land use rights (Pittroff, 2011).
As previously mentioned in section 2.4, assigning land titles to communities does not appear to be sufficient to sustainably protect the land degradation in the long run. However, just as usage rights are specified, similar mandatory development rules must be established at the plot scale. The development of administrative and legal processes that add specifics to these rights, such as implementation and maintenance of constructed bunds in the watershed are fundamental. In addition, overlapping of business among sector offices necessitates a collaborative approach to led development programs. As a result, a methodology is required to guide the selection and mobilization of appropriate communities and resources for the long-term sustainability of development efforts. Extension centers and stakeholders contribute to the enforcement of bylaws prepared by the consent of the community. The realization of equitable resource share and management among the community could demonstrate the level of achievements to other communities.