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
- Low level of community participation: surprisingly some individuals
were unable to participate even installing SWC on their farm fields
- Lack of hand tools: there were no hand tools to aid construction
efforts
- Farmers have been complaining that they have been involved in
mobilization in the previous years, although some neighboring
watersheds have completed their work
- Personal conflict: absentee farmers were punished by local leaders,
which leads to personal conflict
- The interventions that have been made so far have not been sustainable
- No strict law (bylaw) executed by the local community
- No maintenance hence the community mobilized for work annually
- Low level of extension services such as pieces of training
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 layout of structures was not technically oriented
- The spacing and vertical interval of bunds were not consistent and
vary from one to the other
- Contour lines of structures dismantled since smallholders impacted by
the layout during plow
- No proper design of structures resulting farmers do their best without
professional advice
- Conservation works began at the middle of the field and replacement of
old bunds with new ones
- Broken bunds observed during construction not included as a
maintenance plan
- Poor link of the bunds with natural or artificial waterways and others
- Farm fields plowed to the edge of the riverbank, causing the land to
quickly crumble each year (Figure 8).
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.