ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ADOPTION OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES:

DETERMINANTS AND CHALLENGES IN GERAR JARSO WOREDA OF
OROMIA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

BY
TEWODROS BEYENE

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

JUNE 2018

i
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ADOPTION OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES:

DETERMINANTS AND CHALLENGES IN GERAR JARSO WOREDA OF
OROMIA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

A Thesis Submitted to the College of Development Studies of Addis Ababa

University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of
Arts in Environment and Sustainable Development

BY
TEWODROS BEYENE

ADVISOR

Dr. ENGDAWORK ASSEFA

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June 2018

ii
 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis work is my original work carried out by me. All the
resources and materials used for this thesis have been fully acknowledged.

Name of the student: Tewodros Beyene

Signature: ______________

Date: _____________

Place : Addis Ababa

Date of submission :

This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as university advisor

Advisor name : Dr. Engdawork Assefa

Signature: ______________

Date: _____________

iii
 THESIS APPROVAL
ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Tewodros Beyene , entitled: Adoption of Climate
Smart Agricultural Practices: Determinants and Challenges in Gerar Jarso Woreda of
Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia and submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for
the degree of master of arts (Environment and sustainable development) complies with the
regulations of the university and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and
quality.

Signed by the Examining Committee:

Examiner (Internal) Dr Amare Bantider Signature …………. Date ……….

Examiner (External) Dr Tagel Gebreheiwot Signature ………… Date ………….

Advisor Dr. Engdawork Assefa Signiture ………… Date ………….

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am highly indebted to my advisor Dr. Engdawork Assefa for his valuable intellectual
comments, supply of the necessary materials and moral support.

I am grateful to the staff of the Bureau of Agriculture and Natural resource Development of
Gerar Jarso woreda of Oromia region for all the kind assistance provided during data
collection. I also wish to thank all of my enumerators, key informants, focus group discussion
participants, and respondent households who provided me the necessary information in the
four study kebeles.

I have also to give special thanks to my family, who are always there for me.

Lastly, I have to acknowledge the capacity building for scaling up of evidence –based best
practices in agricultural production in Ethiopia (CASCAPE ) project of CoDS/AAU , for the
research grants provided.

v
 Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices: Determinants and Challenges in Gerar
Jarso Woreda of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia

Abstract
Ethiopia’s low level of economic development with its heavy dependence on rain- fed
agriculture, which is the sector most vulnerable to climate change make the country
susceptible to the adverse effects of climate change. To counter this, several measures have
been suggested in attempts to reduce the vulnerability of smallholder farmers who are the
worst affected by changes in climate. One such intervention is climate smart agriculture
(CSA), which is probably one of the most viable and sustainable option. It offers triple wins;
Mitigation and adaptation measures to climate changes and sustainably increasing
agricultural productivity and incomes. However, the adoption of climate smart agricultural
practices is far below the expectation. Thus, this thesis answers why some farmers practice it
while others not. To address this general question a study was conducted with objective to
examine factors affecting adoption of climate smart agricultural practices in Gerar Jarso
woreda of Oromia region. Mixed research method design was employed in order to
conduct this study. Household questionnaire survey (N=201), focus group discussion, key
informant interview and field observation were used to collect data. Logistic regression
model was employed to identify key factors that influence adoption of climate smart
agricultural practices. The result showed that sex of household heads, education level of
household heads, off-farm income , livestock number , farmers’ field day participation,
knowledge on environmental regulation , access to extension services and being member of
organizations were positively correlated and significantly determine adoption of CSA
practices. Therefore, the findings of the promising demographic , socio -economic, and
institutional factors should be given to capitalize by the Woreda Agriculture and natural
resource development office and other concerned bodies to enhance farmers’ adoption
potentials of the study area. Moreover, before expanding CSA practices in other areas of
Ethiopia, addressing the implementing obstacles by establishing enabling local environments
through enhancing farmers’ implementing capacities and incentives to implement is crucial.

Keywords: Adoption, Climate change, Climate smart agriculture, Determinants, Gerar Jarso

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………... v
Abstract …………………………………………………………….................vi
List of Tables …………………………………………………………….......... x

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………........ xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations ………………………………………………….xii

Glossary …………………………………………………………….............. xiii
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background ……………………………………………………………....1

1.2 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………3
1.3 Objectives of the Study …………………………………………………5
1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study ………………………………………6
1.5 Significance of the Study …………………………………………………6
1.6 Organization of the Thesis ……………………………………………….6

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Climate Change And Agriculture ………………………………………7
2.1.1 Climate change and variability in Agriculture ………………………7
2.1.2 Climat Change Mitigation and Agriculture ……………………..12
2.1.3 Climate Change Adaptation and Agriculture ……………………..14
2.2 Conceptualizing Climate Smart Agricultural Practices …………………...17
2.2.1 Concept Definition ………………………………………………….17
2.2.2 What is new with Climate Smart Agriculture? …………………….19
2.3 Climate Smart Agricultural Practices in Ethiopia …………………….20
2.4 Opportunities and Challenges to implement Climate Smart
Agricultural practices in Ethiopia ………………………………………...23
2.5 Climate Smart Agricultural Practices Adoption ………………………….26
2.5.1 Composting ………………………………………………………...27
2.5.1.1 Composting as CSA practice …………………………………..28
2.5.1.2 Determinants of composting …………………………………...30
2.5.2 Mulching ……………………………………………………….31
2.5.2.1 Mulching as CSA practices ……………………………………..31

vii
 2.5.3 Agroforestry …………………………………………………………..32
2.5.3.1 Agroforestry as CSA practices ………………………………………34
2.5.3.2 Determinants of agroforestry ………………………………………..35
2.6 Theories of Adopting Agricultural Technologies …………………………...35
2.6.1 The economic constraints theory …………………………………………35
2.6.2 The technology characteristics-user's context theory……………………..36
2.6.3 The innovation-diffusion theory ………………………………………….36
2.6.3.1 Key elements in diffusion of innovations ……………………………..36
2.6.3.2 The innovation-decision Process ……………………………………..37
2.6.3.3 Adopter Categorization on the basis of innovativeness ……………....38
2.7 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………39

CHAPTER 3 : MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study Area ……………………………………………………………………41
3.2 Sampling and Sample Size …………………………………………………...43
3.3 Data Type ……………………………………………………………………..45
3.4 Data Collection Instruments …………………………………………………..45
3.4.1 Household survey ……………………………………………………45
3.4.2 Focus group discussion (FGD) ……………………………………….45
3.4.3 Key informant interview (KII) ……………………………………….45
3.4.4 Transect walking …………………………………………………......46
3.5 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………..46
3.6 Model Specification ………………………………………………………….46
CHAPTER 4 : RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Demographic and Socio - Economic Characteristics Of Respondents………53
4.2 Trends of Climate Variability And Change …………………………………55
4.2.1 Trends of temperature change in Gerar Jarso woreda ……………….55
4.2.2 Trends of precipitation change in Gerar Jarso woreda ………………57
4.3 Community Perception on Climate Variability and Change ………………..60
4.4 Farmers’ view towards climate smart agricultural practices ………………..61
4.5 Types and characteristics of climate smart agricultural practices …………..63
4.6 Determinants of farmers’ adoption of climate smart agricultural practices…66
4.6.1 Logit model regression results of farmer’s adoption
of composting practice in Gerar Jarso woreda. ……………………67

viii
 4.6.2 Logit model regression results of farmer’s adoption
of agroforestry practices in Gerar Jarso woreda ……………………69
4.6.3 Logit model regression results of farmer’s adoption of mulching
practices in Gerar Jarso woreda. ………………………………………...71
4.6.4 Demographic factors and adoption of climate smart
agricultural practices ……………………………………………………73
4.6.5 Physical factors and adoption of climate smart
agricultural practices …………………………………………………..75
4.6.6 Economic factors and adoption of
climate smart agricultural practices …………………………………….76
4.6.7 Institutional factors and adoption of
climate smart agricultural practices …………………………………….78
4.7 Challenges to implement climate smart agricultural practices ………………81
4.7.1 Capacity to invest on climate smart agricultural practices…………….....81
4.7.2 Incentives to invest in CSA practices………………………………….....84
4.7.3 External conditioners to invest in CSA practices………………………...86

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………....89

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………..91
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………….100

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Examples of projected climate change impacts on crop production …………… .10
Table 2. Some common CSA practices in Ethiopia ………………………………………...22
Table 3. Summary of key policies, laws and strategies relevant to CSA
practices adoption in Ethiopia. ………………………………………………….....25
Table 4. Kebele administrations and number of household heads
selected for the household Survey ……………………………………………… 44
Table 5. Expected signs (hypotheses ) of the independent variables ………………….. 49
Table 6. Description of variables used in the logistic regression model ………………… 51

Table 7. Background information on respondents ……………………………………….. 54

Table 8 Mean rainfall amount of Gerar Jarso woreda per decade ……………………….. 57

Table 9. Food security status of the study area …………………………………………... 60

Table 10. Farmers’ view towards climate smart agricultural practices ……………………62

Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for the logistic regression model ……………………….. 66

Table 12. Determinants of compost adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda …………………….. 68

Table 13. Determinants of agroforestry adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda ………………..70

Table 14. Determinants of mulching adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda……………………72

x
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. GHG emission source in Ethiopia …………………………………………....11

Figure 2 . The three pillars of CSA …………………………………………………… 18
Figure 3. Basics of the composting process .………………………………………….. 28
Figure 4. Model of Five Stages in the innovation-decision Process …………………...37
Figure 5. Adopter Categorization on the basis of Innovativeness …………………… 38
Figure 6. Study conceptual framework ………………………………………………. 40
Figure 7. Location map of Gerar Jarso woreda ……………………………………… 43
Figure 8. Temperature pattern (Mean, Maximum and Minimum) of
Gerar Jarso woreda …………………………………………………………. 56
Figure 9. Annual rainfall pattern of Gerar Jarso woreda ……………………………….57
Figure 10. Gerar Jarso woreda monthly rainfall distribution …………………………. .58
Figure 11. Rainy season (Jun-Sep) precipitation amount of Gerar Jarso woreda ……. 59

Figure 12. Community perception on rainfall, temperature, soil fertility

status, tree cover, and crop production ……………………………..............60

Figure 13. Perception results on CSA practices in Gerar Jarso Woreda …………….. 61

Figure 14. Terracing practice at Wertu Kebele ……………………………... …….. 64

Figure 15. Compost preparation at Ginno Kebele ……………………………... .. 64

Figure 16. Percentage of CSA practices adopted by household farmers ……………. .64

Figure 17. Willingness to adopt and adoption status of CSA practices ……………… 65

Figure 18. Boundary planting agroforestry practice at Adisgie Kebele ………………66

Figure 19. Small scale irrigation practice at Adisgie Kebele. ……………… ……….. 66

Figure 20. Limit to expand mulching ……………… ………………………………….82

Figure 21. Challenge to invest on composting ……………… ………………………82

Figure 22. Limit to expand composting ……………… ………………………………83

Figure 23. Challenge to invest on agroforestry ……………… ………………………..84

Figure 24. Farmers’ view on the security of land tenure ……………… …………….85

Figure 25. Limit to expand agroforestry ……………… ……………………………...86

Figure 26. Challenge to invest on mulching ……………… …………………………..87

Figure 27. Adisge kebele farmers carrying mulching materials to sell at Fiche market...89

xi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACSAA Africa Climate-Smart Agriculture Alliance

AGP Agricultural Growth Programme
CASCAPE Capacity Building for Scaling up of Evidence –Based Best Practices

in Agricultural Production in Ethiopia

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CRGE Climate Resilient Green Economy
CSA Central Statistical Agency
CSA Climate-smart agriculture
DA Development Agents
ENMA Ethiopia National Meteorology Agency
EPCC Ethiopian Panel on Climatic Change
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre (International Council for Research in

Agroforestry)
KII Key Informant Interview
NAMAs National Appropriate Mitigation Actions
NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme

SLM Sustainable Land Management
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNDP United Nations Development programme
UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USAID United State Agency International Development

xii
GLOSSARY

Belg Small rainy season mostly from February to April

Bona A season from October to May

Debo/jigi Labor sharing mechanism in which household mobilize large number of

individuals to work on his/ her farm land mostly without reciprocation.

Dega Agro-climatic zone that lies between 2400 and 3300 meter above sea level.

Genna Main rainy season like other Ethiopia highlands which extends from June to

September

Kebele It is the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia.

Kolla Agro-climatic zone that lies between 500 and 1500 meter above sea level.

Meher Long rainy season based on summer rainfall

Mahiber Spiritual organization established by the name of Glorified Saint.

Senbete Spiritual organization of the Holy Sunday in Ethiopian Orthodox Church

Wenfel Labor sharing mechanism among households on the basis of reciprocation with

equivalent reciprocation with equivalent labour.

Woinadega Agro-climatic zone that lies between 1500 and 2400 meter above sea level.

Woreda Lower administrative unit in Ethiopia that is above the kebele and below zone.

xiii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Agriculture is the economic foundation of Ethiopia. Employing about 72.7 percent of the
workforce and contributing nearly 36 percent of gross domestic product and 81 percent of
foreign exchange earnings (NBE , 2018). Despite the marginal decline in its share in GDP in
recent years, it is still the key sector in terms of its contribution to macroeconomic
development of Ethiopia.

To boom the sector sustainably for enhancing the livelihood status of smallholder farmers,
the sector needs suitable climatic condition. However, Ethiopia’s climate is changing. Across
the country, rainfall patterns are set to alter. In many areas droughts become more frequent,
more intense, and last longer (Belay and Getaneh , 2016). In others, new patterns of rainfall
will cause flooding and soil erosion. Climate change is emerging as one of the major threats
to the nation development (Belay, 2016). Since, agriculture is highly vulnerable to climate
change , food insecurity remains a concern among million’s. Ensuring food security under a
changing climate is one of the major challenges of our era.

A research conducted in Northern Ghana by employing the Ricardian regression models

argued that precipitation and temperature impacted significantly on net revenue per hectare of
maize and sorghum. Indeed, increasing precipitation (by 1 mm), while decreasing
temperature (by 1 °C), would affect net revenue, but differently across seasons and among
various crops (Zougmoré,R. et al 2016). This confirms the important link between climate
and crop revenue and the need to take actions.

Climate change fundamentally and increasingly affects agriculture. Warming, drought and
extreme weather are already altering yields and quality of crops produced around the world
(Arman, G. et al ,2016). They also stand to impact water availability, nutritional value of
foods, and food security and as such the livelihoods of natural resource dependent
communities as a whole (FAO, 2016). The economic effects are already being felt by farmers
and across global supply chains. Agricultural businesses identify climate change as a serious
long-term risk in supply management (The Rainforest Alliance 2016 : 2).

1
Climate change will have far socioeconomic consequences for national economies and
individuals. Climate change impacts on production are expected to translate into economic
impacts at various scales. At the farm level, climate change will cause reduced income for
households which will limit the capacity to acquire physical assets and meet the cost of child
education and health (Belay and Getaneh , 2016). Therefore, developing or reinforcing
adaptive mechanisms to deal with the negative effects of climate change should be
considered as priority task for policymakers and institutions by promoting climate-smart
agricultural (CSA) .

The promotion of CSA practices is one mainstream opportunity to mitigate climate change
while sustaining the productivity of agricultural systems. In addition, CSA can help build
adaptive capacity, so that: farmers, service providers to farmers and key institutions have the
ability to respond effectively to longer-term climate change as well as being able to manage
the risks associated with increased climate variability (FAO ,2016).

As a number of research depict, food security, poverty and climate change are closely linked
and should not be considered separately (Nciizah and Wakindiki ,2015; FAO,2013;UNDP ,
2011). In Africa alone, 650 million people are dependent on rain-fed agriculture in fragile
environments that are vulnerable to water scarcity and environmental degradation. These
areas are also susceptible to the negative impact of climate-related disasters such as droughts,
floods and erratic weather patterns. This affect food security among the most vulnerable
communities. According to FAO (2010 ), climate smart agriculture is taken as a solution to
such a chaos. Meaning, Major productivity gains are possible given the large gaps between
current yields and the yields that are possible with improved inputs and management while
also promoting low GHG emission options. But it is not an easy task. Despite the potential
benefits CSA could offer, it is confronted with many challenges.

The government of Ethiopia has given significant priority to the agricultural sector and has
taken a number of efforts to increase productivity. The strong dependence of the country on
agriculture, which is very sensitive to climate variability and change, is a major concern.
According to FAO (2016:4),
Ethiopia’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were estimated at
150 Mt CO 2e in 2010, with 50 percent and 37 percent of these emissions
resulting from the agricultural and forestry sectors respectively. In

2
 agriculture, livestock production accounted for more than 40 percent of
the emissions, while in forestry the main culprit was deforestation for
expansion of agricultural land, which accounted for over 50 percent of
forestry related emissions, followed by fuel wood consumption at 46
percent of forestry-related emissions.
A number of studies argued that, the agriculture status of Ethiopia is characterized by low
agricultural production and productivity (FAO,2016 ; FDRE , 2011; Nigatu and parikh ,
1999). Such low productivity is emanating from environmental factors such as climate
change, soil erosion and land degradation as well as weak extension services (Ibid).
Therefore, improving productivity while addressing the adverse effects of climate change on
agriculture is a major concern in recent researches on Ethiopia agriculture (FAO 2016).

Practically, Various types of indigenous CSA practices have been implemented and adopted
in Ethiopia. Such practices include the Derashe Traditional Conservation Agriculture, Konso
Cultural Landscape, Hararghe Highland Traditional Soil and Water Conservation, Hararghe
Cattle Fattening, Hararghe Small-Scale Traditional Irrigation, Ankober Manure Management
and Traditional Agroforestry in Gedeo Zone, East Shewa Zone, East Wollega Zone and West
Gojam Zone ( FAO 2016; Zenabu , 2015).

Nevertheless, in order to strengthen and make the existing CSA practices be effective,
identification of the identification of the bottlenecks to invest on CSA is required to scale up
the practices. Also, knowing key factors that influence CSA practices adoption by rural
farmers help to reinforce the adaptive and mitigation potentials of farmers.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Climate change and variability have been of great concern around the world in recent years.
Especially in developing countries, adverse effects of climate change and variability remain
to be a major threat to smallholder farmers and rural livelihoods (FAO , 2013). Ethiopia’s
low level of economic development with its heavy dependence on rain- fed agriculture, which
is the sector most vulnerable to climate change make the country susceptible to the adverse
effects of climate change (Belay ,2016).

Gerar Jarso woreda, in North Shewa Zone of Oromia regional state which is the focus of
this particular study , is among the most vulnerable to climate variability and change. The

3
central highlands have long been considered Ethiopia’s most famine-prone areas
(USAID ,2012). The woreda farming system is characterized by low productivity, low use of
farm inputs, traditional farm practices, poor soil fertility, water logging and other related
problems (Dereje and Haymanote ,2017).

To combat the adverse effects of climate change several measures have been suggested in
attempts to reduce the vulnerability of smallholder farmers who are the worst affected by
changes in climate. One such intervention is climate smart agriculture (CSA) (FAO ,2010),
which is probably one of the most viable and sustainable option. It offers triple wins;
Mitigation and adaptation measures to climate changes and sustainably increasing
agricultural productivity and incomes. However, the adoption of climate smart agricultural
practices is far below the expectation (Paulos ,2018). Besides, adoption of CSA practices
study in Ethiopia were conducted at macro scale and the theme needs further research (FAO ,
2016 ; Nciizah, and Wakindiki, 2015; Branca et al 2011 ). Thus, this thesis tried to
understand the local scale adoption determinants and challenges at micro-scale study.

In countries like Ethiopia, where the economy is heavily relay on agriculture, development of
the agricultural sector could be the most efficient poverty reduction measure. Yet, agricultural
expansion for food production and economic development which comes at the expense of
Soil , water , biodiversity and forest conflicts with the nation’s green economy development
goals , and often compromises production and development in the longer term. Ethiopia has
initiated the Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) initiative to protect the country from
the adverse effects of climate change and to build a green economy that will help to realise its
ambition of reaching middle income status before 2025. “Improving crop and livestock
production practices for higher food security and farmer income while reducing emissions,”
(FDRE 2011) is one of the four pillars of CRGE which mainly focus on agriculture. To fulfil
the above target, CSA practices are needed. In the National Appropriate Mitigation Actions
(NAMAs), the planned mitigation technologies and practices by agriculture sector is
presented practicing composting 80000km2 of cropland and agroforestry on 261840 km2
(FDRE,2011). Therefore, assessing the determining factors nature of the practices and the
status of the practices are a timely research themes.

Adoption studies in Ethiopia started in the mid 1970. Some of these studies were carried out
in areas where integrated rural development projects had been undertaken following the

4
introduction of integrated rural development pilot projects and minimum package
programmes during the imperial regime in some parts of the country ( Cohen, 1975).

Variables such as farm size , farm income , farming experience and soil type are frequently
assessed as a determinant variables of adoption of agricultural technologies among Ethiopian
rural farmers. (Negatu 1999, Kebede et al 1990 and Ashenafi ,2006 ). The technologies
treated in the research were single ox, pesticides, fertilizers and improved seeds. (Ibid.)

Since, CSA is a new agricultural development scheme, it demands adoption studies to

explore its determining factors . Nowadays, the need and implementation practices of CSA
are growing among different development capacity building agencies. In most cases to
implement eco- friendly agricultural practices, agro ecological assessments are done. Soil
type, precipitation level and temperature status are the common parameters analysed to
adopt innovative agricultural practices. (CASCAPE, 2016). However, without a critical
assessment on the adoption potential of the target groups beyond agro ecological parameters ,
it is hard to attain sustainable agricultural productivity at the face of climate change . So,
socio economic and institutional dimensions of the target groups must be analysed in CSA
practices adoption. Therefore in this research, the farm household basic profile
characteristics, biophysical characteristics, financial/management characteristics and
social/institutional characteristics are analyzed to substantiate the adoption potentials of rural
farmers in the study area. The result may provide what prior actions should be taken before
implementation of CSA practices in rural farmers.

1.3 Objective of the Study

The general objective of the study is, to assess determinants and challenges of climate smart
agricultural practices adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda of Oromia regional state.
The specific objectives are :
 to assess trends of climate variability and climate change and farmers’ perception
 to examine farmers’ view towards CSA.
 to examine the major determinant factors affecting farmers’ to adopt climate smart
agricultural practices .
 to assess challenges to invest and expand climate smart agricultural practices.

5
1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study was conducted in Gerar Jarso wereda of Oromia region. The result can’t represent
Ethiopia as a whole. Though, climate smart agricultural practices are more than a dozen, the
study focused only three practices namely : composting , agroforestry and mulching
practices. Besides , since agriculture encompasses different activities , the study focused only
on crop farming agriculture. Owing to the constraints of time and financial resources , this
study is limited to one –shot survey of cross sectional data collected from respondents. Since
adoption is mainly dynamic process, in this research overtime trends are not addressed.

1.5 Significance of the Study

Climate change is emerging as one of the major threats for agricultural production and
productivity. The high vulnerability nature of the sector demands adoption of climate smart
agricultural practices to enhance sustainable agricultural productivity through simultaneous
actions of adaptation and mitigation.

There are various determinants that positively or negatively contribute towards adoption of
CSA practices. Identification of these determinants are crucial for policy makers, researchers
and organizations involved in application of CSA practices in their development programs to
enhance the livelihoods of rural households. Assessing the adoption level of rural farmers,
could also be useful for designing policies to enhance their capacity to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and cope with climate change risks and impacts.
1.6 Organizations of the Thesis

This research thesis contains five chapters. The first chapter introduces the background, the
statement of the problem, objectives, scope, significance and limitations of the study. The
second chapter covers review of related literature that is related to the subject matter. The
third chapter is about materials and methods, which consists of description of study area,
sample design, sampling techniques, data collection and data analysis methods. Results and
discussion parts of the study are found in chapter four. Chapter five concludes the major
findings and suggests recommendations.

6
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Climate Change and Agriculture

2.1.1 Climate change and variability in agriculture

Climate change is a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human

activity. It alters the composition of the global and/or regional atmosphere and natural
climate variability observed over comparable time periods (IPCC, 2015). Climatic
variabilities are the types of changes (temperature, rainfall, occurrence of extremes);
magnitude and rate of the climate change that causes the impacts on the area of public health,
agriculture, food security, forest hydrology and water resources, coastal area, biodiversity,
human settlement, energy, industry, and financial services (FAO ,2017). Changes in physical
and socio-economic system have been identified in many regions (UNFCCC, 2007).
According to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the global average surface temperature is likely to rise by 1.8 degrees to 4.0
degrees Celsius by 2100. The sea level may rise by 30 to 60 centimeters. Climate variability
will increase almost everywhere. Northern latitudes will experience more rainfall; many
subtropical regions will see less (IPCC, 2001).

Detecting these changes and associating them with climate change poses huge problems since
these systems are usually subject to many stress factors other than climate change too.
Vulnerability is the degree to which a system (such as a social-ecological system) is likely to
be wounded or experience harm or stress in the natural or social environment (FAO ,2013).
Vulnerability results from a combination of processes that shape the degrees of exposure to a
hazard, sensitivity to its stress and impacts, and resilience in the face of those effects. It is
also considered a characteristic of all people, ecosystems, and regions confronting
environmental or socioeconomic stresses and, although the level of vulnerability varies
widely, it is generally higher among poorer people (Belay , 2016).

Baseline climate that was developed using historical data of temperature and precipitation
from 1971-2000 for selected stations in Ethiopia showed the year-to-year variation of rainfall
for the period between 1951 to 2005 over the country expressed in terms of normalized
rainfall anomaly averaged for 42 stations (NMA, 2007). The country during those periods

7
(1951 to 2005) has experienced both dry and wet years over the last 54 years. These changes
in the physical environment are expected to have an adverse effect on agricultural production,
including staple crops such as wheat and maize. Trend analysis of annual rainfall in Ethiopia
shows that rainfall remained more or less constant when averaged over the whole country
while a declining trend has been observed over the Northern and Southwestern Ethiopia
(IPCC, 2007).

The rainfall is highly variable both in amount and distribution across regions and seasons.
The seasonal and annual rainfall variations are results of the macro-scale pressure systems
and monsoon flows which are related to the changes in the pressure systems. The spatial
variation of the rainfall is influenced by the changes in the intensity, position, and direction of
movement of these rain-producing systems over the country (Temesgen, 2000).

Moreover, the spatial distribution of rainfall in Ethiopia is significantly influenced by

topography which also has many unexpected changes in the Rift Valley. Being a closed basin,
relatively small interventions in land and water resources can have far-reaching consequences
for ecosystems goods and services, and potentially undermine the sustainable use of the area.

The National Metrological Agency (2001) revealed that in Ethiopia climate variability and
change in the country is mainly manifested through the variability and decreasing trend in
rainfall and increasing trend in temperature. Besides, rainfall and temperature patterns show
large regional differences. For the IPCC mid-range emission scenario, the mean annual
temperature will increase in the range of 0.9 -1.1 °C by 2030, in the range of 1.7 - 2.1 °C by
2050 and in the range of 2.7-3.4 °C by 2080 over Ethiopia compared to the 1961-1990
normal(USAID ,2012). A small increase in annual precipitation is expected over the country.
Historical climate analysis for Ethiopia indicates that mean annual temperature has increased
by 1.3°C between 1960 and 2006, an average rate of 0.28°C per decade (Ibid). The increase
in temperature in Ethiopia has been most rapid in June, August, and September at a rate of
0.32°C per decade. Rainfall is historically highly variable and there is no clear trend in the
amount of rainfall over time. Mean annual temperature is projected to increase by 1.1 to
3.1°C in the 2060s, and 1.5 to 5.1°C in the 2090s (McSweeney et al, 2008). Under a single
emissions scenario, the projected changes from different models span a range of up to 2.1°C
(Ibid).

8
The significant range between these climatic condition highlights the uncertainty in future
projections for climate change in Ethiopia. Clearly Ethiopia is highly vulnerable to current
variability and there are also indications that climate change will increase rainfall variability
which will likely increase losses from rain-fed agriculture (Belay and Getaneh ,2016;
Arman ,G. et al, 2016; Temesgen and Daniel, 2014). The ecosystems of the country as well
as its community are highly exposed to climatic variability. Ethiopia is vulnerable to climatic
variability owing to its low adaptive capacity accountable to low level of socioeconomic
development, high population growth, inadequate infrastructure, lack of institutional capacity
and high dependence on climate sensitive natural resource-based activities (Belay , 2016).

Today climate change and variability are concerns of human being at global level. The
recurrent droughts and floods threaten seriously the livelihood of billions of people who
mainly their livelihood depend on agriculture. The global economy is adversely being
influenced very frequently due to extreme events such as droughts and floods, cold and heat
waves, forest fires, landslips etc. The loss of forest cover, which normally intercepts rainfall
and allows it to be absorbed by the soil, causes precipitation to reach across the land eroding
top soil and causes floods and droughts. Paradoxically, lack of trees also exacerbates drought
in dry years by making the soil dry more quickly. A research conducted by World Bank in
Morocco revealed that, due to reduced rainfall and higher temperatures, aridity increases
and agricultural yields declines (world Bank , 2009).

Climate change has already significantly impacted agriculture and is expected to further
impact directly and indirectly food production. Increase of mean temperature; changes in rain
patterns; increased variability both in temperature and rain patterns; changes in water
availability; the frequency and intensity of ‘extreme events’; sea level rise and salinization;
perturbations in ecosystems, all will have profound impacts on agriculture, forestry and
fisheries (FAO , 2013). Rainfed crops are expected to be particularly affected. If irrigation
water continues to be available in sufficient quantities, crop yields are expected to continue to
increase in spite of climate change. However, availability of water for irrigation is uncertain
(FAO , 2013).

Broadly speaking, with everything else being equal, climate change may lead to an increase
in both crop and livestock productivity in mid- to high latitudes (IPCC, 2007) and a decrease

9
in tropical and subtropical areas. Among the most affected areas are economically vulnerable
countries already food insecure and some important food exporting countries.

As it is indicated in Table 1, Crop production is increasingly vulnerable to risks associated

with new and evolving climatic changes. These are variations in environmental conditions
that pose significant challenges to farmers, over and beyond those that are experienced
‘normally.’ The planet is facing more extreme weather events, such as heavy precipitation,
higher coastal waters, geographic shifts in storm and drought patterns, and warmer
temperatures (IPCC, 2012).

Table 1. Examples of projected climate change impacts on crop production

Event Potential impact

Cold periods becoming warmer and shorter; over Increased yields in colder environments;
most land areas, days and nights becoming hotter decreased yields in warmer environments;
(virtually certain) increased outbreaks of new insect pests and
pathogens; potential impacts on crop production
Heavy precipitation events increasing in Damage to crops; soil erosion; inability to
frequency over most areas (very likely) cultivate land owing to waterlogging of soils
Drought-affected area increases (likely) Land degradation and soil erosion; lower yields
from crop damage and failure; loss of arable land
Intense tropical cyclone activity increases (likely) Damage to crops
Extremely high sea levels increase in incidence salinization of irrigation water, estuaries and
(excludes tsunamis) (likely) freshwater systems; loss of arable land
(Source : Adapted from FAO, 2013)

Case studies (Paulos ,2018;Belay, 2016) indicate that Ethiopian agriculture is highly
vulnerable (with large spatial and temporal variation) to the impacts of climate change
because of high exposure and sensitivity of the sector to climate variability and change. It is
also because low adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers. The vulnerability of the
agriculture sectors to impacts of climate change is exacerbated by non-climatic drivers such
as inappropriate land use and land degradation, population pressure, subsistence farming, low
technological innovation and application and poverty (Nathnael , 2017).

10
While agriculture is the sector most vulnerable to climate change, it is also a major cause of
climate change, directly accounting for about 14 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and indirectly much more as agriculture is also the main driver of deforestation
and land-use change responsible for Another 17 percent of global emissions (FAO , 2013).
Even if emissions in all other sectors were eliminated by 2050, growth in agricultural
emissions in a business-as-usual world with a near doubling in food production would
Perpetuate climate change (Ibid).

According to FAO (2016), Ethiopia’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were
estimated at 150 Mt CO2 e in 2010, with 50 percent and 37 percent of these emissions
resulting from the agricultural and forestry sectors respectively. In agriculture, livestock
production accounted for more than 40 percent of the emissions, while in forestry the main
culprit was deforestation for expansion of agricultural percent of forestry related emissions,
followed by fuel wood consumption at 46 percent of forestry-related emissions. The major
sources of GHG emissions within the agriculture sector of Ethiopia. The largest proportion of
emissions results from enteric fermentation, followed by manure left on pasture, both of
which are related to livestock production (Figure 1 ).

Manure
Burning - management
savannah 2%
4%
Manure left on Synthetic fertilizers
pasture 2%
37%
Other
4% Maure applied to
Enteric soils 1%
fermentation
Burning crop
53%
residues
1%

Figure 1. GHG emission source in Ethiopia(Adapted from FAO ,2016)

The overall efficiency of the agricultural sector– its resilience, adaptive capacity and its land,
which accounted for over 50 potential for contributing to the mitigation of the effects of
climate change and variations– can be enhanced by improving these constituent components.
Indeed, by improving the efficiency of agricultural production, emissions can be reduced and
sequestration capacity enhanced (Pretty et al., 2011).

11
Mitigation and adaptation are the two fundamental instruments of the international climate
convention to minimize negative impacts of climate change on humans and ecosystems. The
less effective global mitigation is in reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and increasing GHG sinks, and the more adaptation is needed to avoid such
negative impacts. Adaptation deals with enhancing the adaptive capacity and/or reducing
vulnerability to climate change impacts while also taking advantage of the positive
opportunities resulting from climate change. Despite both aiming to reduce the negative
human and ecosystem impacts of climate change, the two measures are different in their
specific objectives, scope, time dimension, and level of collaboration required ( Lali sa et al
2014).

Ethiopia, relative to many African countries, richly endowed with water, the spatial and
temporal distribution of water is highly uneven, making certain places and times of the year
very dry and water scarce (Kbrom and Mehari , 2016). The rivers of Ethiopia exhibit typical
characteristics of tropical rainfall-dependent flow regimes. Hence, the spatial and temporal
distribution of rainfall governs amount and intra-and inter annual variability of water
availability. This is due to mainly effected from the changing climate that is happening now
around the globe. There by, the blessings of water have primarily positive implication to the
agriculture sector among other economic reward to the country. If the changing climate
causes negative connotation to the water sector of the country, it will definitely hamper to the
country’s GDP in one way or another (EPCC , 2015). Hence, adaptation and mitigation
options or strategies need to be devised, implemented and/or scaled up the existing ones to
offset the current and predicted impacts of climate change to the agriculture and water sectors
of the country.

2.1.2 Climat Change Mitigation and Agriculture

There is much concern that the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in general, and
carbon dioxide in particular contributes to global warming by trapping long-wave radiation
reflected from the earth’s surface (FAO,2013). Over the past 150 years, the amount of carbon
in the atmosphere has increased by 30% (Ibid). Most scientists believe there is a direct
relationship between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising global
temperatures (Stavins and Richards, 2005).

12
Mitigation is a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse
gases. Mitigation, together with adaptation to climate change, contributes to the objective
expressed in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC):
The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal
instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to
achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level
should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow
ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that
food production is not threatened and to enable economic
development to proceed in a sustainable manner ( IPCC ,2015:4).

Ethiopia’s per capita emission of less than 2 ton CO2 Dioxide equivalent) is low compared to
more than 10 ton in the EU and more than 20 ton in the US and Australia. The country’s total
emissions of around 150 Mt CO2 e represent less than 0.3% of global emissions (FDRE ,
2011). The agriculture sector is one of the major contributors of GHG (Green House Gas)
emissions in Ethiopia through the crop, livestock and natural resources carbon footprints (like
as a result of soil degradation and land use change from forest land to agricultural land).
Ethiopia intends to limit its net GHG emissions in 2030 to 145 Mt CO 2e or lower. This would
constitute a 255 MtCO 2 e or 64% reduction from the Business As Usual (BAU) emissions in
2030, which would otherwise become 400 Mt CO2 e with BAU in the same year ( Belay ,
2016 ; Nathnael , 2017).

GHG emission has impacted the agriculture sector in a way that rainfall variability and
associated yield reductions are estimated to cost Ethiopia around 38% of its potential growth
rate and increase poverty by 25% (World Bank ,2006). Since the country’s main-stay and/or
economy are based on agriculture, climate change could negatively affect agriculture. Thus, it
will ultimately reduce GDP by 3-10% by 2025 (Nathnael , 2017). Results show that warmer
temperature is beneficial to livestock agriculture, while it is harmful to the Ethiopian
economy from the crop agriculture point of view (Ibid). Moreover, increasing/decreasing

13
rainfall associated with climate change is damaging to both (crop and livestock) agricultural
activities.

According to different studies , variety of mitigation strategies to immune level of emissions

particularly from the agriculture sector (i.e., from crop, mainly livestock and natural
resources) are drawn. Some of the identified mitigation strategies are: reducing expansion of
cultivated land through agricultural intensification (increasing productivity by reducing
Green House Gas (GHG) emission: conservation agriculture, compost, wise use of inorganic
fertilizers, proper crop management); improving animal productivity through breeding;
feedlots practice by smallholder farmers; improving feed and feeding management;
diversification toward lower emitting animal species (small ruminants); mechanization;
manure management; afforestation/reforestation; agroforestry; soil and water conservation
and land rehabilitation; and reducing rate of desertification. ( Belay , 2016 ; Nathnael , 2017;
Temesgen et al , 2009).

2.1.3 Climate Change Adaptation and Agriculture

Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in response to
actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits
beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 2007).

By 2050, it is predicted that the global population will be over 9 billion people, increasing the
demand for food and other agricultural products (FAO, 2013). At the same time, the world
faces challenges such as land and water scarcity, increased urbanization, and climate change
and volatility. Agricultural production remains the main source of income for most rural
communities (about 86 percent of rural people - 2.5 billion), who depend on agriculture for
their livelihood (World Bank, 2008). Improving adaptation of the agricultural sector to the
adverse effects of climate change will be imperative for protecting and improving the
livelihoods of the poor and ensuring food security. In practical terms, climate change
adaptation requires more than simply maintaining the current levels of performance of the
agricultural sector; it requires developing a set of robust and yet flexible responses that will
improve the sector’s performance even under the changing conditions brought about by
climate change engenders (FAO , 2013).

14
According to FAO (2013), Main climate change exposure for densely populated highlands
and poor areas like Himalayas, Andes, Central American highlands, Rift Valley, Ethiopian
plateau, Southern Africa etc. are rainfall variability, droughts, floods. They are vulnerable
because , rainfed agriculture, marginal lands and poor soil moisture capacity are the very
nature of the agricultural potential. The high prevalence of poverty, limited options,
knowledge, social safety nets and resources drive to have low adaptive capacity. So,
watershed management and on farm water storage for water conservation; integrated water
resources management in river basins and investment in social infrastructures are advised to
be a typical response option.

Adapting to climate change will entail adjustments and changes at every level from
community to national and international. Communities must build their resilience, including
adopting appropriate technologies while making the most of traditional knowledge, and
diversifying their livelihoods to cope with current and future climate stress. Local coping
strategies and traditional knowledge need to be used in integrated with government and local
interventions. To enable effective adaptation measures, governments as well as non-
government organizations, must consider integrating climate change in their planning and
budgeting in all levels of decision making (Belay , 2016).

Decisions on the type of adaptation are often made by individuals, groups within society, and
organizations and governments on behalf of society. Some adaptation measures may be taken
at individual level. Others like rainwater harvesting and investments, building dams, releasing
new cultivars that are more drought resistance require collective actions. These time societies
have inherent capacities to adapt to climate change and have developed different adaptation
and mitigation strategies to combat climate change. They have developed knowledge, skills,
technology, institutional arrangements and strategies that are important foundations for
adapting to long-term climate change. Based on the type of economic activities and social
networks societies can access local coping strategies against shocks. These highly differ
among households and communities. Communities have always adapted to climate variations
by making preparations based on their resources and knowledge accumulated through
experience of past weather pattern. The adaptive measures that households use when faced
with climate change could also differ in terms of their ease of implementation, equity effects,

15
lag between implementation and effect, their cost of implications, compatibility with other
programs, and agencies implementing measures (Admassie, 2008).

Climate adaptation measures will need to address systemic weaknesses and vulnerabilities
that have historically impoverished those communities. Climate change will challenge the
implementation of current and future development plans: adjustments and changes will be
required at every level: community, national and international. A better understanding of the
impacts, costs, changes and communities perceptions of climate change, ongoing adaptation
measures, and the decision-making process is important to inform policy makers and sector
institutions aimed at promoting successful adaptation strategies for the country development
programme. Ethiopia will need to both mitigate the impacts of climate change, where
possible, and adapt to the situation where it cannot (Yesuf et al, 2008).

As impact will differ regionally, based on the bio-physical and socioeconomic situations
within Ethiopia, the management of impacts will need to be defined for each region based on
the analysis of current information and practices, the scope for variability within these
systems and the possibility of alternative farming and livelihoods. Given the challenges
outlined above, delivering an integrated response will require enhanced capacity for
coordinating and leading ‘joined-up’ actions. New technologies, as well as current
technologies used in new ways can support this response, but only if the appropriate enabling
institutional and policy environment is in place to encourage joint working and embrace
adaptive learning to take account of ongoing uncertainties or new opportunities (Tadege,
2007).

Studies in Ethiopia indicate that, the dominant adaptation methods practised by Ethiopian
crop producing farmers include: use of different crop varieties, tree planting, soil
conservation, early and late planting, and irrigation adoption of mixed crop and livestock
farming systems and changing planting dates (Temesgen et al 2009; Temesgen, 2014;
Nathnael, 2017).

16
2.2 Conceptualizing Climate Smart Agricultural Practices
2.2.1 Concept definition

Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) as a concept was developed in 2010 by the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO). It is an approach to reorienting agricultural and cattle
production to the new realities of climate change. It creates the technical, policy and
investment conditions for achieving sustainable agricultural development and food security as
climate change unfolds. It is composed of three main pillars:
 sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes ;
 adapting and building resilience to climate change; and
 reducing and/or removing GHG emissions where possible. (FAO, 2013).

Climate smart agriculture is not a defined set of practices or an entirely new type of
agriculture. Rather it is an approach that combines different methods under a climate change
umbrella. It assesses the risks and needs of a specific farm or farming community through a
climate impact lens, then addresses them using practices chosen for that particular situation
(2016). It gives farmers tools and a pathway to make their operations and livelihoods more
productive and resilient in the face of climate change, while also helping reduce their climate
impacts. It integrates the three dimensions of sustainable development by jointly addressing
food security and climate change challenges (Nciizah and Isaiah ,2015). The focus is
generally on improving the currently existing techniques, such as the usage of fertilisers and
pesticides, but with better-applied efficiency and improved seeds (for instance, drought
resistant seeds) (FAO 2010).

As research and policy links between climate change and agriculture have advanced, climate-
smart agriculture has emerged as a framework to capture the concept that agricultural systems
can be developed and implemented to simultaneously improve food security and rural
livelihoods, facilitate climate change adaptation and provide mitigation benefits. Since it
emerged in 2010, the development of this idea and use of the term itself, has been led by
international institutions, particularly the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) and the World Bank. The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) has provided leadership to the international research community as the idea has
matured. (Sara J Scherr et al 2012)

17
According to FAO, CSA is a more comprehensive development concept compared to agro-
ecology. At its launch (2010), it was however heavily criticised, especially by civil society
and farmers organisations, for lacking specific indicators, thereby also for risking to focus too
narrowly on mitigation instead of adaptation that is more urgent in poor developing countries.
The CSA community responded to this criticism by broadening its scope. CSA now links
environmental, social and economic pillars of sustainability, and covers farm level practices,
landscape level approaches, and institutional/policy level frameworks, as shown in Figure 2.
The CSA concept is relatively flexible and is still “work in progress”, since the approach
remains context-specific and needs to be always tailored to local and regional realities. The
CSA label is extensively used by internationally renowned research centres and organisations
such as the World Bank, FAO, the Consultative Group for International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR) and its Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
programme, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the UK Department for International Development (DfID),
the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as African policymakers. (Hanne Knaepen et al 2015 : 4)

Figure 2 . The three pillars of CSA ( adapted from Knaepen, et al . 2015)

Climate Smart Agriculture seeks to increase productivity in an environmentally and socially

sustainable way, strengthen farmers’ resilience to climate change, and reduce agriculture’s
contribution to climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing carbon

18
storage on farmland. Climate-smart agriculture includes proven practical techniques — such
as mulching, intercropping, conservation agriculture, Crop rotation, integrated crop-livestock
management, agro forestry, improved grazing, and improved water management — but also
innovative practices such as better weather forecasting, early warning systems and risk
insurance. It is about getting existing technologies off the shelf and into the hands of farmers
and developing new technology such as drought and flood tolerant crops to meet the demands
of the changing climate. It is also about creating and enabling policy environment for
adaptation. Climate-smart agriculture fully incorporates attention to climate risk management.
In many regions, agriculture is an extremely risky business, and climate change will
exacerbate this.
2.2.2 What is new with Climate-smart agriculture?

In the last decades, farming systems approaches have brought to light insights related to
institutions and policy, participation, multi-stakeholders partnerships and people’s rights,
environment and agro-ecosystems as well as multidisciplinary and multi sectoral mechanisms
and their interdependence. Some of the “labels” currently used relate to practices at farm
level (for instance, sustainable intensification), whereas some others relate to comprehensive,
holistic approaches (for example, CSA). Some of them promote a more “nature-driven”
agriculture (like eco-intensive agriculture or agro-ecology), while some others support a more
“technology driven” agriculture (like precision agriculture) (Knaepen, et al . 2015).

These concepts have evolved over time in line with new emerging issues and more scientific
knowledge becoming available. In principle, all such approaches are complementary, and
they can be gathered under the “Sustainable Agriculture” (SA) umbrella, including green
agriculture , CSA, agro-ecology, ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) for food security, the
landscape approach, eco-intensive agriculture and sustainable intensification, amongst others.
Sustainable Agriculture, like “sustainable development”, has encompassing benefits from
social, environmental and economic angles. It describes farming systems that are ‘capable of
maintaining their productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely. Such systems must be
resource conserving, socially supportive, commercially competitive, and environmentally
sound’ (Knaepen, et al . 2015).

Though , CSA concept was developed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in
2010, it is not considered as a new agricultural system, nor is it a set of practices. It is a new

19
approach, a way to guide the needed changes of agricultural systems, given the necessity to
jointly address food security and climate change (FAO , 2013b).

CSA shares with sustainable development and green economy objectives and guiding
principles. The 1992 Earth Summit and Rio Declaration recognized the value of the
environment in development activities and integrate economic, environmental and social
dimensions. The Rio convention also include the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). Also practically speaking , a green economy is one whose
growth in income and employment is driven by investments that simultaneously: reduce
carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource-use efficiency; and prevent the
loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services (FAO , 2013a).

The green economy and CSA share the common goal of integrating the three dimensions of
sustainable development. Both make sustainable development tangible by focusing on issues
that can and must be addressed right now in local communities but that have global, long-
term consequences. CSA brings together global and local concerns, climate change to be
addressed globally, climate change to get adapted to locally; and first of all, food security,
which has to be addressed both locally and globally. To do so it brings together practices,
policies and institutions, which are not necessarily new. What is new is the harmonization
and synchronization needed of practices and policies in order to address multiple challenges,
faced by agriculture and food systems, now and for the future. What is also new is the
objective of avoiding contradictory and conflicting policies by internally managing trade-offs
and synergies in the pursuit of multiple objectives (FAO , 2013b).

2.3 Climate Smart Agricultural practices in Ethiopia

As fundamental to livelihoods and food security improvement programme , both traditional

and innovative agricultural practices are conducted in Ethiopia. Currently, agricultural
development activities carried out in the country are supported by a number of policies,
strategies and institutions. Of the numerous agricultural development activities conducted,
CSA practices mentioned in elaborative manner are considered important in addressing issues
related to climate change and are contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation
(Table 2) . Such agricultural practices in Ethiopia include integrated watershed management,
integrated soil fertility management, sustainable land management, conservation agriculture,

20
agroforestry, crop residue management, composting, promotion of improved livestock feed
and rangeland management (FAO, 2016).

Ethiopia is one of the countries heavily affected by land degradation, and addressing this
problem is a major priority task for the country. In Ethiopia integrated watershed
management is conducted through various projects and programmes, which include the
Sustainable Land Management Programmes (SLMP1 and SLMP2), Managing Environmental
Resources to Enable Transitions to more Sustainable Livelihoods (MERET) project,
Productive Safety Nets Programme – Public Works (PSNP-PW) and numerous NGOs. CSA
in SLMP2 refers to proven practical techniques — such as mulching, intercropping,
conservation agriculture, no-till, crop rotation, cover cropping, integrated crop-livestock
management, agroforestry, improved grazing and improved water management — and
innovative practices such as use of drought-resistant food crops. In an effort to implement
this programme in many parts of the country, reports indicate that to date about 1 708 100
hectares of land were treated under area closures; and appropriate physical and biological
soil conservation methods were applied to 2 076 000 hectares of land (Ibid).

Studies indicate that land and crop production and productivity have increased due to an
increase in land available for cultivation, increased availability of water for irrigation,
improvement in the fertility status of the soil as well as improved agronomic practices
(Branca et al 2011). It is reported that soil organic matter content sequestration can be
achieved by implementing sustainable land management practices that add high amounts of
biomass to the soil, cause minimal soil disturbance, conserve soil and water, improve soil
structure and enhance activity and species diversity of soil fauna. Some 12,500 households
who adopted conservation agriculture, resulting in a 60% increase in crop yields (FAO ,
2016). Also yields of crops from composted plots were 3 - 5 times higher than those treated
only with chemicals. (Branca et al 2011; FAO , 2016; Nciizah, and Wakindiki, 2015 ).

21
Table 2. Some common CSA practices in Ethiopia

CSA practice Components Why it is climate smart?

Conservation  Reduced tillage  Carbon sequestration
agriculture  Crop residue management-  Reduce existing emissions
mulching, intercropping  Resilience to dry and hot spells
 Crop rotation/intercropping
withcereals and legumes
Integrated soil  Compost and manure  Reduced emission of nitrous oxide
fertility management, including green and CH4
management manuring  Improved soil productivity
 Efficient fertilizer application
techniques (time, method,
amount)
Small- scale  Year-round cropping  Creating carbon sink
irrigation  Efficient water utilization  Improved yields
 Improved food security
Agroforestry  Tree-based conservation  Trees store large quantities of CO
agriculture  Can support resilience and improved
 Practised both traditionally and productivity of agriculture
as improved practice
 Farmer-managed natural
regeneration
Crop  Popularization of new crops and  Ensuring food security
diversification crop varieties  Resilience to weather variability
 Pest resistance, high yielding,  Alternative livelihoods and improved
tolerant to drought, short season incomes
Improved livestock  Reduced open grazing/zero  Improved livestock productivity
feed and feeding grazing  GHG reduction
practices  Forage development and  CH4 reduction
rangeland management
 Feed improvement
 Livestock breed improvement
and diversification
Other  In situ water  Resilience of agriculture

22
 conservation/harvesting  Improved incomes
 Early-warning systems and  Reduced emissions
improved weather information  Reduced deforestation
 Support to alternative energy  Reduced climate risk
fuel efficient stoves, biofuels
 Crop and livestock insurance
 Livelihoods diversification
(apiculture, aquaculture)
 Post-harvest technologies (agro
processing, storage)
(Adapted from FAO , 2016)

2.4 Opportunities and Challenges to Implement CSA Practices in Ethiopia

In spite of the potential benefits of the system especially to smallholder farmers who bear the
brunt of the effects of climate, there is much skepticism about the capacity of CSA to
mitigate the effects of climate by fostering resilience let alone feed communities (Nciizah,
and Wakindiki, 2015) . Most of the household farmers in developing countries including
Ethiopia are resource poor and they usually own degraded land (FAO ,2016). Also, a
significant size of the farm lands are marginal with low yields. However, CSA would be the
most appropriate system for such farmers since it uses locally available resources and does
not rely on the use of external inputs (Magdoff, 2007).

As it is stated in Table 3, the current policies, strategies and laws related to climate change
and CSA in Ethiopia are adequate. However, they are not adequately incorporated into
extension guidelines and manuals (and the extension system as a whole) in a way that the
great majority of the rural farming population could understand and participate in their
implementation. For this reason adoption of practices such as conservation agriculture
remains relatively low. The promotion of integrated watershed management to improve
agricultural productivity, with major emphasis on avoiding open and uncontrolled grazing,
sufficient resource endowment in the form of projects and programmes like AGP, SLM,
PSNP and others and the availability of adequate numbers of extension and development
agents at grassroots level provide a good opportunity for large-scale implementation and
promotion of climate-smart practices. Lack of skilled human resources on climate change
adaptation and mitigation at all levels, weak coordination mechanisms at federal and regional

23
levels, lack of mechanisms to bring together and coordinate stakeholders involved in
different forms of CSA technology promotion, the dominant nature of conventional
agricultural practices like frequent ploughing and removal and burning of crop residues and
the open grazing characterization of livestock husbandry are key challenges to implement
CSA in Ethiopia (FAO, 2016). So, analysing the untapped opportunities and key challenges
to upscale CSA is demanding for policy makers and practitioners to move forward.

CSA requires changes in farming households’ attitude, strategies and planning, as well as
changes in the usual timing of agricultural practices. All such expected changes Without
appropriate institutional structures, supporting national policies and strategies may seem
overwhelming to the adverse impact of climate change by smallholder farmers (FAO ,2013).
Farmers need policies that remove obstacles to implementing climate-smart agriculture, and
create synergies with alternative technologies and practices. Policies and strategies should
recognize and support proven technologies for carbon sequestration, like mulching,
intercropping and agroforestry. Considerable policy support and capacity enhancement is
needed for climate risk management including insurance and safety nets, as well as improved
access to weather information adapted to farmers’ needs (Ibid). Ways and opportunities need
to be found that strengthen synergies in the implementation of climate-smart agriculture and
food security programs and initiatives.

At present, there is willingness and commitment from the Ethiopian government to reduce
poverty and ensure food security while addressing climate change. The government has
developed policies and strategies that are pertinent to ensure food security as well as address
climate change. The government has put in place a number of policies, strategies and
institutions that are designed to support climate change adaptation and mitigation and
sustainable development as a whole. Moreover, Ethiopia has signed and/or ratified many of
the international conventions and protocols related to climate change and land degradation
including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1994), the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification (UNCCD) (FAO , 2016; Belay, 2016).

Policies, laws and strategies relevant to climate change in Ethiopia include the Climate
Resilient Green Economy Strategy (2011), National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA),
Ethiopian Programme of Adaptation to Climate Change (EPACC) of 2011, Nationally

24
Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) of 2010, Rural Development Policy and Strategies
(2003), Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), CAADP Compact and the National
Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (1997).

The Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy known as CRGE was developed in 2011 and
launched at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change in Durban in 2011. The strategy takes an economy-wide approach to
greenhouse gas reduction. According to the strategy, Ethiopia aims to achieve carbon-neutral
middle-income status before 2025. The strategy is based on four pillars, of which the first
two pillars are mainly related to CSA. These are: “Improving crop and livestock production
practices for greater food security and better income for farmers while reducing emissions”
and “Protecting and re-establishing forests for their economic and ecological value, including
carbon stocks ” (FDRE , 2011: 22-24).

Table 3. Summary of key policies, laws and strategies relevant to CSA practices adoption in Ethiopia.
policy, law and Year Intention or goal
strategy
Articles 43 and 44 of 1995 Government and citizens shall have a duty to protect the
the Ethiopian environment. The design and implementation of programs and
constitution projects shall not damage or destroy the environment.
Environmental 1997 Promote sustainable social and economic development through
Policy of Ethiopia the sound management and use of natural, human-made and
cultural resources and the environment as a whole so as to meet
the needs of the present generation without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs'
Environmental 2002 Ensure that the environmental implications are taken into
Impact Assessment account before any major development projects are made
National Adaptation 2007 The NAPA represented the first step in coordinating
Program of adaptation activities across government sectors
Action (NAPA)
The Comprehensive 2009 One of the pillars of CAADP is extending the area under
Africa Agriculture sustainable land management and reliable water control
Development systems. CAADP has been endorsed by the African Heads of
Program (CAADP) State and Government as a framework for restoration of
Compact agriculture growth, food security and rural development in

25
 Africa.
Growth and 2010- The GTP recognizes that the environment is a vital pillar of
Transformation Plan 2015/201 sustainable development. The GTP addresses climate change as a
(GTP I and II) 6-2020 crosscutting issue under the strategic priority of environment
and climate change.
Agriculture Sector 2011 The Agriculture Sector Climate Change Adaptation Plan.
Programme
of Plan on
Adaptation to
Climate
Change/APACC
Ethiopian 2011 More programmatic approach to adaptation planning
Programme of
Adaptation to
Climate Change
(EPACC)
Climate Resilient 2011 Carbon-neutral middle-income status before 2025
Green Economy
Strategy
(Adapted from: FDRE ,1995; FDRE , 2011; FAO ,2016)

2.5 Climate Smart Agriculture Practices

Environmental stresses have always had an impact on crop production, and farmers have
always looked for ways to manage these stresses. Climatic conditions that influence crop
systems include: rain quantity and distribution, and consequently water availability; extreme
events, such as floods and droughts; higher temperatures; and shifting seasons (FAO ,2013).
At the field level, there are a wide range of agricultural practices and approaches that are
currently available that can contribute to increased production while still focusing on
environmental sustainability. Considering the ecological, social, policy and economic
dimensions of a specific location, CSA practices can contribute to climate-smart crop
production i.e. approaches to adapt to, and contribute to, the mitigation of climate change
(FAO ,2016).

Some of CSA approaches and practices that contribute to climate change adaptation are:
ecosystem-based approaches; conservation agriculture; integrated nutrient and soil

26
management; mulch cropping; cover cropping; alterations in cropping patterns and rotations;
crop diversification; using high quality seeds and planting materials of adapted varieties;
integrated pest management; integrated weed management; grasslands management; water
and irrigation management; landscape-level pollination management; organic agriculture; and
land fragmentation ( riparian areas, forest land within the agricultural
landscape)(FAO,2013b). There are also many different approaches and practices for
sustainable crop production that can contribute to climate change mitigation. Some of the
widely practiced are : conservation agriculture; soil compaction management; improved
farming systems with several crop rotations; crop diversification; promotion of legumes in
crop rotations; growing cover crops; mulch cropping; restoration of cultivated peaty soils and
degraded lands; soil management practices that reduce fertilizer use (e.g. urea deep
placement); integrated nutrient management; growing nutrient-use efficient crop varieties;
integrated crop and livestock systems; dedicated energy crops to replace fossil fuel use;
emission control and reduction (combustion engines, animal waste); improved rice
cultivation techniques; water management/conservation, irrigation, water table management;
and agroforestry (FAO , 2016).

From a number of CSA practices three of them namely ; composting, mulching and
agroforestry are selected in this research. In spite of the specificity of the research objective,
the practices demand only local resources for adoption.

2.5.1 Composting
Composting as it is indicated in Figure 3, is a natural biological process carried out by a vast
number and variety of decomposer organisms. Naturally occurring microorganisms, such as
bacteria and fungi, account for most of the decomposition. Larger organisms, including
insects and earthworms, also break down the materials, especially in the later stages of the
process. From start to end, the composting materials change from a diverse mixture of
individual ingredients, such as leaves, stems, and fruit, to a uniform soil-like material called
compost (sometimes referred to as humus). (Rynk and Colt , 1997; de Bertoldi et al., 1983).
The metabolic activity and exothermic processes during the composting increases the
temperature in the composting mass which creates a strong selective pressure in favour of
thermophilic organisms. Various maturity indicators for composts have been
suggested .Though there is no single parameter that completely defines maturity, the carbon
nitrogen ratio and reduced rate of CO evolution from mature compost can be used as reliable

27
indicators. Composting results in a reduction of the volume of organic material, destruction
of weed seeds and sanitation through reduction of harmful pathogens. However, the process
can also result in loss of N through ammonia volatilization (Goyal et al., 2005). Amendment
of soil with compost improves the biophysical and chemical properties of soils. Increases in
soil organic matter (SOM), enhanced soil fauna and increased microbial biomass have been
documented as a result of compost addition (Workneh, 2015 ; Mengistu and Bauer, 2011).

Water heat carbon dioxide

Organic Compost
Ingredients containing organic
containing carbon, matter, nutrients,
nitrogen, other minerals, water,
nutrients, water, microorganinisms,
minerals,
etc.
microorganisms,
etc

Air (oxygen)

Figure 3. Basics of the composting process (Adapted from Rynk and Colt , 1997).

2.5.1.1 Composting as CSA practice

Compost additions to soil have the potential to improve soil physical conditions through
increasing resistance to erosion, improving soil workability and water infiltration and water
holding properties; improve soil fertility; increase soil biodiversity and sequester carbon in
the soil (Huttle and Fussy , 2001). Significant number of studies showed a positive effect of
compost on yield (Wassie , 2016;Workneh, 2015 ; Eric G.,2012; Mengistu and Bauer, 2011;
Weinfurtner , 2001). As it is cited by Nciizah and Wakindiki (2015), from the works of
different individuals and institutions in Ethiopa, Yields of crops from composted plots were 3
- 5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals. Studies conducted in Tigray also
showed compost increased the grain yield of crops by 110% (Wassie , 2016). There is no
wonder that organic soil amendments such as compost produced higher yield of crops
because they are the sources of multiple nutrients required by plants or crops for their growth

28
and developments. But , yield attained is different based on types of compost (fresh and
finished compost) and amounts of compost applied (Weinfurtner, 2001). This increase in
yield can be attributed to the effect of nitrogen. Studies also showed that the application of
compost could influence the quality of plants. Application of compost could increase the
amount of crude protein from 10.6 % up to 13.2 % at different rates of application and
positive changes in plant quality with an increasing amount of gluten in wheat after compost
treatment (Weinfurtner , 2001).

In the present Ethiopia , increased productivity in the agricultural sector has been constrained
by high population pressure, deforestation and resource base degradation, soil erosion and
soil fertility depletion (Workneh, 2015 ; Mengistu and Bauer, 2011; Shiferaw and Holden,
1999). In order to enhance sustainable agricultural productivity, the current farm land
management practices need to be changed.

The decline in soil fertility was partly compensated by increasing arable land at the expense
of forests, bush and grazing land or by putting cropland under fallow. However, in highly
populated areas (e.g., the highlands), this alternative is no longer a possible alternative since
land suitable for conversion to cropland is becoming scarce. Long fallow periods are no
longer an alternative due to small and continuously decreasing farm sizes associated with
population growth (Workneh, 2015;Shiferaw & Holden, 1999; Kebede, Y. et al 1990;).

A more sustainable management of the soil resource can be achieved through improved
agricultural management such as crop rotation with nitrogen fixing legumes, addition and
recycling of nutrients and erosion control. Direct addition of nutrients can be done through
mineral fertilizer or organic inputs such as manure and compost, or through combination of
both nutrient sources (Workneh, 2015; Eric , 2015; Mengistu and Bauer, 2011). Nitrogenous
fertilizers are the most widely used fertilizers and deliver huge benefits in terms of
productivity, especially in nutrient-depleted soils. However, these fertilizers also have a high
potential for environmental damage in terms of GHG emissions and nitrate pollution
(FAO,2013) .

Even if , there is no ample information available in Ethiopia on the effects of composting on

carbon sequestration, the notable report as it is cited by Wassie (2016) is the work of
Mulugeta et al. (2011) . The research was conducted to investigate the effects of compost on

29
soil carbon stock compared to untreated check (control) and that of fertilizer treatments for
three years at Arsi Negelle, Ethiopia. They found that compost treatment resulted in carbon
sequestration by 0.15 and 0.25 t/ha in the year one and year two respectively as compared to
the initial soil C stock whereas there was a loss of carbon by 0.0027 t/ha in the first year and
0.06 t/ha in the second year.

2.5.1.2 Determinants of composting

Composting ingredients are freely available but labour intensive in transportation and
application. As a result, the choice between the two is mostly based on labour endowments
and income levels of the farmers. (Wassie ,2016; Mengistu and Bauer, 2011). Labour
availability can be measured as the proportion of household members who contribute to farm
work. Using a binary logit, Odendo et al. (2009) found that the proportion of household
members available to provide labour positively influenced adoption of soil fertility
management practices.
According to Kilcher (2007), the greatest constraints faced by poor farmers on the road to
organic soil management practices such as composting are lack of knowledge, access to
markets, certification, agricultural inputs and lack of organization. According to FAO (2013),
the global experience depicted that the main constraints of composting adoption are; Cost,
limited access to technology and information. However, the specific barriers to adoption of
compost and extent of adoption of compost production and uses vary from location to
locations (Kassie et al., 2009) due to variation in agroecology, climate, socioeconomic
condition, level of training and extension service provided to famers etc. For instance Kassie
et al. (2009) studied the determinants of adoption of compost in semi-arid Tigray region of
Ethiopia and reported both plot level and socioeconomic characteristics are important in
adoption decision. According to the authors’ young people, households that have access to
extension service (aware), availability of sufficient labor in the household, being literate and
having enough livestock positively impact the adoption of compost in the study area which is
consistent to other results (Wassie , 2016 ).

Consistent with results from (FAO , 2013; Eric G.,2012; Kassie et al. 2009; Kilcher, 2007),
according to Wassie (2016), the most widely recognized and crucial barriers to the adoption
of compost by Ethiopian farmers are lack of skills, shortage of ingredients and lack of labour
force for compost preparations. Compost production requires some kind of skills and
knowledge on methods of compost production techniques which most famers are lacking it.
30
A few farmers are not willing to adopt composting because of offending foul smell released
from the oxidation process. In some places farmers complain that volatile acids and gases
released during turning of composts causes a variety of health problems.

2.5.2 Mulching
Mulch is an old age practice, simply mean a protective layer of a material that is spread on
top of the soil. Mulches can either be organic--such as grass clippings, straw, dry leaves, bark
clippings, saw dust, and similar materials — or inorganic—such as gravel, pebbles and
crushed stones, brick chips, and plastic (NASD ,1998). The word mulch has probably derived
from the German word “molsch” means soft to decay, which apparently referred to the
gardener’s use of straw and leaves as a spread over the ground as mulch (Shirish P.S et al,
2013 ). Apart from classifying mulching as organic and inorganic, there are different ways of
classifying methods in mulching. Among them to list few: Surface Mulching- Mulches
which are spread on surface to reduce evaporation and increase soil moisture, Vertical
Mulching- which involves opening of trenches of 30 cm. depth and 15 cm. width across the
slope at vertical interval of 30 cm. , Polythene Mulching- Sheets of plastic are spread on the
soil surface between the crop rows or around tree trunks, Pebble Mulching- Soil is covered
with pebbles to prevent transfer of heat from atmosphere, Dust Mulching- Interculture
operation that creates dust that breaks continuous capillaries, and deep and wide cracks thus
reducing evaporation from the exposed soil areas and Live Vegetative Barriers- Subabul and
Glyricidia when used as live vegetative barriers on contour key lines not only serve as
effective mulch when cut and spread on ground surface but also supply nitrogen to the extent
of 25 to 30 kg per ha, besides improving soil moisture status (Weldemariam , 2017; Shirish
P.S et al, 2013). Among the different types of mulch, mulching with vegetative residues has
been considered one of the most effective at reducing the soil erosion rates and water losses
in agricultural lands (Prosdocimi et al , 2016).
2.5.2.1Mulching as CSA practices
The world has experienced that in the intensive agricultural scheme of the green revolution ,
high agricultural yields are attained by heavy use of fertilizer and pesticides. But today it is
realised that the green revolution prescription of poor agricultural yield are polluting the
environment and degraded our soils. So, to add nutrients to our soils, to maintain a good
micro-flora and a fine balance of micro-organisms in the soil, to conserve the moisture in the
soil and to control the weeds in our fields, practicing mulching is becoming a solution
(Prosdocimi et al , 2016).
31
Field researches have been revealed that mulch protects the soil from erosion, reduces
compaction from the impact of heavy rains, conserves moisture, reducing the need for
frequent watering, maintains a more even soil temperature, prevents weed growth, keeps
fruits and vegetables clean, keeps feet clean and allowing access to garden even when damp
provides a "finished" look to the garden (Weldemariam , 2017; Prosdocimi et al , 2016;
NASD ,1998).

Soil erosion is a major environmental and agricultural problem facing human beings (World
Economic Forum, 2010). The agricultural sector is known to be affected by higher erosion
rates than other sectors because of several factors, such as conventional ploughing, low
vegetation cover, soil compaction and sealing by heavy machinery, an absence of soil erosion
control measures and the use of pesticides and herbicides that damage biological activity in
soils and slope of farm land (Prosdocimi et al , 2016). In Ethiopia, a number of researches
agreed that 50% of its highland areas have significant soil erosion, 25% of it was highly
eroded and 4% of it is seriously eroded beyond reclamation (Daniel and Mulugeta ,2017;
Aklilu ,2006). Any practice that help to reduce soil erosion such as mulching leads raising up
of agricultural productivity. Mulching boosts the yield by 50-60 per cent over no mulching
under rainfed situations (Prosdocimi et al , 2016). Researches also indicate that the yield of
potato was the highest under paddy straw mulch (27.9%) and also starch content was highest
in paddy straw mulch (18.18%) than unmulched plot (Shirish P.S et al, 2013; Weldemariam
Seifu et al ,2017). Mulching restores soil carbon through decomposition and enhance
mitigation(FAO,2013).

2.5.3 Agroforestry

Growing trees on farm land is an ancient skill for millennia. Farmers have nurtured trees on
their farm, pasture lands and around their homes. This is why agroforestry is considered as
ancient land-use farming practices around the world. It has been estimated to exist for more
than 1300 years (Omarsherif and Daniel, 2017). Therefore, neither the concept nor the
practice of agroforestry is new (Zinabu, 2015). As a scientific discipline the origin of
agroforestry is fairly recent. Its modern scientific re-establishment thought goes to 1970’s.
(Omarsherif and Daniel, 2017).

32
Essentially, agroforestry allows farmers to produce several goods and services in the same
unit of land in an integrated manner to address a broader array of demands. Since its modern
scientific re-establishment, many definitions have been coined. Despite minor differences,
agree on essential features characterizing an agroforestry system: (i) The presence of at least
one woody perennial component and at least one annual crop or animal component; (ii) The
components are deliberately managed or cultivated; (iii) The system generates more than one
output; and (iv) interaction exists among components (Ibid). Based on this, the World
Agroforestry Centre developed a working definition of agroforestry: “ ... an ecologically
based natural resource management system that integrates trees (for fibre, food and energy)
with crop and/or animal on farms with the aim of diversifying and sustaining income and
production while maintaining ecosystem services” (ICRAF, 2000).

According to FAO (2010:9), “Agroforestry is the use of trees and shrubs in agricultural crop
and/or animal production and land management systems.” Agroforestry systems and practices
exist in many forms. Such as : including improved fallows, taungya (growing annual
agricultural crops during the establishment of a forest plantation), home gardens, growing
multipurpose trees and shrubs, boundary planting, farm woodlots, orchards, plantation/crop
combinations, shelterbelts, windbreaks, conservation hedges, fodder banks, live fences, trees
on pasture and tree apiculture (FAO 2010; Gitonga and Mukoya, 2016). Studies showed
that , the dominant agroforestry practices identified in rural Ethiopian households are : farm
boundary, farm woodlot , homestead tree integration mainly with Eucalyptus camaldulensis
and multistorey coffee systems (Tanga and Amare , 2016; Omarsherif and Daniel , 2017)

Agroforestry is an old agricultural activity traditionally practised in many parts of Ethiopia.

The practice involves the integration of trees and shrubs into farmland either through planting
or natural regeneration (FAO, 2016). In Ethiopia, integrating multipurpose trees with food
crops and livestock in intimate association is an ancient activity . There are several types of
traditional agroforestry practices in different parts of the country. Coffee shade based systems,
scattered trees on farm lands, home gardens, woodlots, farm boundary tree planting, trees on
grazing lands, etc for example are some of the known traditional agroforestry practices
(Tanga and Amare , 2016). Traditionally the moringa tree is interplanted with sorghum and
other crops in Konso, Omo, Burji, Sena and Mele woredas of SNNP Regional State (FAO,
2016).

33
As it is indicated by Zinabu (2015), traditional agro forestry practices in Yeku watershed
northeastern Ethiopia as trees and shrubs in silvipastoral lands, trees on farmlands, trees
along rivers, and trees in homesteads. Growing Acacia albida as a permanent tree crop, on
farmlands with cereals, vegetables and coffee underneath or in between, is an indigenous
agroforestry system in the Harrarghe highlands of Eastern Ethiopia. Such indigenous
practices are considered as CSA proven practical techniques (FAO, 2016). Nevertheless, in
order to strengthen and make the existing practice effective, identification of the determinants
is required.

2.5.3.1 Agroforestry as CSA practices

Agroforestry has both biophysical and socio economic roles wherever it is practiced. The
biophysical roles include enhancement of biodiversity, soil conservation and prevention of
soil erosion by wind and water, improvement of soil fertility through fixation of nitrogen and
protection as windbreaks/shelterbelts (Zenabu, 2015). Besides, increasing farmers’ income
and alleviation of poverty, creation of employment opportunity, provision of fuel wood,
fodder and construction wood, provision of food and medicine are the socioeconomic roles of
agroforestry (Tanga and Amare , 2016).

The importance of agroforestry practices in view of the three pillars CSA is presented as
follow by FAO .
Agroforestry help to tackle the triple challenge of securing food security,
mitigation and reducing the vulnerability and increasing the adaptability of
agricultural systems to climate change. Trees in the farming system can help
increase farm incomes and can help diversify production and thus spread risk
against agricultural production or market failures. This will be increasingly
important as impacts of climate change become more pronounced. Trees and
shrubs can diminish the effects of extreme weather events, such as heavy
rains, droughts and wind storms. They prevent erosion, stabilize soils, raise
infiltration rates and halt land degradation. They can enrich biodiversity in
the landscape and increase ecosystem stability (FAO 2010: 9).

Practicing agroforestry fundamentally generate both economical and ecological benefits.

Omarsherif and Daniel (2017) showed that, the three dominant agroforestry practices, i.e.
multistorey coffee systems, homegardens, and multipurpose trees on farmland in south and

34
south western Ethiopia contribute substantially to the food and nutrition security of
households and communities. Crops cultivated under multipurpose trees on farmland
produce the major annual food supply of the households, which is generally completed by
homegardens that also generate supplementary income.

2.5.3.2 Determinants of agroforestry

Adoption of agroforestry practices like any other agricultural innovation practices is

influenced by a number of physical, institutional and social factors. Studies identified :
gender of farmers, land size, level of education, farmers’ experience, farmers’ association,
contact with research and extension, land tenure, agro-ecological zone, distance to nearest
center, and farmer’s income as influencing factors in adopting agroforestry practices by rural
farmers (Gitonga and Mukoya , 2016; Tanga and Amare , 2016).

According to a research conducted at Fogera district of north-western Ethiopia, Age, attitude

land tenure security, erosion and training in natural resource management and/ or agriculture
affects agroforestry practices significantly. Except Age the remaining four factors are
affecting the practice positively (Tanga and Amare , 2016). A research conducted by
Geremew (2016), at Mecha rural district of Amhara regional state revealed that, being male-
headed household, family size, vulnerability of the plot to land degradation, the comparative
economic incentive of cash tree plantation and farm size have positive effect on cash tree
adoption; while non-food crop farming practices and experience of cash-tree plantation had
an adverse effect on the agroforestry plantation practices.

2.6 Theories of Adopting Agricultural Technologies

The following three theories explain how, why, and at what rate new agricultural practices
can be adopt by household farmers. (Negatua W. and Parikhb A. , 1999)

2.6.1 The economic constraints theory

The central assumption of this model, also known as the factor endowment model, is that the
distribution of resource endowments among the potential users in a country/region
determines the pattern of adoption of a technological innovation. The model assumes that
market prices (induced by policy and institutional interventions) reflect the relative scarcity

35
of the factors, implying the existence of (or need for) well-performing markets and the
importance of price policies (Hayami and Ruttan 1971)

2.6.2 The technology characteristics-user's context theory

The technology characteristics-user's context theory integrates approaches which assume that
characteristics of a technology under lying users' agro-ecological, socioeconomic and
institutional contexts play the central role in the adoption decision and diffusion process
(Biggs, 1990; Scoones and Thomson, 1994). This model can also consider the perceptions of
potential adopters regarding the characteristics of a technology as a component affecting
adoption decisions and hence the diffusion of the technology (Gouldet et al. 1989). The
model implies the importance of the involvement of farmers in the technology development
process with the aim of generating technologies with appropriate and acceptable
characteristics. The model also implies the importance of institutionalisation of research
policies and strategies that facilitate the participation of farmers and other relevant
stakeholders in the technology development process.
2.6.3 The innovation-diffusion theory
The process of adopting new innovations has been studied for over 50 years, and one of the
most popular adoption theory is described by Rogers in his book, Diffusion of Innovations,
also called transfer-of-technology (TOT), follows from the initial work of Rogers 1962.
According to this theory, a technology is transferred from its source (research systems) to
final users through agent medium (extension systems) and its diffusion in potential user
communities depends mainly on the personal characteristics of the potential individual user.
This theory assumed that the technology is appropriate for use unless hindered by the lack of
effective communication. This study is mainly depending on this theory.
2.6.3.1 Key elements in diffusion of innovations
According to Rogers (2003), innovation, communication channels, time, and social system
are the four key components of the diffusion of innovations. The first one is innovation, an
innovation is an idea, practice, or project that is perceived as new by an individual or other
unit of adoption” (Rogers 2003: 12). An innovation may have been invented a long time ago,
but if individuals perceive it as new, then it may still be an innovation for them. The newness
characteristic of an adoption is more related to the three steps (knowledge, persuasion, and
decision) of the innovation-decision process. Second, Communication channels, diffusion, by
definition, takes place among people or organizations. Communication channels allow the
transfer of information from one unit to the other. Communication patterns or capabilities

36
must be established between parties as a minimum for diffusion to occur. Third , time , the
passage of time is necessary for innovations to be adopted; they are rarely adopted
instantaneously. In fact, in the study on hybrid corn adoption, adoption occurred over more
than ten years, and most farmers only dedicated a fraction on their fields to the new corn in
the first years after adoption. The time is involved in (i) Innovation-decision process (ii)
innovativeness and (iii) an innovation’s rate of adoption (Ibid). Fourth , Social system, the
social system is the combination of external influences (mass media, surfactants,
organizational or governmental mandates) and internal influences (strong and weak social
relationships, distance from opinion leaders). There are many roles in a social system, and
their combination represents the total influences on a potential adopter . Rogers (2003: 23)
defined the social system as “a set of interrelated units engaged in joint problem solving to
accomplish a common goal”. Since diffusion of innovations takes place in the social system,
it is influenced by the social structure of the social system.
2.6.3.2 The innovation-decision Process
According to Rogers (2003) , adoption decision of new technologies involves five steps: (1)
knowledge,(2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation, and (5) confirmation. These
stages typically follow each other in a time-ordered manner. This process is shown in figure 4.
At the knowledge step , Person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it
functions. At Persuasion step ,person forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude toward the
innovation. At decision step, person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or
reject the innovation. At Implementation step, Person puts an innovation into use and finally,
at Confirmation step of adoption decision person evaluates the results of an innovation-
decision already made. (Rogers 2003)

Figure 4. Model of Five Stages in the innovation-decision Process (adopted from Rogers, 2003 :170)

37
2.6.3.3 Adopter Categorization on the Basis of Innovativeness
Rogers (2003:22) defined the adopter categories as “the classifications of members of a social
system on the basis of innovativeness”. This classification includes innovators, early adopters,
early majority, late majority, and laggards (Figure 5). In each adopter category, individuals are
similar in terms of their innovativeness: “Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual
or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a
system” (Ibid.).

Figure 5. Adopter Categorization on the basis of Innovativeness (Rogers, 2003 :281)

- Innovator: Venturesome → interest in new ideas leads them out of a local circle
- Early Adopter: Respect → has highest degree of opinion leadership in most systems
- Early Majority: Deliberate → interact frequently with peers, 1/3
- Late Majority: Skeptical → pressure from peers, economic necessity, cautious,1/3
- Laggards: Traditional → possess no opinion leadership, isolates, suspicious of innovation

38
2.7 Conceptual Framework

Climate-smart agricultural practices can be developed and implemented to improve food

security and rural livelihoods and simultaneously facilitate climate change adaptation and
mitigation benefits. As it is indicated in Figure 6 , to attain these output, climate smart
agricultural practices, such as: soil management ,water management and agroforestry
practices must be exercised by household rural communities whose livelihood is mainly
depend on agriculture in climate change prevalence situation.

The decision to adopt CSA practices or not is assumed to be determined by biophysical ,

socio-economic and institutional factors. It is assumed that these factors along with the
farmer’s awareness towards CSA practices influence the decision to adopt.

Farmers who adopt CSA practices are expected to have well maintained and sustainable
fertile farms which enhance production of high yields and better climate adaptive capacity.
In addition, the effect of adoption will positively contribute to climate change mitigation due
to reduced emissions, high stabilization of soil organic matter and increased soil water
retention capacity.

39
 Climate change
Temperature increase, precipitation
change , drought & flood

Farmers’ climate change and variability perception

Reducing Reducing
green house vulnerability
Awareness Climate smart
gas emission
towards agricultural practices
Increase
Enhancing Climate smart (CSA) status adaptive
green house agricultural composting , agroforestry
capacity
gas sink practices & mulching practice

Factors affect adoption of CSA

practices

Bio physical Socio economic Institutional factors

Factors factors Access to credit
Farm distance Environmental
Age, Sex, Education ,
Market distance regulations, extension
Number livestock , Radio,
Degradation service, training , field
off-farm income, Farm
size ,labour day & organization
status

Decision to adopt or otherwise

No adoption of CSA Adoption of CSA

Soil fertility decline

Soil erosion rise
Low yields
Challenge to build climate
resilient community

Mitigation Sustainable agricultural Adaptation

productivity improvement

Build climate resilient, food secured and better livelihood of rural community

Figure 6. Study conceptual framework (Source: Author’s conceptualization )

40
 CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study area

The study was carried out in Gerar Jarso woreda, which is one of the woredas of North
Shewa Zone of Oromia National Regional State (Figure 7 ). The woreda lies along the
highway to Amhara National Regional State in the North western direction at a distance of
112 km from Addis Ababa. It shares border with Amhara Region in the North, Yaya Gullalle
woreda in the East, Debre Libanos woreda in the South and Degem woreda in the West. The
total area of the woreda is about 42763 hectare. The altitude of the woreda ranges from 1300
to 3419 meters above sea level. Geographically, the woreda lies 9°38'47"N to 9°59'49"N and
38°34'17"E to 38°49'41"E. According to Fiche Station meteorological data the average
rainfall amount of the woreda is about 1200mm, and maximum and minimum rainfall is
about 1115mm and 651mm, respectively. Temperature of the woreda ranges from a minimum
of 11.5 0 c to a maximum of 35 0 c . The 2007 national census reported a total population for
this woreda of 67,312, of whom 34,467 were men and 32,845 were women. (CSA, 2007).
Girar Jarso woreda dominantly consists of people with two ethnic groups, Oromo and
Amhara. The majority of the people, 75 percent in the area belongs to Oromo ethnic group
while the rest 25 percent belongs to the Amhara ethnic group. With regard to religion, almost
all (99.81%) of the population of the woreda are believers of Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahodo
Christianity (Meskerem, 2011).

The land topography is characterized by plain , mountains, sloppy to steep sloppy and gorges.
About 36 percent of the land area is plain while the proportion of the total area that is
considered as sloppy is about 33 percent. The remaining 31 percent is classified as
mountainous and gorges. Agro-ecologically, the woreda is categorized into three: Dega,
Woina Dega and Kolla (Motuma, 2017). Among the seventeen kebeles; 8 are Dega , 7 are
kolla and 2 kebeles are Woina Dega. The types of soil in the study area are Vertisols covers
about 58% of f the total cultivated land., Nitisols comprises about 14 % of the cultivated
soils of the cultivated soils , Cambisols 11%, and other type of soil is 13%, Leptosols
accounts for about 14% of the total cultivated land, Luvisols in GerarJarso covers about.6%
of the cultivated land and intensively cultivated soils , Fluvisols is about 5% and Cambisols
cover about 3.4 .% of the cultivated land of the Girar Jarso ( Engdawork, 2015).

41
With regard to land use pattern, cultivated land covers the largest share, 71 percent (37006 ha)
while grazing land is the second largest land use pattern that covers 16 percent (7910). About
1.62 percent (739.4 ha ) Forest land, 1.64 percent (813 ha) Construction land, Bushes land
0.24 percent (122 ha), Land for Park 0.oo percent (1.622ha) , Unproductive land 5.5
percent (2720ha) and Others 0.24percent ( 123ha) of the total 49435ha of the woredas’ land
area (GJARDNO, 2014).

The main economic activity of the population of the woreda is mixed farming at subsistence
level producing both crops and livestock. Farming is main livelihood strategy of the woreda
in which seasonal rain fall pattern determined the production activity. More than 90% of the
population depends on subsistence farming as livelihood strategy. In Girar Jarso woreda ,
belg crop production accounts 14% while, meher crop production accounts about 86% .
Hence, meher crop production is the major livelihood strategy that people engaged in
(WAO,2015). The major crops produced in the woreda include: Cereals crops such as teff
(Eragrostis tef), wheat ,barley, maize and sorghum , horticultural crops such as fruits,
vegetables, root crops, pulses include bean, peas, field pea, lentils and vetch. Besides,
oilseeds such as linseeds and nug (Guizotia abyssinica) are growing. Agricultural products
are consumed at home and partly sold to earn cash to meet other household needs, educate
children, and contribute to social affairs (Motuma, 2017).

42
 Figure 7. Location map of Gerar Jarso woreda (Source: CSA/2007)

3.2 Sampling and Sample Size

The population of the study consist smallholder rural farmers in Gerar Jarso woreda of
Oromia region who are living in 8 dega , 2 woina dega and 7 kola kebeles. In order to
represent the population with sufficient accuracy and to infer the sample results to the
population, the target sample households were selected in a purposeful multistage stratified
sampling process. In the first stage, 17 kebeles were stratified into three based on agro-
ecological zones. In the second stage 4 kebele administrations (KAs) were purposefully
selected among a three agro ecological strata based on socio economic, infrastructural
accessibility, time, agro- ecology and other physical factors status of the kebeles to carry out
CSA practices (Table 4). In the third stage, among the 4 ones, 204 household were randomly
selected for household survey. This number of KAs in the study site was considered to be
sufficient for statistical analysis and convenient to be surveyed with the available resources
of finance, human and time.

The randomly selected households sample sizes for each KA were determined based on their
household heads proportion.

43
Determination of the sample size was based on the formula given as shown below:

nr =

where; nr is the sample size, z is 95% confidence level (α= 0.05) is 1.962 = 4, p is the
proportion of the population of interest, smallholder farmers. Variable q is the weighting
variable and this is computed as 1-p , and d is an acceptable error (precision). p was set to
0.5 since statistically, a proportion of 0.5 results in a sufficient and reliable size particularly
when the population proportion is not known with certainty. This led to q of 0.5 (1- 0.5). An
error of less than 10% is usually acceptable (Kothari, 2004) thus, the study took an error of
0.07 to approximate a sample size of 204 household survey respondents. (i.e 4*0.5*0.5/0.072
=1/0.0049 = 204 )

From the total of 204 questionnaire distributed to the enumerators 201 (98.5%) were
completed and returned. Table 4 shows, the number of respondents in sampled kebeles.

Table 4. Kebele administrations and number of household heads selected for the household Survey

Name of Total number of households in KAs Number of Agro-

sample Male-headed female-headed households ecology
KA* Number % Number % Total sampled**
in KAs
Wertu 447 85.4 78 14.9 525 36 Woinna
dega
Adisge 823 82.1 180 17.9 1003 69 Kola
Gino 537 85.9 88 14.1 625 43 Dega
Eyeta 750 97.7 18 2.3 768 53 Dega
Total 2557 87.5 364 12.5 2921 201
* KA - Kebele Administration - the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia ** Sample proportion = 0.068

(source : Field Data)

Respondents of focus group discussion and key informant interviews were selected
purposively guided by factors such as age , gender , social networks, accessibility and the
level of farmer’s and agricultural development agent’s willingness to respond.

44
 3.3 Data type
The study gathered both primary and secondary data . The primary data were obtained by
using :a survey questionnaire, Focus group discussion, key informant interviews and transect
walking. The secondary data sources such as meteorological data of the study area, various
reports, proclamations and other documents were used to reinforce the data collected from the
primary sources.

3.4 Data collection instruments

3.4.1 Household survey
Questionnaires were distributed for 204 household farmers to the study woreda who are
living in four kebeles, in order to assess: the patterns and trends of climate variability,
perception of farmers in CSA practices and significant factors in adopting CSA practices. The
question items are both open ended and closed ended type. They originally prepared in
English and latter translated to Affan Oromo and Amharic which are the widely spoken
languages of the sample kebeles. The survey was conducted by four enumerators (one for
each kebele) after being trained on data collecting procedure and content of the instrument
by the researcher.

3.4.2 Focus group discussion (FGD)

FGD was employed to collect first hand information on climate variability and the nature,
practices, challenges and implementation of CSA practices. Besides, FGD was conducted to
assess farmers perception on CSA practices. Focus group discussants were purposively
selected in order to be representatives of different social groups and to get their long years of
experience on climate smart agricultural practices of their kebeles. Accordingly , five focus
group discussions which consist of 6-9 individuals were held across the sample kebeles. The
purpose of the focus group discussions was to generate in depth information on some of the
survey findings and other issues that may not have been adequately captured by the structured
questionnaire survey.

3.4.3 Key informant interview (KII)

six key informant interviews were made with selected female and male headed households
in order to get information about their awareness to climate change, impacts of climate
change and CSA practices adoption to adapt and mitigate climate change adverse impacts.
Likewise, four agricultural development agents from the sample kebeles and two experts at

45
Gerar Jarso woreda agricultural and natural resource bureau were interviewed to collect
primary information about awareness , challenges and adoption of CSA practices among
rural farmers..

3.4.4 Transect walking

Transect walk with photograph camera was made by the researcher to identify the farmer’s
landmarks, soil and water management patterns, agroforestry practices , socio-economic
indicators and resource endowments. The route to follow on the walk was selected randomly
within the study kebele. The walk also includes random visits of selected farms and
discussions with farmers. The transect walks provided validating information received
through key informant interview and/or focus group discussions.

3.5 Data Analysis

The bio physical, socio economic and institutional data that was collected using
questionnaires from the selected 201 household farmers were analysed by using descriptive
statistical analysis including frequency distribution, percentage, mean and standard deviation
(SD). And also, regression analysis using logit model was employed to identify determinant
factors that influence the adoption of CSA practices by rural famers using computer software
programme called statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version 20.0). Also, specific
characteristics of the variables and results were presented in tables, graphs and charts.

The qualitative data collected by employing open ended questions, FDG, key informant
interviews and direct observation by transect walking were used along with quantitative data
as supplement to support and elaborate the findings.

3.6 Model Specification

The two computing models commonly used in the adoption studies are the probit and logit
models. The models are popular statistical techniques in which the probability of a
dichotomous outcome (such as practicing or non-practicing) is related to a set of explanatory
variables that are expected to influence the outcome. But the results obtained from the two
models are very similar since the normal and logistic distributions from which the models are
derived are very similar. There is no compelling reason to choose one over the other. In
practice many researchers choose the logit model because of its comparative mathematical
simplicity (Gujarati and porter, 2009: 571). Logistic regression also referred to as logit model

46
has no assumptions about the independent variables: they do not have to be normally
distributed, linearly related or of equal variance within each group (Tabachnick BG, 2007).
Due to its computational simplicity and other statistical advantage logit model is employed
in this research paper.

Following (Gujarati and porter, 2009) the logit model can be specified as:

Pi = E(Yi = 1/Xi) = F(β0+βi Xi) (1)

1
= ( )
1+e

= , where zi = β + β x

= ………. is the cumulative logistic distribution function (2)

Where Pi = P (Y= 1) is the probability that the farmers adopt CSA practices

Xi = are different factors that affect farmer’s adoption decision

β0 = is the constant term.

βi’ s = are the coefficient of parameters.

In the estimation of the model , the probability of non – adoption is given by :

1 – Pi = (3)

And the odd ratio which tells the ratio of the probability of the farmer will adopt CSA
practices to the probability the farmer will not adopt the practices can be written as :

47
 –
= =e (4)

Hence ,

Li = ln [ –
] = Zi = β + β x , where, Li is the log of the odd ratio. (5)

Also,
Zi = β0 + β1X1+ β2X2 + … + βiXi +ei (6)
Taking the natural logarithms of the odds ratio of equation (4) will result in what is called the
logit model as indicated below.
ln [ –
] = ln [e + ∑ β X ] = Zi = β + ∑ β X + ei (7) (ei is the error term with
zero mean and constant variance.)

In this research the logical function (7) is applied to model the independent variables. where
Zi denotes the probability of the ith farmer to adopt the CSA practices. β predicts the log
odds of the dependent variable.

The model is explicitly expressed as follows:

Yi = β0 ( + ) β1age ( +) β2 sex ( +) β3 family size ( +) β4 active labour force (+) β5 education ( +)

β6 farm size ( - ) β7 number of parcels ( - ) β8 average farm distance from homestead ( - )
β9 average farm distance from the proxy market ( - ) β10 average farm distance from the
main road + β11 degradation + β12 number of livestock + β13 access to credit + β14 radio + β15
access to weather forecasting + β16 Off-farm income + β17 knowledge on Environmental
regulations + β18 extension service + β19 training +β20 Organization + β21 farmer’s field day
participation +εi (The signs in the bracket indicate the expected signs in the predicted model)

48
Table 5. Expected signs (hypotheses ) of the independent variables

Independent Expected Rational

variable sign
Age Negative or Older farmers are highly risk averse and less adopters of CSA
positive practices (Wang Na et al,2016; Assefa and Gezahegn , 2004 and
Ashenafi , 2006). While other studies revealed that number of
years of experience in agriculture affect adoption of improved
agricultural technologies positively (Kebede et al. 1990)
Sex Male +ve Since, the allocation of resources in the community is biased
Female -ve towards males, they are expected to be better adopters.
(Legesse ,1998)

Family size Positive Hence, a large family size is a source of labour for agricultural
practices , family size is positively correlated with adoption
decision.
Labour force Positive If a family is endowed with active working age members it is
encouraged to adopt labour intensive climate smart agricultural
practices.
Education Positive Education enables farmers to distinguish more easily
technologies whose adoption provides an opportunity for net
economic gain. ( Garcia et al 2016; Robera, 2013)
Farm size Positive Farmers with large farm size can Adopt new practices on some
part of their land and evaluate the benefits of adoption (Wang
Na et al ,2016 ; Ashenafi , 2006 and Robera , 2013 ).
Number of Negative If number of parcels increase farmers’ couldn’t have sufficient
parcels time and energy to adopt climate smart agricultural practices.
Degradation Positive Degradation is expected to be positively associated with
adoption as farmers are aware that soil degradation could cause
yield reduction (Shiferaw and Holden ,1998).
Farm distance Positive Since markets provides inputs for CSA practices , farmers who
from market are more proxy to market areas are more adopters.
Farm distance Negative The average time the farmer must travel from the residential area
from to the plots has an effect on the status of soil conservation and
homestead rehabilitation practices. So, the further away the plots, the less
effort employed in maintaining soil fertility .
Farm distance Negative Farmers near to the main roads minimize the transaction costs of

49
from the main buying inputs and selling products . Therefore , they could be
road more adopters than those who are living far from the main roads.
Number of Positive Livestock provide animal excrement which is primary input for
livestock the preparation of compost and mulch. Therefore, livestock
owners are expected to adopt composting and mulching more
likely than non-owners (Robera ,2013).
Access to Positive Farmers having credit access are better adopters since they will
credit have money for easy access to have CSA practices .
(Legesse ,1998 and Ashenafi , 2006 )
Off-farm Positive Off farm Income - represents the amount of other incomes the
income farmer obtained other than Farming. It is expected to contribute
positively in the adoption process. (Kebede et al, 1990 and
Ashenafi , 2006 )

Radio Positive Radio is assumed to give information about best practices to

farmers and hence affect the adoption decision positively. (Wang
Na et al ,2016; Garcia et al 2016 and Ashenafi , 2006 )
Training Positive Farmers who have access to training tend to be more progressive
and receptive to climate smart agricultural practices. (Workenh,
2015 )
Farmer’s field Positive Since, farmer’s field day enhance farmers’ to learn by
day watching , participants are more CSA adopters than non-
participants .
Environmental Positive The stringency of Environmental regulations could affect
regulations farmers’ adoption decisions positively. (Wang Na et al ,2016)
Extension Positive Farmers having extension contact knows the source and possible
service benefit of the technologies. ( Assefa and Gezahegn , 2004 and
Ashenafi , 2006)
Access to Positive Having weather forecasting information affects adoption of
weather climate smart agricultural practices positively (de Jalon et
forecasting al .2016).
Organization Positive Cooperative organizations and rural assciations which are
supported by government to offer farmers credit support
services, technological training services, etc. Motivate their
members to adopt CSA practices. (Wang Na et al ,2016 )

50
Table 6. Description of variables used in the logistic regression model.

Variable Description How variable was inputted

Name/CODE
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
ADCOMP Adoption of compost by household Dummy, 1= adoption, 0= not adoption
farmers
ADAGRO Adoption of agroforestry by Dummy, 1= adoption, 0= not adoption
household farmers
ADMULCH Adoption of mulch by household Dummy, 1= adoption, 0= not adoption
farmers
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
DAGE Age of the household head Continues variable , year
DSEX Sex of the household head Dummy, 1= male , 0= female
LABOR Labor force proportion Continues variable , %
FAMSIZE Family size Continues variable , Nu
DEDUC Education level of the household Dummy, 1= elementary and above 0=
head illiterate
PLOTNR Number of parcels (farm plots) Continues variable, Number
FRMSIZE Farm size Continues variable, hectare
FRMDIST Average home distance from the Continues variable, (in min)
farm plot
DDEGRAD Degradation Dummy, 1= degraded, 0= otherwise
MKTDIST Average home distance from Continues variable, (in min)
market
RDDIST Average home distance from the Continues variable, (in min)
main road
DLIVSTOK Livestock number Continues variable, (TLU)*
DOFFARM Having additional Off farm(Non- Dummy, 1= having off farm income,
farm ) income 0= otherwise
DEXTSERV Having extension service in 12 Dummy, 1= contacted by extension
months agent more than three times per year,
0= otherwise
DTRAING Having agro-technical and CSA Dummy, 1= trained, 0= otherwise
practices training
DRADIO Availability of Radio Dummy, 1= having radio, 0=
otherwise

51
DWEATHER Access to weather forecasting Dummy, 1= having access to
information on weather forecasting ,
0= otherwise
DFIELDAY Farmers' field day participation Dummy, 1 =participated in farmers'
field day, 0= otherwise
DORGANZ Membership in farmers’ Dummy, 1= if registered, 0= otherwise
organizations
DCREDIET Access to credit Dummy, 1= having credit access , 0=
otherwise
DENVREGU Knowledge of environmental Dummy, 1= having knowledge of
regulation environmental regulation , 0=
otherwise
* Tropical livestock unit (TLU) ratio approximate weight, subsistence (food) and market value of different
animals. They are universally used in the following manner: 1 TLU=1 head of cattle (oxen, bull, cow, calf
heifer), 0.5 TLU=1 horse/donkey/mule , 1.4 TLU=1 camel ,0.1 TLU=1 sheep/goat and 0.05 TLU=1 chicken
(Land O'Lakes International Development, 2007).

52
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents findings from the study and is divided into six sections. The first
section presents background information on respondents. The second section presents results
on pattern and trends of climate variability in Gerar Jarso woreda . The third section
presents results of smallholder farmers perception towards CSA in in the study woreda. The
fourth section presents types and characteristics of CSA practices carried out by smallholder
farmers in Gerar Jarso woreda. The fifth section presents results of the logistic model
estimation of the explanatory variables of CSA practices adoption. The model result
describes the characteristics of three dependent variables: such as mulching, composting and
agroforestry. The six section describes constraints to adopt CSA practices.

4.1 Demographic and Socio -Economic Characteristics of Respondents

As shown in Table 7 , males are predominant household heads (88.1%) respondents in the
study area. A family size greater than 5 accounts a bit more than half of the sample
households in Gerar Jarso woreda (52%). Compare to the national statistics estimation of
average household size of 5 at nationwide (CSA ,2007), the study woreda is the one which is
endowed with a large family size per household. The education level of respondents was
mainly illiterate (63.2%) who are unable to read and write. First cycle primary, second cycle
primary and high school was 24%, 8% and 5% of respondents respectively. The results of
this study are nearly in accord with those of Wang (2016), which revealed that farmers had
higher ages and lower education levels in developing countries. And also agreed with studies
conducted in Ethiopia by (Ashenafi , 2006; Meskerem, 2011 )

All most all farmers in the study woreda are engaged in crop production dominant mixed
farming activity (98.5%). Two- third of the rural farmers have 3-4 farm plots with farm size
less than 2.1 hectare.

53
Table 7. Background information on respondents (n*= 201)

Variable Number Percentage

(%)
Household marital status
Single 1 0.5
Divorced 2 1.0
Married 191 95.0
Widowed 7 3.5
Household head sex
Female 24 11.9
Male 177 88.1
Family Size
1-3 22 10.9
3-5 73 36.3
6-8 86 42.8
greater than 8 20 10.0
Education
illiterate 127 63.2
Grade 1-4 48 23.9
Grade 5-8 16 8.0
Grade 9-12 10 5.0
Farming occupation
Mixed with crop 198 98.5
dominance
Mixed with livestock 3 1.5
dominance
Farming Year
1-10 8 4.0
11-20 52 25.9
21-30 79 39.3
greater than 30 62 30.8
Number of farm plot (parcel)
1-2 43 21.4
3-4 132 65.7
5-6 22 10.9
greater than 6 4 2.0

54
Farm size in hectare
less than 1 60 29.9
1-2 71 35.3
2.1-4 64 31.8
greater than 4 6 3.0
*
denote total number of respondents

( Source : computed from field data)

4.2 Trends of Climate Variability and Change

4.2.1 Trends of temperature change in Gerar Jarso woreda

Since, mean annual temperature rises through time, the variability of temperature in the study
woreda is characterized by an increasing trend (Figure 8). The mean temperature in the study
area ranges from 9.30C (minimum) to 21.3 0C (maximum) with annual average temperature
of 14.3 0C. Using a linear regression model, the rate of change is defined by the slope of the
regression line (Fig. 8 ) which in this case is about 0.27, 0.38 and 0.16 C per decade for mean,
maximum and minimum temperature respectively. The rising up of temperature in the last
five years is higher compared to previous years. The standard deviation of average
temperature from the mean for the last 30 years (1987-2017) is 0.39. The figure depicts the
existence of warming trend in the study area. The situation is agreed with the national climate
change assessment and prediction. According to UNDP,
mean annual temperature has increased by 1.3°C between 1960 and 2006, an average rate of
0.28°C per decade. The increase in temperature in Ethiopia has been one of
the most rapid at a rate of 0.32°C per decade. According to USAID (2012), if recent warming
trends continue, most of Ethiopia will experience more than a 1.0° Celsius (°C) increase in air
temperature , with the warming tendency projected to be greatest in many part of the
country. This warming will intensify the impacts of droughts, and could particularly reduce
the amount of productive crop land and exacerbate food insecurity among rural farmers. So
the situation enforces to apply agricultural practices that enhance mitigation and improve
adaptive capability of farmers, i.e. CSA practices.

55
 15.5

15.0
Mean

14.5

14.0

13.5
y = 0.027x + 13.88
13.0 R² = 0.405
12.5

Temp mean Linear (Temp mean)

21.5
21.0
Maximum
20.5
20.0
19.5
19.0 y = 0.038x + 19.70
18.5 R² = 0.437

18.0

Temp max Linear (Temp max)

10.0

8.0

6.0 y = 0.016x + 8.068

R² = 0.127
4.0

2.0

0.0

Temp min Linear (Temp min)

Figure 8. Temperature pattern (Mean, Maximum and Minimum) of Gerar Jarso woreda (1987–2017)
with linear least square regression lines. (source : computed from NMA meteorological data)

56
4.2.2 Trends of precipitation change in Gerar Jarso woreda

The mean annual rainfall of Gerar Jarso woreda during the study period was 1149.4 mm with
123.56 mm standard deviation and 10.75% CV. The minimum and maximum ever recorded
rainfalls were 910.8 mm (in 2015) and 1539.30 mm (in 1996) respectively. Even if ,there is
no clear trend in total annual rainfall observed at national level (Belay, 2016), the local
meteorological data reveals constant trend with insignificant increment of annual rainfall in
the study area with a slope of 0.774 of the linear trend line (Figure 9 ). From the computed
coefficient of variation (CV= 10.75% ), it is observed that rainfall variability is less in the
study area. According to Hare (2003), CV is used to classify the degree of variability of
rainfall events as less (CV < 20), moderate (20 < CV <30), and high (CV >30). As indicated
in Table 8, decadal mean rainfall amount declines by 1.7 % when we go from 1st decade to
the 2nd . However, decadal mean rainfall rises by 2.3% in the recent decade. So, there
is inter-annual and inter decadal variability of rainfall in Gerar Jarso woreda.
Table 8 Mean rainfall amount of Gerar Jarso woreda per decade
Decade Years cover Mean rainfall (in Percentage
mm) change
1 1987-1997 1153.6 -
2 1998-2007 1133.7 -1.7
3 2008-2017 1160.3 0.023
(source: computed from NME data)

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Mean annual y = 0.774x + 1137
600 R² = 0.003
400
200
0

Mean rainfall Linear (Mean rainfall)

Figure 9. Annual rainfall pattern of Gerar Jarso woreda (1987-2017) (source : computed from NMA
meteorological data)

57
The changes in the timing and distribution of precipitation leads for a rising frequency of
both extreme flooding and droughts. The two disaster risks seriously affect the production
and food security of the study area. Mainly drought through water shortage causes adverse
impacts on vegetation, animals, and/or people. The meteorological drought which is highly
linked to agricultural drought is sufficient to markedly increase the number of poor harvests,
unless sustainable agricultural production practices are promoted.

600.0
Jan
500.0 Feb
Mar
Rainfall in mm

400.0
Apr
300.0
May
200.0 Jun
Jul
100.0
Aug
0.0 Sep
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Oct

Year Nov

Figure 10. Gerar Jarso woreda monthly rainfall distribution (source: computed from NMA meteorological data)

There are two main seasons in the study area locally called Genna and Bona : Genna is a
main rainy season like other Ethiopia highlands which extends from June to September
(Figure 10) and Bona the period that extends from October to May. The Genna rains are used
for planting both long and short cycle crops (Engdawork ,2015). Rainfall amount variability
and shortage was critical in the main rainy season of the study area for the past five years
(2013-2017) (Figure 11). The situation tends to affect the livelihood of thousands in the study
woreda. Ground realities revealed that, deficiency in precipitation brought crop production
shortages in the study woreda (Dereje ,2017). The result is consistent with the world bank
study report on Ethiopia which is projected that climate change reduce yields of crop
production by 33% (World Bank ,2007).

58
 600

500
Rainfall amount in mm
400

300 Jun
Jul
200
Aug
Sep
100

0
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Year

Figure 11. Rainy season (Jun-Sep) precipitation amount of Gerar Jarso woreda (source : computed
from NMA meteorological data)

As it is observed from the focus group discussion, key informant interviews and reports of
the Gerar Jarso woreda agricultural and natural resource office , there is organic relationship
between the number of households covered by the safety net programme and the magnitude
of rainfall shortage and variability in each consecutive years.

4.3 Community Perception on Climate Variability And Change

In the assessment of farmers perception over a 30 year period, respondents perceived decline
in rainfall, increase in temperature and concomitant declines in tree cover and crop
production. Such observations are important, but do require further triangulation with
available meteorological records. As it is indicated in Figure 12, farmers’ perception
(knowledge) of past climatic events is in agreement with 30 years of temperature records
than precipitation. But during the FGD farmers reported the existence rainfall variability in
their assessment of the last three decades. This perception is consistent with climatic records
(meteorological data) of Fiche station. From the perception scale measurement, farmers also
perceived the decline of soil fertility which leads to yield reduction.

59
 5
4.5
4
3.5
Perception scale

3 Temp
2.5 Rain
2 Soil
1.5 Tree
1 Crop
0.5
0
30 years ago 10 yrs ago 2 yrs ago
Timeline of historical calender

Figure 12. Community perception on rainfall, temperature, soil fertility status, tree cover, and crop production.
(Source: Computed from field data) (Scale of 1-to-5, where 1 is very low, 2 is low, 3 is no change, 4 is high
and 5 is very high.)

The presence of a significant number of food insecure households in the Woreda (Table 9 )
is a real indication of crop production decline. When smallholder farmers are asked whether
they worry about food security or not, almost 44% of the respondents were worried about
food security. The yield decline due to rainfall and temperature changes was also verified by
FGD results. During the FGD, discussants attributed the decline in crop production, decrease
in rainfall and rising temperatures which leads to deforestation. Farmers’ perception and
knowledge on climate change and variability are important to understand and assess
strategies of climate change impacts.

Table 9. Food security status of the study area

Do you worry about Frequency % Cumulative %
food security ?
No 113 56.2 56.2
Yes 88 43.8 100.0
Total 201 100.0
( Source : computed from field data)

60
4.4 Farmers’ View Towards Climate Smart Agricultural Practices

As it is indicated in Figure 13, the study revealed that 92% of smallholder farmers are
positively perceived as CSA practices can overcome several environmental problems such as
soil degradation , water resource deterioration, climate change and variability. Survey results
and FGD outcomes in all the study kebeles indicated that, most farmers were willing to adopt
the CSA practices. Those who were willing to adopt the practices indicated that increasing
yield and soil fertility improvement as the main driving force for their adoption demand.
Such results indicate the importance of understanding of the need of the rural farmers and
their perception before the implementation of CSA interventions. Such results are in line with
other studies (Gwambene et al ,2015; Eric , 2012 ). The studies suggested the importance and
needs for considering local community perceptions in planning for intervention. According to
these studies, local communities have knowledge developed for a long time in their
surroundings through experience and practices which are important in developing adaptation
and mitigation strategies. Consideration of their knowledge and experience is important for
up and out scaling and sustainability of the interventions.

CSA practices can overcome several environmental

problems
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

41%
3%
92%
4%
1%
51%

Figure 13. Perception results on CSA practices in Gerar Jarso Woreda ( Source : computed from
field data)

61
Environmental concern for the next generation and application of compost received the
highest consideration among smallholder farmers (Table 10). Application of compost is
perceived by farmers as the best soil management practice which improves soil fertility. The
respondents perceived that natural resources should be protected both for the present use and
for future generations even if it leads to farmers incurring cost in the short run. Cultivation of
legume crops and crop diversification was ranked third and considered as one of the best soil
erosion protection practices. The results are consistent with that of Erich (2012). Minimum
tillage was ranked fourth as a practice that helps to reduce soil erosion disturbance and
exposure. In the case of Ethiopia, land preparation is mainly carried out with a view of
getting rid of weeds, but it also helps in breaking compacted soils and improves moisture
infiltration. However, moisture infiltration is much better in soils that are less tilled but not
compacted by the effect of overgrazing.

Contrary to Gwambene et al (2015) and Eric ( 2012 ), crop rotation was perceived being
least compare to other soil and water management practices. Most of the time farmers prefer
to plant high value crops continuously. Poor farmers do not incline to rotate by low market
value crops. This is why teff is common in every harvesting season.

Table 10. Farmers’ view towards climate smart agricultural practices

Statement Mean Std. Rank

Deviation
Natural resources must be protected for the 4.66 .652 1
next generations
Soil fertility can be improved by application of 4.66 .476 2
compost
Leguminous species and crop diversification 4.55 .556 3
can protect soil from erosion
Minimum tillage reduces soil erosion, 4.53 .700 4
disturbance and exposure
Growing multipurpose trees and shrubs in 4.50 .657 5
steeper slope land can reduce soil erosion and
improve soil fertility
I have to protect natural resources even if it 4.49 .530 6

62
will lead to incurring losses in the short run

Mulching or Retaining crop residues reduce 4.38 .726 7

weed growth, reduce moisture loss and reduce
erosion by water and wind
By storing water farming operation can be 4.36 .808 8
done during the dry season
Soil fertility can be improved by application of 4.33 .810 9
green manure
Boundary planting and windbreaks can 4.31 .725 10
protect soil erosion and improve water
retention of the soil
Growing trees in association with crop 4.30 .923 11
production generate additional income and able
to improve my livelihood
Drought resistance crops are selected in low 4.26 1.031 12
rain fall season
Terraces can improve the water retention 4.23 .860 13
capacity of the soil
Slope stabilization improve the water 4.23 1.009 14
availability in the soil
Intercropping can improve soil fertility 4.21 .962 15
Alley cropping provides nutrients specially 4.20 .764 16
nitrogen to the soil
Crop rotation reduces soil degradation 4.04 .964 17
( Source : computed from field data)

4.5 Types And Characteristics of CSA Practices Carried Out by Smallholder Farmers

The study revealed that smallholder farmers have adopted various climate smart agricultural
practices to overcome several environmental problems such as diminishing soil fertility,
climate change and variability etc. The ultimate goal of adopting such practices is to enhance
food security and improve household income. The most commonly practiced CSA practices
in the study area are portrayed by Figure 16. That of all the CSA practices known, crop
diversification received a high priority among rural farmers (71%). This was followed by

63
other practices such as crop rotation (65.2%) and uses of drought resistance crops (55.2%).
Irrigation received the lowest priority as 23 % of the respondents reported to have adopted
it . As it is revealed from key informant interviews, utilizing crop diversity ensure food
security, resilience to climate change and minimize the adverse effect of mono-cropping,
especially the build-up of pests and diseases. Nowadays, crop pests and diseases were critical
challenges for rural subsistence farming. Therefore, crop diversification by popularizing of
new crops and crop varieties is acknowledged for sharing of the total risk of crop failure.

Figure 14. Terracing practice at Figure 15. Compost preparation at

Wertu Kebele (Photo taken in Ginno Kebele (Photo taken in 24/4/2018)
25/4/2018)

Adopt the practice

22.9
Irrigation

Terracing 34.3

Composting 51.7
39.8
Mulching
45.3
Improved seeds

Applying agroforestry 46.3

55.2
Drought resistance crops
65.2
Crop rotation

Crop diversification 71.6

Figure 16. Percentage of CSA practices adopted by household farmers (computed from field data)

64
In general, compare to a high positive perception or willingness to adopt CSA practices with
actual adoption status, farmers of the study area were by far low adopters (Figure 17).
Majority of CSA practices conducted in the study area were practiced by less than half of the
rural farmers. Adoption is a mental process that begins when a farmer learns of an innovation,
and ends at the final adoption stage (Rogers, 2003). The behaviour process and effect of an
agent depends on the intensity of its perception and attitude. But, positive perception or
attitude alone is not sufficient for adoption decision. Other factors should be also considered.
The low adoption status of climate smart agriculture was associated with socio-economic,
bio-physical, cultural and institutional factors. Basing on key informant interviews and FGD,
rural farmers have a number of constraints to adopt and expand appropriate and feasible
climate-smart and climate-resilient agriculture practices. Shortage of water and lack of labour
to prepare compost, lack of animal feed and fuel wood to apply mulching, lack of seedlings to
promote agroforestry and lack of water, lack of access to credit and lack of training to adopt
small scale irrigation are some of the prominent bottlenecks.

98 100
100 94.5
91.5
88 88 88 88
90 84.6

80 71.6
65.2
70
55.2
60 51.7
46.3 45.3
50 39.8
34.3
40
30 22.9

20
10
0

Willing to adopt Adopt the practice

Figure 17. Willingness to adopt and adoption status of CSA practices ( Source : computed from
field data)

65
 Figure 18. Boundary planting agroforestry
practice at Adisgie Kebele (Photo taken in
27/4/2018)

Figure 19. Small scale irrigation practice

at Adisgie Kebele. (photo taken in
27/4/2018)

4.6 Determinants of Farmers’ Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices

This section presents factors that affect farmers’ decision to adopt three climate smart
agricultural practices in Gerar Jarso woreda. The three regressed dependent variables are:
composting , agroforestry and mulching (Table 11).
Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for the logistic regression model (n=201).

Variable Mean Std.

Deviation
Adoption of compost .52 .501
Adoption of .46 .500
agroforestry
Adoption of mulching .40 .491
Age 47.36 12.086
Sex .88 .325
Labour force 58.34 22.045
proportion
Family size 5.43 1.751
Education .43 .496

66
 Number of parcel 2.87 .929
Farm size 2.04 .981
Home distance from 27.89 16.85
farm plot
Degradation .35 .478
Home market distance 85.77 29.66
Home main road 40.67 31.70
distance
live stock number 3.18 3.83
Off farm income .40 .492
Extension service .79 .411
Training .83 .380
Radio .49 .501
Weather forecasting .47 .500
Farmers' field days .65 .479
Member of .59 .493
organization
Access to credit .42 .494
Environmental .67 .473
regulation

( Source : computed from field data)

4.6.1 Logit model regression results of farmer’s adoption of composting practice in Gerar
Jarso woreda.
This section identified the most important hypothesized independent variables that influence
farmers’ decision to adopt composting in the study area. The dependent variable was either
adopting or not adopting of composting. In this case, a farmer who carried out composting
practice was considered to be "an adopter". In model diagnostics, the Hosmer and Lemeshow
test is used to estimate the good-fit model, and if the p-value is above 0.05 (statistically non-
significant) the estimated model has adequate fit, and if the p-value is below 0.05
(statistically significant) the estimated model does not adequately fit the data. In this research,
the P-value was 0.983, and the model fit very well (Table 12). The rate of correct model
prediction was up to 90.5%. From all sample farmers, the correctly predicted adopters and
correctly predicted non adopters of the model were 90.4% and 90.7 %, respectively. In the
logistic regression model summary, over all model evaluation (likelihood ratio), statistical

67
tests of individual predictors (Wald statistics), goodness of-fit statistics (R2) are presented. In
standard regression, the co-efficient of determination (R2) value gives an indication of how
much variation in Y is explained by the model. This cannot be calculated for logistic
regression but the model summary table showed the values for two pseudo R2 (Cox & Snell R
Square and Nagelkerke R Square (pseudo R2 )) which try to measure something similar. In
the estimated model, pseudo R2 is 83.7%. It indicates that, of the total variation in the
dependent variable, 83.7% was explained by the independent variables.

Out of 21 explanatory variables that were hypothesized to affect farmers’ decision to practice
composting or not, only 8 of them were found statistically significant (Table 12). These
significant explanatory variables include : sex of the household head (DSEX), labour force
proportion (LABOR), education level of the household head (DEDUC), average farm
distance from home (FRMDIST), number of livestock (DLIVSTOK), extension service
contact per year (DEXTSERV), access to weather forecasting (DWEATHER) and being
member of rural organizations (DORGANZ). Number of farm plots ,average market distance
from home, main road average distance from home , having radio and participation in farmers’
field day were found to have positive effect on composting practicing but not statistically
significant. On the other hand, age, family size, degradation, training , access to credit and
knowledge on environmental regulation were negatively related with composting practicing
but the relation was statistically insignificant.

Table 12. Determinants of compost adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda

Variables Estimated Std.error Wald p-value Odds ratio of
coefficient (S.E.) Statistics adopting
(B) (Wald) Exp(B)
DAGE -.015 .026 .341 .559 .985
**
DSEX 5.156 2.045 6.360 .012 173.487
**
LABOR .041 .017 5.666 .017 1.041
FAMSIZE -.125 .173 .525 .469 .882
DEDUC* 3.401 .815 17.405 .000 29.994
PLOTNR .103 .430 .057 .811 1.109
FRMSIZE -.047 .376 .016 .901 .954
FRMDIST** -.048 .023 4.459 .035 .953
DDEGRAD -1.183 .863 1.880 .170 .306

68
 MKTDIST .019 .015 1.676 .195 1.019
RDDIST .001 .013 .006 .936 1.001
*
DLIVSTOK 1.260 .268 22.046 .000 3.526
DOFFARM .797 .772 1.065 .302 2.218
DEXTSERV*** 1.653 .995 2.758 .097 5.222
DTRAING -.566 1.290 .192 .661 .568
DRADIO 1.354 .863 2.458 .117 3.871
*
DWEATHER -3.596 1.169 9.455 .002 .027
DFIELDAY .404 .901 .201 .654 1.498
DORGANZ* 2.622 .920 8.130 .004 13.763
DCREDIET -.870 .792 1.208 .272 .419
DENVREGU -.503 .763 .435 .510 .605
Constant -11.449 3.414 11.245 .001 .000
Number of obs. 201

Hosmer and .983

Lemeshow Test
-2 Log 79.920
likelihood
Cox & Snell R .627
Square
Nagelkerke R2 .837
Prediction 90.5
statistic
*
Significance level at p < 0.01 , **Significance level at p < 0.05 , ***Significance level at p < 0.1
(source : Model estimation output)

4.6.2 Logit model regression results of farmer’s adoption of agroforestry practices in Gerar
Jarso woreda.

This section identified the most important hypothesized independent variables that influence
farmers’ decision to adopt agroforestry practices in the study area. The dependent variable
was either adopting or not adopting of agroforestry. In this case, a farmer who carried out
agroforestry practice was considered to be "an adopter". In model diagnostics, the Hosmer
and Lemeshow test is used to estimate the good-fit model, and if the p-value is above 0.05
(statistically non-significant) the estimated model has adequate fit, and if the p-value is below

69
0.05 (statistically significant) the estimated model does not adequately fit the data. In this
research, the P-value was .740, and the model fit very well (Table 13). The rate of correct
model prediction was up to 79.6%. From all sample farmers, the correctly predicted adopters
and correctly predicted non adopters of the model were 76.3% and 82.4 %, respectively. In
the logistic regression model summary, over all model evaluation (likelihood ratio), statistical
tests of individual predictors (Wald statistics), goodness of-fit statistics (R2) are presented. In
standard regression, the co-efficient of determination (R2) value gives an indication of how
much variation in Y is explained by the model. This cannot be calculated for logistic
regression but the model summary table showed the values for two pseudo R2 (Cox & Snell R
Square and Nagelkerke R Square (pseudo R2 )) which try to measure something similar. In
the estimated model, pseudo R2 is 55%. It indicates that, of the total variation in the
dependent variable, 55% was explained by the independent variables.

Out of 20 explanatory variables that were hypothesized to affect farmers’ decision to practice
agroforestry or not, only 7 of them were found statistically significant (Table 13). These
significant explanatory variables include : sex of the household head (DSEX), labour force
proportion (LABOR), , average farm distance from home (FRMDIST), average market
distance from home (MKTDIST), access to weather forecasting (DWEATHER), participation
in farmers’ field day (DFIELDAY) and knowledge on environmental regulation
(DENVREGU) . Family size, education level ,number of farm plots , farm size, degradation, ,
off-farm income , extension service, main road average distance from home , having radio
and training were found to have positive effect on agroforestry practicing but not statistically
significant. On the other hand, age, member of organization and access to credit were
negatively related with agroforestry practicing but the relation was statistically insignificant.

Table 13. Determinants of agroforestry adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda.

variables Estimated Std. Wald p- Odds ratio of
coefficient error Statistics value adopting
(B) (S.E.) (Wald) Exp(B)
DAGE -.002 .018 .008 .927 .998
*
DSEX 2.163 .834 6.729 .009 8.699
*
LABOR .037 .011 11.911 .001 1.038
FAMSIZE .100 .116 .747 .387 1.105
DEDUC .418 .450 .863 .353 1.519

70
 PLOTNR .114 .258 .195 .659 1.120
FRMSIZE .080 .264 .093 .761 1.084
**
FRMDIST -.030 .015 4.320 .038 .970
DDEGRAD .019 .460 .002 .967 1.019
MKTDIST* .026 .009 9.453 .002 1.027
RDDIST .007 .007 .935 .334 1.007
DOFFARM .414 .442 .880 .348 1.514
DEXTSERV .220 .531 .172 .679 1.246
DTRAING .552 .621 .790 .374 1.736
DRADIO .813 .531 2.344 .126 2.254
**
DWEATHER -1.254 .627 4.006 .045 .285
**
DFIELDAY 1.388 .583 5.675 .017 4.009
DORGANZ -.071 .535 .017 .895 .932
DCREDIET -.231 .459 .254 .614 .793
*
DENVREGU 1.517 .495 9.387 .002 4.558
Constant -9.586 2.121 20.432 .000 .000
Number of obs. 201
Hosmer and .740
Lemeshow Test
-2 Log 170.800
likelihood
Cox & Snell R .412
Square
Nagelkerke R2 .550
Prediction 79.6
statistic
*
Significance level at p < 0.01 , **Significance level at p < 0.05 (source : Model estimation output)
4.6.3 Logit model regression results of farmer’s adoption of mulching practices in Gerar
Jarso woreda.
This section identified the most important hypothesized independent variables that influence
farmers’ decision to adopt mulching in the study area. The dependent variable was either
adopting or not adopting of mulching. In this case, a farmer who carried out mulching
practice was considered to be "an adopter". In model diagnostics, the Hosmer and Lemeshow
test is used to estimate the good-fit model, and if the p-value is above 0.05 (statistically non-
significant) the estimated model has adequate fit, and if the p-value is below 0.05
(statistically significant) the estimated model does not adequately fit the data. In this research,

71
the P-value was 0.808, and the model fit very well (Table 14). The rate of correct model
prediction was up to 80.6 %. From all sample farmers, the correctly predicted adopters and
correctly predicted non adopters of the model were 73.8% and 85.1 %, respectively. In the
logistic regression model summary, over all model evaluation (likelihood ratio), statistical
tests of individual predictors (Wald statistics), goodness of-fit statistics (R2) are presented. In
standard regression, the co-efficient of determination (R2) value gives an indication of how
much variation in Y is explained by the model. This cannot be calculated for logistic
regression but the model summary table showed the values for two pseudo R2 (Cox & Snell R
Square and Nagelkerke R Square (pseudo R2 )) which try to measure something similar. In
the estimated model, pseudo R2 is 53.7%. It indicates that, of the total variation in the
dependent variable, 53.7% was explained by the independent variables.

Out of 21 explanatory variables that were hypothesized to affect farmers’ decision to practice
mulching or not, only 6 of them were found statistically significant (Table 14 ). These
significant explanatory variables include : Labour force proportion (LABOR), family size
(FAMSIZE), farm size (FRMSIZE), average farm distance from home (FRMDIST), Off-farm
income (DOFFARM) and having radio (DRADIO) . Sex of the household head, average
market distance from home, degradation, training , number of livestock, being member of
rural organizations, and participation in farmers’ field day were found to have positive effect
on mulching practicing but not statistically significant. On the other hand, age, education
level of the household head , extension service contact per year , number of farm plots, access
to weather forecasting , access to credit, main road average distance from home and
knowledge on environmental regulation were negatively related with mulching practicing
but the relation was statistically insignificant.

Table 14. Determinants of mulching adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda.

Variables Estimated Std. Wald p- Odds ratio
coefficient error Statistics value of adopting
(B) (S.E.) (Wald) Exp(B)
DAGE -.029 .018 2.554 .110 .972
DSEX 1.059 .873 1.471 .225 2.883
LABOR* .050 .011 19.840 .000 1.052
FAMSIZE** .287 .120 5.746 .017 1.332
DEDUC -.643 .473 1.844 .174 .526

72
 PLOTNR -.215 .263 .666 .415 .807
FRMSIZE*** .499 .273 3.338 .068 1.647
*
FRMDIST -.046 .017 7.628 .006 .955
DDEGRAD .167 .465 .129 .720 1.181
MKTDIST .009 .008 1.146 .284 1.009
RDDIST -.006 .007 .747 .387 .994
*
DOFFARM 1.204 .450 7.149 .008 3.333
DEXTSERV -.491 .550 .799 .371 .612
DTRAING .237 .625 .144 .704 1.268
DRADIO** -1.268 .566 5.011 .025 .282
DWEATHER -.747 .614 1.479 .224 .474
DFIELDAY .564 .586 .926 .336 1.757
DORGANZ .726 .530 1.878 .171 2.068
DCREDIET -.777 .473 2.702 .100 .460
DENVREGU -.136 .500 .074 .786 .873
DLIVSTOK .052 .057 .824 .364 1.053
Constant -4.136 1.890 4.787 .029 .016
Number of obs. 201
Hosmer and .808
Lemeshow Test
-2 Log 168.540
likelihood
Cox & Snell R .397
Square
Nagelkerke R2 .537
Prediction 80.6
statistic
*
Significance level at p < 0.01 , **Significance level at p < 0.05 , ***Significance level at p < 0.1
(source : Model estimation output)

4.6.4 Demographic factors and adoption of climate smart agricultural practices

The most statistically influential demographic factors that hypothesized as independent
variables to affect the probability of adopting composting, agroforestry and mulching
practices are: sex, labour force proportion, family size and education level.

Sex of the household heads is positively correlated with the adoption of composting and
agroforestry practices at statistically significance level (B=5.156 ; p- value= .012) (Table 12 )
and (B= 2.163 ; p- value = .009) respectively (Table 13 ). The Wald statistics 6.36 for

73
composting and 6.729 for agroforestry also indicated that sex has a strong association with
the adoption of the practices . Moreover, the coefficients and odds ratio of these explanatory
variable were by far larger than other variables. This showed that, being male-headed farm
household will intensify the probability of adopting compost and agroforestry on farmlands
than being female-headed. The odds ratio of logistic regression showed that male household
heads are more likely adopt composting by the factor of 173.487 and agroforestry by 8.699
than female headed households. This appears to be reasonable in that most female-headed
households did not plough their own farm plots . Most of the women households employed
different mechanisms of getting returns from their farm lands. Renting farmlands either in
the form of money or crop was common in the study area. This is because female headed
households lack labour to cultivate and conserve their farmlands. In addition, females are
involved in taking care of their children and other related tasks at home. Moreover, all female
household heads are widowed or divorced and don’t have support other than their children.
Their socio-economic marginality compare to males in different parameters therefore, retards
them back to adopt the practices which demands time, energy ,capital and social networks.
The result of this study is consistent with (Daniel and Mulugeta , 2017; Germew, 2016 and
Abay et al, 2016) which were conducted in rural Ethiopia.

Labour force proportion (the percentage of household members age between 15 to 64) had a
positive correlation at statistically significance level with insignificant impact ( composting:
B=0.041 , p-value =0.017 ; agroforestry : B= 0.037 ; p-value =0.001and mulching : B=0.050 ;
p-value =0.000) on the adoption of the practices. The results were affirmed by the wald
statistics of 5.666 , 11.911 and 19.840 for composting, agroforestry and mulching
respectively (Table 12,13 and 14 ). As it is predicted in the model, if a farm household has
more active labour force in the family, the odds of adopting composting practices increased
1.041 times, agroforestry practices increased 1.038 times and mulching practices increased
1.052 times than a family endowed with a high age dependency ratio. This explains that a
farm household family consists higher active work age members could affect the probability
of CSA adoption positively. Practically, the practices are labour intensive. The quantitative
result was verified by transect walking how the practices demand much labour. Unexpectedly,
however, active labour force endowments is not significant in affecting the probability of
using compost unlike the case in other studies (Mengistu and Bauer , 2011). The reason for
this is not clear, it might imply that the availability of adult labour in the family was less
important for the adoption decision.

74
The logit model predicted that education level of farm household head variable influences
composting practicing positively and significantly at 1% significance level (Table 12 ). This
showed that relatively better educated farmers are engaged in the adoption of composting
practices. The odds ratio of the variable indicates that all other factors being the same,
farmers whose education level is elementary and above practiced composting 29.994 times
more likely than non-educated (illiterate) farmers. The result revealed that better exposure to
education increases farmers’ better understanding of the benefits and constraints of adopting
the practice. A positive impact of education on technology acquisition is generally expected
as it enhances farmer's ability to acquire and analyze new ideas, and provides specific or
general skills that contribute to farm productivity (Workneh, 2015).

Similar to the finding of this study, (Daniel and Muluget , 2017; Workneh, 2015; Eric ,2012, )
reported that education gives farmers the ability to perceive, interpret and respond to new
information much faster than farmers with lower education level (non-educated). Thus, those
household heads with better education level have a higher probability of adopting best
practices.

In the case of mulching, the regressed binary logistic model revealed that an increase in the
family size of the household leads to a rise in the likelihood of adopting mulching practices
on the farmlands. The study result showed that, when the family size increased by one
number, the likelihood of mulching adoption increased 1.332 times (Table 14). Labour is
main concern in the decision to adopt labour intensive technologies. Hence, large family
size is a source of labour for adopting agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia.

4.6.5 Physical factors and adoption of climate smart agricultural practices

Among the farm physical factors employed in the logistic regression model, average farm
distance from home is captured as an influential predictor of composting, agroforestry and
mulching practices. The models revealed that farm plot distance from home had a negative
and insignificant impact on farmers’ adoption decision (composting : B = -0.048, p-value =
0.035; agroforestry: B = -0.030; p-value = 0.038 and mulching: B= -0.46 ; p- value = 0.006 )
(Table ). The negative sign shows that as the farm plot distance increases, the probability to
adopt CSA practices decreases (Table 13 and 14 ). The result is consistent with prior
prediction. In the study area the average time taken to reach farm plot is almost 28 minutes

75
(Table 11). This showed that transporting CSA practices materials to farm plots highly
discouraged farmers to adopt the practices. In the study area, compost has been preparing
around the homestead especially in the house garden area for the purpose of follow up the bio
chemical process and security . The odds ratio indicated that being other variables constant,
a one minute increase in distance of farmland from a farmer's home decreases adoption of
composting by a factor of 0.953, agroforestry by a factor of 0.970 and mulching by a factor of
0.955 (Table 14 ). This revealed that greater distance of a plot from homestead may have
discouraged farmers from giving the necessary care and maintenance for the plot. Because
less time and energy are consumed for maintaining the soil fertility of near farmlands than
far farmlands. In line with this, Daniel and Mulugeta (2017); Robera (2013) ; Eric (2012);
Mengistu and Bauer (2011): Kessler (2006) and Birhanu and Swinton (2003) also found that,
distant farmlands discouraged adoption of any soil and water conservation practices. It is
more tedious to carry compost manure and mulching materials from the homestead to the
farm and this may require employing more labour and capital. This leads to raise cost of
production which hinders farmers’ to adopt the practices.

In the case of agroforestry , contrary to the stated hypothesis, market distance from farmers’
homestead had a positive impact on adoption at 1% significance level (Table 13 ). The reason
for this might be farmers’ adopt agroforestry type other than high value trees which couldn’t
be marketable and generate income. But study conducted by Germew (2016) at Mecha
district of western Gojam, in agreement with the stated hypothesis showed that, as the
distance of the farm household from the proximal market areas increased by one percent (one
minute), the probability of agroforestry adoption would be declined by 21% units. This is
because of the demand for fuel wood and wood construction materials might induce the
proximate farm-households to adopt agroforestry on their farmlands.
4.6.6 Economic factors and adoption of climate smart agricultural practices

The number of livestock holding by farm household head had a significantly positive
impact on adoption of composting practices, which supports the hypotheses of the model.
This explanatory variable is highly influential at 1% significance level with estimated
coefficient and odds ratio of adopting 1.260 and 3.526 respectively (Table 12). The odds ratio
result from the estimated model depicted that, as the number of livestock increases by one
tropical livestock unit (having one extra ox or two donkeys or ten sheep etc. ) , adoption of
compost increases by a factor of 3.526. Since, livestock are important providers of manure

76
for compost preparation, as farmers’ hold more livestock; by far they are encouraged to
prepare and apply compost in their farmlands. Also, livestock holding in rural Ethiopia in
general and in the study area in particular is considered as indicator of income level and
hence wealth status of the households. It shows farmers financial ability to buy even
commercial composts for their farmlands. On the other hand, some of the livestock type like
donkey and horse are still important means of transports for goods and human being in the
study area. So, a farm household having a number of livestock is not challenged in applying
compost to their farmlands which are even takes more than 28 minutes from homestead . So,
a large number of livestock presences in rural family minimize time, energy and costs of
practicing composting. The result is agreed with that of Workneh ( 2015) and Mengistu and
Bauer (2011) .
Farm income other than agricultural activities (Off-farm income) is the most influential factor
that affects farmers’ decision to adopt mulching. The result of the regressed model depicted
that off-farm income has a positive correlation at statistically significant l evel (B = 1.204; p-
value =0 .008) with the adoption of mulching practices (Table 14 ). The odds ratio of the
binary logistic regression result revealed that household heads who are engaged in off-farm
activity adopt mulching practices 3.333 times greater than those who are not engaged in the
off-farm activity. Because income from off-farm activity increases the financial capacity of
farmers which in turn encourages investment in soil and water conservation practices.

Contrary to this, Daniel and Mulugeta (2017) reported that off-farm activity is correlated
negatively at statistically significant level with the adoption of soil and water conservation
practices. They argued that, there is labor competition between off- farm activity and soil and
water conservation practices which restrain farmers from involving in implementing and
maintaining conservation practices on their farmlands.

As expected, the other economic factor, farm size was found to be positively associated with
mulching adoption (B= 0.499 ; p- value = 0.068). From the predicted model result (Table
14 ) , it was found that, if farm plot increases by one hectare, adoption of mulching increases
by a factor of 1.647. The positive coefficient of the variable implies that farmers with larger
farm size are more likely to adopt mulching compared with those with small farm size.
Farmers with large farm size can afford to devote part of their plots (sometimes the less
productive parts) to try out high yield giving technologies, and this may influence adoption
decision.

77
In line with this (Robera , 2013 ; Rafael ,2005) argued that, relatively larger farm size had
higher risk of adopting improved agricultural practices. This can be attributed to the fact that
fertility enhancement occupies part of the scarce productive land and, therefore, farmers with
larger farm size can afford it compared to those with relatively lower farm size.

4.6.7 Institutional factors and adoption of climate smart agricultural practices

Not surprisingly, farm household heads who have access to agricultural extension service and
who are members of rural organizations like rural cooperatives and other forms of
associations are more likely adopt composting. Access to extension service more than three
times per one cropping season had a positive correlation at statistically significance level (B =
1.653; p-value = 0.097) with the adoption of composting . The other institutional factor,
being member of rural organizations, also positively and significantly affects the likelihood
of using compost at B = 2.622 and p-value = 0.004 (Table 12). The odds ratio of extension
service was 5.222; if extension service increased by 1 service contact, the probability of
adopting compost increases 5.222 times. Similarly, the odds ratio of member of organizations
was 13.763, denoted that farmers being member of organizations were 13.763 times more
likely to adopt composting practices than that of being non members.

This showed that extension service and rural organizations are important sources of
information and knowledge for rural farmers. Based upon the innovation diffusion theory,
farmers who have contacts to extension services tend to be more progressive and receptive to
new innovation. However, some farmers may strategically delay adoption of a new practice
until they build confidence through watching and learning from fellow farmers. In FGD and
key informant interview contacts, farmers said that they got also information about compost
preparation and application from other farmers. Nowadays, farm organizations like rural
cooperatives, Youth associations , women associations and rural kebele administrations are
best places to acquire trainings and experience sharing opportunities. Even, indigenous
institutions like Idir and Maheber are still played an important role for agricultural
technologies information exchanges. These indicate formal and non-formal institutions are
key for farmer-to-farmer information exchange for technology adoption.

Rural organizations expose farmers to a wide range of ideas and sometimes give farmers the
opportunity to have better access to information on new innovations. Group membership also

78
enables farmers to have a collective bargaining power when selling their product as well as
purchasing farm inputs (Eric, 2012).

The findings about the influence of extension service and rural organizations on compost
adoption in this research are consistent with those of Daniel and Mulugeta (2017) and
Workneh ( 2015) who analyzed the adoption of soil and water conservation techniques and
composting in south wollo zone of Amhara region and Beseku district of Oromia region
repectively. Also, Wang et al (2016) ; Eric (2012) and Somada et al (2002) reported similar
findings on composting technology adoption in China, Kenya and Burkina Faso respectively.

Farmers’ field day participation influences agroforestry practicing positively and significantly.
This imply the variable is one of the motivating factors for practicing agroforestry. The
coefficient and odds ratio of this variable were 1.388 and 4.009 respectively (Table 13 ).
Keeping other factors constant, when farm household heads get an opportunity of extra one
day participation in farmers’ field day, they could be 4.009 times more likely to practice
agroforestry. Research results by Gitonga and Mukoya (2016) showed that, adoption of
agroforestry practices can be strengthened by promoting regular farmers-to-farmers dialogue.
From the practice it is observed that farmers are the prime agents of change in their respective
communities. One of rural institutional set ups that create exposure to farmers-to-farmers
dialogue on their success stories is farmers’ field day. It is a practical experience sharing
arrangement among farmers’ to promote adoption of high beneficial agricultural practices
like agroforestry. In most cases rural farmers delay adoption of a new practice until they build
confidence through watching and learning from fellow farmers. Therefore, the best time to
build confidence and learn by watching is farmers’ field day.

The other institutional factor, knowledge on environmental regulation had positively

correlated with the adoption of agroforestry practices at statistically significance level (B=
1.517 ; p- value = .002). The Wald statistics (9.387) also indicated that the variable has a
strong association with the adoption of agroforestry practices (Table 13). If a farmer is
knowledgeable on environmental regulations, the likelihood of adopting agroforestry
practices increases 4.558 times. The results are consistent with that of Wang (2016).

79
When farmers’ get some knowledge and highlights on Ethiopia’s environmental regulations
such as environmental policy of Ethiopia, agriculture sector programme of plan on adaptation
to climate change and climate resilient green economy strategy, they could develop a better
attitude towards eco friendly agricultural practices. The policies and regulations are mainly
address the mechanisms how environmental degradation and climate change adverse impacts
could be manageable. So, the issue of environment influences attitude of farmers’ in the study
area who are mainly living in degraded environment.

A study by Tanga and Amare (2016) reported that, farmers’ awareness about land
degradation and their attitude towards land management practices leads farmers’ to have
positive attitude towards land management practices including agroforestry.

Although from FGD and key informant interview, it is verified that, environmental regulation
statements are boldly written on farmers land use certificate. The entitlement card enforces
them to conserve their environment. However, some farmers even indicated that they had
never heard of the environmental regulations, which indicates that the popularization of the
regulations are not enough and that the laws also do not perform their role of advising,
regulating and supervising.

Contrary to the stated hypothesis, information to weather forecasting had a negative and
significant impact on compost adoption at 1% significance level and agroforestry adoption at
5% significance level (Table12 and13 ). The reason for this might be the absence of the
timely available weather information and high probability of weather prediction accuracy. If
so, the variable was less important for the adoption decision.

Radio is assumed to give information about climate smart agricultural practices to farmers
and hence it is expected to affect adoption decision positively. However, Contrary to the
stated hypothesis, radio had a negative and significant impact on mulching adoption at 5%
significance level (Table 14 ). The reason for this might be the absence of sufficient and well
organized radio programmes concerning farming activities that influence adoption decision of
farmers.

80
4.7 Challenges to Invest on Climate Smart Agricultural Practices

Climate smart agricultural practices could be considered as investments for long term and
short term returns. Investment is the present sacrifice for future benefit. Farmers’ are
regularly in position to decide whether or not to invest, and how to diverse among the options
available. An individual farmers’ might have to decide whether to apply or not crop
diversification, crop rotation, small scale irrigation, agroforestry, composting, mulching ,
improved seeds etc. Under the heading of investment decision, economists have addressed
the problem of how to rationally choose in such situations involving a trade-off between
present and future. Farmers’ investments in different CSA practices depend on the how quick
the return from their investments is. In view of this, three elements are needed to determine
farmers’ investment decision. These include; capacity to invest, incentives to invest and
external conditioners.

4.7.1 Capacity to invest on climate smart agricultural practices

Farmers’ capacity to invest in CSA depends on farmers real assets such as landholding and
livestock, labour availability, knowledge and experience , social capital , physical capital and
financial capital.

Lack of financial capital is not allow about 24% of non-adopters to invest in composting
practices ( Figure 21 ). Financial capital consists of not only cash but also liquid assets such
as livestock and crop sales that are used to finance CSA practices. Livestock, crop sales and
off farm activities are the main sources of cash for Ethiopian farmers (Zenebe et al, 2015). If
farmers generate income from these sources they could easily access inputs for the practices .
Besides, they could also easily purchase the available CSA practices when needed. On the
other hand lack of cash and liquid assets even drive farmers’ to exchange CSA practices by
cash rather than invest on their farmland. Figure 26, presents 33% of non adopters responded
that shortage of money drives them to sell organic mulching materials rather than invest it on
their farmland. Also 29% of mulching adopters presented that need of additional income to
sell crop residual mulching materials which limited them to expand mulching practices
(Figure 20).

81
 Lack of labour Lack of firewood
Lack of mulch or crop residues Lack of animal feed
Mulch needed for additional income

4%
54%
7% 82%
6% 29%

Figure 20. Limit to expand mulching (Source: computed from field data)

A research conducted by Dereje and Haymanot (2017), entitled as Poverty and income
inequality in Girar Jarso District of Oromia Regional State, estimated that 45% of the district
residents are poor. The figure is more than the regional and national averages (29.3 and 29.6%
respectively). In such low economic status situation, money hunger is common to alleviate
life challenges. So, crop sales and livestock rising may not be the only sources of income for
the rural household.

16% 24% Lack of capital

Lack of labour
17%
16% Lack of supply market
High price to purchase
25%
Lack of knowledge and skill
Lack of firewood
2%

Figure 21. Challenge to invest on composting (Source: computed from field data)

As Figure 21 depicted ,16 % of compost non-adopters raised lack of labour as a constraint

factor to invest composting practices. Similarly 17.9% and 25.8% of composting and
agroforestry adopters respectively responded that lack of labour restrained them to expand the
practices on their farm plots (Figure 22 and 25).

82
 Lack of firewood
Lack of knowledge and skill
High price to purchase
Lack of supply market
Lack of labour
Lack of capital

0 5 10 15 20

Lack of Lack of
Lack of Lack of High price Lack of
supply knowledge
capital labour to purchase firewood
market and skill
Limit to expand composting 10.4 17.9 6 2 3.5 11.9

Figure 22. Limit to expand composting (Source: computed from field data)

Labour availability in quantity and quality terms is critically important in CSA practices
investment. The quantity aspect of labour is important when considering labour as an input
used in labour intensive CSA practices such as construction of stone terrace, preparation and
transportation of composting, agroforestry etc. The quality of labour which includes
knowledge and technical skill are also important to the farmers’ ability to make appropriate
investment decisions (Zenebe et al, 2015). As shown in Figure 21, 17% of compost non
adopters raised lack of sufficient knowledge and skill as influential factors.

Like the case in other studies (Workneh , 2015), lack of knowledge and skill to prepare
compost is one of major hindering factors to adopt the practice in Gerar Jarso woreda.
According to Workneh (2015), a research conducted at Beseku district of Oromia region, 50%
of the constraint factors that drives rural farmers not to adopt composing practices is lack of
knowledge and skill.

Since population pressure and severe land degradation minimizes productive farm size of
rural families , 22% of agroforestry non-adopters raised shortage of land as a reason for not-
adopting the practice (Figure 23 ). It implies farmers are calculating the opportunity cost of
land use to apply agricultural technologies in their farmlands. Gwambene et al (2015) in their
research conducted at southern highlands of Tanzania , revealed that farmers will not

83
invest all their resources if they are not assured about the outcome of the technology or
practice. Adoption of new technology and practices in most cases is affected by the perceived
opportunity cost of land use. Landholding is the major source of wealth and livelihood in
Ethiopia. The quantity and quality of land affect the types and intensity of investments which
are technically feasible and profitable.

25

20

15

10

5
challenge to invest on
0 agroforestry

Figure 23. Challenge to invest on agroforestry (Source: computed from field data

4.7.2 Incentives to invest in CSA practices

About 25% of the non-adopters of compost indicated that high price to purchase compost was
highly hindering them from practicing composting (Figure 21 ). From field observation and
FGD it is verified that, the compost market is Oligopoly type of market which is dominated
by few suppliers. The nature of such market gives price setting power to the sellers by
different arrangements. So, farmers are obliged to accept higher selling price.

The factors that affect farmers’ incentives to invest in CSA practices are related to those
conditions that affect the net or relative return of investments and riskiness of investment in
CSA. Most farmers in Ethiopia are sensitive to net or relative return to their labour or
financial investments in land (Zenebe et al, 2015;). If the costs of CSA practices exceed the
short –term and the long term benefits, farmers have no incentive to adopt them. Net returns
of a given investment depend on the yields and input requirements per unit of output and the
prices of inputs and outputs.

84
Another important factor affecting farmers’ incentives to invest in CSA practices is risk.
Climatic risk (e.g. rainfall) and risk of losing their property (e.g. land tenure) farmers can
affect investments in land. In this study 66% of farmers reported that they are insecure to use
their farm land throughout their life (Figure 24 ) .The importance of secure and transferable
land rights has long been identified as a key element to bring about higher levels of long term
investment (Tanga and Amare ,2016; Zenebe et al, 2015;)

As it is common in Ethiopia, the land belongs to the state in the study area , However few
years ago usufruct right is allowed for farmers. According to an assessment of land tenure
systems and investments in farmlands, farmers preferred freehold land tenure systems for
CSA practices adoption implying the positive influence of tenure security. A study conducted
on adoption of agroforestry practices at Fogera district of northern Ethiopia revealed that
security of land tenure influenced agroforestry adoption positively and significantly (Tanga
and Amare ,2016). When Farmers believe that no one can take their land from their hand,
they invest conservation practices intensively and extensively to improve land productivity.

Do you secure your farmland throughout your life?

I doubt No, I may loss it Yes, I am sure

34%
40%

26%

Figure 24. Farmers’ view on the security of land tenure (Source: computed from field data)

85
4.7.3 External conditioners to invest in CSA practices
External factors affect farmers’ investments in CSA practices indirectly by influencing their
capacities to invest in CSA and the incentives of their investments. These external factors
include institutional support (provision of trainings, extension services, agricultural inputs
and technologies), policies (e.g. land tenure) and access to infrastructure (e.g. road and
market).

Lack of capital

Lack of labour
14%
26%
High initial cost of
production
Lack of land
26%
Lack of access to
16% seedlings
Poor soils
4% 9%
5%
Lack of product market

Figure 25. Limit to expand agroforestry (Source: computed from field data)

As shown in Figure25, 26% of agroforestry adopters reported that lack of product market
discouraged them to expand their agroforestry investment. In the study area, majority of
farmers walk more than two hours to access road and market. These infrastructure challenges
raise the transaction costs of products, raw materials and access to various information to get
reasonable financial rewards from their investment.

One of the most important bottlenecks to adopt and expand mulching practices in the study
area is lack of animal feed. 28% and 54% of mulching adopters and non-adopters
respectively agreed with this proposition (Figure 20 and 26 ). In recent years, it is observed
that due to climate variability and change animal feed shortage become chronic in most part
of Ethiopia. Its impact is clearly seen especially to invest on mulching. There is a clear trade-
off between livestock feed and organic mulching materials. Almost all organic mulching
materials such as crop residuals, dry grasses, straws, dry leaves, grass clipping, etc. are
animal feed types especially in the dry season. So, farmers due to their relative return

86
perception, inclined to use the mulch for animal feed or income generation rather than invest
it as conservation practices.

Lack of labour Lack of firewood

Lack of mulch or crop residues Lack of animal feed
Mulch needed for additional income

9%

28%
27% 61%
33%

3%

Figure 26. Challenge to invest on mulching (Source: computed from field data)

In assessing why smallholder farmers were unable to invest on agroforestry practices, about
24% of the non-adopters indicated lack of access to seedlings as a major constraint factor
(Figure 23 ). From direct observation and FGD it is acquired that, farmers in the kola kebeles
are chronically affected in having seedlings.

Figure 26 presents, 27% of mulching non-adopters raised shortage of firewood to apply

mulching. It means, rural household families are high consumers of mulching materials such
as: bark, wood chips, straws, dry leaves, etc as a source of fuel to cook their food.

In FGD and key informant interviews, shortage of water is also considered as key challenge
not to adopt composting. Even to expand the practice significantly, water shortage is also
considered as a bottleneck by adopters.

Lack of labour for CSA non- adopters is insignificant constraint factor compare to other
factors (Figure 21, 23 and 26 ). When farmers are communicated in FGD and key informant
interviews, they argued that if the demand of the prominent factors such as firewood , animal
feed, access to seedlings and water supply are fulfilled , lack of labour in the family is

87
compensated by using different indigenous social capitals such as: wenfel, debo/ jigi ,
senebete / mahiber.

Therefore, improving animal feed availability, access to seedlings, alternative fuel energy
sources and water supply infrastructures are some of the critical tasks that should be managed
by formal and informal institutions in the study woreda. The tasks also need policy support
and suitable strategies designed by higher governmental institutions.

Figure 27. Adisge kebele

farmers carrying mulching
materials to sell at Fiche
market (photo taken in
27/4/2018)

88
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The general objective of this study was to assess determinants and challenges of climate
smart agricultural practices adoption in Gerar Jarso woreda of Oromia regional state. From
the meteorological data and farmers’ perception it is observed that the average annual
temperature is characterized by an increasing trend. Besides, rainfall variability is observed in
the study area. These changes intensify the impacts of droughts, and could particularly reduce
the amount of productive crop land and exacerbate food insecurity among rural farmers. To
tackle this climate smart agriculture (CSA) is rapidly gaining traction as a possible response
to the challenge.

In this study three climate smart agricultural practices are examined by demographic,
physical, socio-economic and institutional aspects of rural farmers.

The study revealed that sex of household heads, education level of household heads, number
of livestock holding, access to extension services and being member of rural organizations
affect adoption of composting positively and significantly. Also, farm distance affect
composting practices negatively.

The probability to apply agroforestry is positively and significantly associated with sex of
household heads, farmers’ field day participation and knowledge on environmental regulation.
Besides farm distance affect the likelihood of agroforestry application negatively.

The model result also demonstrated that off-farm income, farm size, the presence of active
labour force and family size affect adoption of mulching practices positively. Besides,
average farm distance from homestead affect the probability of mulching adoption negatively.

The study identified that when farmers’ capacity to invest and incentives to invest is limited
and insufficient enabling conditions exist smallholder farmers could not invest and/or expand
CSA practices investment in short and long terms.

89
Adoption of climate smart agricultural practices that maintain or improve soil fertility have
a positive effect on agricultural productivity. Therefore, the issue of CSA practices has to
receive due attention in an effort to ensure sustainability of the rural livelihood system and
food security goal of the country in the face of climate change. In this regard commitment of
every stakeholder is required in fostering the use of the practices through supporting those
who already implemented and increasing awareness among non-users to encourage them to
adopt the practices.

Therefore, the findings of the promising demographic, socio-economic, and institutional

factors should be given to capitalize by the Woreda Agriculture and natural resource
development office and other concerned bodies to enhance farmers’ adoption potentials of the
study area. Moreover, before expanding CSA practices in other areas of Ethiopia, addressing
the implementing obstacles by establishing enabling local environments through enhancing
farmers’ implementing capacities and incentives to implement is crucial.
Finally, given the limitations of this study , there are some implications that do deserve
further research. These include:
 The necessity to consider the broader aspect of environment beyond agricultural land
conservation including livestock production, conservation of water, wetlands, forest,
and biodiversity through the lens of CSA;
 The need to have time series information for assessing the dynamic nature of adoption
on the basis of the variables considered in this study ;
 The need to employ other models such as Tobit model for assessing adoption intensity
among rural farmers; and
 The need to have wider coverage (geographically) and diverse coverage (beyond the
three CSA practices) of adoption study.

90
REFERENCES
Abay, K. A .et al. (2016). Understanding farmers’ technology adoption decisions:
Input complementarity and heterogeneity. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), (No. 82).
Admassie, A. (2008). Stakeholder perception on climate change and adaptation strategies
in Ethiopia. Paper presented at the workshop on Climate change adaptation in
Ethiopia, Nazareth, Ethiopia.
Aklilu,A. (2006). Best practices in soil and water conservation in Beressa Watershed ,
highland of Ethiopia . Tropical resource management paper No 36, Netherlands ,
Wageningen university.
Arman G. et al (2016). A National Adaptation Programme of Action: Ethiopia’s
responses to climate change, world development perspectives 1, 53-57.
Ashenafi Gebru (2006). The determinants of modern agricultural inputs adoption and
their productivity in Ethiopia : The case of Amhara and Tigray Thesis, Addis
Ababa university.
Assefa Admassie and Gezahegn Ayele (2004). “Adoptions of Improved Technologies
in Ethiopia,” Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Research Report 3.
Belay Simane (2016). Building community resilience to climate change : lessons from
choke mountain agro Ecosystems, Abay/the Blue Nile highlands. Addis Ababa
university press , Addis Ababa.
Belay Zerga and Getaneh Gebeyehu 2016. Climate Change in Ethiopia :Variability,
Impact, Mitigation, and Adaptation, International journal of research and
development organization, ( 2) 4:68.
Birhanu , G. and Swinton, S.M. (2003). Investment soil conservation in northern Ethiopia:
The role of land tenure security and public programmes, Journal of Agricultural
Economics ,29,69-84.
Branca et al (2011). Climate Smart Agricultural Practices: A synthesis of empirical
evidence of food security and mitigation benefits from improved cropland
management . Working paper , FAO, Rome.

CASCAPE (2016). Environmental sustainability in CASCAPE. National synthesis

report.
Cheng X, Han CH (1992). Sustainable agricultural development in China. World
Development , 20: 1127–1144.

91
Cohen, J. (1975). Effects of Green Revolution Strategies on Tenants and Small Scale
Land Owners in the Chillalo Region of Ethiopia, The Journal of Developing
Areas, 9: 335-338.
CSA (2010/11). Central Statistics Authority Statistical Abstract, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA (2007). The 2007 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia: Statistical Report at
Country Level. Addis Ababa.
Daniel Asfaw and Mulugeta Neka (2017). Factors affecting adoption of soil and water
conservation practices: The case of Wereillu Woreda (District), South Wollo Zone,
Amhara Region, Ethiopia. International Soil and Water Conservation Research
5 :273–279.
de Bertoldi, M., Vallini, G. & Pera, A. (1983). The biology of composting: a review.
Waste Management & Research, 1, 157-176.
Dereje and Haymanot (2017). Poverty and income inequality in Girar Jarso District of
Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural
Economic, Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-14.
Engdawork Assefa ( 2015). Characterization and classification of the major agricultural
soils in CASCAPE intervention woredas in the centeral highlands of Oromia
region, Ethiopia: Bako-Tibe, Becho, Gimbichu, GirarJarso and Munessa
weredas. CASCAPE – Addis Ababa University.
EPCC (2015). First assessment report, summary of reports for policy makers. Published
by the Ethiopian Academy of Sciences.
Eric G.(2012). Affecting adoption and intensity of use of organic soil management
practices in maize production in Bungoma county Kenya. MA thesis , Egerton
University .
FAO (2013a). Climate-Smart Agriculture Policies, Practices and Financing for Food
Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. Rome.
FAO ( 2013b). Climate-Smart Agriculture - Sourcebook on Climate-Smart Agriculture,
Rome.
FAO (2016). Ethiopia Climate-Smart Agriculture Scoping Study. Addis Ababa.
FDRE (2011). Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy : Green economy strategy.
Addis Ababa.
Gairh, Samaya (2017) . Adoption of Improved Potato Varieties in Nepal. Journal of
Nepal Agricultural Research Council Vol. 3: 38-44,

92
Garcia et al (2016). The potential for adoption of climate smart agricultural practices in
Sub-Saharan livestock systems. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Geremew Worku (2016). Agroforestry and land productivity: Evidence from rural
Ethiopia, Cogent Food & Agriculture , 2: 125-140.
Grar Jarso Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office, 2014.
Gitonga,S. and Mukoya, S. M. (2016). An Evaluation of the Influence of Information
Sources on Adoption of Agroforestry Practices in Kajiado Central Sub-County,
Kenya. Universal Journal of Agricultural Research 4(3): 71-77.
Goyal, S., Dhull, S.K. & Kapoor, K.K. (2005). Chemical and biological changes during
composting of different organic wastes and assessment of compost maturity.
Bioresource Technology, 96, 1584-1591.
Gujarati N. Damoder and Porter C. Dawn (2009). Basic Econometrics (5th ed). McGraw-
Hill education, New York.
Gwambene eta al ,2015 Smallholder Farmers’ Practices and Understanding of Climate
Change and Climate Smart Agriculture in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania.
Journal of Resources Development and Management, Vol.13, : 37-47.
Hanne Knaepen, et al (2015) . Making agriculture in Africa climate-smart From
continental policies to local practices. (? )
Hare, W .(2003). Assessment of Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Change, Contribution
to the Specification of Art, 2 of the UNFCCC. WBGU.
Hayarni Y. And Ruttan V.W.(1971). Agricultural Development: An International
Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Huttle R. and Fussy M. 2001, Organic Matter Management – A Contribution To
Sustainability, Applying Compost Benefits and Needs, Seminar Proceedings of
European commission , 22 – 23 November 2001,pp 112, Brussels.
ICRAF, 2000. Paths to prosperity through agroforestry. ICRAF’s corporate strategy,
2001–2010. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi.
IPCC (2015). Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fith Assessment Report.
IPCC. 2012. Summary for policy makers: The risks of extreme events and disasters to
advance climate change adaptation . Cambridge University Press. UK.
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I,
II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva.
IPCC ( 2001) . Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working

93
 Groups I, II, III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York .
Jones PG and Thornton PK. (2009). Croppers to livestock keepers: livelihood transitions
in 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environmental Science Policy 12:
427-437.
Kassie, M., P. Zikhali, M. Kebede and S. Edwards (2009). Adoption of organic farming
techniques: Evidence from a Semi-Arid Region of Ethiopia. Environment for
Development, Discussion paper Series, EFD, Addis Ababa.
Kebede, Y. et al (1990). Adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian agriculture: the case
of Tegulet-Bulga District, Shoa Province. Agric. Econ., 4: 27-43.
Kessler ,C.A (2006). Decisive key factors influencing farm households’ soil and water
conservation investments. Journal of applied geography,26,40-60.
Kilcher, L. (2007). How organic agriculture contributes to sustainable development.
University of Kassel at Witzenhausen JARTS, Supplement 89 (2007): 31-49.
Knowler D, Bradshaw B 2007: Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review
and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32,25–48.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and Techniques (2nd ED). New
Dheli,New age international.
Lalisa et al 2014 . Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in the Land Use Sector:
From Complementarity to Synergy, Environmental Management 54:420–432 .
Land O'Lakes International Development, 2007 . How Livestock is Used as a Coping
Mechanism with Respect to Food Insecurity among Livestock Keepers of Africa:
a Literature Review from a Current Perspective. Working Paper.
Legesse Dadi (1992). Analysis of Factors Influencing Adoption and the Impact of Wheat
and Maize Technologies in Arsi Negele Area of Ethiopia, M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya
University of Agriculture.
Legesse Dadi (1998). Adoption and Diffusion of Agricultural Technologies: A Case of
East and West Shewa Zones, Ethiopia. Ph.D dissertation, university of Manchester,
School of Economics Studies, UK.
Magdoff, F. (2007) Ecological Agriculture: Principles, Practices, and Constraints.
Renewable Agricultural Food Systems, 22, 109-117.
McSweeney C, Lizcano G, New M, Lu X (2010).The UNDP Climate Change Country
Profiles. Available via://journals. ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009BAMS2826.1.
Accessed on 14, April 2018.

94
Mengistu K. and Bauer, S.(2011). Determinants of Manure and Fertilizer Applications in
Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture
50(3) : 237-252.
Meskerem Abi (2011). Household Food Security Situation in Girar Jarso Woreda, North
Shewa Zone of Oromiya National Regional State, Ethiopia. MA Thesis, Addis
Ababa university.
Metz, B. et al (2007). Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Motuma Dame (2017). Assessment of Land Management Practices in Girar Jarso Woreda,
Central Ethiopia. MA thesis, Addis Ababa University.
Mutuku et al (2016). “Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil and Water Management
Practices in Machakos County, Kenya,” Journal of Advanced Agricultural
Technologies, 4( 3): 293.
NBE (2018). Quarterly Bulletin , First Quarter 2017/18 fiscal Year Series, 34 (1).
Nathnael Wassie and Hanna Gustavsson 2017. Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation Strategies Vis-À-Vis the Agriculture and Water Sectors in Ethiopia
Case Review/Study of the EPCC Project, Environment Pollution and Climate
Change 3 (1):3.
National Association of Conservation District (1998).Mulching. Washington, DC.
Nciizah, A.D. and Wakindiki, I.C.(2015). Climate Smart Agriculture: Achievements and
Prospects in Africa. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 3, 99-
105.
Negatua W. and Parikhb A. (1999). The impact of perception and other factors on the
adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (district) of
Ethiopia. Aglicultural Economics 21 (1999) 205-216.
NMA (2007). Final Report on Evaluation Criteria for Identifying High Priority
Adaptation Activities prepared by B and M Development Consultants for NMA.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
NMA (2001). Initial National Communication of Ethiopia to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Addis Ababa: NMSA.
Odendo, M., Obare, G. and Salasya, B. (2009). Factors responsible for differences in
uptake of integrated soil fertility management practices amongst smallholders in
western Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 4 (11): 1303-1311

95
OECD (2010). Sustainable Management of Water Resources in Agriculture.
Omarsherif, M. Jemal and Daniel, C.(2017) . Potential of Agroforestry for Food and
Nutrition Security of Small-scale Farming Households : A case study from Yayu,
southwestern Ethiopia. Centre for Development Research, University of Bonn.
Paulos Asrat (2018). Land management decision in a changing climate: Exploring climate
smart agricultural practices , land productivity and livelihood impacts in the
Dabus sub-basin of the Blue Nile river. PhD dissertation, Addis Ababa university.
Perrin, R. and D. Winkelmann (1976). Impediment to Technical Progress on Small
versus Large Farms, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58: 888-894.
Pretty, J.et al. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture, International Journal
of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1): 5–24.
Prosdocimi et al (2016). Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion, Earth-Science
Reviews, 161 (2016) 191–203.
Rafael N. (2005). Determinants of Agricultural Technology Adoption in Mozambique.
International Food Policy Research Institute , Maputo, Mozambique.
Robera Merga (2013). Household-Level Determinants of Adoption Speed of Soil Fertility
Boosting Technology: A Duration Analysis Approach of Composting adoption : A
Case Study of Toke Kutaye District, West Shawa, Oromiya. MSc thesis, Mekele
university, department of economics.
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5 ed.). New York, Free Press.
Rynk R. and Colt M. (1997). Composting at home. Moscow: University of Idaho .
Sara J Scherr , et al (2012). From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. ?
Shiferaw et al ( 2009 ). 13 Challenges of adoption and adaptation of lands and water
management options in smallholder agriculture: Synthesis of lessons and experiences,
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Kenya.
Shiferaw B. & Holden, S. (1999). Soil erosion and smallholders' conservation decisions in
the highlands of Ethiopia. World Development, 27, 739-752.
Shiferaw B. and Holden S. (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation
technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: a case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa.
Agricultural Economics, 18: 233–247.
Shirish , P. S et al (2013). Mulching: A Soil and Water Conservation Practice. Research
Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences , 1(3): 26-29.
Somda J, et al ( 2002). Soil fertility management and socio-economic factors in crop-
livestock systems in Burkina Faso: a case study of composting technology.
96
 Ecol.Econ., 43, 175–183.
Stavins R. and Richards K. (2005). The cost of U.S. forest-based carbon sequestration.
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, USA.
Suwon, B. Park ( 2014). Review on Diffusion of Innovation, 5 ed., (2003) by Everett M.
Rogers. ?.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Tadege, A. (2007). Climate Change National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA) of
Ethiopia. NMS (National Meteorological Agency), Federal Democratic Republic
of Ethiopia Addis Ababa .
Tanga, A.A and Amare Mezgebu (2016). Determinants of Agroforestry Practicing at
Fogera District, Northwestern Ethiopia, Journal of Agriculture and Ecology
Research International 9(4): 1-14.
Temesgen et al 2009 . Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate
change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia, Global Environmental Change JGEC-688:
Temesgen, T. (2000). Drought and its predictability in Ethiopia. In: Wilhite, D.A. (Ed.),
Drought: A Global Assessment, Vol. I. Routledge, pp. 135-142.
Tewodros et al (2016 ). Drivers for adoption of agricultural technologies and practices in
Ethiopia :A study report from 30 woredas in four regions. CASCAPE project
report, Addis Ababa/Wageningen.
UNDP Ethiopia (2011) . Framework for UNDP Ethiopia's Climate Change,
Environment and Disaster Risk Management Portfolio. http://www.et.undp.org.
UNFCCC, (2007). Climate Change: Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation in
Developing Countries.
UN Water (2006) . Water, a Shared Responsibility: The United Nations World Water
Development Report 2, Paris: UNESCO.
USAID (2015). Agricultural water development : Water and Development Strategy
implementation brief . ?.
USAID (2012). A Climate Trend Analysis of Ethiopia , Fact Sheet 2012–3053
Wang, Na et al (2016). Adoption of eco-friendly soil-management practices by small
holder farmers in Shandong Province of China. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition,
2 (62) : 185- 193.
Wassie Haile (2016). Review of Soil Fertility Interventions in Ethiopia, Research finding
Report Submitted to Fertile Ground Initiatives (FGI).

97
Weinfurtner K. 2001, Plant Nutrition and Productivity – Is Compost a Competitive
Fertiliser? Applying Compost Benefits and Needs, Seminar Proceedings of
European commission , 22 – 23 November 2001,pp 112, Brussels.
Weldemariam Seifu (2017). Evaluation of Different Mulching Practices on Garlic
(Allium sativum L.) Growth Parameters under Irrigated Condition in Fiche,
North Shoa Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 7 (9): 25-31.
Workneh Bedada (2015). Compost and Fertilizer - Alternatives or Complementary? :
Management Feasibility and Long-Term Effects on Soil Fertility in an Ethiopian
Village. Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences , Uppsala.
World Economic Forum (2010). Biodiversity and business risk-a global risks network
briefing, a briefing paper for participants engaged in biodiversity related
discussions at the World Economic Forum Davos-Klosters Annual Meeting,
Cologne/Geneva, Switzerland.
World Bank. 2009. Morocco study on the impact of climate change on the agricultural
sector: impact of climate change on agricultural yields in Morocco. Washington
D.C, The World Bank.
World Bank. 2008. Agriculture and poverty. Agriculture for Development Policy
World Bank (2007). Ethiopia: Climate Risk Factsheet.
World Bank (2006). Ethiopia: Managing water resources to maximize sustainable growth .
Country water assistance strategy , report No 3600-ET. World Bank , Washington
DC.
Yesuf, M.et al (2008). The Impact of Climate Change and Adaptation on Food
Production in Low-Income Countries: Evidence from the Nile Basin, Ethiopia,
IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 828 Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute .
Zenabu Wolde (2015). The role of agroforestry in soil and water conservation . LAP
LABERT Academic publishing, Germany.
Zenebe et al (2015). Understanding determinants of farmers’ investments in sustainable
land management practices in Ethiopia. Environ Dev Sustain,18:1005-1023.
Zenebe et al (2010). Household Tree Planting in Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia: Tree Species,
Purposes, and Determinants. University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

98
Zougmoré,R. et al , (2016). “Toward climate-smart agriculture in West Africa: a review
of climate change impacts, adaptation strategies and policy developments for the
livestock, fishery and crop production sectors.” Agriculture & Food Security, 26 (5): 2.

99
Appendix I. Household Questionnaire

Questionnaire Identification

 Woreda ................................. Kebele …………..……… Location………………..…

 Agro - ecology Dega Weyina dega Kolla
 Name of enumerator……………………………… Mobile No …………………
 Date ………………… Starting time …………… Ending time …………

I. Farmers’ Background Information

1.1 Marital status (Please tick where appropriate)
1. Single 2. Divorced (separated)
3. Married 4. Widowed 5. If any other specify ………………
1.1 Household members (including the head) Demographic Characteristics
NO Name sex Age Relation to Years of Main
the head schooling responsibility
in the house
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1.3 What is the occupation of the household head?

1. Crop farming
2. Livestock Farming
3. Mixed farming , if mixed the dominant one is ……………………
4. Others (specify)………………..
1.4. How many years have you been in the current farming system? ………………….

2 Farmer’s Perception
2.1 What is your observation/perception on climate variability , soil fertility status , tree
cover and crop production around your environment in this year than : (Using the
following Key: 1 very low , 2 low, 3 no change , 4 high and 5 Very high put ( √ )
in the box provided)

Indicators 30 years ago 10 years ago 2 years ago

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Temperature
Rain
Soil fertility
Tree cover
Crop
production

100
2.2 What is your perception on expected effect of the following climate smart
agricultural practices on your farm? (Use the following Key: 1= strongly disagree;
2= Disagree; 3=Neutral / Undecided; 4= Agree; 5= strongly agreeand put ( √ ) in
the box provided )

Indicators Statement Perception rate

1 2 3 4 5
Natural i. Natural resources must be protected for
resource the next generations
conservation
ii. I have to protect natural resources even
if it will lead to incurring losses in the
short run

Soil i. Minimum tillage reduces soil erosion,

management disturbance and exposure
practices ii. Crop rotation reduces soil degradation
iii. Leguminous species and
diversification of crops can protect soil
from erosion
iv. Mulching or Retaining crop residues
reduce weed growth, reduce moisture loss
and reduce erosion by water and wind
v. Soil fertility can be improved by
application of green manure
vi. Soil fertility can be improved by
application of compost
Agroforestry i.growing trees in association with crop
production generate additional income
and able to improve my livelihood?
ii. intercropping can improve soil fertility
iii. boundary planting and windbreaks can
protect soil erosion and improve water
retention of the soil
iv. growing multipurpose trees and shrubs
in steeper slope land can reduce soil
erosion and improve soil fertility
v. alley cropping provides nutrients
specially nitrogen to the soil
Water i. terraces can improve the water retention
management capacity of the soil
practices
ii. slope stabilization improve the water
availability in the soil
iii. drought resistance crops (improved
seeds) are selected in low rain fall season
iv. by storing water (irrigation) farming
operation can be done during the dry
season

101
3 Physical Factors (Please tick where appropriate)
3.1 Farm Land Nature And Size
3.1.1 Total number of parcels ……………. Size …………. Timad (to mean ‘Oolchaa
sangaa’ in Affan oromo)
Type of Size in Distance Land Quality Slope Types of soil The land
parcel timad from the (fertile, (plain , or/and water ownership
house (in Moderately medium, conservation type
minutes) fertile sloppy) practices (ownership
degraded , applied by title, rent
severely or other )
degraded, )
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
Parcel 4
3.2 Average house distance from the proxy market (in Min.) ……………. Minute
3.3 Average house distance from the main road (in Min.) ……………. Minute

4 Economic Factors
4.1 Do you posses an irrigated agriculture ? 1=Yes 0=No
4.2 If yes (for 4.1) , what is the size of the irrigated land in timad ? ………………
4.3 Currently how many of the following livestock do you have? (NB: Quantities
registered will be converted to Tropical Livestock unit)
cows Oxen Bull Calf Heifer Goat Sheep horse Mule donkey poultry

4.4 Crop production and inputs used by household

NO Crop type Land size in 2010 production Type of Fertilizers in
Timad in quintal seed used Kg per hactar
(local,
improved)
1. Teff
2. Barley
3. wheat
4. Maize
5. Chickpea
6. Lentil
7. Pea
8. Faba bean
9. Potato
10. Onion
11. Garlic
12. Other
4.5 Do you worry about food security ?
1=Yes 0=No

4.6 Off-Farm Income

4.6.1 Apart from farm income, do you receive income from other sources?
1=Yes 0=No
4.6.2 If yes, please indicate the other sources of income

102
 Type of earning (income) Average annual
income (in birr)
Salary
Transfer earnings from relatives (including
remittance)
Value of gifts received
Income from Land rented out
Daily Labourer
Other incomes (specify) ………………..

5 Institutional Factors

5.1 Extension Services

5.1.1 Has any household member receive extension service in the last 12 months?
1= Yes 0 = No
5.1.2 If yes (for 5.1.1 ), how many times do you usually meet with extension agents
per cropping year ………………….
5.1.3 On what topics you get support from extension service?
………………………….. , ………………………….. , ………………………
….. , ………………………….. , ………………………….. , ………………
………….. ,
5.1.4 Have you got extension service in the following Climate smart agricultural
practices ? put ( √ ) in the box provided.
Climate smart agricultural practices Yes No
Mulching
Compost application
Agroforestry practices

5.1.5 Which institution provides you the extension service ? put ( √ ) in the box
provided.

Extension service provider

1. Government (by extension workers-DA)

2. private extension providers
3. NGOs/development agencies
4. other farmers
5. others (specify) ……………………..

5.2 Land Ownership

5.2.1 For whom do you think farm land belongs for natural conservation
practices? put ( √ ) in the box provided.
Government My own I am not sure

103
 5.2.2 Do you expect that you will use the land throughout your life time? put ( √ )
in the box provided.
I doubt No, I may loss it Yes, I am sure

5.2.3 Do you think land ownership title motivate farmers to adopt water
management , soil management and agroforestry practices ?
1= Yes 0 = No

5.3 Training
5.3.1 Have you ever attended a training that improve your farm operation?
1= Yes 0 = No
5.3.2 If yes in (5.3.1), then complete the table below .

Training tiltles (See codes Number of Training

below) times organizers
(See codes below)

Codes for training title: 1 = compost use; 2= inorganic fertilizer usage; 3= building of
terraces 4= mulching ; 5= water storage; 6= formulated fertilizer usage; 7= improved seed
application; 8= agroforestry practices ; 9= other (specify) ……………………
.
Codes for training organizers: 1=Government extension Workers; 2=Farmers;
3=NGOs/development agencies ; 4=others (Specify)……………………
5.3.3 So, how did you feel about the importance of the training? put ( √ ) in the box
provided.

Unimportant at all A little bit good I don’t know Very important

5.4 Information Access

5.4.1 Do you have radio?
1= Yes 0 = No
5.4.2 Do you think radio provides you an information on water management, soil
management and agroforestry practices ? put ( √ ) in the box provided )
1=strongly disagree 2= Disagree 3=Neutral 4= Agree 5= strongly
/Undecided agree

5.4.3 Do you have regular access to weather forecasting information ?

1= Yes 0 = No

104
 5.4.4 Do you usually participate in farmers’ field days
1= Yes 0 = No

5.5 Organization
5.5.1 Are you a member of youth or women or farmers cooperative association ?
1= Yes 0 = No
5.5.2 Do you think being member of peasant association, capacitate farmers to
improve their mulching , compost application and agroforestry practices
adoption ?
1= Yes 0 = No
5.6 Credit Access
5.6.1 Did you have an opportunity to access credit?
1= Yes 0 = No
5.6.2 If yes in (5.5.1), fill the table below:
Credit source (See Granted? Credit What was the If not granted, give
codes 1=Yes type purpose of reasons (See codes
below) 0=No 1=Money credit? (See below)
0=In kind codes below)

Source codes: 1= Commercial bank, 2= private bank, 3=Cooperative, 4, microfinance 5=

Local money lender. 6= others (specify) ……………………………………………
Purpose of credit codes: 1=school fees, 2= business capital, 3= household consumption,
4=farm inputs (fertilizers and improved seeds), 5= livestock, 6= medication, 7=other
(specify) …………………………….
Not granted reasons codes: 1= lack of collateral, 2= risk averseness, 3=lack of enough
savings, 4=defaulted previously, 5= other (specify) ………………………
5.7 Environmental Regulation
5.7.1 Have you an information on the existence of environmental regulation ?
1= Yes 0 = No
5.7.2 Is the environmental regulation enforce you to apply water management, soil
management and agroforestry practices ?
1= Yes 0 = No

6 Farm Operations
6.1 Do you practice the following farm activities ?

NO Activity Yes No
1 Use crop diversification / Farming varieties of crops/
2 Alterations in cropping patterns and rotations
3 Use drought resistance crops
4 Use soil and water conservation practices (Terracing )
significantly
5 Inclined to non farming activities

105
 6 Use storage water
7 Applying agroforestry (Planting trees)
8 Use of high irrigation water
9 Use sufficient amount of fertilizer
10 Use improved seeds sufficiently
11 Use of BBM technology

6.2 Climate Smart Agricultural Practices

6.2.1 Do you practice mulching?
1= Yes 0 = No
6.2.2 If yes in (6.2.1), what attracted you to practice mulching?
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

6.2.3 If yes, which factor is highly limit the expansion of your mulching
practices?
1 Lack of capital 2 Lack of mulch or crop residues
3 Lack of labour 4 lack of firewood
5 Lack of animal feed (fodder ) 6 lack of building material
7 Others (specify)……………………

6.2.4 If no in (6.2.1), which one is the most challenge for not adopting mulching
practices?

1 Need of additional income 2 Lack of mulch or crop residues

3 Lack of labour 4 lack of firewood
5 Lack of animal feed (fodder) 6 lack of building material

7 Others (specify)……………………

6.2.5 Do you practice compost in appropriate management and composition ?

1 Yes 0 No
6.2.6 If yes in (6.2.5), what attracted you to practice compost?
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

6.2.7 If yes, which factor is highly limit the expansion of your compost practices?

1 Lack of capital 2 Lack of labour

3 Lack of supply market 4 high price to purchase
5 Lack of knowledge and skill 6 Lack of firewood
7 Others (specify)……………………
6.2.8 If no in (6.2.5), which one is the most challenge for not adopting compost
practices?
1 Lack of capital 2 Lack of labour
3 Lack of supply market 4 high price to purchase
5 Lack of knowledge and skill 6 Lack of firewood
7 Others (specify)……………………

106
6.2.9 Do you adopt agroforestry practices on your farm land?
1= Yes 0 = No
6.2.10 If yes in (6.2.9), what attracted you to adopt agroforestry practices?
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
6.2.11 If yes in (6.2.9), Which of the following agroforestry techniques do you
practice?
1 Intercropping 2 windbreaks
3 farm boundary planting 4 alley cropping
5 growing multipurpose trees and shrubs in steeper land structure
6 Growing high value trees (Jatropha, eucalyptus . . .)
7 Others (Specify) ……………………………
6.2.12 From the list above which is/are the main agroforestry technique/s on your
farm?
6.2.13 If yes, which factor is highly limit the expansion of your agroforestry
practices?
1 Lack of capital 2 High initial cost of production
3 Lack of land 4 Lack of access to seedlings
5 Poor soils 6 Lack of product market
7 Lack of labour 8 Others (specify)……………………

6.2.14 If no in (6.2.9), which one is the most challenge for not adopting
agroforestry practices?
1 Lack of capital 2 High initial cost of production
3 Lack of land 4 Lack of access to seedlings
5 Poor soils 6 Lack of product market
7 Lack of labour 8 Others (specify)……………………

107
Appendix II

Checklist for Field Observation

1. Environment
1. Relief (plain, plateau, mountain, steep slopes)
2. Land-use and land cover
3. Soil aspects
4. Water bodies
2. socio- culture
1. Population settlement patterns
2. Religion
3. Culture, value, traditions
4. Social relations neighbourhood, network, reciprocity
3. Economy/Sources of livelihood/ and Infrastructure
1. Main source of livelihood: mixed farming, non-farm activities
2. Crop types: dominant in terms of area cultivated and size of harvest during meher
and belg seasons, source of staple food
3. Livestock: type, size, raising practices
4. Situations of social and economic infrastructure: transport (road), marketing,
extension services, sources of water supply, schools

108
Appendix III Challenges to invest on climate smart agricultural practices

No Challenges to Composting Agroforestry Mulching

Invest Frequency Valid Frequency Valid Frequency Valid %
% %
1 Lack of capital 23 23.7 15 13.9
2 Lack of labour 16 16.5 11 10.2 3 2.5
3 Lack of supply 2 2.1
market
4 High price to 24 24.7
purchase
5 Lack of knowledge 17 17.5
and skill
6 Lack of firewood 15 15.5 33 27.3
7 Lack of mulch or 11 9.1
crop residues
8 Lack of animal feed 34 28.1
9 Mulch needed for 40 33.1
additional income
10 High initial cost of 16 14.8
production
11 Lack of land 24 22.2
12 Lack of access to 26 24.1
seedlings
13 Poor soils 6 5.6
14 Lack of product 10 9.3
market
Valid total 97 100.0 108 100.0 121 100.0
Missing system 104 93 80
Total 201 201 201

(Source: computed from field data)

109
Appendix IV Limitation factors to expand climate smart agricultural practices

No Limitation to Composting Agroforestry Mulching

expand investment Frequency Valid Frequency Valid Frequency Valid %
% %
1 Lack of capital 21 10.4 13 14.0
2 Lack of labour 36 17.9 24 25.8 5 6.3
3 Lack of supply 12 6.0
market
4 High price to 4 2.0
purchase
5 Lack of knowledge 7 3.5
and skill
6 Lack of firewood 24 11.9 6 7.5
7 Lack of mulch or 3 3.8
crop residues
8 Lack of animal feed 43 53.8
9 Mulch needed for 23 28.7
additional income
10 High initial cost of 8 8.6
production
11 Lack of land 5.4 5
12 Lack of access to 4 4.3
seedlings
13 Poor soils 15 16.1
14 Lack of product 24 25.8
market
Valid total 104 100 93 100 80 100
Missing system 97 108 121
Total 201 201 201

(Source: computed from field data)

110