AKSUM UNIVERSITY SHIRE CAMPUS

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTEMENT OF SOIL RESOURCE AND WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT

FACTOR (S) AFFECTING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON SOIL AND

WATER CONSERVATION FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT IN CASE OF MAY ADRASHA KEBELLE, TAHTAY KORARO
WOREDA,TIGRAY- ETHIOPIA
BY:
Name IDNo
GAI CHIOK CHAN 939/08
G/TSADKAN BERHANE xxx/08

Advisor: Tekia Hadgu (M.Sc)

I
 AKSUM UNIVERSITY SHIRE CAMPUS
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTEMENT OF SOIL RESOURCE AND WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT

FACTOR (S) AFFECTING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ON SOIL AND

WATER CONSERVATION FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT IN CASE OF MAY ADRASHA KEBELLE, TAHTAY KORARO
WOREDA,TIGRAY- ETHIOPIA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTEMENT OF SOIL AND WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE DEGREE OF SCIENCE
IN SOIL RESOURCE AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

SHIRE, TIGRAY - ETHIOPIA

April/2018

II
 Acknowledgement

Above all, we would like to praise the Almighty God who make all things possible
through his Son Jesus Christ and who enabled the researcher‘s dream comes true.
Next, we would like to express my sincere gratitude to our advisor Tekia Hadgu
(M.Sc) for his constructive comment, valuable guidance and persistent
encouragement from the very inception to the final phase of our work. we extend our
heartfelt thanks to our parents who helped us for financially, and morally up to the
end of our research. We would like to express our gratitude to woreda Tahtay Koraro
May Adrasha kebelle Agricultural and Rural Development Office and Information
and Communication Office for providing us various data on the districts‘ natural
resource management and conservation activities and other background information
of the district. Finally, we would like to express our heartiest thanks to department of
SRWM and friends (colleagues) for their moral and material support.

III
 Table of contents

Contents pages

Acknowledgement........................................................................................................III

Table of contents..........................................................................................................IV

List of tables.................................................................................................................VI

List of figures..................................................................................................................I

Abbreviation and acronyms...........................................................................................II

CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................1

1.1. Background of study and justification..............................................................1

1.2. Statement of the problem..................................................................................3

1.3. Objectives of the study.....................................................................................4

1.4. Research questions............................................................................................5

1.5. Significance of study........................................................................................5

1.6. Delimitation of the study..................................................................................6

1.7. Limitation of the study......................................................................................6

1.8. The Organization of the Study..........................................................................6

CHAPTER-2: LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................7

2.1. Land degradation; soil and water conservation in Ethiopia..............................7

2.1.1. Definitions and concepts of land degradation.........................................7

2.1.2. Causes of land degradation.....................................................................8

2.1.3. Soil erosion in Tigray..............................................................................8

2.1.4. Effect of land degradation.......................................................................9

2.1.5. Natural Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development.............10

2.1.6. Soil and water Conservation practices in Ethiopia...............................11

IV
 2.2. Concepts of community participation.............................................................13

2.2.1. Women and community participation...................................................16

2.2.2. Methods of evaluating community participation..................................17

2.2.3. Factors affecting community participation...........................................17

2.2.4. Community based natural resources management in Ethiopia.............19

CHAPTER-3: METHODOLOGY...............................................................................21

3.1. Description of the Study Area........................................................................21

3.1.1. Climate..................................................................................................21

3.1.2. Population.............................................................................................21

3.2. Method of data collection...............................................................................22

3.2.1. Sampling technique and size.................................................................22

3.2.2. Source of data........................................................................................22

3.3. Method of data analysis and interpretation..............................................23

CHAPTER-4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS........................................................24

4.1.Demographic characteristics of the sample households..................................24

4.2. Farmers’ perception about land resource degradation....................................26

4.4. Community participation and its benefits.......................................................31

4.5. Factors Affecting Community Participation...................................................35

4.6. Women Participation......................................................................................38

CHAPTER- 5: CONCLUSION, AND RECOMENDATION.....................................40

5.1. Conclusions....................................................................................................40

5.2. Recommendations...........................................................................................40

References....................................................................................................................42

Appendix I....................................................................................................................48

V
 List of tables
Table 2.1 A typology of participation……………………………………………15

Table 4.1 Demographic composition of sampled HHs by age and sex …….……24

Table 4.2 the marital status and educational level of the sampled HHs…………..24

Table 4.3 the total land holding size of sampled HHs…………………………….25

Table 4.4 Major factors that affect agriculture of the HHs………………………..26

Table 4.5 Farmers response about their awareness in the causes of LD…………..27

Table 4.6 Farmers response about the consequences of LRD……………………..28

Table 4.7 Farmers response in using different methods of SWC…………...……..29

Table 4.8 Farmers response about the level of community participation………….31

Table 4.9 Farmers response about the benefits they get from NRC……..………...32

Table 4.10 Factors that affect the level of CP in SNRC practices…………………36

Table4.11 Data on women‘s participation…………………………………………38

VI
 List of figures

Figure 4.1 Stone bend terracing……………………………………………..30

figure 4.2 Gabion check dam for gully reclamation…………………………31

v
Abbreviation and acronyms
WRI World Resource Institute

WMO World Meteorological Organization

WFP World Food Programme

UNEP United State Environmental Programme

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CP Community Participation

CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management

CSA Central Statistical Authority

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

SWC Soil and Water Conservation

SWCM Soil and Water Conservation Management

SIDA Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency

SLRM Sustainable Land Resource Management

PSNPW Productivity Soft Net Program Work

v
 Abstract
This thesis is about factor affecting community participation on soil and water
conservation for sustainable land resource management. For this purpose Socio-
economic data was collected from randomly selected households in the study area.
Most of them agreed to their awareness about the causes and consequences of land
degradation. And they put rapid population growth as a major cause to forest
depletion and soil erosion. They are also aware of about land degradation can be
controlled by using soil and water conservation in on farm and off farm activity
through active community participation.

According to the finding the level of community participation is in good level. But
their level of economy is still from hand to mouth. In this thesis the major factors that
affect community participation on soil and water conservation are also identified. The
major soil and water conservation activities or practices used to control land
degradation in the woreda such as, stone bund, stone bend terraces, gabion check
dam, and other physical and biological conservation methods are included. The level
of education, health, income, social facilities like transportation and communication
should be improved to increase their level of participation. In addition to this the
conservation of soil and water needs participation from different stock holders
(individuals, government organizations and non government organizations).

Key words: community participation, soil and water conservation, sustainable land
resource management.

v
 CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of study and justification

Agriculture is dominant sector of Ethiopia economic with 85% of population living in

rural areas. Agriculture provides 50% of GDP, 85% of its employment, 70% as source
of raw material and 90% of its export earning (Sisay et al., 2003). Ethiopia’s economy
is largely dominated by subsistence agriculture and crop and livestock farming are the
principal practices. Mixed farming dominates the highlands with crop and livestock
farming practiced in some management unit. The production system is mainly rain-
fed, subsistence-based, and smallholder-oriented (Sisay et al., 2003).

According to (Verhagen, 1980) was opinion about “participation is generally

presented as the active involvement of target groups in the planning, implementation
and control programmes and projects and not merely their passive acquiescence in
performing predetermined tasks, not merely their exploitation in order to reduce the
labour cost. Participation guarantees that the beneficiaries’ own interests are taken
into account. This enhances the likelihood that programmes and projects will prove
effective in meeting felt development needs and that participants share equitably in all
benefits.

(Moulik, 1978) was of the opinion that “participation in development process

implies stimulating individuals to take the initiative and mobilizing people to work for
overall societal development”. (Cohen and Uphoff, 1980) described participation as
“generally denoting the involvement of a significant number of persons in situations
or actions which enhance their well-being, e.g. their income, security or self-esteem”.
According to (Banki, 1981), “People’s participation is a dynamic group process in
which all members of a group contribute to the attainment of group objectives, share
the benefits from group activities, exchange information and experience of common
interest, and follow the rules, regulations and other decisions made by the group”.

The major benefits flowing from the participation of the people in

development are: In the planning and programming stages and throughout the
implementation of development programmes, rural people can provide valuable
social-cultural, ecological, economic and technical indigenous knowledge ensuring
consistency between objectives of development and community values and

1
preferences; people can mobilize local resources in the form of cash, labour,
materials, managerial talent and political support which are critical to programme
success; Programmes involving people are more likely to sustain after outside
financial and technical support is withdrawn; Participation by the poorer elements of
the society may prevent the “hijacking” of programme benefits by wealthier members
of the community; People accept more readily the programmes in which they
recognized their leaders have been involved. They feel that it is their programme;
Involvement of local people in decision making generates commitment for
implementation of the programme; it enhances people’s ability to take responsibility
and show competence in solving their own problems (Tyagi, 1998).

Stakeholders’ participation at the time of planning a watershed development

programme is much needed to take decisions because the programme should be
according to the basic needs of them. The programme should meet the daily
requirements of the majority of the stakeholders like supply of drinking water, fodder
for cattle and fuel for kitchen. The watershed development programmes are made for
local people; hence the local people should take interest and participate also in
implementation of programme by contributing labour and money in construction of
soil and water conservation structures on their field and community land. Participation
in maintenance stage is required because without protection and care by the local
people the programme will not be successful. The involvement of local people in
programme evaluation is also necessary, so that it may provide points to be
considered for improvement in future programme planning.

The problem of land degradation due to soil erosion receive great attention in
Ethiopia following 1973-74 famine (Lundgren, 1993). Erratic and erosive rain fall,
steep terrain, deforestation, inappropriate land use, land fragmentation, overgrazing
and farmers’ management practice are among the factors that cause land degradation
in the country (Osman and Sauer born, 2001). In Ethiopia, traditional stone bunds on
agricultural land are commonly practiced since many centuries in Tigray highland and
North Shewa similarly related to activities practiced in Konso where landscaping is
recognized as UNISCO heritage site in 2011 and Harrage highlands (Osman and
Sauer born, 2001) to reduce soil degradation and increase soil conservation.

2
 On the other hand, due to its favorable climatic condition for production and
presence of relatively more fertile soils as well as less disease incidence, most of the
population in Ethiopia lives in highland area. According to (Berry, 2003) 27 million
ha or almost 50% of the highland area was significantly eroded, 14 million ha
seriously eroded and over 2 million ha beyond reclamation. Erosion rates were
estimated at 130 tons/ha/yr for crop land and 35 tons/ha/yr averages for all land in the
highlands. Likewise, the Northern Ethiopian Highlands, including that of Tigray, are
characterized by highland degradation and natural resource depletion resulting from
various factors such as climatic variations and human activities. The most affected
natural resources are soils, water, natural vegetation and wildlife (Gebremedhin,
2004).

The watershed development activities were implemented in this region to

enhance income of farmers by the agricultural development through sustainable
management of soil and water resources. The project was not only accounts soil and
water conservation measures but also incorporated the overall development of
families through various supporting activities of livestock development, horticulture
plantation, women welfare activities and improvements in livelihood of landless
families. Thus, this research study the framed to measure the extent of community’s
participation in various interventions of Supported Holistic Watershed Development
Programme in districts of May Adrasha, Tahtay Koraro Woreda region of Tigray for
sustainable agricultural production

1.2. Statement of the problem

In Ethiopia, land is a source of income and means of production in which

livelihood of 85% of the population depends on land for their survival. Agriculture
account for 50% of GDP and 85% of foreign exchange earning (MoARD, 2007). Due
to this development and welfare of population and the complex of interrelated
problems, land degradation is increasing at rapid rate. The pressure of population on
land pushes landless peasant into forest and up to mountain side to cultivate marginal
land which is not suitable for agriculture and this in turn to accelerate the rate of
deforestation and soil erosion. This is true almost in all parts of the country (Tola,
2005). Natural resources are under intense pressure because of fast population growth

3
and appropriate farming and management practices. Small scale farmers who depend
on these resources, face severe constraints related to intensive cultivation, overgrazing
and deforestation, soil erosion, and soil fertility decline, water scarcity, and fuel wood
crisis. These factors often interact with one another and bring a downward spiral
decline of crop and livestock productivity, food security, high rate of population
growth, and environmental degradation. The net result is re-enforcing cycle that is set
of trapping more and more rural population in poverty, food insecurity, and
degradation of natural resources (Alemneh, 2003).

To mitigate the causes and reverse the negative impacts of natural resources
degradation on agriculture production and livelihood of rural people, it requires
community based natural management activities with consultation and involvement of
rural population about environmental problem. Rural communities must be allowed
and encourage to become responsible for sustainable management of natural resource
on their own territories (Breemer et al., 1995).

Its difficult to promote development without participation of people .

Development plans will not be effective if the community are unwilling to participate
and not be beneficiary of the development outputs. Community knows best about
their own economic and social needs and problems, and they have an insight and idea
about what should be done to solve them (Long, 2001).

Tahtay koraro woreda, May Adrasha kebele is located Northern west of Tigray-
Ethiopia where SWC activities have been made by CP for decades. Although CP is
widely recognized as a key element of any development strategy, including SWCM
practices and sustainable CP is still a challenges and debatable in this woreda. If
sustainable CP could not be realize in this woreda, the issues should be assessing the
situation and identify the factors attributable to the problems. So this research is
aimed at assessing the impacts of CP on SWC practice to achieve sustainable land
resource management in the study area.

1.3. Objectives of the study

The general objective is to assess the community participation on soil & water
conservation activity and identify factors that impeded attainment of sustainable
community participation and impacts of community participation on SWC

4
The specific objectives are:

 To assess the major causes and consequences of land degradation in study area

 To assess the role of community participation on SWC activities in study area

 To identify factors that affects community participation on soil & water

conservation in study area

1.4. Research questions

At this research the following questions should be answer
 What is the nature and level of community participation on SWC activities in the
study area?
 What are the impacts of community participation on SWC activities in study
area?
 What are the factors that affect community participation on SWC activities?

 What are the measures that should be taken to ensure sustainable land resource
management in the future?

1.5. Significance of study

This research was envisaged to provide adequate technique for minimizing of

soil loss, nutrients depletion, land degradation and spell out limiting factor affecting
community to participate on SWC activities. This study is an instrumental to the
government in developing institutional structures to assist farmers to supplement their
effort toward achieving their objective of food security and environmental
sustainability as well as natural resource management.

At the end, the study aimed to provide useful information that would be used by
policy makers and watershed managers to manage the watershed and also ensure
sustainable development. Its also helpful on building knowledge base and finding,
may guide the government, agriculture expert and environmental management
practitioners to put measure in place on how to help farmers to rehabilitate degraded
farmlands to improve their productivity . This will help in availing farming system
that alleviate hunger and poverty among the farmer in Ethiopia. It also provide
information to other researcher who desire to make future studies on similar aspects

5
of study, and the result of this research can be replicate to other area having similar
problems with certain level of amendment.

1.6. Delimitation of the study

Since it is not possible to cover the whole aspects of the study area with the available
time and resources, it is advisable to limit the study size and the scope of the problem
to a manageable size. Hence, the study focused gully erosion assessment and
estimation of sediment as well applicability of SWAT model to try to see the drivers,
dynamic and effects as well as decision making implementation of soil and water
conservation to sustainable land resource management. The time boundary of the
study is from will be time interval for calibration and validation.

1.7. Limitation of the study

When conducting this study, the researchers faced some problems like unwillingness
of farmer‘s to give reliable data and shortage of time in order to assess physical
factors affecting community participation on sustainable natural resource management
activities. Nevertheless of this, the researcher did his best to make the research more
reliable and valid.

1.8. The Organization of the Study

This thesis is organized in five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction part
where the problem of the study is justified; the objectives and research questions are
indicated. In the second part, theoretical literature are reviewed while the third chapter
presents materials and methods. The fourth chapter has dealt with results and
discussion. In its last part conclusion and recommendations are given.

6
 CHAPTER-2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Land degradation; soil and water conservation in Ethiopia

2.1.1. Definitions and concepts of land degradation

Land degradation has a wide variety of meanings depending on the discipline

and the view point of the definer. According to (Bizuayehu et al., 2002) land
degradation is defined as a temporary or permanent decline in the productive capacity
of land, or its potential for environmental management. On the other hand, (Stocking
and Niamb, 2001) define it as the aggregate diminution of the productive potential of
the land, including its major uses (rain fed, arable, irrigated, range land, and forest),
its farming systems (e.g. smallholder subsistence) and its value as an economic
resource. (Constable, 1984) defined the degradation of soil as a long-term loss in its
productivity. It is not necessarily continuous and it may take place over a relatively
short period between two states of ecological equilibrium.

Land degradation differs from soil degradation in that the process affects
multiple component of an ecosystem and is usually discern-able and must be
addressed at multiple spatial scales. Severe declines in soil fertility are often an end
result of land degradation processes, but once a human managed or natural ecosystem
reaches this stage it is more difficult to return to its prior status. Land degradation
includes but is not limited to desertification, which is a specialized type of
degradation that occurs in semi-arid and arid locations, in both hot and cold climates.
Land degradation may also occur in more humid ecosystem, deforestation and soil
erosion are examples of land degradation (UNEP and GEF, 2004).

Land degradation is the result of complex interaction between physical,

chemical, biological, socio-economic and political issues of local, national or global
nature. While the scale of global processes may be vast, they may be in a state of
dynamic equilibrium, easily upset by human activities. Some of the causes of
degradation are natural hazards, population growth, expansion of agriculture onto
forests and marginal land, poverty, land ownership problems, political instability and
maladministration, inappropriate agriculture, and large-scale expansion of irrigated
agriculture (Alemayehu, 2007).

7
2.1.2. Causes of land degradation

The proximate causes of land degradation in Ethiopia are deforestation,

overgrazing, burning of dung and crop residues and limitation of replenishing soil
nutrients through external inputs, population pressure, poverty, limited capital, land
tenure insecurity and land fragmentation, limited access to infrastructure, information
and market (Lakew et al, 2003; Fitsum, 1999; Pender, 2002). In addition to this
according to (Bishaw, 2005; Aklilu, 2001 B; Llewellyn, 2002; Alelign, 2009 and
Abate and Singh, 2010), the most frequently recognized major causes of natural
resource degradation include; overgrazing, over cultivation of cropland, water logging
and salinization of irrigated land, pollution and industrial causes, rapid population
growth, economic policies that over exploit land resources, rapid and often poorly
managed industrial and urban development, poverty and food insecurity,
inappropriate land use practices, poor market access, lack of individual and
community ownership of natural resources.

Land degradation in Ethiopia is also exacerbated by soil nutrient depletion

arising from continuous cropping together with removal of crop residues, low external
inputs and absence of adequate soil nutrient saving and recycling technologies
(Girum, 2007). And as fuel wood supply is getting scarce in Ethiopia due to the
dwindling effect of the supply source, it will be substituted by other forms of biomass
fuels like dung, branches or leaves and agricultural residues. An animal for example,
produces around 1.2 tons of dung per year which used as fertilizer gives an equivalent
of 20 kg super phosphate, 12 kg potassium sulphate and 30 kg of ammonium sulphate
(Girum, 2007). But the alternative use of dung and crop residues as fuel instead of
organic fertilizers affects crop productivity significantly when most farmers cannot
afford to buy inorganic fertilizer.

2.1.3. Soil erosion in Tigray

Tigray is located at the Northern limit of the central highlands of Ethiopia. Its
landform is complex composed of highlands (in the range of 2300-3200 meters above
sea level (m.a.s.l), lowland plains (with an altitude range of <500-1500 m.a.s.l),
mountain peaks (as high as 3935 m.a.s.l) and high to moderate relief hills (1600-2200

8
m.a.s.l). Thus, Tigray has diversified agro-ecological zones and niches each with
distinct soil, geology, vegetation cover and other natural resources. The climate is
generally sub-tropical with an extended dry period of nine to ten months and a
maximum effective rainy season of 50 to 60 days. The rainfall pattern is
predominantly uni-modal (June to September). Considering rainfall, atmospheric
temperature and evapo-transpiration, more than 90 percent of the region is categorized
as semi arid. The remaining areas in the region can be categorized as dry sub-moist
(near the central south highlands and the Wolkiete highlands) and arid (the lower
areas of Erob and HintaloWajeratweredas). There are also some moist zone patches in
the KisadGudo, Mugulat and the Tsegedie highlands (BeleteTaffere, 2002 and Nyssen
et al., 2007).

Though soil erosion is prevalent throughout Ethiopia, it is particularly severe

in Tigray. Because of the early human settlement, (i.e. many of the ancient centers of
Ethiopian civilization are located in Tigray) and expansion of agriculture, together
with the steep terrain and erratic and intense nature of the rainfall have resulted in
erosion being a major problem. Even if quantitative soil loss estimates are rare in
Tigray, but the persistent deterioration of the quality of the cultivated land, the ever
expanding gullies and the poor yields, partially explained by the poor water holding
capacity of the soil, suggest that soil erosion is a critical problem (Fitsum et al, 2002
B). Even though, estimates of soil erosion rates in the region vary substantially, but
are high in many areas. (Berhanu et al., 2002) A pointed out that, soil erosion, nutrient
depletion, and soil moisture stress is severe interrelated problems of land degradation
in the highlands of Tigray.

2.1.4. Effect of land degradation in Ethiopia

Land degradation affects the ecological integrity and productivity of about 2

billion hectares of land (23 per cent of landscapes under human use). During the last
50 years, about 2/3rd of agricultural land have been degraded to some extent, this is
especially serious in Africa where 36 countries face dry land degradation or
destruction (UNEP and GEF, 2004).

The UN estimates that about 70 percent of the 5.2 billion hectares of dry lands
used for agriculture around the world are already degraded. These impacts affect
approximately 250million people across the world. Some estimate cites number of

9
people at risk as being four times higher than this. As an example the world wide area
of arable land per person has reduced by as much as 25 per cent during the last quarter
of the twentieth century. This has serious implications for food security and livelihood
of people dependant on degraded lands (www. unu.edu).

The practice of intensive use of land in arid and semi- arid lands has resulted
in massive land degradation that lead to a marked reduction in soil fertility. This
problem affects more than 900 million people in 100 countries, some of them among
the least developed nations. Erosion, salinization, compaction, and other forms of
degradation affect 30 per cent of the world‘s irrigated lands, 40 per cent rain fed
agricultural lands and 70 per cent of range land (Watson et al., 1998).

2.1.5. Natural Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development might be defined as a process of use of natural

resources in a wise manner with a full participation of the people in the effort to
eliminate poverty and work towards the general improvement of the livelihood of
society (Medhin, 2002). Sustainability is hence development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs (WCED, 1987). Sustainable development encompasses social, economical,
cultural, security and participatory in decision-makings. Security in this context
means that the current living conditions are fulfilled and projects for future generation
on sustainable transfer of knowledge, technology and resources as well. Thus
management of natural resources, capacity building of human resources, policy
instruments governing investment activities, and peace and democracy are factors that
strongly affect sustainable development (Medhin, 2002).

Sustainable development is about sustainable society that cares for its own
environment and does not damage those of others. It uses resources wisely and
sustainably, recycles materials; minimize waste and disposes of them safely. It
conserves life support system and diversity of local ecosystem. It meets its own needs
so far as it can, but recognizes the need to work in partnership with other communities
(Adams, 2001).

10
2.1.6. Soil and water Conservation practices in Ethiopia

During the feudal governors land in Ethiopia was under few rulers called
manorial lord. As a result, soil degradation did not get policy attention it deserved
(Hurni 1986B; Wogayehu and Lars, 2003). The turning point for conservation works
were the famines of 1973 and 1985 through large increase in food aid (imported grain
and oil). Following these severe famines, the then government launched an ambitious
program of soil and water conservation supported by donor and non-governmental
organizations (Hoben, 1996). The use of food aid as a payment for labor replaced
voluntary labor for conservation campaigns (Campbell, 1991).
The extent of conservation activities through the use of food aid escalated
tremendously and the conservation continued to grow arithmetically though the
implementation could not keep pace with the plan. Up to 1986, food aid used for
payment of conservation and related works as food-for-work payment accounted for
approximately 29% of total food aid (71% of the food aid was distributed as
emergency food). With this, Ethiopia became the largest food-for-work program
beneficiary in Africa and the second largest country in the world following India
(Campbell, 1991). A total of 50 million workdays were devoted to the conservation
work between 1982 and 1985 through food-for-work. To reverse the land degradation
process, efforts of soil conservation and reforestation have been undertaken in Tigray
Region since the 1970s. Terracing and Afforestation program started in 1970 under a
USAID sponsored food for-work program. In the four years following this program
about 1500 ha were terraced and planted at eleven sites (Nyssen et al, 2007).
Following this period that is since the early 1980s soil and water conservation
activities have become one of the major preoccupation of the people and the
authorities. This has involved mass mobilization of labor during the dry season, and
food for work and cash-for-work program. The conservation strategy focuses mainly
on the construction of physical structures depending on the topography and land use
pattern. For steep uncultivated lands, contour stone bunds, cut-off ditches and contour
furrows are used. For cultivated lands, contour stone bunds, soil bunds or grasses
trips, complemented by check dams for gully control are used (Fitsum et al, 2002).
But this practice did not stop soil from erosion and forests from clearing. Since human
destruction on the environment partly arise from their attitudes towards the
environment, fundamental changes in people‘s ways of thinking and behaving should

11
get priority to bring significant changes in conservation (Barraza and Pineda, 2003).
In Wollo a household head was providing on average 93 days per year and a women
working approximately 69 days per year (Campbell, 1991). Between 1976 and 1988,
some 800,000 km of soil and stone bunds were constructed on 350,000 ha of
cultivated land for terrace formation, and 600,000 ha of steep slopes were closed for
regeneration (Wood, 1990). This environmental rehabilitation endeavor was described
as "impressive" (Daniel, 1990; Wood, 1990; Woldeamlak, 2003; Pretty and Shah,
1996). However, this was not a long-term success and these structures had little long-
term impact in preventing erosion. Almost all these sites, structures and practices
were destroyed shortly after the construction. The monitoring made in one of the sites
where conservation intervention was made by the support of the WFP indicated that
40% of the terracing was broken the year after construction (SIDA, 1984 cited in
Pretty and Shah, 1996). The project expected that the local people would bear all the
costs of maintenance. Yet, farmers had few incentives to maintain structures or
continue with practices; (Woldeamlak, 2003; Pretty and Shah, 1996). Seldom were
structures maintained and all often-impressive new structures and practices slowly
disappeared leaving little evidence of intervention. Because of the failure of the local
people to maintain the conservation measures, the introduced conservation measures
that were originally designed as a protection against erosion rather exacerbated the
problem.

2.1.6.1. Socio-economic and Ecological Significance of Soil and Water

As part of life supporting system soil has different function. (Turnerer et al.,
1990) identified the basic functions of soil as support life, maintenance of sustainable
interaction between the great geological and small biological turnovers of substances
on the earth‘s surface (It is through the soil that bio-geochemical cycles of elements
are performed), regulation of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and
hydrosphere (soil absorbs oxygen and evolves carbon dioxide; it discharges water
soluble chemical compounds in to surface and underground water) and accumulation
of active organic matter (humus). In addition soil has at least five main functions
relevant to human life as it is explained by (Nike, 2003). Accordingly, soil serves as a
medium in which crops, forest and other plants grow, for their filtering, buffering and
transformation activity between the atmosphere, ground water and plant cover,

12
servicing the environment and the people by protecting food chain and drinking water
reserves, as biological habitat and gene reserve, by serving as spatial base for society
structures and their development ( the construction of buildings and dumping of
refuse) and finally as a source of raw material ( example clay, sand and gravel for
construction) and also as a reserve of water and energy.

Land and soil are very basic in securing food and livelihood and providing
ecosystem service. About 66 percent of the soils in Ethiopia are suitable for
cultivation while only 12 percent is utilized. However soil erosion continues unabated
with 1 to 2 million ton of soil lost each year. This has resulted in loss of top soil and
land degradation (Alemneh, 2004). (Tyler, 1996) explains the problem of soil erosion
in such a way that the less soil means the more food lost in the future. When a nation
loses too much of its top soil, it must either face famine or import more food. The
long term loss of top soil through erosion is likely to reduce the rate of agricultural
productivity and hence economic growth for many nations. Water is an essential
requirement for life on earth. Fresh water is a vital resource for agriculture,
manufacturing, transportation and countless other human activities.

Water also plays a key role in sculpturing Earth surface, moderating climate
and diluting pollutants. Water pollution can be traced to all sort of human activity like
agriculture, irrigation, industry, urbanization and mining. One way to manage water
resource is to increase the supply in a particular area by building dams and reservoirs,
bringing in surface water from another area or tapping ground water. Another
approach is to increase the efficiency of water use (Tyler, 1996; Nick 2003; Dick et
al, 2003; Sue and Michael, 2000).

2.2. Concepts of community participation

The term participation is broad’ the generic terms is defined as “the action or
state of taking part in something” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1996). Participation
in the political sense is a principle for citizens to take part in the political process e.g.
through elections or referendums, some view participation as a means to an end while
others view it as an end in itself (Yeraswork, 2000; Pretty and Shah, 1996). Also some
pay only lip service to participation for reasons of its political usefulness (Brohman,

13
1996). But, in the context of development plans and programs, according to (Rogers
et al., 2008 and Kaosa-ard et al, 1998) Participation is a process through which
stakeholders can influence and share control over development initiatives the
resources used to fund them through engagement of decision making in the planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programs and projects. It refers to a
situation in which two or more social actors negotiate, define and guarantee among
themselves in a fair sharing of the management functions, entitlements and
responsibilities for a given territory, area or set of natural resources (Pretty and Shah,
1996).

In line with this (Borrini-Feyeraben, 2000) stated that it is a pluralistic

approach to natural resource management through the involvement of partners with
the end goals of sustainable use and conservation of the resource and equitable
sharing of benefits and responsibilities related to it. It is considered as a voluntary
contribution by the people in one or another of the public programs supposed to
contribute to national development. Participation affects the sustainability of
development. When people are given an opportunity to take an active role in
planning, implementing, and monitoring projects that affect their own development,
they develop a sense of ownership of the activity and are motivated to make the
necessary effort to ensure its success. Community participation requires respect for
the deep understanding of local conditions that only residents can have, a supportive
institutional and policy environment that helps groups to act on decisions they make,
willingness to learn and share, and skilled application of these tools. In other words,
community participation is a way of harnessing the existing physical, economic and
social resources of rural people in order to achieve the objectives of development
programs and projects (Gebremedihn, 2004).

Other scholars like (Pretty, 1995) make a more detailed differentiation, Taking
Pretty’s classification as a base, the following levels of participation are being
distinguished for the purposes of this study are characterized here in the table below

14
 Table 2.1. A typology of participation

Passive participation People are being told with what is happening. Its unilateral
announcement by administration or project manager without listening to
any other response.

Participation in information giving the information being shared belongs only to external professionals.
People participate by answering questions posed by researchers using
questionnaires or surveys. People do not have the opportunity to
influence procedures or outcomes, as the findings are neither shared
nor checked for accuracy.
Participation by consultation: People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen to
views. These external agents define both problems and solutions and
may modify these in the light of people’s responses.

Participation for material benefits People participate by providing resources such as labor, in return for
food, cash or other material incentives. It is very common to call this
‘participation’ yet people often have no stake in deciding about the
processes and in extending activities when incentives end.

Functional participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives

related to the project. These institutions tend to be dependent on
external initiators and facilitators but may become self-dependent.

Interactive participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the
formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones.
It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple
objectives and make use of systematic and structured learning
processes. These groups take control/ownership over local decisions,
and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.
Institutionalized participation Participation in theory and practice are included in the political and
legal national framework and the population has actual decision making
power. Consultation and joint decision making is a must for project
implementations.

From the above we can understand that the first four participation typologies do not
have lasting effects on development programs or project and can be even considered
as non- participation. This is because they involve no more than telling what is going
to happen or requiring responses to some questions where the local people respond
and contribution of resources like labor in return for food or cash to put to practice

15
what has been already decided by outsiders‘. On the other hand, the last three
participation typologies are genuine participation where local people actively
involved in decision-making, implementation activities affecting their lives and also
sharing the benefits. As one moves from the fifth down to the last typology the effects
are more sustainable though the three tend to bring positive lasting effects. Thus one
has to be cautious in using and interpreting participation and reference must be made
to the type of participation because most of them threaten the goals of projects or
programs rather than promoting (Pretty and Shah, 1997).

2.2.1. Women and community participation

To achieve development plans of countries like Ethiopia should improve the

economic, political, social, and cultural status of their people. For instance in Ethiopia
the sex ratio is almost equal or one to one corresponds so by ignoring the 50% of
females achieving economic development is impossible. So, government should
increase the status of females in education, employment, decision making, marriage
and divorce and nutrition and health by encouraging them to participate equally with
males. Before the outbreak of 1991 revolution women were not participate as equal as
men because of the government policy. The current government encourages women
by giving them equal freedom with men and compromise the past prejudges by giving
them affirmative action until they become equal. This does not mean they are not
equal with male and they are beyond them (Medhin, 2002).

Women are considered as equal partners of the rural community. Thus,

participatory development endeavors should consider them as equal constituents of
the rural people. The rural women are responsible for over 50% of all productive
activities even in those households where adult men are present (Burkey, 1996). In
African households women have been measured as doing over 80% of agricultural
labor (Burkey, 1996).They are responsible for planting, weeding, watering,
harvesting, transporting and storing of crops. In the absence of their husbands, they do
the clearing of land and soil preparation. Women also bear full responsibility for
household works. Rural women are taking responsibility as wives, farmers and in
some cases generate income for their family. Despite of these all responsibilities, they
were deprived of land use, control and management of the major resource bases. Land
degradation, shortage of water supply and deforestation severely affects the living

16
condition of rural women more than other segments of the community. For instance,
long walking distance to fetch water and fuel wood seriously constrains the
productivity of women, who are the major providers of labor for agricultural
production (Tiffen et al., 1995). Thus, any community development program
including SWC should include the active participation of women.

2.2.2. Methods of evaluating community participation

The role of community participation in sustainable and effective natural

resource management activities can be understood and evaluated by using some
indicators. The use of indicators provides a rational basis for monitoring and
evaluating the sustainability of natural resource management and serves as a guide in
decision making. The indicators are applied in evaluating the effectiveness of the
community participation on sustainable natural resource management. As
(Gebremedhin, 2004) stated in his study, two forms of evaluation or indicators can be
used to measure the impact of community participation. These are;

 Quantitative indicators are tangible, readily visible and susceptible to statistical

measurement. These include; an increase in agricultural production, financial income
and public services, the productivity of land, constructed soil and water conservation
techniques. They are relevant dimensions of participation and could be evaluated by
using quantitative techniques.
 Qualitative indicators are less visible and less tangible. These are more
concerned with describing the characteristics and properties of a process like the
degree of community‘s environmental awareness, attitude and skill and the degree of
community mobilization and solidarity over a period of time. However, both
indicators of participation must be used in the evaluation in order for the outcome to
be fully understood.

2.2.3. Factors affecting community participation

The major factors that affect (either positively or negatively) community

participation on soil and water conservation are lack of awareness, capital or
economic factor, availability of grants and subsidies, discrimination against women,
interference by politician, factionalism and heterogeneity of population and difference
in wealth and social status (Singh, 1992). In line with these internal socioeconomic

17
characteristics of community like, level of education, skill and income influences that
determines the intensity or degree of community participation towards natural
resource management practices (Awortwi, 1999). When the level of education, health
condition and occupational and income situation of the community members is low
people feel that they have no economic power and knowledge and skill to organize
themselves and run development activities and management. When people have low
economic power, they commit less time and resources to community work.
As(Gebremedhin, 2004; and Bililign, 2010) stated on their study conducted in
Northern Ethiopia, Participation increases with better education because it enhances
better organizational leadership and educated people are more likely to be receptive to
new ideas, more communication and human relation skills and more understanding.

The level of community participation is also affected by the effect of past-experience

of individual households and the community as a whole. Where in the past a
community has been able to safeguard common interests through collective action,
community members tend to be more willing to devote their time and energy to
promote community activities (Awortwi, 1999). Thus, positive past experience
condition suggests that there is likely to be effective and genuine community
participation.

According to (Pretty and Shah, 1996), the amount of benefit of the community
and its members receives is the fundamental determinants of community participation
on sustainable soil and water conservation activities. The community's social and
economic benefit refers to the social services and economic outputs such as products,
financial income or an increase in the productivity of land or labor that the community
tangibly gains. People engage in development activities only when they see clear
preferably tangible net benefit in terms of production, income and services.

In order to ensure genuine community's participation the degree of

empowerment plays a significant role (Gebremedhin, 2004). Empowerment involves
participation in decision making on matters important to the empowered subject(s).
The empowerment of a community includes issues such as increased level of
awareness, increased decision-making and improved access to resources and
institutions. Empowering the community's participation and giving power to decision
making on matters which is important to them such as over resources and benefits,

18
enhances the degree of participation. Empowerment strategies use group-based
actions in order to achieve access to decision making (Wils, 2001). The power to
make decisions thus has a positive impact on sustainable natural resource
management. The subjects of the empowerment are the ultimate beneficiaries of the
resources both the groups and individuals. In addition to this policy environment is
another factor that determines the community participation and long-term investment
on natural resources. This means that policy and legislative frameworks that support
community participation are basic requirements in participatory development efforts.
Conservation and rehabilitation policies and programs have to balance environmental
protection and human welfare if they are effectively to arrest environmental
degradation and to rehabilitate the natural resource bases. Land tenure rights enhance
long-term investment where land tenure is expected over the long term, the farmers
will adopt durable soil conservation measures; where land tenure is expected only for
the short term farmers will either adopt cheaper, less durable soil conservation
measures or else they will refrain altogether from investing in soil conservation.
Tenure insecurity decreases the concern of farmers for the future well-being of the
land and makes them to maximize their short term gain (Berhanu and Swinton, 2008).

2.2.4. Community based natural resources management in Ethiopia

Various names and definitions exist to describe what exactly is meant by

community based natural resource management. Co-Management, Community Based
Conservation, Sustainable Development and Use, Grassroots Conservation, Integrated
Conservation and Development all refer to more-less the same thing (Chapin, 2000
cited in Medvey, 2010). Most definitions of CBNRM emphasize some form of power
devolution to the local communities who then are supposed to manage natural
resources and rely on them in a sustainable manner.

One of the most widely used definitions in literature is from (Adams and
Hulme, 2001) who consider CBNRM as those principles and practices that argue
conservation goals should be pursued by strategies that emphasis the role of local
residents in decision making about natural resources. (Adams and Hulme, 2001:13 in
Medvey, 2010). According to (Turner, 2006), CBNRM refers to resource
management practices in which people dependent on those resources or affected by

19
management practices are involved in the management and exploitation of these
resources (Turner, 2006).

Factors that affect Community participation

 Household age and size level

 Political factor
 Level of awareness
 Cultural values and beliefs
 Availability of communication and transportation
 Level of initiatives and support
 Health and income level

In the interpretation of (Fabricius and Collins, 2007) CBNRM focuses on the

collective management of ecosystems to improve human well-being. It aims to
devolve authority for ecosystem management to the local (community) level, thereby
empowering communities to manage their own resources without permanently
damaging, depleting or degrading them. CBNRM therefore requires strong
investments in capacity development and the development of local institutions and
governance structures (Fabricius and Collins, 2007).

As the above definitions demonstrate that there are several perspectives from
where the essence of CBNRM may be captured. Some definitions focus more on the
involvement of local people in decision-making; others are more detailed and
emphasize the importance of sustainable development and the role of local institutions
as well. The researcher is more interested with the definition of (Fabricius and
Collins, 2007) because it provides the most exhaustive explanation of CBNRM.

In Ethiopia there is limited experience in traditional community based natural

resource management including range-lands, forests or woodlands and water
resources. Recently government as well as non-governmental organizations is in the
process of institutionalizing innovative community based natural resource
management practices (Medhin, 2002).

20
 CHAPTER-3: METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area

May Adrash kebelle is located in Tahtay koraro woreda, Tigray Region,

Ethiopia. Part of the Semien Mi'irabawi Zone. It is about 1087 km North of Addis
Ababa and about 326 km North of Mekele, the regional capital and around 60 km
North of Axum. It lies within the geographical grid coordinates of latitude and
longitude from 140 06’N 38017’E/14.1000N 38.2830E/14.100; 38.283 with an altitude
of 1953 a.s.l (CSA, 2002).

Local landmarks in this woreda, Mai Adrasha is an archaeological site showing

an uninterrupted chronological range from the Pre-Axumite through the Late Axumite
periods (c. 800 BC - AD 700) - an indication of the site's importance both as a long-
lived habitation in the area, and as the westernmost known example of this
chronological range (CDEa H, 2004).

Tahtay Koraro is bordered on the southwest by Asigede Tsimbela, on the north

by La'ilai Adyabo, and on the southeast by Medebai Zana respectively.

3.1.1. Climate

The study area is characterized by Weyina dega agro-climatic zone in the rain
season and heavy rain fall is observed from June to the end of august and it receives
800 mm to 1200m annually and average air temperature ranges between 18oc -22oc
(fikadu, 2006).

3.1.2. Population

The total population of May Adrasha is 5014 out of this, 2473 are males and the
reaming 2541 are females. 85% of population depends on agricultural practice. 5%
depends on official employment and other 10% depends on trade and daily labor
works (BOA, 2010)

21
3.2. Method of data collection

3.2.1. Sampling technique and size

The study was conducted in May Adrasha kebelle, Tahtay Koraro

woreda,Tigray-Ethiopia. The reason why the researchers selected this area is because
its nearest to them (due to time constraint and financial constraint) and they are
familiar with the area.

 In order to assess the farmer’s perception on SWC techniques by interview and

direct observation, the total HH are 837 from 89 respondent was taken by using
simple random sampling techniques and we can use this formula proposed by
(Glenn, 1994)

N
Slovin Formula: n=
1+ N ¿ ¿
Where: n = sample size
N =total number of
households = 837
E = margin of error=0.1
837
n= 2
=89 ⋅3 837_
1+ ( 837 )( 0.1 )

The above formula shows that the actual sample size for this study is 89, due to time
and budget, we reduced the sample size into 80.

3.2.2. Source of data

In order to get reliable and valid data the researchers used both primary and secondary
data. The primary data was collected by the researchers through prepared
questionnaire, observation check list and key informant interview with selected
farmers, development agents and authorities at various level of government
organization. This adapted questionnaire was translated into mother tongue of the
target population- Tigrigna language. Secondary data was gathered from published as
well as unpublished documents, reports, books, journals newspaper and other
electronic media (internet).

22
3.2.2.1. Questionnaire

Is a tool for soliciting and recording written responses from the individuals? It is more
useful research tool to involve large sample, to create face to face contact with the
respondents and to save time (Lang et al., 1991). The researchers must prepare open
ended and close ended questionnaires which were developed basis on the objectives
of the study.

3.2.2.2. Interview

Is collection of data through verbal interaction between individuals (Lang et al,

1991). The researchers will prepare semi- structured interview guides.

3.2.2.3. Observation

The researchers will prepare observation checklist related to the stated objectives of
the study in order to strengthen the reliability and validity of the data that would be
gather and to observe both the actual community participation and on-farm and off-
farm practical conservation works done by the people like terracing, diversion canal,
trench, semi-circular bund, area closures, etc.

3.3. Method of data analysis and interpretation

Data which was collected from both primary and secondary source was analyzed,
summarized and presented via quantitative and qualitative method of data analysis.
Questionnaire which was gathered from respondents was quantitatively analyzed,
summarized and presented in table, ratio and percentage. Data which is gathered
through observation and interview was qualitatively analyzed.

23
 CHAPTER-4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1.Demographic characteristics of the sample households

Table 4.1 Demographic composition of sampled HHs by age and sex

Age group Sex Total Percentage Cumulative

Male Female

20-39 21 9 30 37.5 37.5

40-59 25 15 40 50 50

Above 59 9 1 10 12.5 12.5

Total 55 25 80 100 100

For this study a total of 837 HHs were surveyed. The sex composition of the
respondent HHs was 55(68.8%) of male and 25(31.3%) of female. The age
compositions of the respondent HHs was 37.5% of the sample households were from
20-39years old and 50% accounted for household heads aging from 40-59 years old.
The remaining 12.5 % were above 59 years old. Besides, the lowest and highest ages
of the sample households were 21 and 79 respectively (see Table 4.1). Family size of
the respondents in the formal survey ranges from one up to ten, with an average
household size of 6. Some HHs has an extended family.

Table 4.2 the marital status and educational level of the sampled HHs

Marital status Educational level

Singl Marri Divorc Widow Illiterate Read Grade Above 8

e ed ed ed & 1-8
write

frequen 10 30 5 7 17 5 5 1
cy

24
Percenta 12.5 37.5 6.3 8.8 21.3 6.3 6.3 1.3
ge

In terms of marital status, 12.5%, 37.5%, 6.3%, and 8.8% of the sampled respondents
were single, married, divorced and widowed respectively. More than 90% of all the
respondents have lived in the woreda since birth (Table4.2). Educational status of the
sampled households shows that 21.3 %, 6.3 %, and 6.3 %, of the households were
illiterate, can read and write, and grade1-8 respectively. Only 1.3% of the sample
respondents is above grade 8. As the educational status of the HHs indicates majority
of them are illiterate and their status towards participatory sustainable land resource
management is low because education has direct relation with resource protection.
More than 95% of the respondents are followers of orthodox religion.

Table 4.3The total land holding size of sampled HHs

Land holding in ha No of respondents Percentage

Landless-0.25 24 30

0.25-0.5 13 16.3

0.5-1 39 48.8

Above 1 4 5

Farm size in the sample households ranges from zero (landless) to as high as 1
hectares while, the average landholding was 0.5hectare, which is less than the national
average 0.86ha 38 per HH. Even majority of the land is fragmented to their child as
they get married. This fragmentation of land paved the way to land degradation and
discourage farmers not to participate in soil and water conservation in their farmland
and to migrate in to near towns for season (mostly in winter season) for searching in
non-farm activities even though their perception towards the causes and consequences
of land degradation is good. The major occupations of the majority of the HHs are in
mixed-farming (both crop production and animal husbandry). The majority of the

25
HHs gets their land through land redistribution in 1994 and they are cultivating still
now without rest which in turn affect the decline in fertility of the soil.

Table 4.4 Major factors that affect agriculture of the HHs

What is the major problem that faces the No of respondents %

agriculture of this household?

Shortage of farmland 27 33.8

Soil fertility reduction 13 16.3

Expensiveness of agricultural inputs 9 11.3

Scarcity of grazing land 8 10

Remittance from towns 8 10

Poor access to extension (credit) 8 10

Poor access to infrastructure 7 8.8

Market problem - -

The major factors that affect agriculture of the HHs according to their severity level
are shortage of farm land, reduction in soil fertility, expensiveness of agricultural
inputs, shortage of grazing land, remittance from towns, poor access to credit services,
poor access to infrastructure, and market problem. Accordingly 33.8% of the HHs
said that the major problem for decline in agricultural product is shortage of farm
land, 16.3% said reduction in soil fertility as a result of continuous ploughing, 11.3%
said that expensiveness of agricultural inputs,10% said that shortage of grazing land,
10% said that remittance from the town, 10% said that poor access to credit services,
8.8% poor access to infrastructure, and no one said that its market problems (Table
4.4)

4.2. Farmers’ perception about land resource degradation

Table 4.5 indicates that Farmers response about their awareness in the causes of
land degradation

26
Are you aware of the Farmer’s response
possible causes of natural
Perceive Not perceive
resource degradation in
your locality? No of respondents % No of respondents %

Rugged topography 78 97.5 2 2.5

Erratic pattern of rainfall 71 88.8 9 11.3

Over cultivation and over 68 85 12 15

grazing

Population pressure 56 70 24 30

Very small land holding 72 90 8 10

size

Lack of conservation 77 96.3 3 3.8

structures

All sampled HHs(100%) have an awareness of problems of land degradation. They

also argue that soil erosion, deforestation, overgrazing respectively (according to the
severity level) are the main causes of land degradation in the study area. 97.8% of the
sampled HHs responded that rugged topography is the major cause for land
degradation in the study area, whereas 88.8% and 85% respectively responds erratic
pattern of rainfall and overgrazing put as factors for land degradation (Table 4.7).
According to respondents in the study area there was large forest coverage and but
due to increment of human population and land tenure policies of different
governments for agricultural and settlement purposes land degradation become a
serious problem. They also argue that the increment of human population in the area
has resulted in land fragmentation and reduced farmland holding that consequently
resulted in reduced agricultural production. In the 1994 land redistribution, youths of
not greater than 24 years for men and 18 years for female were not given land. As a
result, the number of landless youth has been increasing from time to time. Those
youth who got married shared part of the farmland size from their parents. This has
also aggravated the problem of land fragmentation. In addition to this the small rills

27
are increasing in their size, length, and volume. Some of the rills are changed in to
large gullies as a result, the amount of land use is affecting in the area. Large part of
the cultivated area changed in to gullies.

Table 4.6 Farmers response about the consequences of land resource

degradation

What will be the possible Farmers response

consequences of natural
percieve Not percieve
resources (NRs)
No of respondents % No of respondents %
degradation?

Loss in livestock 69 86.3 11 13.8

Productivity

Poverty 78 98.8 2 2.5

Migration 72 90 8 10

Landlessness 57 71.3 23 3.8

Drought and famine 80 100 - -

Desertification 56 70 24 30

Loss of agricultural 77 96.3 3 3.8

products

Shortage of water supply 53 66.3 27 33.8

Most of the farmers agreed that if conservation measures can not taken reduction in
crop production and soil productivity, loss of farm land and degradation will be
aggravated. According to respondents in order to avoid the problems of land
degradation there should be active community participation and also farmers should
focus on long term benefits than short term benefits. In order to control this land
resource conservation and management has been introduced with the aims of
improving livelihood of farmers, combating resource degradation, and rehabilitating
the degraded area. In the woreda there are two organization one (SLM) Sustainable

28
Land Management focus on sustainable natural resources and second one (PSNPW)
Productivity Soft Net Program Work focus on increasing the productivity of the land
or crop yield. (Table 4.8) shows the respondents awareness about the consequence of
natural resource degradation. The results indicate that all of the respondents were
aware of loss of agricultural productivity because of natural resource degradation. The
respondents‘ were aware of the loss of agricultural yield 96.3%, Landlessness 71.3%,
shortage of water 66.3%, drought and famine 100%, loss of livestock productivity
89.3%, poverty 98.8%, migration 90%, and desertification 70%. In addition to this all
farmers interviewed, farmers agreed that land degradation reduces the availability of
resources and the potential benefits that could be obtained from the natural resources.
Farmers also have common perception that the degradation of land resources can
cause adverse effects on the ability of families or household units and communities to
support them. Furthermore, communities in both study areas realize that land
degradation seriously affect the livelihood of rural people.

Table 4.7 Farmers response in using different methods of soil and water
conservation

Are you aware of the Farmers responses

following sustainable
Aware Not Aware
land resource
management No of respondents % No of respondents %
practices?

Mixed cropping 77 96.3 3 3.8

Crop rotation 79 98.8 1 1.3

Organic manure 68 85 12 15

Closure of grazing 73 91.3 7 8.8

land

Terracing 80 100 - -

Tree planting 79 98.8 1 1.3

29
Most of the farmers participate in short term meeting and training than experience
sharing. Even those farmers who participate in the meetings and training are few
people who considered as model to other farmers. This means it does not give to all
farmers regardless of their sex, age, educational level and marital status. So these
shortage of training negatively affect farmers‘ perception on soil and water
conservation in the study area. All farmers believe problems of land degradation can
be controlled. And in order to control such problems preventive mechanisms are
preferable- meaning before the occurrence of the problem. According to interview
with some farmers land degradation can also controlled after the occurrence of the
problem through rehabilitation program. However, many of them have disappeared
and eaten by livestock due to lack of protection of plants after planting. According to
other sources of qualitative data farmers in the study area are actively participating in
physical and biological methods of soil and water conservation practices like stone
bund, contour trench, soil bund, hill side terrace, closure of grazing land, and micro
basin. (Table 4.9) Shows that the sampled respondents are aware of mixed farming,
96.3% of the sampled respondents are aware of organic manure 85% of the sampled
respondents are aware of closure of grazing land 91.3%, of the sampled respondents
are aware of terracing 100%, of the sampled respondents are aware of crop rotation,
98.8% of the sampled respondents are aware of tree planting, 98.8%.

Terracing: can control soil erosion and it is widely used in mountainous areas. In the
study area different types of terracing are practicing in order to decrease the loss of
erosion by water. The most types of terraces used in the area are stone bend terracing.

30
Figure 4.1 stone bend terracing.

The formation and expansion of gullies is the most common phenomena in the study
area. Gully reclamation through an integrated approach of both physical and
biological conservation measures was outstandingly mentioned by the community as
the best interventions that addressed both the short-term and long-term benefit to
farmers. Gully rehabilitation works have shown a remarkable achievement in terms of
preventing prevailing threats on the adjoining farmlands and providing immediate
benefits.

Figure 4.2. Gabion check dam for gully reclamation

4.4. Community participation and its benefits

Table 4.8 Farmers response about the level of community participation

The level of community participation on land Frequency Percentage

resource management

V. good - -

Good 49 61.3

Average 18 22.5

Poor 13 16.3

31
V. poor - -

Total 80 100

All of the sampled farmers have been participating in soil and water conservation
practices. All of them participated in both free and payable activities. They participate
more than 56 days free workdays in a year free community campaign in SWC works
without any form of payment. According to respondents, the people decide to freely
participate (without any payment) in the conservation works but in practice they are
not motivated to work due to low level of livelihood and their emphasis towards short
benefits. As well as the level of community participation is concerned 22.5% of the
respondents replied that it is on average or medium level, 61.3% of the respondents
replied that it is in good level, 16.3% of the respondents replied that it is in poor level,
and no respondents replied the level of CP is V. good and V. poor.

Table 4.9 Farmers response about the benefits they get from conservation of
natural resources

Indicators of Farmers‘ response

Benefits
Highly Increase To some Decrease Highly
increase d extent d decrease
d d

Forest cover FR - 66 5 6 3

% - 82.5 6.3 7.5 3.8

Restoration of FR 70 7 3 - -
degraded lands
% 87.5 8.8 3.8 - -

Fodder and grass FR - 4 69 5 2

32
supply % - 5 86.3 6.3 2.5

Food security FR - - 72 8 -

% - - 90 10 -

Soil erosion FR - 1 4 6 69

% - 1.3 5 7.5 86.3

Crop yield FR - 6 67 5 2

% - 7.5 83.8 6.3 2.5

Water supply FR - 66 10 4 -

% - 82.5 12.5 5 -

Flooding FR - - 4 7 69

% - - 5 8.8 86.3

All respondents replied that community plays a significant role in managing and
conserving natural resources. According to respondents all of them agreed that
community play a significant role in managing and conserving natural resources.
Most of the respondents agreed that the level of community is at good level. Only few
of them replied the level of community participation is poor. The role of the
community is using different method of conservation, both traditional and modern; to
decrease soil erosion and to enhance soil fertility and they also play in Managing and
controlling the uses of resources. Averagely the amount of food that the HHs receives
every year is less than five quintals. The government officials with the collaboration
of the local rulers decide their participation in FFW programme. According to
interview with woreda officials the main criteria for selecting farmers who participate
in FFW programs are their level of income. Meaning those farmers who are poor
especially with no oxen are preferable and female HHs are encouraged to participate
in the programme. Out of the 80 sample household heads, 89% participated in FFW

33
programs while the remaining 11% said they did not participate because they are
engaged in other occupation during SWC works and other reasons As well as the
benefits that the farmers who participate in FFW programme is concerned almost all
farmers are not satisfied because of low level of benefits that the farmers get directly
from the programme. For the future, the village focus groups said the village people
believe that if they work collectively they can bring about a change. However, they
complain that the 56 free workdays is too long. It competes with off-farm activity;
which is the first means of satisfying the annual food deficit of the village farmers.
What the respondents said that there should be a compromise between the collective
action in conservation and the off-farm activities. A respondents member from the
village of neteba expressed the need for the compromise as “Sometimes with salt and
other times without salt” to mean sometimes with pay sometimes without pay. The
group members also emphasized the need for land conservation and protection and
subsequent benefits as “No one gives you what your land gives you.” Therefore, the
village people believe that conservation is important; but it competes with off-farm
activities. One official from woreda expert suggested as a solution for the aforesaid
conflicting interest-Conservation activities which demand group effort should be
properly identified and made communal. These communal conservation activities will
not demand much time and labor so will not be disliked. The other conservation
works particularly those, which relate to individual farmland, should be left to
individual farmers. Otherwise, what is conserved is getting destroyed, what is planted
is not growing well. The process of SWC is becoming recurrent but with no much
step forward effort. According to Gebremedhin, 2004 the level and genuine
community participation on natural resource conservation depends on the extent of
the tangible amount of social and economic benefits the community members receive
as individuals and groups. (Table 4.9) shows the benefits which can be received by
the community from sustainably managed and conserved natural resources using
indicators. Thus, the data revealed that there is a significant benefit for the local as
well as the neighborhoods people from natural resource conservation practices. Based
on the data, 82.5% and 6.3% of the households responded that in the recent years
forest cover is increased and to some extent improved through agroforestry
improvement respectively. Only 7.5% and 3.8% of the respondents indicated that the
forest cover is decreased and highly decreased in their locality respectively. Farmers
also responded about the restoration of degraded lands in the study area, 87.5% of the

34
household heads said it is highly increased, 8.8%, said it is increased, and 3.8% said
to some extent (Table 4.9). According to the respondents through active community
participation many degraded areas are rehabilitating by biological and physical
rehabilitation like gabion works. According to (Table 4.9), in the study area the extent
of fodder and grass supply is increased to some extent 86.3% and 5% of the sample
household said that it is increased in recent years. While 6.3% and 2.5% of the
respondents argued that the extent of fodder and grass supply is becoming decreased
and highly decreased, respectively. On this issue, the respondents members said that
indeed the extent of fodder and grass supply increased in and around the closure
areas. But in the areas without closure areas, there is no significant change in the
improvement of fodder and grass supply. The data also shows about the livestock
security in the study area. In addition to this, 12.5% of them agreed that water supply
in their locality becomes increased to some extent from time to time (Table 4.9).
Farmers also responded about the extent of flooding, accordingly 8.8% of the
surveyed household heads supported this idea by saying the extent of flooding is
highly decreased and 86.3% of the respondents also believed that the problem of
flooding is decreased. In line with this as clearly shown in (Table 4.9), 86.3% and
7.5% of the sample households confirmed that soil erosion is highly decreased and
decreased, respectively. According to the respondents made with local communities
flooding was one of the major problems which affected the development of the study
area dwellers before. But now as a result of various controlling mechanisms (such as
diversion canal, water ditch and trench) the extent of flood becomes minimized.
However, the crop yield has increased to some extent 83.8% because of the utilization
of modern fertilizers and soil and water conservation measures. In addition to this,
7.5% of the respondents replied that the level of crop yield in their locality is
increased. However, 6.3 % of the sample households reported that their agricultural
production decreased. This idea was also supported in the respondents and interviews
conducted with some local peoples. The respondents said that even though the extent
of soil erosion is seem inclined to be minimized as a result of different conservation
structures, the production of crops did not increase because of erratic pattern and
shortage of rainfall, shortage of land and over cultivation.

4.5. Factors Affecting Community Participation

35
Table 4.10 Factors that affect the level of community participation in
sustainable natural resource conservation practices

The factors affect level of Farmers‘ response

community participation in
Yes No
sustainable natural resource
conservation practices No of respondents % No of respondents %

Low income 79 98.8 1 1.3

Low level of education 75 93.8 5 6.3

Low level of health 72 90 8 10

low level of information 71 88.8 9 11.3

Size of house hold 70 87.5 10 12.5

Availability of transport 62 77.5 18 22.5

Distance from towns 57 71.3 23 28.8

Low level of technology 74 92.5 6 7.5

and lack of awareness about
the existing technology

Cultural values and belief - - 80 100

of the community

There are many factors that affect community participation in land resource
management. Some of the major factors are the level of education, health level,
technology level, land tenure level, farm size, age level, cultural value, size of the
members, information level, and availability of transportation. The respondents
members also said that-education is the key to life. But we are illiterate. Thus at every
moment of our life, we face various types of problems. At that time we could not
solve it. If we were educated, our level of understanding about the short and long term
benefits and disadvantages of natural resource conservation works and our level of
participation would have be improved. In addition, 93.8% of the household heads
reported low level of education limits their participation whereas 6.3% said no (Table

36
4.10). The respondents responded that the level of health status is the other important
limiting factor of community participation in the community natural resource
conservation activities. The development agents and other government officials also
confirmed that health condition of the community has significant negative impact on
community participation. The number of people who request permission to be
exempted from natural resource conservation work as a result of health problem is
large. Sometimes people with health problems send their wives or children to
substitute their absence from work. But especially children are not effective in
achieving the expected work. In the household survey, 90% of the household head
said low level of health status limits their participation and 10% of the respondents
said it did not hinder their participation (Table 4.10).

In addition to low level of education, the low level of income also affects community
participation on land resource management in the study area. According to
respondents the low level of income of the HHs negatively affects conservation
practice. As stated formerly, farmers in the study area could not feed their family size
sufficiently as a result of large family size and small and fragmented agricultural land
which is 0.5hectare per households on average resulting in low levels of production.
Hence, because of food deficit problems, farmers give special emphasis to short-term
benefits which can be gained from the non-farming occupations. In one occasion one
informant reported that; I have 0.5 ha of land and 9 family members satisfying this
large family is difficult because of small land holding, so I and my family preferred to
participate in non-farm activities than farm activities which in turn affect active
community participation on soil and water conservation. According to the interview
made with woreda officials and other means of collecting qualitative data, this
problem is more serious on the part of the landless farmers in which most of them are
youth. They do not have land but they are obliged to participate in the conservation of
other farmers‘ lands and communal lands‘. They are obliged to work on natural
resource activities while they are not direct beneficiaries of the conserved plot of land.
Besides, poverty does n‘t challenge only the availability of labor in conservation
practices but also the motivation of peoples in work places and the commitment of
communities to bring work tools such as digging materials. In line with this, the
findings of the household survey also shows that out of the total 80 household heads,
98.8% of the respondents expressed that low level of income constrains their

37
participation in free work days of natural resource conservation. Only 1.3% of the
sample farmers said that low level of income does n‘t influence our genuine
participation in conservation works. In addition, the findings of the household survey
showed that low level of information which account 88.8%, Availability of transport
which account 77.5%, Low level of technology and lack of awareness about the
existing technology which account 92.5%, Distance from towns which account
71.3%, age level which account 85%, and size of house hold which account 87.5%
were identified as additional challenges which created an influence on the level of
community participation and only cultural values and belief of the community is
accounted for zero or has no any negative impact on SWC practices.

4.6. Women Participation

Table 4.11 Women‘s participation

Questions Alternatives Farmers response

No of respondents %

Do women equally participate in Yes 80 100

Natural resource conservation
No - -
activities with men?
Total 80 100

Are women equally represented Yes 5 6.3

in the leadership of the village
No 75 93.8
natural resource conservation and
management activities? Total 80 100

Do women of the village equally Yes 80 100

participate in the use and control
No - -
of the assets (land, plants, fodder
and water) of the village? Total 80 100

All household survey respondents agreed that females households equally participate
on sustainable natural resource conservation activities and the utilization of conserved

38
and managed resources ( Table 4.11). But this is true in terms of households, in reality
females are not participating equally with men. Most of the respondents do not agreed
with equal representation of women in the leadership of the village natural resource
conservation and management activities and in the use and control of the assets (land,
plants, fodder and water) of the village. According to the respondents the major
factors that affect women participation are the laborious nature of jobs constrains
women‘s participation in the physical natural resource conservation activities, house
work load and pregnancy and births.

39
 CHAPTER- 5: CONCLUSION, AND RECOMENDATION

5.1. Conclusions

In the study area, the majority of the farmers have low income. Their annual
production stays up to 6 months as a result they move to near towns for searching of
non-farm activities which in turn affect active community participation because
absenteeism from soil and water conservation in the off-farm is common. More than
90% of the sample household heads indicated that their annual agricultural income is
not enough to satisfy their family annual food demand. The farmers emphasized in
their short term benefit than long term benefits. Majority of the HHs are illiterate or
do not get formal education. The low level of education hinders the level of
community participation on natural resources conservation activities. Community
members believe that their level of understanding, skill and attitude towards the long-
term benefit is partly a reflection of their level of education because education has
direct relation with the soil and water conservation. The size of land holding is very
small which affect not to use soil and water conservation because they emphasis to
work in the off-farm activity than on-farm activity. Community participation in
natural resource conservation is a process that involves planning, designing,
implementing, monitoring and evaluating the conservation activities. However, in the
study area natural resource conservation activities are generated to some extent from
the local community and after planning and designing by other bodies the local people
will participate in the construction and implementation stage. In line with this, there
are different factors which push the peoples to participate. According to the household
survey, the first condition that motivated the community to make the free contribution
in natural resource conservation practices is their own willingness followed by
government decision and village community decision.

5.2. Recommendations

Based on the analysis and conclusions the following recommendations are forwarded;

 The degradation of the land and the low level of income affect community
participation in soil and water conservation. Therefore the community has to

40
 conserve these resources (soil, water, and forests) to solve the problem to increase
income and ensure the lively hood of the society. Farmers should focus in long
term benefits than short term benefits. In addition to this the farmers in the study
area should use activities which need small land like bee keeping, poultry, and
animal fattening to increase their income. 

 There should be collaboration among the farmers in the conservation and

management of resources. DAs and Organizations should help the farmers to
increase their awareness about the uses and conservation of resources.

 Governmental organizations and nongovernmental organizations should give

short training to the farmers and they should also focus in facilitating experience
sharing.

 In order to equally participating females with males it is important to improve

awareness and allocate the appropriate work for females. 

 In order to improve the level of participation, the appropriateness of conservation

measure for the land practiced on needs to get great emphasis from all
stakeholders. 

 Farmers should incorporate traditional and modern soil and water conservation in
order to increase soil fertility and to decrease or control land degradation.

 The local community is expected to establish their own organization mainly

aimed at conserving and managing the basic agricultural resources (soil, water,
forest).

41
 References

1. Aklilu Dalelo (2001). Natural Resources Degradation in Ethiopia: Assessment of

Students‘ Awareness and Views. Institut fur Geographie und ihreDidaktik,
Landeskunde und Regional forschung der Universitat Flensburg, Flensburg.

2. Alelign, Desalegn. (2009). Land Use/Land Cover change detection and forest
Degradation using Remote Sensing and GIS: a case of Borena district in north central
Ethiopia.(Unpublished MSC thesis on file at the department of GIS) Addis Ababa
University: Addis Ababa.

3. Alemayehu Assefa (2007). Impact of terrace development and management on soil

properties in Anjeni area, West Gojam (Un-published M.Sc. Thesis on file at the
department of Geography & Environmental Studies) Addis Ababa University: Addis
Ababa.

4. Alemneh Dejene, (2004).The nexus of natural resource degradation, food security

and poverty in Ethiopian highlands towards sustainable agriculture and rural
development. Proceeding of the technical workshop on improving the natural
resource base and rural well-being. FAO, Rome.

5. Alemneh, Dejene. (2003). Integrating Natural Resources Management to Enhance

Food Security: the case for community based approaches in Ethiopia.

6. Awortwi, N. (1999). The Riddle of Community Development: Factors Influencing

Organization, Participation and Self-Management. ISS Working Paper No. 287, The
Hague: Institute of Social Studies Publication Office.

7. Barraza.L and Pineda (2003). How young people see forests in Mexico: a
comparison of two rural communities. Retrieved on March 22, 2003 from http://
www.fao.org / docrep / 005/ y9882e/ y9882 e03.htm.

8. Bekele, S. Holden (1998). Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation

technologies in Ethiopian highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa,
Agricultural economics

42
9. Bekure Woldesemait (Ed). (2003). Environmental Management and Local
Development in the Horn and East Africa: Regional and Local Development Studies,
Addis Ababa University.

10. Belete Taffere (2002). Efforts for sustainable land management in Tigray: The
Role of Extension in Berhanu et al (2002). Policies for sustainable land management
in the Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia.

11. Berry, L. (2003). Land degradation in Ethiopia: its extent and impact. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia

12. Bililign Derese (2010). The impact of community participation on natural

resource management; the case of Borena District, South Wollo, and Ethiopia (Un-
published M.Sc. Thesis on file at the department of Geography & Environmental
Studies) Addis Ababa University: Addis Ababa.

13. Bishaw, Belay. (2005). Deforestation and Land Degradation in the Ethiopian
Highlands: A Strategy for Physical Recovery. Northeast African Studies, Volume 8,
Number 1, 2001(New Series), pp. 7-25 (Article), Published by Michigan State
University Press.

14. Borri-Feyerabend, G. (2000). Co-Management of Natural Resources: Organizing,

Negotiating and Learning by Doing, IUCN, and Yaoundê, Cameroon.

15. Burkey Stan, (1996). People First: a Guide to Self-Reliant, Participatory Rural
Development. London: Zed Book Ltd.

16. Campbell J (1991). Land or Peasants: The Dilemma Confronting Ethiopian

Resource Conservation. African Affairs 90 (358): 5-21.

17. Constable, M. (1984). Ethiopian Highlands Reclamation Study: The Degradation

of Resources and an Evaluation of Actions to combat it (Draft of Part II of the EHRS
Rural Development Strategy).Addis Ababa.

18. CDEaH (2004): Combating destruction of Ethiopia’s archaeological heritage

Antiquity 78 No 302 Dec 2004

19. CSA.(2006). The 2007 National population and housing census abstract. CSA:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

43
20. Chapin, 2000. Community based sustainable natural resource management in
South Africa.

21. Daniel Gemechu, (1990). Environment and Mass Poverty. In Siegfried

Pausewang, Fantu Cheru, Stefan Brune and Eshetu-Chole (eds.) Ethiopia: Rural
Development Options. Zed Books Ltd. London and New Jersey.PP 164- 172.

22. Dick Morris, Joanna Free land, Steven Hinchliffe and Sandy Smith, (2003).
Changing Environments. John wiley and sons’ ltd. open university, Bath press.
Glasgo

23. Fabricius, C. & Collins, S. (2007). Community-based natural resource

management: governing the commons. Publishing, Water Policy (2007)

24. FAO. (2000). manual on integrated soil management and conservation practices:
Land and Water Bulletin. FAO. Rome.

25. Fitsum Hagos (1999) A. Land Degradation in the Highlands of Ethiopian Tigray
and Strategies for Sustainable Land Management. Socio-economic and policy
Working Paper No. 25, Addis Ababa.

26. Gebremedhin, Yihdego. (2004). Community participation and sustainable soil and
water conservation management: The case of Zala-Daget project: Dogu‘aTembien
Woreda- Tigray Highlands. (Un-published M.A. Thesis on file at the department of
Regional and Local Development Studies). Addis Ababa University: Addis Ababa.

27. Glenn, I. (1994). Sampling and Evidence of Extension Program Impact.

Programme Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University of
Florida.

28. Hoben A. (1996). The Cultural Construction of Environmental Policy: Paradigms

and Policy in Ethiopia. In Leach and Mears (Eds.). The Lie of the Land. Challenging
Received Wide on the African Environment. The Internal Africa Institute, London.

29. Hurni (1986) A. Soil Conservation in Ethiopia.CFSCDD/ MoA, Ethiopia.

Switzerland.

30. Hurni (1988). Ecological Issues in the Creation of Famines in Ethiopia‖, Paper
Presented at the National Conference on a Disaster Prevention and Preparedness
Strategy for Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.

44
31. Hurni, H. (1986) B. Guidelines for Development Agents on Soil Conservation in
Ethiopia: Community Forest and Soil Conservation Development Department,
Ministry of Agriculture. Addis Ababa.

32. Johanson, D. (1995). Land Degradation Creation and Destruction. Blackwell.

USA.

33. Lakew Desta, MenaleKasie, S. Benin and J. Pender (2003). Land degradation in
the Highlands of Amhara Region and Strategies for Sustainable Land Use.

34. Legesse, Gebreslasis (2008). The Impact of Sustainable Land Resource

Management on Agricultural Production and Rural livelihood. The case of Dhabe
Dongore: Eastern Shoa Zone (Un-published M.Sc. Thesis on file at the department of
Environmental Science) Addis Ababa University: Addis Ababa.

35. Llewellyn, D. (2002). Tasmanian Natural resource Management Framework:

Strategic Issues and Programs Division. Department of Primary Industries, Water and
Environment Tasmania.

36. Long, Carolyn M, (2001). Participation of the Poor in Development Initiatives,

Taking Their Rightful Place. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

37. Medhin Zewde (2002). Sustainable development in Ethiopia. Report of

Assessment of Activities and Issues relevant to the review process of the Earth
Summit 2002 in Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research Ethiopia. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

38. Medvey (2010) Community Conservation: lessons learned. A report on the

experience of community conservation enterprises undertaken by the International
Gorilla Conservation Programme

39. MoE, (2002). Geography text book for grade 10 students Addis Ababa-Ethiopia

40. Pretty, J. N. and P. Shah, (1996). Making Soil and Water Conservation
Sustainable: From Coercion and Control to Partnerships and Participation. Land
Degradation and Development, Vol. 8. 39-58, (1997). London: John Wiley and Sons,
Ltd.

45
41. Shibru Tedla (1998). Environmental Management in Ethiopia: Have the National
Conservation Plan Worked? Environmental Forum Publications Series No.1, Addis
Ababa.

42. Singh, K. (1992). People‘s Participation in Natural Resources Management:

Workshop Report . Institute of Rural Management India.

43. Sisay, A. and Tesfaye, Z. (2003). Rural Poverty, Food Insecurity and
Environmental Degradation in Ethiopia: A Case Study from South Central Ethiopia.
Paper prepared for presentation at Second EAF/IDR International Symposium on
Contemporary Development Issues in Ethiopia, July 11-13, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

44. Susan Baker, (2006). Sustainable development.Routledge, London.

45. Sue and Michael, (2000). The role of water for environment.

46. Tola Gemechu.(2005). Prospects of sustainable natural resource management and

livelihood development in wondo genet area, southern Ethiopia. (Un- published M.Sc.
Thesis on file at the department of Geography & Environmental Studies) Addis
Ababa University: Addis Ababa.

47. Turner, R. L. (2006). Communities, Wildlife Conservation, and Tourism-Based

Development: Can Community-Based Nature Tourism Live Up to Its Promise?
Journal of International Wildlife and 48 Law Policy, Volume 7, Issue 3-4 July 2004,
161-182. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0fq311pw, 11th May 2010.

48. Turnereretal, (1990). The earth as transformed by human action. Cambridge

university press, New York.

49. Tyler Miller, J.R. (1996). Sustaining the earth: an integrated approach.Wadsworth
publishing company, Washington.

50. UN (1992). Report of the UN conference on environment and development.

Resolutions adopted by the conference Volume 1 Rio De Janeiro.

51. UNEP and GEF (2004). (United Nations Environmental Programme and Global
Environmental Facility) Global Environmental Facility‘s Sustainable Land
Management Approach, Training Handbook.

46
52. USAID (2000). Amhara national Regional State, food security research
assessment report: http:// crsps.org/amhara/amhara_rpt.pdf.

53. Wagayehu Berhanu and Lars D (2003). Soil and Water Conservation Decision of
Subsistence Farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-
Lafto.

54. WCED (The World Commission on Environmental Programme and Global

Environmental Facility) (1987).Our Common Future‖. New York: Oxford University
Press.

55. Wils F. (2001). Empowerment and its evaluation: A framework for analysis and
application. ISS working papers No. 340. Hague: ISS.

56. Woldeamlak Bewket (2003). Land Degradation and Farmers‘Acceptance and

Adoption of Conservation Technologies in the Digil Watershed, Northwestern
Highlands Ethiopia. Social Science Research Report Series –no 29. OSSERA. Addis
Ababa.

57. Wood, (1990).Natural Resource Management and Rural Development in Ethiopia.

In Siegfried Pausewang, Fantu Cheru, Stefan Brune and Eshetu Chole (eds.) Ethiopia:
Rural Development Options. Zed Books Ltd. London and New Jersey. PP 187-197.

58. World Bank, (1996), the Ethiopian Social Rehabilitation Fund, Staff Appraisal
Report, Washington DC.

59. Yeraswork Admassie, (2000).Twenty Years To Nowhere: Property Rights, Land

Management and Conservation in Ethiopia. Asmara: The Red Sea Press, Inc

Web sites

Tutor vista.com/biology/soil/conservation-methods

www. unu.edu

Appendix I

Household survey questionnaires

47
 Aksum University Shire Campus

College of Agriculture

Department of Soil resource and watershed management

The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess the factor affecting community

participation in soil and water conservation for sustainable land resource management
in woreda Tahtay koraro May Adrasha kebelle,Tigray- Ethiopia.

All questions to be asked are purely for academic purpose. Your individual answers

will be kept strictly confidential. The answers from all respondents will be
anonymously combined in the research analysis and no reference will be made to you
in particular. Therefore, please feel free to respond to the questions to the best of your
knowledge so as to realize the objective of this study which will be a futile exercise
without your whole hearted cooperation

Thank you in advance for your collaboration.

General Instruction:

1. Put a tick mark (√) in front of the appropriate alternative(s) for multiple choice
questions.

2. Write on the blank space or in the box given for those questions require doing so.
NB. Multiple responses are possible for multiple choices questions.

Zone_______________woreda____________________ kebelle____________

Date of interview_______________________

PART 1 INFORMATION ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERSTICS OF

HOUSEHOLD HEADS

Household Profile

1. Name of household head: _________________________

2. Age: A. 20-39 B. 40-59 C. >59

48
 3. Sex A. Male _________ B. Female________

4. Marital status A. Married ___ B. Widowed___C. Divorced ___ D.Single_____

5. Level of education

A. Can read and write only_____ C. 1-8th grade____ E. Above 12th grade_____

B. Can‘t read and write ________ D. 9-12th grade_______

6. Religion, A. Muslim__B. Orthodox__ C. Protestant ___D. Catholic __ E. Others_

7. Number of household size ________________

8. Do you have access to land for agricultural use? a) Yes_____ b) No_____

9. If yes, how did you get access to it? A. Through land redistribution____

B.Shared with relatives____ C. Inherited from parents____ D. Purchased____

E. Others (specify)_____

10. If your answer for no 10 is yes, what is the total size of your land hold size? (in
ha. use decimal number such as 0.25, 0.5, etc).

A. Land less-0.25 B. 0.25-0.49 C. 0.5-1 D. Above 1

PART 2 Farmers perception about land resource degradation

1. What are the possible causes of natural resource degradation in your locality?
(Multiple responses are possible) A. Rugged topography___ B. Over cultivation and
over grazing__ C. Erratic pattern of rainfall___ D. Human population pressure___

E. Lack of conservation structures____ F. Very small land holding size_____

F. Others (specify)___________

2. Why was natural resource management and conservation established in your

area? A. To combat resources degradation ___ B. To rehabilitate degraded area___
C. To improve the livelihood of farmers___ D. Other (Specify)___

3. What will be the possible consequences of natural resources (NRs) degradation?

A. Loss in livestock Productivity B. Poverty C. Migration D. Landlessness
E .Drought and famine F. Loss of agricultural yield G Desertification H. Shortage of
water supply I. Others(specify)

49
 4. Have you ever participated in the following natural resource conservation and
management efforts? A. Demonstration Yes____ No___ B. Training Yes____ No
____ C. Short meetings Yes____ No____ D. Experience sharing Yes____ No____

5. Are you aware of the following sustainable land resource management practices?

No Natural resource Farmers’ N Natural resource Farmers‘

management practices respons o management response
e practices

Yes No Yes No

1 Mixed cropping 7 Making water way

2 Organic manure 8 Mulching

3 Closure of grazing 9 Tree planting

land

4 Terracing 10 Rotational grazing

5 Agr o-forestry 11 Fallowing

6 Crop rotation 12 Contour plowing

1. Out of the above mentioned land resource management practices which one do you
prefer more?

why? 1________________ 2___________________3_____________

PART 3 Community participation& its benefit

1. Have you participate in soil& water programs? A. Yes B. No

2. Is that for free or payable? A. free____ B. payable___ C. Both___

3. If free, What was your free contribution toward the SWC programs?__________

4. What do you think about the level of community participation on land resource
management? A V. good___ B. good___ C .average___ D. poor___ F. V. poor___

5. What is the level of the roles of community participation in SWC activity?

50
A. V. high___ B. high__ C. average __ D. low__ E. V .poor__

7. If you participated in food for work activities what is the amount of food you
receive every year (average of the last five years)? _________ (Quintals).

9.What about the individual benefit you received?

a) Highly satisfied____ b) Satisfied____ c) Neutral____ d) Dissatisfied____

e) Highly dissatisfied____

10. If you are dissatisfied, what is the reason?

a) The benefit is inadequate___ b) I didn‘t get any benefit __c) Others ___

11. Are there any organizations that assist your community organization while your
village conducts natural resource conservation activities? a) Yes____ b) No____

12. If yes, give the name of the organizations? ___________________________

13. Is the assistance adequate? a) Yes____ b) No____

14. Did the assistance create self-reliance or dependency?

a) Self-reliance____ b) Dependency____

15. Should the assistance be continued or discontinued?

a) Continued____ b) Discontinued____

16. What are the advantages of community participation?

1________________2_____________________3_________________________

PART 4 Factors Affecting Community Participation

1. Do the following factors challenge the degree of your participation in natural

resource management activities? a) Low income____ b) Low level of education____
c) Low level of health____ d) Low level of information e) Age level_____

f) Size of house hold____ g) Availability of transport______

h) Distance from towns _____

i) Low level of technology and lack of awareness about the existing technology_____
j) Cultural values and belief of the community_____ k) Small Farm size________

51
2. What are the major limitations to apply natural resource conservation measures on
your farm land? a) Unable to adopt new technologies__ b) Land tenure insecurity____
c) Decrease the size of crop land____ d) Illiteracy and lack of awareness____

e) Lack of collective actions____ f) Poverty____ g) Lack of initiatives and

support____ h) Lack of accountability____ i) Cultural value or belief of the
community____ j) Lack of interest____ k) Lack of acceptance____

l) Others (specify) ____

PART5. Women Participation

1. Do women (both household and spouse) equally participate in Natural resource

conservation activities? a) Yes____ b) No____

2. If No, why? a) Male are more effective____ b) Housework load ____

c) Capacity problem (labor) ____ d) Others (specify) _________

3. do women equally represented in the leadership? a) Yes____ b) No____

4. Do women of the village equally participate in the use and control of the assets
(land, plants, fodder and water) of the village?

52