Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adoption of RWM Strategies in The Ethiopian Highlands
Adoption of RWM Strategies in The Ethiopian Highlands
Adoption of RWM Strategies in The Ethiopian Highlands
18 12 10 8 7 2 2 **
Terraces/Bunds
5-year national plan to control soil erosion Forced labor - Fines: 30 birr Mixed reviews on usefulness Combination with multipurpose trees Alternative methods of controlling erosion Often used as a reason for non-adoption of other technologies
Multipurpose Trees
Benefits: timber, fodder during dry season, soil erosion, decoration, wind protection
Orchards
Mango trees produce 50-500 birr without fertilizer, 500 birr with fertilizer Farmers include sugar cane, coffee, avocados, bananas, lemons, in addition to the fruits on the card Non-adoption
Too high in elevation, Dont know where to get seeds Producing seedlings requires irrigation
Seedlings
River Diversion
Used to grow high value vegetables: (potatoes, tomatoes, onions, peppers), as well as sugar cane, maize Earns 1,000-2,000 birr per year Takes various amounts of time depending on the technique Brought from migrants from the east Non-adoption
Not close to river
Gully Rehabilitation
Brought from migrants from the east Forced labor in some cases Different types Non-adoption
Not conceived as a problem Labor intensive Cost of fertilizer
Filling with soil, branches or leaves Hammering eucalyptus poles into the ground and surrounding with stones Planting eucalyptus or other trees inside
Wells
Household use, not irrigation Non-adoption
Cost Groundwater too deep People/livestock falling in Other source of water
Ponds
Non-adoption
Farmers perceive the soil as too sandy to hold water Plastic and concrete are too expensive and in some cases not available Animals fall in and contaminate the water or rip the plastic
Area Enclosure
Least known Used in combination with special grasses Benefits: fattening animals Non-adoption
Fencing is not necessary because farmers simply tell their neighbors not to graze on this land Land is too scarce not to be plowed
Gender
Female-headed households are more likely to adopt technologies under certain circumstances 4 levels of femaleheaded households
Formal Institutions
Credit Agencies
The poorest members of the community do not have access to credit Assets: cattle, tinroof house, land? Only available for specific purposes
Formal Institutions
Education
Farmers rhetoric on adoption is heavily influenced by education Taught about most of the RWM strategies in geography class Not culturally appropriate for a son to teach his father
Formal Institutions
Extension Agents
Training does not always result in adoption
Corruption Affiliation with government/politics
Land Tenure
People do not perceive a threat their land as being taken away, thus the certificates have not made much of a difference
This happens to some people
Extremely marginalized: land taxes and letting land fallow Large landholders, especially in Fogera
Land Tenure
Sharecropping
Some landowners plant tress themselves on border land or other land that cannot be cultivated Competition between farmers Suggesting that a landowner use a RWM strategy may get them fired