Catena 36 Ž1999.

99–114

The performance of selected soil and water

conservation measures—case studies from Ethiopia
and Eritrea
Karl Herweg ) , Eva Ludi
Centre for DeÕelopment and EnÕironment, UniÕersity of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
Received 14 October 1997; received in revised form 15 December 1998; accepted 15 December 1998

Abstract

This paper investigates the performance of selected soil and water conservation measures in the
highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea, namely Fanya Juu, soilrstone bund, grass strips and double
ditches. The impact of these techniques on runoff, soil loss, crop yield and biomass production is
measured at on-farm experimental sites in seven research sites under different agro-ecological
conditions. On one hand, most measures brought about a considerable reduction in soil loss and
runoff. The latter, however, increases the waterlogging hazard, particularly in sub-humid environ-
ments. On the other hand, crop yield and biomass production did not increase, as it would have
been necessary to compensate for the high costs of soil conservation. Thus, the measures tested
only partially fulfil their requirements. To enhance their adaptability to local conditions, they must
be supplemented with biological and agronomic measures that help improve production. q 1999
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil and water conservation; Soil erosion; Soil loss; Runoff; Food production; On-farm research;
Ethiopia; Eritrea

1. Introduction

In the 1970s and 1980s, soil and water conservation ŽSWC. campaigns under the
umbrella of the World Food Programme Ž‘Food for Work’. were started to combat
severe soil degradation in the highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Thus, most SWC efforts
focused on highly degraded areas with limited production potential. Marginal steep lands

)
Corresponding author. Fax: q41-31-631-85-44; E-mail: herweg@giub.unibe.ch

0341-8162r99r$20.00 q 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 3 4 1 - 8 1 6 2 Ž 9 9 . 0 0 0 0 4 - 1
100 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

were terraced with a few mechanical SWC measures. Subsistence farmers in need of
food aid were the labour force. Decisions on which type of SWC measures to use and
where to construct them were not made by the farmers concerned, and only rarely was
an attempt made to include their indigenous experience and knowledge.
The main SWC measures introduced on cultivated land were the soil Žor stone. bund
and the Fanya Juu type terrace. Both techniques consist of a small dam and a ditch. To
construct a bund, the excavated material of the ditch is moved ‘downhill’ to build a dam,
while Fanya Juu is the Swahili expression for ‘throw uphill’ Žcf. Fig. 2.. With on-going
soil erosion, both measures eventually build up to bench terraces. The Fanya Juu type
terrace has been developed in Kenya as a modified form of the contour terrace
ŽBergsma, 1996, p. 99.. Both measures have been widely implemented on small,
labour-intensive farms ŽBergsma, 1996, p. 187., but not without adaptation problems
ŽKamar, 1998, p. 1060 f... The particular attractiveness of the Fanya Juu is that level
terraces can develop in as little as 7 years ŽHudson, 1988, p. 121..
Meanwhile, there is a wealth of experience with mechanical SWC in Africa, for
example in semi-arid regions, where moisture conservation is the most important aspect
of the measures ŽIFAD, 1992; Serpantie´ and Lamachere, ` 1992; Reij et al., 1996..
Climatic conditions such as low or variable rainfall and high evaporation usually limit
the variety of biological SWC options. In contrast, sub-humid areas have a higher
potential for biological–agronomic SWC Že.g., Gasser, 1990; Quansah, 1990., which is
less costly, improves infiltration and enhances soil organic matter, and thus turns out to
be more productive. However, biological measures often fail to produce sufficient
ground cover during the onset of the rains after the dry season or drought period. In
order to bridge these periods of high erosion hazard, mechanical SWC is often the only
means to protect the soil.
While implementing mechanical SWC in Ethiopia and Eritrea, three assumptions
were commonly made: Ž1. without SWC, erosion will decrease production in the
long-run; Ž2. with SWC, production will stabilise or increase; Ž3. the expected stabilisa-
tion or increase in production will be an incentive in itself for farmers to maintain SWC
structures. However, another development took place starting with political changes in
1991 ŽHerweg, 1992.. As long as there was an incentive Žfood. which could even be
used as a source of income, the livelihood of the local communities was secured ŽTato,
1992. and farmers tolerated the SWC structures on their land. In many semi-arid areas
there is a tendency to maintain SWC structures because moisture conservation is of
crucial importance for crop production. In some parts of the sub-humid highlands Že.g.,
Welayta., a partial modification of SWC and integration into the complex indigenous
land management system was observed, while in other parts ŽKembata and Northern
Shewa. a considerable number of SWC structures were removed. Based on the results of
on-farm experiments and additional observations, this paper explains some of the main
reasons for the above-mentioned developments.

2. Methodology
In order to support and monitor SWC efforts in the highlands, the Governments of
Ethiopia and Switzerland created the Soil Conservation Research Programme ŽSCRP. in
 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114 101

1981. The SCRP started with a wide range of observations and experiments in seven
research areas ŽHerweg and Hurni, 1993.. At each SCRP research site ŽFig. 1., an
on-farm experiment was established to monitor the impact of different SWC measures
on soil loss, runoff, crop yield, and biomass production ŽFig. 2.. Fanya Juu and
soilrstone bunds were widely implemented terrace types. At some research sites, both
types were tested in two variations: level Žon the contour. and graded Žwith a gradient of
about 5% for drainage of excess water.. In addition, grass strips were newly introduced
as a more cost-effective practice. In the semi-arid area of Afdeyu ŽEritrea., the level
double ditches which were designed to enhance moisture conservation, replaced the
grass strip.
At each research site, one block of four or six plots is established on-farm in order to
test three or five SWC measures against the respective local cultivation practice of the
farmer Žcontrol plot.. Each plot or treatment accommodates two or three SWC structures
on an area 6 m wide and 30 m long. The blocks measured 24 m = 30 m, and 36 m = 30
m,, respectively. The replication of such a block is not possible for several reasons. On
one hand, due to the rugged highland topography, soil properties and slope angles
change on a small scale. On the other hand, farm size is on average below 1 ha, so that a
replication would involve different farmers, crop rotations, and farm operations. Thus,
the inherent variations of each plot cannot be investigated. The plots are constructed

Fig. 1. SCRP research sites in the highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea.

102 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

Fig. 2. SWC measures tested at SCRP research sites—cross-sections in the construction stage.

with removable borders to allow uniform soil management and crop rotation on the
entire block. Crop rotation and timing of farm operations are determined by the farmer.
Soil loss and runoff from each plot flow into a set of two collection tanks downslope.
The rates are computed from the measurement of water depth, soil, and suspended
sediment in the tanks. A range of systematic and random data errors, parameter
estimation errors, and model errors determines the accuracy of soil loss and runoff
values ŽHerweg and Ostrowski, 1997.. For single erosion periods, data accuracy ranges
between "2–5% for runoff and "6–16% for soil loss, respectively. The accuracy of
annual data, in contrast, improves to "0.1% for runoff and y3% for soil loss,
respectively.
Production data are computed from the harvest of the entire plot area. After the
measurement, grain and biomass are returned to the farmer. In comparison with the
control plot, the treated plots have a reduced production area because the SWC
structures occupy about 10% of the area. The production data thus reflect the net gain
for the farmer, both with and without SWC.
The observation period was basically designed to last 5 years, with irregularities due
to the civil war and insecurity Žcf. Table 1.. The results of the on-farm experiments were
combined with information obtained through informal interviews with farmers, which
Table 1
SWC-oriented classification of the SCRP sites
Research site Altitudinal SWC-class Annual precipitation Mean Dry Dry

K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

range in m.a.s.l. annual season months
Mean Standard Coefficient erosivity in winter between
Žmm. deviation of variation ŽJrm h. Žmonths. a rainy
Žmm. Ž%.
seasonsb
X X
Afdeyu ŽAf. 2 438–2 540 1 semi-arid 382 107 29 230 9 –
X X
Hunde Lafto ŽHu. 1 963–2 315 2 sub-humid with 935 205 22 346 5 1
X X X
Maybar ŽMa. 2 530–2 858 insecure rainfall 1 211 247 20 420 4 1
X X X
Andit Tid ŽAt. 3 040–3 548 3 sub-humid with 1 358 243 18 506 4 1
X X X
Anjeni ŽAj. 2 407–2 507 secure high rainfall 1 690 155 9 633 5 –
X X X
Gununo ŽGu. 1 982–2 103 1 314 255 19 582 3 –
X X X
Dizi ŽDi. 1 565–1 789 1 512 124 8 646 4 –
a
Mean monthly precipitation less than 50 mm.
b
Mean monthly precipitation less than 75 mm.
Period of observation: Af, 1985–1990; Hu, 1983–1990; 1993; Ma, 1982–1989; 1992–1993; At, 1983–1992; Aj, 1985–1990; 1992–1993; Gu, 1982–1992; Di,
1989–1993.
Interruptions are due to war and instability.

103
104 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

shed some light on their perception of the SWC measures. A soil profile analysis and
other field observations complete the findings.

3. Results

With regard to SWC, the SCRP research sites were grouped in three classes ŽTable
1.: Ž1. Semi-arid areas, with a mean annual precipitation below 500 mm and a mean
annual erosivity below 300 Jrm h, where priority was given to water conservation
ŽAfdeyu.; Ž2. Sub-humid areas, with insecure rainfall, a mean annual precipitation
between 500 and 1300 mm and a mean annual erosivity between 300 and 500 Jrm h,
where both soil conservation and water-retention are important ŽMaybar, Hunde Lafto.;
Ž3. Sub-humid areas, with secure high rainfall, a mean annual precipitation above 1300
mm and a mean annual erosivity above 500 Jrm h, where priority was given to soil
conservation and drainage of excess water ŽAndit Tid, Anjeni, Gununo, Dizi..

3.1. The desired impacts of SWC

Before interpreting the performance of the SWC technologies tested, the criteria and
the desired impacts have to be defined. Except for runoff, the desired impact is obvious:
production should increase and soil loss should decrease. Runoff, in contrast, is a more
complicated issue and needs to be evaluated with care! Runoff reduction results in lower
soil loss rates, but at the same time, it may cause waterlogging on terraced land in high
rainfall areas, which affects production of certain crop types as well as the adaptation of
the technology. Thus, in semi-arid areas, runoff reduction is desirable, while in the
sub-humid areas, it should not be reduced at all or only slightly reduced Žup to 10%..

3.2. General interpretation

The mean annual soil loss and runoff values ŽTables 2 and 3. reveal a comparatively
low erosion hazard in sub-humid areas with insecure rainfall ŽHunde Lafto, Maybar,
SWC-class 2.. A relatively high erosion hazard is expected for semi-arid conditions
ŽAfdeyu, SWC-class 1. and those sub-humid areas with secure high rainfall located at
higher altitudes ŽAndit Tid, Anjeni, SWC-class 3.. Despite high annual rainfall and
erosivity, low soil loss rates were measured in Gununo and Dizi ŽSWC-class 3., where
the lower altitude Žcf. Table 1. implies more moderate temperature, higher biodiversity,
and more rapid development of protective ground cover.
To assess the impact of the SWC treatments, soil loss, runoff, crop yield and biomass
values of the respective control practice were set at 100%. On this basis, the reduction or
increase Žin percent. was calculated for each treatment ŽTable 4.. It should be noted that
this analysis was restricted to the average performance over the entire period of
observation. A trend analysis from the first year of observation to the last was not
included because the impact of the treatments on soil loss, runoff and production was
distorted by the year-to-year variations of rainfall, erosivity, and crop type.
Table 2
Annual soil loss and runoff under local cultivation practices
Research site Soil unit Žslope %. Soil erosion under local cultivation practice Years of soil No. of crop
Annual runoff Žmm. Annual soil loss Žtrha. lossrrunoff yieldr biomass

K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

measurement measurementsa
Mean Žrange. Mean Žrange. Standard Coefficient
deviation of variation
Ž%.
Afdeyu chromic Cambisols Ž31. 162 Ž34–359. 42 Ž3–114. 51 122 3 –
Hunde Lafto pellic Vertisol Ž21. 12 Ž1–18. 7 Ž0–16. 7 95 3 7
Maybar haplic Phaeozem Ž28. 24 Ž17–30. 2 Ž1–4. 1 61 4 7
Andit Tid eutric Regosol Ž24. 354 Ž183–688. 48 Ž2–140. 50 104 5 5
Anjeni I b vertic Luvisol Ž28. 487 Ž359–620. 110 Ž59–167. 29 26 grass grass
strip 3, strip 3,
others 5 others 7
Anjeni II b eutric Nitosol Ž12. 482 Ž365–645. 90 Ž17–176. 69 76 grass grass
strip 3, strip 4,
others 5 others 10
Gununo humic Nitosol Ž14. 131 Ž50–262. 11 Ž1–22. 8 71 5 6
Dizi haplic Lixisol Ž18. 45 Ž9–139. 5 Ž0–25. 10 195 5 6
a
There may be more than one harvest per year.
b
Anjeni contains two experimental set-ups on 28% and 12% slopes, respectively.

105
 106
Table 3

K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

Mean annual soil loss and runoff for different SWC measures and local cultivation practices
Research site Mean annual soil loss Žtrha. Mean annual runoff Žmm.
Local Graded Graded Grass Level Level Local Graded Graded Grass Level Level
cultivation Fanya Juu bund strip a Fanya Juu bund cultivation Fanya Juu bund strip a Fanya Juu bund
practice practice
Afdeyu 42 – – 8.0 7.2 13.8 162 – – 87 64 85
Hunde Lafto 7.2 3.3 2.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 12.1 20 15.9 6.6 0.6 0.7
Maybar 1.9 1.8 3.3 0.9 0.5 1.2 25 27 36 16.7 12.8 18.5
Andit Tid 48 17.8 29 13.0 6.0 6.9 354 348 335 236 194 133
Anjeni I 28% 110 36 38 – – – 487 325 331 – – –
Anjeni II 12% 90 17.1 34 – – – 482 239 290 – – –
Gununo 11.4 0.8 1.3 1.9 0.2 0.3 131 38 62 58 9.3 19.8
Dizi 5.1 0.5 0.7 1.5 0.8 0.2 45 18.3 27 19.6 32 15.3
a
In Afdeyu, the level double ditch replaced the grass strip.
Table 4
The average impact of SWC measures on soil loss, runoff, crop yield and biomass compared with local cultivation practicesa
Research site Graded Graded Grass Level Level Graded Graded Grass Level Level
Fanya Juu bund strip b Fanya Juu bund Fanya Juu bund strip b Fanya Juu bund
Relative impact on soil loss Ž%. Relative impact on runoff Ž%.
U U U
Afdeyu ŽAf .b – – I81 I83 I67 – – I46 a I60 I47
Hunde Lafto ŽHu. I54 I67U I60U I100U I100U q65 q31 y45 y95 y94

K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

Maybar ŽMa. I4 q73U I55U I72U I37U H8 q46 y33 y48 y25
Andit Tid ŽAt. I63U I41U I73U – – I2 I5 y33 – –
Anjeni I 28% ŽAj. I68U I66U I72U – – y33 y32 y41 – –
Anjeni II 12% ŽAj. I81U I63U I57U – – y50 y40 y19 – –
Gununo ŽGu. I93U I88U I84U – – y71 y53 y55 – –
Dizi ŽDi. I91U I87U I71U – – y59 y40 y57 – –
Relative impact on crop yield production Ž%. d Relative impact on biomass production Ž%. d
Afdeyu ŽAf. c – – – – – – – – – –
Hunde Lafto ŽHu. H7 H15 y4 H4 H12 H6 y2 H7 H7 H12
Maybar ŽMa. y22 y27 y24 y28 y30 y22 y25 y23 y21 y26
Andit Tid ŽAt. y50 y12 y39 – – y45 y11 y37 – –
Anjeni I 28% ŽAj. H4 y13 0 – – y5 y13 H8 – –
Anjeni II 12% ŽAj. H14 y6 H14 – – H5 y12 H11 – –
Gununo ŽGu. H13 H5 H16 – – H22 H12 H16 – –
Dizi ŽDi. y17 y39 y20 – – H2 y22 y18 – –
a
Period of observation: Af, 1988–1990; Hu, 1989–1990, 1993; Ma, 1986–1989; At, 1987–1991; Aj, 1986–1990, 1992; Gu, 1987–1991; Di, 1989–1993.
b
In Afdeyu, the level double ditch replaced the grass strip.
c
In Afdeyu, in accordance with the farmer’s decision, all plots were left fallow.
d
The area for yield and biomass measurement is always the entire plot Ž180 m2 ..
U
Significant difference at p- 0.05 for soil loss using Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.
Bold indicates whether the desired impact Žincreaserdecrease, ". was achieved.

107
108 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

Fig. 3. Cumulative soil loss and runoff on a 28% slope in Anjeni, 1990. The impact of the graded Fanya Juu,
the graded bund and the grass strip on soil loss and runoff is shown, using a double mass curve. There is
considerable soil loss reduction compared to the control plot Žcf. Tables 4 and 5.. The reduction in runoff, on
the other hand, may increase the waterlogging hazard and thus affect crops such as barley and beans.

3.3. Soil loss

Significance was tested only for soil loss as the most important indicator in the study.
The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Ž p - 0.05. showed significantly smaller soil losses for
the majority of SWC treatments when compared with the respective local cultivation
practices Žcontrol site.. But there are no significant soil loss differences between most
SWC treatments, and so there is no ‘best’ measure as such ŽFig. 3, Table 5.. Despite this
considerable soil loss reduction, absolute erosion rates can still be very high, even under
SWC. More than 30 trha in Anjeni, 10 trha in Andit Tid, and 7 trha in Afdeyu were
recorded in single years. A considerable proportion of such high annual values was
caused during a few rainfall periods. As much as 10 trha ŽAndit Tid., 6 trha ŽHunde
Lafto, Anjeni. and 1 trha ŽGununo, Dizi, Maybar, Afdeyu. of soil loss were observed

Table 5
Absolute and relative annual soil loss and runoff on a 28% slope in Anjeni, 1990
Experimental plot I, 28% slope
Local cultivation Grass Graded Graded
practice Žcontrol. strip Fanya Juu bund
Soil loss Žabsolute. trha 104 16 23 15
Soil loss Žrelative. a % 100 15.4 22.1 14.4
Runoff Žabsolute. mm 502 263 292 244
Runoff Žrelative. a % 100 52.4 58.2 48.6
a
In relation to the control plot values which are set at 100%.
 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114 109

during such periods, encompassing between one and three rainstorms. Therefore,
absolute soil erosion rates might still be above a given tolerance level and call for
further development of SWC technology.

3.4. Runoff

Runoff was considerably reduced at the semi-arid site of Afdeyu ŽSWC-class 1. and
thus the goal of moisture conservation was met. For SWC-class 2 ŽMaybar, Hunde
Lafto., the impact of SWC on runoff reflects a possible dilemma. On one hand, graded
structures increase runoff. This may cause erosion of the drainage ditches during seasons
with high rainfall, while precious moisture may be lost during cropping seasons with
sub-average rainfall. On the other hand, level structures decrease runoff, which is
desirable in times of drought stress but may increase the probability of waterlogging and
breakage of SWC structures during high rainfall periods. For SWC-class 3, runoff
reduction is generally considered too high in view of the increased waterlogging hazard.

3.5. Production

The on-farm experiment involved the Fanya Juu, bund, grass strip or double ditch
measure, respectively, but did not include any additional agronomic or biological
techniques. So, it may not be surprising that, in contrast to the assumptions explained in
the introduction, production—the most important factor for farmers—rarely increased
during the first three to 5 years of SWC. However, except for Andit Tid and Dizi
ŽSWC-class 3., production remained relatively stable under the SWC structures tested,
which was reflected by only slight changes Ždecreaserincrease. in crop yield and
biomass compared to the control site. The reasons for this will be discussed in Section 4.

4. Additional observations

SWC structures can have an entirely different impact and consequently, a different
degree of adaptation if they are transferred to other biophysical andror socio-economic
conditions ŽHerweg, 1995.. Therefore, qualitative observations and statements of farm-
ers from within and in the surroundings of the SCRP research sites supplemented the
results from the on-farm experiment. In particular, farmers in areas of secure high
rainfall ŽSWC-class 3. had serious complaints about mechanical conservation structures
ŽTegene, 1992; Ludi, 1997.. The main arguments are that: Ži. SWC structures occupy
precious cropping area; Žii. the area occupied by SWC structures is not ploughed, weeds
and rodent habitats are no longer destroyed, and cultivated fields are infested; Žiii.
despite a drainage gradient of 2% or higher, waterlogging is frequently observed along a
narrow strip above the SWC structures; Živ. maintenance requires unacceptable labour
inputs; Žv. farmers have problems carrying out their traditional farm operations. Narrow
terrace spacing makes it difficult or impossible to plough the slope in diagonal lines and
turn the ox-drawn plough.
110 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

¨
Field observations and a detailed soil survey ŽKruger, 1994. support these complaints.
Given an average spacing of 10 m between two Fanya Juu structures, for example, the
crop production on about 15% of the total area is affected during the first years ŽFig. 4..
An additional 10 to 15% of the production area may be affected by waterlogging.
Furthermore, weeds and rodents can affect production on the entire terraced area. The
area where production might be affected in one way or another increases on steeper
slopes with narrow terrace spacing, while it may slightly decrease in the long-run as the
terraces develop. The SWC structure itself can be used for fodder and woody biomass
production. But this can hardly replace food production for a subsistence farmer.
Under both the soil bund and the Fanya Juu type terrace, the lowest crop yield is
measured below the structure. A change in the soil profile and increasing spatial
variability of soil fertility are considered the major reasons for this. In the course of the
erosion process that forms the terrace, the topsoil below the structure is gradually moved
downslope and accumulates above the next SWC structure ŽKruger, ¨ 1994.. This process
is accelerated through tillage erosion, particularly under hoe cultivation ŽTurkelboom et
al., 1997, p. 41., and less when using the Ethiopian ox-plough Ž Maresha. that merely
scratches the surface. If the topsoil is completely eroded, the subsoil will also move

Fig. 4. Soil profile changes and reduction of production area on a Fanya Juu terrace.
 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114 111

Fig. 5. Differences in terrace development with soil bunds and Fanya Juu.

downslope on top of the fertile accumulation. In other words, topsoil reduction below
the SWC structure further affects or reduces the area of crop production ŽFig. 4..
Different SWC structures have different implications with respect to labour input and
the utilisation of fertile soil accumulation ŽFig. 5.. Firstly, the soil bund requires less
labour input because the excavated material from the ditch is thrown downhill. How-
ever, accumulations of fertile topsoil may block the drainage; eventually, they may
cause waterlogging or be washed away. Moreover, instead of being used for food
production, accumulations are used to raise the bund during maintenance in the
following years. Secondly, drainage of the Fanya Juu is much less affected by
accumulated material, and the dam is mainly built from subsoil material. But establish-
ing and maintaining a Fanya Juu is much more labour-intensive since soil must be
moved uphill. Thirdly, the grass strip does not require high labour input since it does not
involve moving soil to raise the structure. It drains well because water can penetrate the
entire strip. However, terrace development takes longer compared to the other SWC
structures.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

Reduction of soil loss was considerable at all stations and with most SWC measures,
although absolute erosion rates were still high in some cases. Runoff control, by
contrast, requires greater emphasis during the design of SWC structures.
112 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

. SWC-class 1: In semi-arid areas Že.g., Afdeyu., level SWC structures did a good
job conserving moisture. However, in Lesotho ŽWenner, 1989, p. 67. found that many
large rills and gullies on terraces developed because of level terracing. He therefore
refrains from advocating level earth terraces in general. Instead, these terraces could be
improved as described for SWC-class 2.
. SWC-class 2: Sub-humid areas with insecure rainfall Že.g., Maybar, Hunde Lafto.
are principally subject to two extremes. Excesses and shortages of water can follow each
other closely. In this case, SWC aims to achieve a compromise. Since there is always a
probability of excess rainfall, SWC structures need a gradient. To ensure water retention
during dry spells, supplementary structures such as tied ridges are useful. These
structures should be breakable during high rainfall events. Wenner Ž1989. Žp. 86.
suggests adding small ditches in the middle of the production area to increase infiltration
and to decrease overtopping of the structures.
. SWC-class 3: For sub-humid areas with secure high rainfall Že.g., Dizi, Gununo,
Anjeni, Andit Tid., structures must have a gradient to safely drain excess water. In this
case, the waterways in particular need to be protected from incision and gully erosion.
These recommendations give the extension service clues about which directions to
take when seeking suitable SWC technologies. For the farmers, however, what counts is
production, and for the subsistence farmers it is mainly the production of the current
season that guarantees the mere survival of their families. As pointed out by Hurni
Ž1988. Žp. 103., SWC is a reproductive process, which unfortunately involves short-term
costs, while benefits can only be expected in the long-run. SWC has rarely been in the
short-term interest of land users because it often shows a negative net present value
ŽNPV, Kappel, 1996.. This is due to the unfavourable distribution of costs and benefits.
Tegene Ž1992. reports for Gununo area that farmers would not even consider a yield
increase acceptable compensation for losing productive land occupied by SWC struc-
tures.
The need to keep conservation costs low and to increase production calls for
intensified production, supported for example, by agronomic and biological SWC.
Generally, soil cover is considered a highly efficient means of controlling erosion, at
least as effective as the runoff barrier approach, but less costly ŽYoung, 1989, p. 38..
However, one should not draw the conclusion that biological SWC can entirely replace
mechanical structures, because it is not possible to maintain permanent vegetation cover
in agricultural production systems. Further SCRP test plot experiments recorded soil
losses as high as 10 trha during high erosivity rainfall periods with 65% plant cover,
while 5 trha were observed at different stations, even with 75 to 85% plant cover. It
cannot be denied that plant cover serves to reduce soil erosion. However, particularly
during extreme rainfall periods that may be responsible for the greater part of the annual
soil loss, plant cover may not be a sufficient protection. Similarly, runon from upslope
areas often causes rill and gully erosion and may not be prevented by biological
measures alone. Thus, mechanical structures are an indispensable component of SWC
for control of drainage and erosion, both during times of low and high vegetation cover.
The considerable effect of the measures tested during on-farm experimentation in
reducing soil loss should be taken as a point of departure, because one cannot afford to
loose more soil resource as an important asset for agricultural production. But it is
 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114 113

essential to develop suitable combinations of mechanical, agronomic, and biological

SWC practices which can raise production. At present, the greatest difficulty seems to
be developing such solutions for sub-humid areas with secure high rainfall and climatic
limitations on biological SWC Že.g., high altitudes with low temperature, or steep slopes
with shallow soils..
Successful SWC is frequently connected with the following attributes: technical
feasibility and adaptability, ecological soundness, economic viability, and social accep-
tance. To achieve a reasonable compromise among these attributes, experiments like the
one discussed in this paper can be considerably improved, so that the preparation of the
experiment probably becomes more important than the monitoring itself. Farmers, as the
implementers of SWC, must have a say in which measures should be tested. Ideally,
farmers and researchers select the most promising indigenous—i.e., already accepted—
techniques together, and improvements are negotiated on this basis. SWC measures need
to be designed and monitored together with farmers so that they can be incrementally
improved.
Many of the above conclusions, e.g., to achieve SWC by increasing production or
popular participation, are not new at all. For example, Hagmann Ž1996. provides an
example from Zimbabwe indicating similar acceptance problems of SWC due to
technical difficulties. Already in the 1980s, recommendations were made in Ethiopia to
address land tenure issues, to develop a multi-sectoral strategy, or provide infrastructure.
Hurni Ž1993. developed several possible scenarios and options for the management of
the land resource, stating that sustainable land management is more than mere techno-
logical development. There is a great demand for improvement of the socio-economic
and political framework so that it enables farmers to use their land in a sustainable
manner. Although these proposals are not new, improved socio-economic conditions are
far from being achieved. Consequently, the failure of purely technical approaches can
also be expected in the future, and this will cause increasing socio-economic problems.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the colleagues of the SCRP, particularly Prof. Dr. Hans
Humi ŽCDE Bern. who designed and initiated the experiment under discussion. The
Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation ŽSDC. and the Government of
Ethiopia have generously funded the SCRP for many years. Special thanks go to Prof.
Dr. M.W. Ostrowski ŽUniversity of Darmstadt. for many valuable inputs and discus-
sions.

References

Bergsma, E., 1996. Terminology for soil erosion and conservation. Int. Soil Science Society, Wageningen, 313
pp.
Gasser, W., 1990. Conservation farming for small-scale farmers in the humid savannah of Central Ghana. In:
¨
Baum, E., Wolff, P., Zobisch, M. ŽEds.., Experience with Available Conservation Technologies. Topics in
Applied Resource Management in the Tropics, Vol. 2. Witzenhausen, pp. 159–174.
114 K. Herweg, E. Ludi r Catena 36 (1999) 99–114

Hagmann, J., 1996. Mechanical soil conservation with contour ridges: cure for or cause of rill erosion?. Land
Degradation and Development 7, 145–160.
Herweg, K., 1992. Major constraints to effective soil conservation—experiences in Ethiopia. Proceedings 7th
ISCO Conference Australia, Sydney 2, 404–412.
Herweg, K., 1995. Evaluation of improved technologies for conservation farming. In: Maglinao, A., Saj-
japongse, A. ŽEds.., International Workshop on Conservation Farming for Sloping Uplands in Southeast
Asia, Challenges, Opportunities, and Prospects. IBSRAM proceedings, no. 14, Bangkok, pp. 183–191.
Herweg, K., Hurni, H., 1993. Das Forschungsprojekt Bodenkonservierung in Athiopien. ¨ In: Gruppe fur¨
Entwicklung und Umwelt, Nachhaltige Bodennutzung in Entwicklungslandern. ¨ Berichte zu Entwicklung
und Umwelt, no. 7, Bern, pp. 39–48.
Herweg, K., Ostrowski, M.W., 1997. The influence of errors on erosion process analysis. Soil Conservation
Research Programme. Research Report 33, Addis Abeba and Bern, 24 pp.
Hudson, N.W., 1988. Conservation practices and runoff disposal on steep lands. In: Moldenhauer, W.C.,
Hudson, N.W. ŽEds.., Conservation Farming On Steep Lands, pp. 117–128.
Hurni, H., 1988. Principles of soil conservation for cultivated land. Soil Technology 1, 101–116.
Hurni, H., 1993. Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimentel, D. ŽEd..,
World Soil Erosion And Conservation. Cambridge, pp. 27–61.
IFAD, 1992. Soil and water conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Amsterdam, 110 pp.
Kamar, M.J., 1998. Soil conservation implementation approaches in Kenya. In: Blume, H.P, Eger, H.,
Fleischhauer, E., Hebel, A., Reij, C., Steiner, K. ŽEds.., Towards Sustainable Land Use, Vol. 2. Advances
in Geoecology 31, pp. 1057–1064.
Kappel, R., 1996. Economic analysis of soil conservation in Ethiopia: issues and research perspectives. Soil
Conservation Research Programme, Research Report 35, Addis Abeba and Bern, 29 pp.
¨
Kruger, H.-J., 1994. The development of farmer friendly conservation measures. Ethiopian Soil Conservation
News, Addis Abeba 15, 14–18.
Ludi, E., 1997. Household and communal strategies: small-scale farming families and their options for
self-improvement. A case study in Anjeni, Ethiopia. Soil Conservation Research Programme, Research
Report 30, Addis Abeba and Bern, 164 pp.
Quansah, C., 1990. Soil erosion and conservation in the northern and upper regions of Ghana. In: Baum, E.,
¨
Wolff, P., Zobisch, M. ŽEds.., Experience with Available Conservation Technologies. Topics in Applied
Resource Management in the Tropics, Vol. 2. Witzenhausen, pp. 135–157.
Reij, C., Scoones, I., Toulmin, C., 1996. Sustaining the soil. Indigenous soil and water conservation in Africa.
London, 260 pp.
´ G., Lamachere,
Serpantie, ` J.M., 1992. Contour stone bunds for water harvesting on cultivated land in the
North Yatenga region of Burkina Faso. In: Hurni, H., Tato, K. ŽEds.., Erosion, Conservation and
Small-scale Farming. Geographica Bernensia, Bern, pp. 459–469.
Tato, K., 1992. The role of grassroots organisations in development—opportunity lost for soil conservation in
Ethiopia. Proceedings 7th ISCO Conference Australia, Sydney 2, 435–443.
Tegene, B., 1992. Farmers’ perceptions of erosion hazards and attitudes towards soil conservation in Gununo,
Welayta, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Development Research, Addis Abeba 14 Ž2..
Turkelboom, F., Poesen, J., Ohler, I., Van Keer, K., Ongprasert, S., Vlassak, K., 1997. Assessment of tillage
erosion rates on steep slope in Northern Thailand. Catena 29, 29–44.
Wenner, C.G., 1989. Soil and water conservation in the farming areas of Lesotho: a review and some
¨
proposals. In: Baum, E., Wolff, P., Zobisch, M.A. ŽEds.., The Extent of Soil Erosion—Regional
Comparisons. Topics in Applied Resource Management in the Tropics, Vol. 1. Witzenhausen, pp. 57–86.
Young, 1989.