THE IMPLICATIONS OF HILLSIDE ENCLOSURE ON THE LOCAL

LIVELIHOODS OF COMMUNITIES IN KAJIMMA UMBULO KEBELE OF

HAWASSA ZURIA DISTRICT IN THE SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. THESIS

BIRUK TAGESSE LAMBE

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY, WONDO GENET COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND

NATURAL RESOURCES, WONDO GENET, ETHIOPIA

AUGUEST, 2012
THE IMPLICATIONS OF HILLSIDE ENCLOSURE ON THE LOCAL LIVELIHOODS

OF COMMUNITIES IN KAJIMMA UMBULO KEBELE OF HAWASSA ZURIA

DISTRICT IN THE SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

BIRUK TAGESSE LAMBE

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

WONDO GENET COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

WONDO GENET, ETHIOPIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

AUGUEST, 2012
 Approval Sheet -1

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “The Implications of Hillside Enclosure on the
Local Livelihoods of Communities in Kajimma Umbulo Kebele of Hawassa Zuria
District in the Southern Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the degree of Master of Sciences in Natural Resource and Environmental Studies with
specialization in Integrated Watershed Management (Soil and Water Conservation) of
the Graduate Program of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
studies, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources and is a record of
original research carried out by Biruk Tagesse Id. No Msc/IWM/034/10, under my
supervision, and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma.

The assistance and help received during the courses of this investigation have been duly
acknowledged. Therefore, I recommended that it can be accepted as fulfilling the thesis
requirement.

Dr. Yemiru Tesfaye _______________________ __________________

Name of major advisor Signature Date

OR
Dr. Menfese Tadesse _______________________ __________________

Name of co-advisor signature Date

 Approval Sheet-2

We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by
Biruk Tagesse have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “The Implications of Hillside
Enclosure on the Local Livelihoods of Communities in Kajimma Umbulo Kebele of
Hawassa Zuria District in the Southern Ethiopia” and examined the candidate. This is
therefore to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources and
Environmental Studies with specialization in Integrated Watershed Management (Soil
and Water Conservation).

_____________________ ________________ _____________

Name of the Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ ________________ _______________

Name of Major Advisor Signature Date

_____________________ ________________ _______________

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

_____________________ ________________ _______________

Name of External Examiner Signature Date
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisors Dr. Yemiru Tesfaye and Dr. Menfese Tadesse for their
scientific guidance, material support, critical comments and tireless support in the course
of this research work from the very beginning of research idea and proposal development.

I am also indebted to express the help of Dr. Fantaw Yimer and Dr. Menfese Tadesse in
facilitating the fund from Czech Development Agency (CDA) through Mendel University.
I am obliged to thank CDA for the development cooperation, research interest and
covering the financial inputs for the field work.

Also, I am thankful to the Ethiopian Federal Democratic Republic Ministry of Education

(MoE) for providing me a scholarship to study M.Sc. in Hawassa University, Wondo
Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources (WGCF & NRs). Also I am thankful to
Semera University and the staff for allowing me the study leave.

I am grateful to the Agricultural and Rural Development Bureau of Hawassa Zuria district
for their cooperation. I am also indebted to the kebele leaders of Kajimma Umbulo and
DAs assisted me in data collection processes; I would like to thank all of them (Amanuel,
Amsale, Tariku, Tesfaye and Zeleke). The field study would not have been realized
without the support of the passionate Kajimma Umbulo kebele farmers. Thank you!!

I am grateful to Berhanu Terefe PhD student for editing the manuscript. My graduate
colleagues Aklilu, Lemma, Mikrewengel, Solomon, Yegeta and Amsalu thanks for your
continuous support. I am pleased to express my appreciation to all classmates and
instructors for the good times.

My special thanks go to my loving parents, my mother Bekelech Shigute and father

Tagesse Lambe, for their support and prayers. My younger brothers and sisters Mulualem,
Mekdes, Meaza, Kibreab and Betel who provided me with love and moral support at all
times. All those who have contributed for this end are also thanked.

Above all, foremost I praise the Almighty God, who favors me to start and bring to an end
this study. Thank you God! The Fares Choirs in Rehobot Congregation for their prayer and
encouragement; as well as WGCF & NRs fellowship was also memorable and thankful.

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................I
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................II
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...........................................................................V
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................VI
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................VII
LIST OF APPENDIXES.................................................................................................VII
LIST OF BOXES.............................................................................................................VII
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................VIII
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
1.1. Background................................................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................4
1.3. Objectives and Research Questions...........................................................................5
1.3.1. General Objective...............................................................................................5
1.3.2. Specific Objectives............................................................................................5
1.3.3. Research Questions............................................................................................6
1.4. Limitation of the Study..............................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................7
2.1. An Overview of SWC Measures................................................................................7
2.1.1. Benefits of SWC Measures................................................................................8
2.1.2. Efforts of SWC in Ethiopia................................................................................9
2.1.3. Hillside Enclosure and Efforts in Ethiopia......................................................11
2.2. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach..........................................................................13
2.3. Impact Assessment of Intervention Projects............................................................15
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS..............................................................................18
3.1. Study Site Description.............................................................................................18
3.1.1. Location and Climate.......................................................................................18
3.1.2. Soils and Soil Erosion......................................................................................19
3.1.3. Demography.....................................................................................................19
3.1.4. Farming System and Socio-economic Activities.............................................20
3.2. Methods....................................................................................................................20
3.2.1. Sampling Procedure.........................................................................................20
3.2.1.1. Study Site Selection.....................................................................................21
 3.2.1.2. Preliminary Survey......................................................................................21
3.2.1.3. Key Informant Selection..............................................................................21
3.2.1.4. Wealth Ranking Exercise and Wealth Class Indicators...............................22
3.2.1.5. Focus Group Selection.................................................................................23
3.2.1.6. Sample Household Selection.......................................................................24
3.2.2. Data Sources and Collection Methods.............................................................24
3.2.2.1. Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions............................25
3.2.2.2. Household Survey........................................................................................25
3.2.2.3. Secondary Data Sources...............................................................................25
3.2.3. Data Analysis...................................................................................................26
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................27
4.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents.......................................................27
4.1.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents among Wealth Classes.........27
4.2. Vulnerability Context and their Coping Strategies..................................................28
4.2.1. Huge Gullies on Farmlands and Hillsides........................................................28
4.2.2. Flood and Rainfall Variability.........................................................................30
4.2.3. Seasonality of Food and Income......................................................................31
4.3. Livelihood Strategy in Kajimma Umbulo................................................................33
4.3.1. On-farm Livelihood Activities.........................................................................34
4.3.2. Off-farm and Non-farm Livelihood Activities.................................................35
4.4. The SWC Practices in Kajimma Umbulo................................................................36
4.4.1. Enclosure on Degraded Hillsides.....................................................................36
4.4.2. On-Farm SWC Practices..................................................................................40
4.5. The Impact of Hillside Enclosure on Local Livelihoods.........................................43
4.5.1. Impacts on Livelihood Assets..........................................................................43
4.5.1.1. Natural Assets..............................................................................................43
4.5.1.1.1. Change in Farmland Productivity..........................................................43
4.5.1.1.2. Fertilizer Use and Crop Yield Change among Wealth Classes.............45
4.5.1.1.3. Change in Livestock Holding................................................................46
4.5.1.1.4. Livestock Holding among Wealth Classes............................................47
4.5.1.1.5. Change in Environmental Products (Grasses and Tree Resources)......48
4.5.1.2. Financial Assets...........................................................................................49
4.5.1.3. Physical and Social Assets...........................................................................49
 4.5.1.4. Human Assets..............................................................................................50
4.5.2. Impacts on Livelihood Strategy and Outcomes...............................................51
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................55
5.1. Conclusions..............................................................................................................55
5.2. Recommendations....................................................................................................56
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................57
APPENDIXES....................................................................................................................66
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH............................................................................................75
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

CDA Czech Development Agency
DFID Department for International Development of the United Kingdom
E.C. Ethiopian Calendar
EHRS Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study
EOSA Ethio-Organic Seed Action
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FFW Food For Work
ha Hectares
IDS Institute of Development Studies
MoWR Ministry of Water Resources
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PSNP Productive Safety-Net Programme
SLA Sustainable Livelihood Approach
SLF Sustainable Livelihood Framework
SNNPR Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
SWC Soil and Water Conservation
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
WFP World Food Programme
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Wealth classes in the local context and indicators.................................................23

Table 2: Proportion of sampled households.........................................................................24

Table 3: Characteristics of the respondents.........................................................................27

Table 4: Socioeconomic characteristics among wealth classes (N=118, (mean ± SD))......28

Table 5: Ranking of impacts of flooding prior to hillside enclosure intervention (N=118) 31

Table 6: Means comparisons cash income in birr comparison for wealth classes...............36

Table 7: Adopter’s on-farm SWC practices by households in Kajimma Umbulo...............41

Table 8: Reasons for non-practitioners of on-farm SWC in Kajimma Umbulo..................42

Table 9: Fertilizer amount use and crop yield change for the major crops..........................44

Table 10: Mean comparisons of fertilizer use and crop yield change in wealth classes......45

Table 11: Local people perception on the trend of assets on time.......................................46

Table 12: Mean comparison for TLU change among the wealth classes............................47

Table 13: Sources of land management information for individual farmers.......................51

Table 14: Livelihood activities change over time................................................................52

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework adopted from DFID, (1999).......................14

Figure 2: Study site Kajimma Umbulo Kebele....................................................................18

Figure 3: Huge gullies on farm fields in Kajimma Umbulo kebele.....................................29

Figure 4: Hillside enclosure in Kajimma Umbulo...............................................................37

Figure 5: Trenches and improved pits on hillsides of Kajimma Umbulo............................38

Figure 6: Soil Bund and Fanya juu on hillsides of Kajimma Umbulo.................................38

Figure 7: Percolation ponds on hillsides of Kajimma Umbulo............................................39

Figure 8: Sand bag (A), wooden (B), and gabion check dams (C)......................................39

Figure 9: Grass-roofed house in Kajimma Umbulo kebele..................................................49

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: Checklist for the Key Informants and the Focused Group Discussion...........66

Appendix 2: Household Survey Questionnaires..................................................................67

Appendix 3: Land holding size of on-farm SWC adopters and non-adopters.....................73

Appendix 4: Education status and on-farm SWC implementation......................................73

Appendix 5: Livestock holding in TLU t-test between 2008 and 2011...............................73

Appendix 6: Relative cash income share among wealth classes..........................................73

Appendix 7: Coping strategies of the income and food deficit by wealth classes...............74

LIST OF BOXESY

Box 1: Gullies, their causes and consequences....................................................................29

Box 2: Flooding problem in Kajimma Umbulo...................................................................30

Box 3: Interaction of local people and the project at the start.............................................39

Box 4: Hillside enclosure impacts........................................................................................43

Box 5: Hillside enclosure benefits.......................................................................................48

Box 6: Labor work demand for financial deficit..................................................................49

 Linking the Impacts of Hillside Enclosure to the Local Livelihoods of Communities in

Kajimma Umbulo Kebele of Hawassa Zuria District in the Southern Ethiopia

Biruk Tagesse (biruktagesse@gmail.com)

ABSTRACT
Land degradation is seriously affecting Hawassa lake catchment where Kajimma Umbulo
kebele is found, with an area of 8050 ha degraded land out of which 5% is composed of
extremely degraded bare soil and exposed rocks. Decline in soil fertility, land productivity
and gully formations exposed the local people to flooding problems. Land degradation
influences the livelihoods of rural people for their dependence on natural resources are
huge. As a result, hillside enclosure activities have been undertaken to reduce the effect of
land degradation and thereby improve livelihoods in Kajimma Umbulo. This study focused
on land intervention project on hillsides by Mendel University in Kajimma Umbulo kebele
of Hawassa Zuria district in southern Ethiopia. The major objective of the study was to
investigate the impacts of enclosure activities on hillsides to the livelihoods of the local
people. The sampling procedure employed purposive sampling for selecting the kebele
from the district and was stratified based on wealth status for the survey. In addition the
sustainable livelihoods framework was used to identify and explain the major impacts of
SWC activities. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through key informant
interview, focus group discussion, and household survey. The results indicate that the
main livelihood strategy of the local people is mixed farming system cash income share of
81.2% from both crop and livestock production. The cash incomes from the livelihood
sources differed for the on-farm cash incomes among the wealth classes(P < 0.05) while
the better-off differed significantly in the case of off-farm and non-farm cash incomes (P <
0.05). The findings show that the hillside enclosure SWC activities have contributed for an
increase in land productivity in terms of improved crop yield in the downstream
farmlands. The mean livestock holding in TLU and the major crop yields with the fertilizer
use levels has significantly increased (P < 0.05). About more than half of respondents
perceived this as a result of the hillside enclosure SWC. Besides, improving the natural
and physical asset base of the local people (SWC structures) trees were also planted on
hillsides. Regarding human assets land management information and enhanced skills for
SWC activities among the local people were also indicative impacts where 88.9% of the
on-farm SWC adopters get information and adopted on-farm SWC measure though
affected by land holding size (P < 0.05). The hillside enclosure intervention has reduced
temporarily migrated wage labor while the labor work in the locality increased in
engagement. The intervention has also reduced the vulnerability of local people from
flooding problems. The wealthier households benefited much from the crop yield and
livestock perspective as a result of additional input integration that they have in the
production system than the poor. It is recommended that proper land management is vital
for sustainable mixed livelihood systems in the locality and these built assets be
maintained for their sustainability and due attention be given towards equitable benefit
sharing and awareness raising to ensure local people’s contribution in the future.

Key Words: livelihoods, hillside enclosures, SWC intervention, improved yield, reduced
vulnerability, land degradation
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Land degradation is a severe problem across sub-Saharan Africa, and Ethiopia is among

the most affected countries (Abiy Tsetargachew, 2008; Holden et al., 2005). In Ethiopia,

land degradation results in low and declining agricultural productivity and continuing food

insecurity and rural poverty (Mahmud Yesuf and Pender, 2005; Pender et al., 2006). Land

degradation is regarded as a direct result of past agricultural practices in the Ethiopian

highlands whereas soil erosion by water is considered the most important of all

degradation processes (Hurni, 1988; Mitiku Haile et al., 2006). As a result, the extent of

the damage can be taken as the sole indicator of the present condition of the soil resource

(ibid). Soil degradation comprises a whole part of human induced degrading processes, out

of which soil erosion by water is considered the prominent one (Mitiku Haile et al., 2006).

The food insecurity, widespread poverty and recurrent famine are partly attributed to the

problem of environmental degradation particularly soil degradation (Wagayehu Bekele and

Lars, 2003; Woldeamlak Bewket, 2003).

Land degradation has long been regarded as major constraint on achieving sustainable

development (NAP, 2008; Woldeamlak Bewket, 2003). Land degradation and poverty are

intimately linked. Land degradation impacts the livelihoods of the rural communities in

many ways who are dependent on the natural resources (Badege Bishaw, 2005; NAP,

2008). Infertile soil cannot support the desire of the farmers to increase production.

Erosion of hill slope areas cause silting of waterways which eventually leads to damage of

irrigation and road infrastructures, flooding of farmlands and community settlements

(NAP, 2008).
The loss of soil by erosion in Ethiopia is nearly 10 times the rate of soil formation (Holden

et al., 2005). According to Girma Tadesse (2001), over 1.5 billion tons of topsoil is lost

from Ethiopian highlands annually by erosion. This could have added about 1–1.5 million

tons of grain to the country’s harvest indicating the severity of the impacts of land

degradation on agricultural productivity (ibid). It contributes for the increased vulnerability

of farmers to drought in the country as soil erosion reduces soil depth and moisture-

holding capacity (Belaineh Legesse, 2003). The combined effects of land degradation and

low productivity lock the poor in a vicious cycle of poverty and environmental degradation

(Holden et al., 2005). The high degree and expanding rate of land degradation, call for

increasing efforts to soil and water conservation (SWC) activities. This in fact has been

implemented in the whole country in order to rehabilitate the natural environment and

thereby reduce further degradation (Yeraswork Admassie, 2000).

Soil conservation measures precisely have the prospect of reducing the soil loss by

checking overland water flow and thus, mitigating yield variability by reducing moisture

deficit in the course of keeping up rainwater that would otherwise be lost as runoff

(Wagayehu Bekele, 2003). Distinguishing land degradation as a core environmental and

socio-economic problem, the government of Ethiopia has made several interventions.

Such, restoration efforts have been started with the aim of reducing the effects of land

degradation and securing food-self-sufficiency. It was made in the hope that rehabilitation

will prove to be viable way for mitigating the effects of land degradation (Tagese Helore,

2010). As a result, large areas have been covered with SWC structures such as terraces and

soil bunds together with the practice of area enclosures and millions of trees have also been

planted in different parts of the country (Eleni Tesfaye, 2008). Enclosures1, in addition to
1
Terms enclosure, exclosure, area closure and closed area are used interchangeably and mixed up in most
literatures, however their meanings slightly differ (Aerts et al., 2009). Thus, exclosure is strictly left for
natural regeneration without livestock and human intervention; and enclosure on the other hand, include
the prime aim of land rehabilitation, can also be beneficial as cheap and easier methods of

rehabilitating degraded lands. They are usually established in steep, eroded and degraded

areas which have been used for grazing and/or crop production in the past. Therefore,

establishment of enclosures have been recognized as an encouraging strategy in the

rehabilitation of degraded areas, where degradation of natural resources has been

considerably severe (Emiru Birhane et al., 2006; Tefera Mengistu et al., 2005). Adding

hillside enclosures with forestation can be more effective in rehabilitating degraded areas

(Kebrom Tekle, 1999).

According to Sonneveld et al. (2002) the Ethiopian agricultural sector should increase its

production significantly to meet the future food demands of the fast-growing population,

however, land degradation is posing problem on the rural livelihood in Ethiopia (Pender et

al., 2006). This is also true for Kajimma Umbulo in Hawassa Zuria district in the southern

Ethiopia (MoWR, 2010). In the recent past, a SWC project has undertaken different SWC

measures in the form of enclosure, trenches, percolation ponds, improved pits, gully

reshaping and stabilization, terraces, soil bunds, fanya juu, and others on the hillsides of

Kajimma Umbulo with the aim of land rehabilitation. Thus, this study is conducted to

assess if there is link these hillside enclosure activities and the local people’s livelihoods.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Basically, food security without protecting the natural resources base will be unattainable

for smallholder farmers in Ethiopia and the natural resources base (land, water and forests)

is essential for their survival and livelihoods (Endris Damtew, 2006). In western parts of

the Hawassa Lake sub-basin which bounds the study site, an area as large as 8050 ha is

degraded out of which 5% is composed of extremely degraded bare soil and exposed rocks

SWC, enrichment planting, collection of products (Aerts et al., 2009; Betru Nedasa et al., 2005; Edwards,
2010; Wolde Mekuria et al., 2009). Therefore, enclosure is appropriate for this study since enrichment
planting and SWC activities are involved.
(MoWR, 2010). Communities are highly interested to actively take part in any kind of

conservation initiatives since flooding is seriously affecting their livelihoods (ibid).

Impact assessment is receiving increasing attention in development cooperation as there is

a growing need to demonstrate the outcomes of project interventions and the outputs are

also used in institutional learning, transparency and accountability between agencies,

donors and affected target groups (Rossi et al., 2004; Salerto, 2006). Thus, impact

assessment studies indicate the effect of interventions highlighting the status of the

livelihoods of the affected target group. Assessing the sustainability of livelihoods of

affected local groups is, therefore, imperative for a deeper understanding of the impact of

interventions (Balgis et al., 2005). Such an assessment will generate important scientific

and practical information on the impact of interventions with regard to enhancing and

securing local peoples livelihood (ibid). More importantly policy analysis for sustainable

soil and water management require well-designed integration of agro-ecological and socio-

economic information (Bekele Shiferaw and Holden, 2003). Impact assessment will

therefore provide experience-based information in this regard.

On the other hand, livelihood impact assessment can measure the impact of this hillside

enclosure in the target area. To this end livelihood impact assesses whether a project has

contributed towards the goal of “sustainable management of soil, forest and water

resources” in a target area. This study is concerned with a hillside enclosure intervention in

Kajimma Umbulo in Hawassa Zuria district. The project was initiated as a pilot model for

rural development in the SNNPR, Ethiopia. It was mainly engaged in implementing

different hillside enclosure with the objective of reducing the vulnerability of the local

people by creating and protecting major livelihood assets increasing income. As the project
is not yet evaluated which started in 2007/8, this research attempts to assess and link the

impacts of the project interventions on the livelihoods of the local people.

The assessment will focus on identifying the link between the enclosure intervention and

the livelihoods of the local people using sustainable livelihoods framework proposed by

DFIDs (DFID, 1999). Therefore, the research output is expected to explain the linkages

between local livelihoods and hillside enclosure interventions and thereby inform policy

makers and local resource managers in designing and implementing similar interventions

in the future. The study also contributes towards filling the existing information gap in the

literature concerning the linkages of the impacts of hillside enclosure interventions to the

livelihoods of local people.

1.3. Objectives and Research Questions

1.3.1. General Objective

The overall objective of the research was to investigate and explain the impacts of hillside

enclosure measures on the livelihoods of the local people in Kajimma Umbulo.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

 To identify and assess the relative importance of the major livelihood strategies of

communities in Kajimma Umbulo.

 To describe the current SWC practices on degraded hillsides and evaluate their

impacts to people’s livelihoods in Kajimma Umbulo.

1.3.3. Research Questions

The research work will attempt to answer the following research questions in accordance

with the objectives;

 What are the major livelihoods strategies of the local people in the study area?
  What are the main impacts of hillside enclosure activities on the assets, strategies

and outcomes of people’s in the Kajimma Umbulo Kebele?

 Is there a difference in the impacts of hillside enclosure activities among different

socio-economic groups as defined by the status of wealth classes?

1.4. Limitation of the Study

 The study employed recall method for extracting information for the before

situation in a before-after impact analysis methods, since the kebele lack baseline

information.

 The absence of project document with the project costs and the resulting project

outputs, outcomes and impacts was one problem encountered. Due to this, the

study addressed the benefit aspect of the project intervention with less emphasis on

the cost of project for the overall degraded hillside rehabilitation with the

enclosure.

 The study area is to some extent gentler in the down farmlands and on the other

hand, the enclosure is young with less extraction of products. Thus, proximity was

not seen as a factor to influence the impact as a result of the intervention.

However, distance may affect households in different ways.

 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. An Overview of SWC Measures

The existence of soil erosion has been identified as one of the core resource depleting issue

across the globe especially on the hillsides (World Bank, 2006). Densely populated and

hilly countries in the Rift Valley area like Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Malawi have the

most negative values because of a high ratio of cultivated land to total arable land,

relatively high crop yields, and soil erosion (ibid). This calls for intervening the problem of

soil erosion and the consequences of soil erosion by proper soil and water management

systems. From this perspective, various on-farm SWC measure in the farmlands and

hillside enclosures are considered effective in rehabilitating degraded hillside accordingly

the Ethiopian government implemented them from the mid-1970s in different parts of the

country (Betru Nedasa et al., 2005; Eleni Tesfaye, 2008; Kebrom Tekle, 1999).

Soil and water management system aimed in maintaining soil fertility by tackling the impact

of erosion processes is described as SWC measures (Ghebremedhin, 2002). In Ethiopia

usual SWC technologies are soil bunds, stone bunds, fanya juu grass strips, waterways,

trees planted at the edge of farm fields, contours, and irrigation for water harvesting (Kato

et al., 2009). Soil and stone bunds are structures built to reduce runoff effects dominantly

(Belay Tegene, 1992; Eleni Tesfaye, 2008; Kato et al., 2009; Menale Kassie et al., 2008).

In consideration that it is costly to conserve huge areas of land with soil and stone bunds

and difficult to construct continuous bunds, alternatively grass strips, contour leveling,

trees or hedgerows, waterways and others are also used (Kato et al., 2009). Even

enclosures are also encouraging strategy in rehabilitation of degraded areas as they are fast

and cheap (Edwards, 2010; Eleni Tesfaye, 2008; Emiru Birhane et al., 2006).
 2.1.1. Benefits of SWC Measures

Obviously land degradation is a central challenge to sustainable development which meets

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs (Hurni, 1997). SWC measures are actions aimed at curbing or hindering

soil erosion to sustain fertility of the soil reducing the effect of land degradation

(Ghebremedhin, 2002). Considerable progress has been made in developing conservation

effective practices since the middle of the 20 th century through a better understanding of

causes, factors, and processes of soil erosion (Blanco and Lal, 2008). In Ethiopia currently,

agricultural yields are among the lowest in Africa and the possibility for expansion of the

cultivated area is limited due to climatic and soil constraints. This implies, additional yield

increase should mainly come from an intensification of the arable areas but this is very

difficult unless water erosion is brought under control (Sonneveld et al., 2002). Thus, these

issues are addressed through application of proper SWC measures.

Conversion of natural habitats into agriculture and forest clearance with little or no

management, and ultimately into degraded land, is the major impact of humans on the

natural environment, posing a great threat to biodiversity and humans themselves. Land

rehabilitation intervention help recovery of degraded lands improving the biodiversity

(Dobson et al., 1997). SWC measures rehabilitate degraded lands assisting the recovery of

a degraded ecosystem (both the structure and the function) to a close approximation of its

condition prior to disorder (Miller et al., 1995; Bakker et al., 1996). Rehabilitation of

degraded lands requires selection of appropriate technologies like establishing ecologically

based vegetation cover, using appropriate SWC measures (Bekele Shiferaw and Holden,

1999).
The land degradation processes cover the various forms of degradation which are related to

natural resources. For instance, land degradation is manifested on soil resources (like soil

erosion and chemical degradation), water resources (like lowering of water table and

quality deterioration) and vegetation resources (like deforestation, forest degradation and

range land degradation) (Young, 1998). The unsustainable use of these resources disrupts

the natural balance. The removal of vegetation, for instance, causes perturbations in the

water cycle and triggers soil degradation processes (Mekuria Argaw, 2005). Poverty and

natural resources/environmental degradation are negatively reinforcing; that is, as the land

is degraded, agricultural productivity is lowered, resulting in decreasing incomes and food

security. Ultimately this leads to poor people from both rural and urban areas to engage in

activities that further degrade natural resources in order to obtain supplementary incomes

to sustain a living. As a result, the level of poverty in Ethiopia also worsens and population

increase exacerbates the problem (Badege Bishaw, 2005).

2.1.2. Efforts of SWC in Ethiopia

The difficulties of soil erosion in Ethiopia are an old phenomenon as the history of

agriculture itself. However, these difficulties attracted attention of policy makers after the

effect of the devastating famine of 1973/74 (Bekele Shiferaw et al., 1998; Wagayehu

Bekele and Lars, 2002; Osman and Sauerborn, 2001). Previously, SWC was largely

ignored as singular attention given to industrial growth over agriculture. Since the Wollo

drought of 1972-74 the soil conservation works in Ethiopia have been closely associated

with the Food-For-Work (FFW) of WFP providing food as an incentive for participation in

communal labor. With this, different SWC measures (terraces, bunds, tree planting, etc)

have been carried out. Then after the 1985 famine, the Ethiopian government launched an

ambitious program of SWC supported by donors and NGOs and backed up by the largest

FFW program in Africa (Bekele Shiferaw et al., 1998; Hurni, 1988).

The approach of SWC by soil conservationists in the 1980s was moving away from using

mechanical works as well as structures in soil conservation programs paid for by a

government or a donor-funded project (Bekele Shiferaw et al., 1998; Yeraswork

Admassie, 2000). Indicator to this can be the increasing awareness of the ineffectiveness of

terracing programs alone this days and going to participatory approach. The subsistence

farmer cannot afford to respond to emotional appeals to care for the soil, and hence the

conservation measures must have visible short-term benefits to the farmer. For the farmer

in subsistence condition the benefit he would most appreciate might be increased yields per

unit of land, or perhaps better production per unit of labor, or perhaps improved reliability

of yield (Wagayehu Bekele and Lars, 2003).

The major failures of the Ethiopian SWC efforts were focus mainly on the mechanical

measures by the conservationists and policy makers. Besides the construction of

mechanical measures; terracing, bund making and digging of drainage ditches were widely

implemented. However, measures like improved land use systems, livestock management

to tackle overgrazing to reduce soil erosion and biological techniques were given only

marginal significance. Maintaining the conservation structures was not considered as an

integral element of conservation activities. Soil conservation technology was rarely

considered as part of agricultural extension package, dismantling agricultural development

and soil resource management. Security of tenure was never incorporated into any of the

soil conservation plans and projects. Voluntary community participation was given little

emphasis (Osman and Sauerborn, 2001).

Despite the fact that the interventions prior to 1990 were principally technology-oriented

and top-down with little participation of beneficiaries in decision making process, the

interventions since the early 1990s have been relatively more participatory and institutional
factors have received better attention (Berhanu Gebremedhin et al., 2010). Thus, currently

the Ethiopian government policies and strategies participate the local people in the process

of rural and agricultural development generally and soil and water conservation in

particular. The land and water management strategies are done in integrated watershed

approaches which are considered best ways to mitigate the interrelated land degradation

problems and enhance the agricultural productivity (McHugh et al., undated). Different

project are involved in the rehabilitation of degraded lands. The most commons are PSNP

(Productive Safety Net Program), MERET-PLUS (Managing Environmental Resources to

Enable Transitions to More Sustainable Livelihoods) which is aimed to increase the ability

of rural food insecure households to better manage shocks, meet necessary food needs, and

improve livelihood strategies through improved, sustainable land management practices,

and SLMP (Sustainable Land Management Project) (MoARD, 2011).

2.1.3. Hillside Enclosure and Efforts in Ethiopia

Enclosures are land management practices free from human and animal interference with

open access on a severely degraded lands (Edwards, 2010; Kebrom Tekle, 1999; Wolde

Mekuria et al., 2009). Enclosures imply the degraded lands which have been excluded

from the interference of human and livestock with the aim of rehabilitation. In principle,

both humans and livestock are restricted to foster the natural regeneration; however,

practically livestock may graze, allow cutting grass and collection of fuel wood and bee

keeping (Betru Nedasa et al., 2005). In some cases, enrichment planting and SWC

activities are also undertaken to facilitate rehabilitation (Betru Nedasa et al., 2005;

Edwards, 2010; Wolde Mekuria et al., 2009). In most of the enclosure areas SWC

structures, predominantly terraces and contour trenches have been constructed.

Furthermore, tree species of both indigenous and exotic have been introduced, however, in

some areas only exotic or only indigenous tree species dominate the area (Betru
Nedasa et al., 2005; Edwards, 2010). As a conservation strategy, according to Tefera

Mengistu et al, (2005) the practices of enclosures are effective with good outcomes in a

relatively short duration and Kibret Mamo (2008), described enclosure establishment on

hillside enclosure assisted in the enhanced sustainable utilization of adjacent down

farmlands. Besides, resources from enclosures contribute to the household economy which

indicates the economic & social well-being while rehabilitating degraded lands (Lovejoy,

1985 cited in Tefera Mengistu et al., 2005).

According to Betru Nedasa et al. (2005), the efforts of curbing problems of land

degradation in the country with two main activities were SWC works and establishing

enclosures. This, in a large scale started in the mid-1970s with the assistance from the

World Food Program (WFP) through food for work projects. Enclosures has been

considered as one of the strategies in rehabilitating the degraded hillsides within the

catchments delineated for the rehabilitation and SWC programs (Betru Nedasa et al.,

2005; Eleni Tesfaye, 2008; Kebrom Tekle, 1999). As to Girma Tadesse (2001), under the

soil conservation program, several eroded terrain areas were put under hillside enclosure

areas, but many hillside enclosure areas and forests were destroyed during the transition

period in the change of the government in 1991. Some of the hillside enclosure areas

included areas that could be cultivated or grazed, and this led to local resistance to the

programs from the start. Because of this negative impression the farmers have about

hillside enclosed areas and reforestation programs, the farmers did their best to do away

with any future threat to land access (Kebrom Tekle, 1999). In such cases, the local

administrative authorities should assign ownership of the enclosed areas to individual

farmers, so the farmers feel they have a stake in protecting the land and ensuring its

sustainability (ibid).
2.2. Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Livelihood is a means of gaining a living which comprises the capabilities, assets

(including both material and social resources) and activities entailed for a means of living

(Chambers et al., 1991). It is sustainable when it maintains or enhances the local and

global assets on which livelihoods depend, and has net beneficial effects on other

livelihoods; and it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, and provide future

generations without undermining the natural resource base (ibid).

SLF (Sustainable Livelihoods Framework) was developed by the UK’s Department for

International Development (DFID) in late 1990s as an analytical framework to understand

poverty and for identifying entry points for poverty reduction initiatives (Adato and

Meinzen-Dick, 2003; DFID, 1998; Scoones, 1998). It is considered as a tool to improve

our understanding of livelihoods (DFID, 1999). Sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) as

a framework includes the assets, capabilities and the activities for the people (Menfese

Tadesse, 2010) highlighting the key points in livelihoods (Carney, 2002). It emphasizes

understanding of the context within which people live, the assets available for them,

livelihood strategies they follow in the face of existing socioeconomic situation (Carney,

2002; DFID, 2000b). It helps us to understand the true wealth of the poor which places

priority on the livelihood systems of the poor, and the ways of adapting to maintain their

livelihoods under conditions of environmental, economic or political stress (Butler and

Mazur, 2007; Scoones, 1998).

 Figure : Sustainable Livelihoods Framework adopted from DFID, (1999)

The SLF of DFID, with the notion of the five assets (natural, physical, human, social and

financial), be used in order to frame the inquiry and capturing of the relevant information

on livelihood. Livelihood assets are resources on which people draw in order to carry out

their livelihood strategies (Farrington et al., 2002). The major livelihood assets according

to DFID, (1999) are (1) human capital refer the skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good

health important to the ability to pursue different livelihood strategies; (2) physical capital

comprises the basic infrastructure and producer equipment’s needed to support livelihoods;

(3) social assets refer the social resources (networks, membership of groups, relationships

of trust, access to wider institutions of society) upon which people draw in pursuits of

livelihoods; (4) financial includes the financial resources which are available to people

(whether savings, supplies of credit, or regular remittances or pensions) and which provide

them with different livelihood options; and (5) natural capital is the natural resource stock.

The livelihood assets through transforming structures and processes develop livelihood

strategies and then achieve livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999; Boyd, 2000). Livelihood

strategies as to Ke-rong et al, (2006) include activities households make for a living

through intensive and/or extensive agricultural farming, livelihood diversification and

 migration. These livelihood activities comprise year round or seasonal formal sector

employment, informal trading, sale of labor, home gardens, food processing, livestock

production, cultivation or use of natural or common pool resources, labor exchange among

family or neighbors, contracted "homework", borrowing, scavenging, stealing and begging.

They may be on-farm or off-farm, include local or international migration, involve elderly

household members or children, be legal or not (Adato and Meinzen-Dick, 2003).

2.3. Impact Assessment of Intervention Projects

The term impact can be understood as the effect of an intervention on its surroundings in

terms of technical, economic, sociocultural, institutional and environmental factors

(Salerto, 2006) and impact evaluation/assessment refers to the process of measuring the

intervention induced on final welfare in terms of outcomes which are visible as a result of

a project intervention (White, 2006). Such assessment evaluates the impacts of a given

program concentrating on the changes that occurred due to the program initiative which in

fact stresses on the comparison of the program objectives with the actual achievements;

and/or tracks progress and change as a result of the project intervention over time without

the set objectives of project (Estrella and Gaventa, 1998). According to Gertler et al.

(2011), impact evaluations are described as a particular type of evaluation that seeks to

answer cause-and-effect questions because of intervention.

In the assessment of impacts a range of approaches and tools are developed. Normally,

impact assessment focuses on appraising the effect of interventions on particular variables

of interest. The assessment may emphasize on predicting probable outcomes to aid

planning space (assuming “with” and “without” situations are similar except for the

intervention being assessed) (Asian Development Bank, 2006; Kusters et al., 2005). In

other words, it involves in establishing counter-factual as if there are differences as a result

of the project with the intervention compared to if would have been without the
intervention based on indicators (Asian Development Bank, 2006; White, 2006). The other

way of impact assessments can be understood through the measurements of differences in

time/before-after condition (it entails baseline information or use of recall methods) or

technological adoption of particular intervention. Thus, assessing the impact of particular

intervention can use indicators which signal changes due to the intervention, either directly

or indirectly (Gottret and White 2001 cited in Kusters et al., 2005).

As to Ashley and Hussein, (2000) impact indicators used in conventional conservation

impact assessment tend focus on cash/economic issues; because these are considered key

to creating incentives for conservation combined with biophysical indicators (e.g. changes

in vegetation, wildlife populations). Livelihood outcomes may be manifested in

conventional indicators like income, food security and sustainable use of natural resources,

as well as a strengthened asset base, reduced vulnerability, and improvements in health,

self-esteem, and sense of control and maintenance of cultural assets (Adato and Meinzen-

Dick, 2003).

Impact assessment thus denotes quantifying of the outcomes delivered in response to

intervention (White, 2006). The livelihood impacts of SWC can therefore be understood

as the effects of SWC intervention in an area on the livelihoods of the local people. For

assessing impact of watershed management both quantitative and qualitative methods can

be employed (Sengupta and Dalwani, 2008), however, impact assessments of interventions

and research have long been dominated by the use of quantitative methodologies that use

economic returns. This assessment can be done to determine actual outcomes to guide

ongoing interventions or to evaluate the effectiveness of projects (Kusters et al., 2005).

Livelihoods assessment is intended to gain an understanding of the significance of a

project to the livelihoods of targeted group of people (beneficiaries) and other local
residents. Such an assessment is based on the premise that the project and project

participants shared a core aim: the enhancement of local people’s livelihoods (Ashley and

Hussein, 2000). According to De Janvry et al. (2011) while assessing impacts it is essential

to estimate impacts on household income, expenditure, and poverty as it gives a measure

on the extent to which the intervention in reality affect households well-being. On the other

hand, Shah et al. (2004) made impact assessment through recognizing land productivity by

yield differentials in the major crops grown, fertilizer use, increments and diversification in

income of individuals, awareness on environmental degradation, level of food security,

risk and assets as indicators for participatory watershed management intervention. These

indicators aid for both farm and household level impact assessment investigation.

The impacts of SWC measures can either be positive or negative depending on the

biophysical and socioeconomic conditions pertaining to an area. The expected positive

impacts may include increase in crop yield, income increased by receiving incentives and

subsidies, supply of tools for construction and maintenance, technological diffusion to on-

farm situation and use of resources like fodder, thatch grass, fire wood; while the potential

negative impacts of SWC include increased labor demand for SWC measures, decreased

time for other production, loss of farm/grazing land area with the structures/measures

(Mitiku Haile et al., 2006).

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Study Site Description

3.1.1. Location and Climate

The study was carried out at Kajimma Umbulo in Hawassa Zuria district2 of the Southern

Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPR), in the southern Ethiopia.

Kajimma Umbulo Kebele3 is located in Umbulo catchment (70 01’ N and 380 17’ E)

(Awdenegest Moges and Holden, 2008). Kajimma Umbulo kebele covers 18.03km2 area.

This kebele is one of 25 kebeles found in Hawassa Zuria district which covers 276.53km2

is found in Sidama zone of SNNPR (MoWR, 2010).

Figure : Study site Kajimma Umbulo Kebele

In terms of agro-climatic zone, Hawassa zuria district falls within dry woina-dega (or mid

altitude) category. There is no river that flows within the district. The only water resource
2
Woreda which is also referred as District is the fourth level administrative body, from top to bottom, in
Ethiopian administration system (Federal, Region, and Zone).
3
Kebele is the lowest administrative unit in Ethiopia equivalent to peasant association
available is Lake Hawassa, one of the biggest lakes within the rift valley. The mean

altitude of the district is 1,700 meters above sea level and the average annual rainfall

ranges between 900-1400 mm. The rainy season extends from March through September.

Mean annual temperature ranges from 23-270C (EOSA, 2007).

3.1.2. Soils and Soil Erosion

Well drained deep to very deep Eutric cambisol, well drained deep Hablic cambisol, well

to excessively drained, shallow to deep Eutric cambisol are the dominant soil type and well

to excessively drained, deep to very deep, medium and course textured vitric Andosols are

also developed on flat to gently undulating topography (0-15% slope) and rolling plain (0-

15% slope) (MoWR, 2010).

A study carried out in Lake Hawassa watersheds, the majority of high and very high

erosion hazard areas are located in the western part of the catchment which includes

Kajimma Umbulo and the surroundings (Tigneh Eshete, 2009). From the recent past

rehabilitation activities like plantation and SWC structures like; soil bunds, fanya juu,

micro basins, and hillside enclosure have been practiced in most of the degraded lands in

Hawassa Zuria District (ibid).

3.1.3. Demography

According to the CSA 2011 population projection Hawassa Zuria district are estimated to

reach 142,085 of which 71,655 are male and 70,430 are female. The western part of

Hawassa lake river basin which includes the study area overall population density of 4.3

people per hectare (MoWR, 2010). The total population of study site Kajimma Umbulo

kebele is 10,431 (5263 males and 5168 females) and a total of 1179 households (33 female

headed and 1146 male headed) as to the kebele assessment in 2002 E.C.

3.1.4. Farming System and Socio-economic Activities

Mixed farming is the main occupation and source of livelihood for the local communities

with about 0.78ha of land holding per households. The major crops grown in the district

are maize, barley, haricot bean and most of the area around the homestead is covered with

perennial crops mainly Enset, which is used as staple food throughout the year and income

source. Coffee (mainly Coffee arabica) and Chat are also widely planted. Fruit trees such

as papaya, banana, avocado and mango are also cultivated. Vegetables such as potato,

cabbages, onion, carrot, pumpkins and green pepper are grown intercropped either with

Enset and coffee plantation for both domestic food and income generation. Insect pests

(stalk borer, cut worm); diseases (damping off, soil borne diseases, late blight, bacterial

wilt) and weeds (Nech lebash) are the common problems for farming system of Hawassa

Zuria district (MoWR, 2010). Cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys, horses and chickens are the

common livestock species kept in the area (Funte et al., 2010).

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Sampling Procedure

This study employed the before-after impact assessment design using a recall method for

the before condition. Questionnaire for the households and checklist for the key informants

and focus group discussants were used to examine the changes occurred as a result of the

hillside enclosure activities and their effects on the livelihoods based on before-after way

retrospectively. The variables used include the livelihood activities, wealth status, major

crop yield differentials, fertilizer application and others both for qualitative and

quantitative analysis. The local vulnerability context based on seasonal flood problems and

their coping strategies were also included.

3.2.1.1. Study Site Selection

Kajimma Umbulo from the Hawassa Zuria District of the southern Ethiopia was

purposively selected amongst the twenty five kebeles. The basis for selection is intensive
implementation of hillside enclosure with participation of local people on severely

degraded hillsides.

3.2.1.2. Preliminary Survey

Prior to data collection preliminary visits were made to Hawassa Zuria district office of

Agriculture and Rural Development and to the project site. An informal discussion was

conducted with the department NRM team leader on the major crops grown, the livelihood

activities and the hillside enclosure activities in the district and with this basic information

in mind field visit was conducted with Development Agents (DAs). Discussions were also

conducted with the kebele leaders and the DAs to explain the aim of the study.

3.2.1.3. Key Informant Selection

Key informants were selected based on the level of expected knowledge about the local

conditions, livelihoods and their long residence in the local area. These individuals were

selected based on snow-ball4 sampling method. The prime aim for having key informants

was to get information about the local context, on criteria to categorize households in to

different wealth classes which will be used as strata in sampling households for the survey.

Besides this aim, the information acquired from the interviews of key informants was also

used in the development and modification of household questionnaires for the survey.

3.2.1.4. Wealth Ranking Exercise and Wealth Class Indicators

As hypothesized, the impacts of project interventions differ with the difference in the

socio-economic status of individuals and households in a community and one of it is

wealth status. To better understand this difference in the impacts of hillside enclosure the

wealth status groups of the households were identified by wealth ranking exercise. This

wealth ranking exercise showed that the key assets/indicators of the wealth classes in the
4
Bryman (2003) define snowball sample as ‘a non-probability sample in which the researcher makes initial
contact with a small group of people who are relevant to the research topic and then uses these to establish
contacts with others’.
local people’s context. These key indicators are size of land owned, size of land with Enset

(Ensete ventricosum) crop possessed, the number of cattle and oxen possessed as well as

the ownership of corrugated tin roofed houses and houses in the town (Table, 1).

Accordingly, the wealth ranking exercise in the Kajimma Umbulo has created three wealth

classes (better-off, medium and poor).

Wealth ranking is a PRA tool to recognize relative wealth status in a particular area and

community which absorbs local criteria of well-being (Simon Adebo, 2000; Cavestro,

2003). The local people have their own criteria for identifying wealth classes depending on

their situation such as socio-economic, political, and ecological setups. Key informants

were asked to pile/sort the cards of the households and they sort in to three classes

signifying poor, medium and better-off. After their classification they were asked about the

reasons or indicators for ranking in the three wealth strata.

Moreover, seasonal calendar was used to assess the activities performed for a living both

for male and female groups and understood the seasonality of income and food in a year to

check the vulnerability context.

The wealth classes identified by the above criteria has indicated 11.2 % (131 households)

as better-off, 49.6% (580 households) as medium, and the rest 39.2% (458 households)

poor wealth status from the whole population (1179 households) in the preliminary survey

(Table, 2).

The average land holding for better-off, medium and poor is 1.59, 0.82 and 0.49 in hectare

respectively. The other wealth indicator enset planted land size for the better-off, medium

poor households is 0.42, 0.18 and 0.14 in hectare respectively. The better-off own higher
average livestock holding (8.62TLU), the medium own 4.88TLU and the poor lower

(2.59TLU); and regarding the possession of grass roof houses are common for all wealth

classes but corrugated tin houses prevails the better-off. In Ethiopia and particularly to the

study site land for the farmer is everything thus the larger the size owned the better the

lives it be, according to Almaz Negash (2001), key production factors and sole means of

livelihood for farming communities; and Enset crop are also important for consumption

and to some extent for cash. Dougherty (2002), indicate enset as the major staple food in

the southern Ethiopia. Besides, livestock are also important as they are vital for plowing,

milking and securing asset base. The value of oxen and cattle in supporting nearly all the

draught power for agricultural production at smallholder farming system is also indicated

in other parts of the country (Berhanu Gebremedhin et al., 2007; Melaku Tefera, 2011)

and it is crucial asset in the farming families (Berhanu Gebremedhin et al., 2007).

Table : Wealth classes in the local context and indicators

Assets for Wealth Class Indicators Wealth Classes

Better-off Medium Poor
Land size in ha >1.5 0.5 – 1.5 <0.5
Enset crop land size in ha >0.25 0.125 - 0.25 <0.125
Number of cattle >5 3–5 0–2
Number of oxen >2 0–1 0
Corrugated iron-roofed house possession Yes No No
Town house possession Yes No No
3.2.1.5. Focus Group Selection

Participants were selected with key informants & kebele leaders considering duration of

residence, social status & good knowledge on the livelihoods and hillside enclosure

activities of the Kajimma Umbulo.

3.2.1.6. Sample Household Selection

For household survey, 10% of the total households were selected for the sample. For

selecting sample households, stratified sampling was employed based on the wealth status

as it influences the livelihood strategies and to compare the impacts of hillside enclosure
activities. Proportional random sample distribution within each wealth classes was

employed to yield a sufficient number of sub population in the sample for reliable analysis.

Table : Proportion of sampled households

Wealth Classes Total number of

Better-off Medium Poor households
Households in the kebele 131 580 458 1179
Sampled households from kebele 13 59 46 118
3.2.2. Data Sources and Collection Methods

A combination of both primary and secondary data collection methods were used in the

study. The primary data collection was started with a preliminary survey followed by key

informant interviews, focus group discussions, and household survey with questionnaires.

The impact/change over time or the before-after situations were assessed using the

household survey questionnaire on the basis of respondents’ own recall. Therefore, the

before situations were obtained retrospectively as a baseline information on the relevant

indicators was not available. The household questionnaire was administered for 118

randomly selected households that were stratified based on wealth classes. At the start of

all interviews and discussions the purpose of the interview and discussion was clearly

explained to informants, discussants and respondents to establish trust and invoke genuine

responses. The secondary data were obtained from the District Bureau of Agriculture and

Rural Development Department documentations, reports related to SWC activities and

other relevant literature. The data was collected between Dec. 12/2011 and Jan. 31/2012.

3.2.2.1. Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions

The aim of key informant interview and focus group discussions was to adjust the

household questionnaire prior to the interview and cross-check the information obtained

through the household survey questionnaires. Moreover, it helped to get in-depth

information on foremost issues pertaining to nature and process of project implementation,

the impact of hillside enclosure intervention on the livelihoods in the study area. Guiding

checklist was prepared for key informant interviews focusing on livelihood strategies,

SWC activities and their impact on the livelihoods. Focus group discussion was conducted

to extract information related to vulnerability context, land degradation and main causes,

and the benefits and loses of hillside enclosure for the local people. The details of the

checklists for the key informants and the focus group discussion are given in (Appendix 1).

3.2.2.2. Household Survey

Household survey data was collected using structured questionnaire with both open and

close ended types. The household questionnaire contains questions on demographic and

socio-economic conditions, the livelihood strategies, vulnerability situations and impacts

of hillside enclosure (Appendix 2). Enumerators were trained before the conduct of

household survey. All the enumerators have Diploma level education and fluently speak

the local language (sidama). The household survey questionnaire was first prepared in

Amharic language and was translated in to local (sidama) language.

3.2.2.3. Secondary Data Sources

Different sources were used to gather information about the socio-economic, demographic,

location, climatic, edaphic and vegetation characteristics of the study area especially. Field

work reports from the Hawassa Zuria district Bureau of Agriculture and Rural

Development Department, natural resource team were also used for identifying list of

SWC measures on farm and hillside.

3.2.3. Data Analysis

The data from the structured household questionnaire was subjected to statistical analysis.

The data were organized and coded using Microsoft Excel and the statistical analysis was

made using statistical software of SPSS 16.0 version and the results were presented in a

summarized form using descriptive statistics such as means, percentages and tables.
Besides, t-test was used to check if there is change in time as a result of the enclosure

intervention, χ2-test was used to check association between variables and one way

ANOVA was used to check the differences of dependent variables among the wealth

classes. The data generated from semi-structured surveys (key informant interviews and

focus group discussions) were summarized, narrated and presented qualitatively after

triangulation.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents

The educational status of the sampled households indicated that 46.6% do not have any

formal education, 33.9%, and 19.5% can read & write and literates (above primary

education) respectively. About 95.8% of the sampled households were male headed

households and the rest 4.2% are female head households. Majority of the households

possesses grass roofed houses accounting 91.5% of the sampled households. About 60.2%

of the households are having family size greater than the average 6 household size. The

proportion of households with total land and Enset planted land holding 32.20% and

37.29% have above the mean respectively.

Table : Characteristics of the respondents

Socioeconomic characteristics St. Dev. Min. Max. Mode Mean
Household size 0.14 2 9 5 5.94
Age of household head 0.87 25 75 38 40.61
Land size in ha 0.04 0.25 2.75 0.5 0.78
Enset planted land in ha 0.01 0.1 1 0.125 0.20
Livestock holding in TLU5 3.3 0 10.55 2 4.40
4.1.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents among Wealth Classes

Household size in Kajimma Umbulo kebele across the wealth categories were differed

except with the medium and the poor segments of the sampled households. The wealthier

farmer with the higher resources is expected for fulfilling the household needs than the

poorer households. The educational status of the household heads was found to be

significantly affected by the wealth status where the better-off households with less

educational status than the poorer. Households land holding, area under enset planted land

holding size and livestock holding in terms of tropical livestock unit (TLU) were strongly

significant; since these are the major wealth indicators in the locality and Ethiopian

farmer’s situation. Thus, the wealthier the households the higher he/she owns these

5
TLU conversion factor oxen and cows =1.00, bulls and heifer = 0.75, horse =1.10, donkey =0.70, sheep and
goat =0.13, and poultry =0.013 TLU according to Storch et al, (1991) cited in Tesfaye Lemma (2003).
 livelihood assets than the poorer households. The age of household heads among the

wealth classes found statistically significantly higher for the wealthier households. These

may be is attributed that the wealth acquired long time.

Table : Socioeconomic characteristics among wealth classes (N=118, (mean ± SD))

Wealth Classes
Socioeconomic Conditions  Better-off Medium Poor ANOVA
Household size in number 7.4±1.1a 5.9±1.5 b
5.6±1.5b 0.001
Educational status 1.2±0.4a 1.8±0.8b 1.8±0.8b 0.045
Land holding in ha 1.6±0.6a 0.8±0.3b 0.5±0.2c 0.000
Enset land holding in ha 0.4±0.3a 0.2±0.07b 0.1±0.05b 0.000
Livestock holding in TLU 8.6±3.9a 4.8±2.76 b
2.6±2.4c 0.000
Age of the household head in
years 48.6±7.6a 39.6±8.5b 39.6±10.1b 0.005
Housing condition 1.4±0.7a 1.1±0.4a 1.0±0.3a 0.045
Note: Superscripts with different letters indicate differences in wealth classes at (P < 0.05)

4.2. Vulnerability Context and their Coping Strategies

In Kajimma Umbulo exposures include the degraded hillside, flood occurrences following

erratic high intensity rainfall events, and reduced crop productivity as the fertilizer applied

on the farms were often washed. The impact of flood on crop production and the resulting

gullies on farmlands are the main manifestations of contextual vulnerability 6 in the locality

and more influenced before the hillside enclosure activities.

4.2.1. Huge Gullies on Farmlands and Hillsides

Gullies developed from the degraded hillside extended to the downstream farmlands

affecting farming households. It is common to see gullies frequently even in the farms

however; some of farmers in the area have planted Eucalyptus on the bed of the gullies

which can be considered as coping strategy. Pathak et al. (2005) identified stabilizing with

or planting trees at the bed of U-shaped gullies as treatment measure.

6
Vulnerability is defined as tendency to experience harm in the times of crisis (Belaineh Legesse, 2003) and
uncertainty/insecurity in the well-being of individuals, households, and communities in the face of changes in
their external environment can be regarded as vulnerability context (Serrat, 2008).
Box : Gullies, their causes and consequences
…..here you can see gullies even in shorter distance dissecting the farm fields. …all these
gullies were absent and dense forest covered the area in the past. The human induced
deforestation has created risks now for these days….. Everybody cut trees for fencing,
fuel/fire, house construction, selling, and other purposes without replacing in the area for
there is no awareness and protecting local law. The hillside was home for various wildlife
species and source of grazing for our livestock. It was not known that deforestation causes
for all the risks in that time but after time the local people understood the effect………
Source: Narration from focus group discussant on 30th Dec., 2011 with own translation

It is the clearance of the vegetation cover which assisted the land degradation fostering

runoff. This also aggravates the formation of gullies on hillsides and now extending to

farmlands which makes the farming residents vulnerable to the effect of land degradation.

Consistently, Awdenegest Moges and Holden, (2008) reported gullies make it difficult to

cooperate with neighbors, people and animals fall in and can die (13 people are known to

have lost their lives and 4 seriously injured in Umbulo catchment).

Figure : Huge gullies on farm fields in Kajimma Umbulo kebele

In the face of local vulnerability context the local people in Kajimma Umbulo should

either cope up7 or adapt the conditions. The local vulnerability coping strategies in the case

of gullies and the resulting consequences embraces treating the degraded hillside with the
7
Cope up refers the actual responses to crisis on livelihood systems in the face of unwelcome situations, and
are considered as short-term responses (Balgis et al., 2005; Berkes & Jolly cited in Abate Feyisa, 2009)
while adaptation is for long-term.
help of the project and in the on-farm situation farmers start constructing check dams and

diversion channels in their locality or the farmland or both (Table, 7). Even farmers started

planting trees as a live fence and in the beds of gullies recognizing the benefits of

vegetation cover both for environmental and livelihood services.

4.2.2. Flood and Rainfall Variability

Occurrence of flood on the rainy events was a big problem for the local people living in the

Kajimma Umbulo. The local people vulnerability rank of flooding problems before the

hillside enclosure activities is presented in Table 5. The major flooding problems are farm

erosion, fear of flood occurrence, reduced land productivity, removes and/or damages

seeds, washes applied fertilizers, disturbed homes and killed humans in descending order

of the problem severity to the local people (Table, 5). Since flooding problems are

common to all the households, it can’t make difference among wealth classes. These

problems have been tried to cope-up with the treatment of the hillside areas with different

SWC measures involving local people.

Box : Flooding problem in Kajimma Umbulo

The flood hazard was so dangerous resulting in the death of 11 people and a number of
livestock. It also caused significant reduction in yield by washing the fertilizer we applied
on our farmlands. As the rain falls everybody can’t sleep for fear of flooding and to save
his/her life by getting out of homes and placing him/herself on hills.
Source: Key informant interview 24th Dec., 2011 with own translation

Table : Ranking of impacts of flooding prior to hillside enclosure intervention (N=118)

Vulnerability Context Respondents vulnerability rank

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Farm erosion 93 5 0 5 4 0
Reduced productivity 17 23 41 10 3 0
Flood occurrence 2 55 17 12 11 4
Disturbed homes 0 3 3 0 0 0
Killed human 1 0 0 0 0 0
Removes seeds sowed 2 25 27 19 20 1
 Washes fertilizer applied 1 1 18 25 24 17
4.2.3. Seasonality of Food and Income

Seasonal calendar was made with two groups elder males and females to understand the

seasonality of activities and income of households in the study area. The major crops

grown in the area include Enset (Ensete ventricosum), maize, haricot bean, sweet potato,

and pepper. The time of planting and/or sowing activities as well as harvesting is important

to understand food and income ups and downs of farming households. Enset (Ensete

ventricosum) is staple food crop in the area basically used for household consumption. It is

planted in April month and it reaches to the maturity at the 5th year. Most of the harvest

time for the major crops corresponds between November and December with high income

and better food available to the farming households. However, the availability diminishes

as the time goes far from the time of harvest in a year. Similarly Butcher, (undated)

indicated as seasonality makes individuals and communities more vulnerable to negative

impacts at some times of the year. Thus, Kajimma Umbulo households get food and

income deficit at the time far from harvesting seasons. Correspondingly, Tigneh Eshete,

(2009) reported less than half of the food requirement is produced implying food

insecurity.

In the case of seasonality for food and income deficits the local people coping strategies

include ration, saving, borrowing, sale of livestock assets, casual laboring and petty trade.

However, the major and most applied coping strategies are ration, sale of livestock, saving

and borrowing from the local lenders.

Households distribute the harvested crop and income gained by different means for the

year round. About 116 of households ranked rationing as their first option of coping and

overall it is the most important coping strategy in the area (Appendix 7). This shows that
the majority of the Kajimma Umbulo residing farmers cope up their income shortage and

food deficit by reserving in times of gain/harvest. Thus, it is done by reducing the

consumption in the available time and reserve for the deficit induced times. This also

reported by Menfese Tadesse (2010) in Konso.

The people of Kajimma Umbulo also used sale livestock assets in the hard time as a

strategy to cope up the adverse situation. The household survey indicates sale of livestock

asset as the cope up strategy with the majority of the respondents ranked as the second

strategy 49 (41.53%) of the households. They do not sale their livestock unless stronger

shocks occur to the households. Consistent to this, it is reported as livestock are important

as saving asset and source of cash for immediate food deficit or other financial needs (Ellis

et al., 2006; Wagayehu Bekele, 2003) and livestock ownership reduces vulnerability

through buffering against adverse events like human illness, floods or drought (Ellis et al.,

2006). Use of saved grains and money is also the other means to cope shortage of both

food grains and income in the communities, however, the amount of save is smaller.

In the seasonal calendar development with the female group discussion, they claimed the

major coping strategy in the times of food deficit for the households in the months of

March to August is borrowing grains and money from the local petty traders. Borrowing

was place by the majority of the respondents under third rank 22.8% (Appendix 7).

Involvement in petty trade in the local markets is also common but most of the petty trader

consider not as coping strategy just as their work. Others like labor works in the form of

temporary migration or in PSNP and others including hillside project works are also used

for coping.

The wealth status determines the households coping strategies here since there exist asset

ownership difference among them. The better-off and the medium wealth classes’
households major coping strategies are rationing, sale of livestock assets and followed by

using savings in descending order of importance. While the poorer households main

coping are rationing, savings and the sale of livestock assets (Appendix 7). The reason for

the less coping up with the livestock sale for the poorer households is the lesser ownership

than the wealthier households. However, the other coping strategies are used but their

contributions are lower when comparing the main strategies. Of all the coping strategies,

rationing out the available grain food and money to the year round is the most important

one.

4.3. Livelihood Strategy in Kajimma Umbulo

The livelihood strategy in Kajimma Umbulo is mixed farming which also integrates

different livelihoods activities but dominantly of crop and livestock production. This

livelihood strategy includes on-farm, off-farm and non-farm activities. The on-farm

livelihood activities include crop production and livestock production with lion share of

engagement as well as households’ income (81.2% of cash income share); and both off-

farm and non-farm activities (share 18.7% of cash income) encompass labor works, petty

trade, temporarily migrated wage labor and cart transport service. Overall mixed livelihood

strategy engagement implies that intensive dependence on of land and associated resources

for survival. Without conserving these resources sustainably which the local people highly

depend for their survival weakens the sustainability of livelihoods. Therefore, land and the

associated resources are important resources for the normal functioning of the livelihoods

of the people in Kajimma Umbulo.

4.3.1. On-farm Livelihood Activities

These livelihood activities totally ground their existence from land and associated

resources. In the study site Kajimma Umbulo the on-farm livelihood activities employ

integration crop and livestock production activities. The major crops grown in the locality
are Enset (Ensete ventricosum), maize, haricot bean, sweet potato, pepper, and to some

extent potato. Livestock production activity on the other hand includes rearing cattle (cows

and oxen), sheep, goats, equines (donkeys, horses, and mules) and poultry.

Every household are involved in crop production activities which shows the importance of

the component in the mixed farming livelihood strategy with 61.2% cash income share to

the households. In this component crops maize, Enset, haricot bean, sweet potato and

pepper are very important in the local context, used both for the household cash and food

consumption. Staple crops for consumption in the locality are Enset and maize crops while

maize, pepper and haricot bean are used for cash income in descending order to the

majority of the households. In some cases Enset (the main women cash income source) and

sweet potato supplements both household consumption and cash income. Of all the crops

Enset is the main for consumption and maize for cash to the households. Correspondingly,

Tigneh Eshete, (2009) categorized Kajimma Umbulo in maize livelihood zone with main

crops maize, haricot bean and sweet potato grown signifying its dominance.

The engagement in the livestock production component is 88.1% and second most

important 20% cash income share to households (Table, 5). According to the Hawassa

Zuria District Agricultural and Rural Development Office report on 2010 the livestock

populations of the Kajimma Umbulo kebele are 5079 cattle, 782 sheep, 584 goats, 604

equines and 1894 poultry. The mean livestock holding in TLU is 3.23 and 4.40 before and

after the hillside enclosure intervention respectively for respondent households. Cows are

used for milk products while oxen for plowing farmland which is of vital importance for

crop production component; and sale in hard conditions which serve as coping mechanism

in for shortage in income for the households. According to the key informants, the

livestock population is decreasing when considering the long ago high population. The
reason for the decrease is the diminishing communal grazing land as it is converted to

farmlands. The former communal grazing lands were at Hurufa and the hillsides of the

kebele. Hurfa is converted to farmlands whereas the latter was degraded and is now under

enclosure for the rehabilitation. However, the household survey indicated that the livestock

population has increased significantly (t = 6.075, p =0.000 (Appendix 5)) in the recent

three years (2007/8-2010/11). Though communal grazing lands are diminishing, home

feeds such as maize and Enset crop residues supported livestock.

4.3.2. Off-farm and Non-farm Livelihood Activities

Off-farm and non-farm livelihood8 activities include labor work both in the locality and by

temporarily migrating to other areas, petty trade in the local markets, and transport service

with carts. Labor work and wage labor by temporary migration are the most important

activities from the off-farm and non-farm activities with 47.4% of engagement and

contributing 5.5% of total cash income share of the households. The engagement in petty

trade activities accounts for 22.9% with a cash income share of 7.3% and is also used as a

strategy to cope with income crisis for some households (Appendix 7). On the other hand,

local people, in the recent past, have been improving the household’s income through

horse and donkey transport services in the locality with 17.8% engagement and while

contributing 5% total cash income share.

The mean comparison from on-farm cash income source showed difference in the wealth

status for the local wealth factors land and livestock holding varied. Thus, the wealthier

households get better mean cash income from on-farm livelihood activities but with the

same percent share except the poor. In the case of the off-farm and non-farm cash income

the better-off significantly differed from the medium and the poor households. But the

8
Off-farm livelihood activities imply to wage or exchange labor on other farms (i.e. within agriculture)
(Ellis, 1998), whereas non-farm refers to non-agricultural income sources (ibid) like in the project on the
hillside, PSNP and in other areas.
percent share of cash income is higher for the poorer than the wealthier households

(Appendix 6).

Table : Means comparisons cash income in birr comparison for wealth classes

Cash income sources Wealth classes

Better-off Average Poor ANOVA
(N=13) (N=59) (N=46)
Crop production 9634.6a 5576.1 b
3738.3c 0.000
Livestock production 6006.9a 1477.8 b
8644.6b 0.000
On-farm 15642.0a 7053.9b 4602.7c 0.000
Petty trade 969.2a 622.0a 567.8a 0.661
Salaried/waged job 692.3a 0b 0b 0.016
Labor work 133.0a 434.4a 469.9a 0.380
Temporarily migrated 0a 8.4a 23.9a 0.468
wage labor
Horse and donkey cart 1392.3a 332.4b 305.4b 0.001
service
Off-farm & non-farm 3186.9a 1424.5b 1440.1b 0.029
Note: Superscripts with different letters indicate significant differences between wealth classes at (P < 0.05)

4.4. The SWC Practices in Kajimma Umbulo

4.4.1. Enclosure on Degraded Hillsides

A) Hillside Enclosure

In Kajimma Umbulo kebele hillside enclosure covers an area of 41 hectares according to

the kebele records and different SWC measures are implemented within the enclosure on

degraded hillside. Key informants and focus group discussants have reported improvement

of land productivity in the down farmlands as a result of decreased flooding. Some of the

key informants also indicated the benefit of enclosure as it modifies cooler micro-climate

In line with this; Funte et al. (2010) reported most of the degraded sites of the Kajimma

Umbulo are under enclosure and Kibret Mamo (2008) found hillside enclosure enhances

productiveness and stabilize hydrological systems as well as reduced the concentration and

intensity of the runoff coming down from the hillsides.

 Figure : Hillside enclosure in Kajimma Umbulo

B) Improved Pit, Trenches and Eye brow basin

Improved pit is pit dug for planting tree seedlings on the hillsides. They are supplemented

with trenches to enhance moisture availability for the seedlings planted. Trenches are here

considered both for improving water storage from rain and foster tree seedling survival

(Figure, 5). Eye brow basins are micro-catchment semi-circular structures constructed for

harvesting water from the upslope with the aim to grow trees on it which are constructed

from stone and soil like in half-moon or eye brow shape.

Figure : Trenches and improved pits on hillsides of Kajimma Umbulo

C) Terrace (Soil Bund/Fanya juu)

Soil bunds (throw downhill) and fanya juu (throw uphill) are constructed in the degraded

hillside as a conservation measure (Figure, 6). They are also the most commonly practiced

even in the other parts of the country (Belay Tegene, 1992).

 Figure : Soil Bund and Fanya juu on hillsides of Kajimma Umbulo

D) Flood Water Harvesting Pond and Gully Reshape

Ponds are constructed on the hillside with the aim of percolating the flood water in times of

heavy rains on the hillside (Figure, 7). They reduce widening and creation of new gullies in

the area besides significantly reducing the flood to the downstream residential and

farmlands. In addition gullies are treated by reshaping the side slopes and planting

stabilizers on it.

Figure : Percolation ponds on hillsides of Kajimma Umbulo

E) Check Dams

In the study area three types of check dams are constructed sand bag, wooden and gabion

check dams (Figure, 8). As their name implies they are made of sand filled bags, wood

made and stone fill wire mesh respectively constructed for controlling gully heads from

aggravation.
Figure : Sand bag (A), wooden (B), and gabion check dams (C)

Box : Interaction of local people and the project at the start

When we were called first by the Mendel project for rehabilitating the hillside through
plantation we assumed our land was put under investors. Most of the famers have thrown
the seedlings given for planting in the hillside to the gully bottoms. After days awareness
was created through different meetings and discussions. Now we have at least recognized
that the hillside rehabilitation has modified the micro-climate cooler, the flood problems
have reduced and on-farm erosion decreased improved yields.
Source: Own translation and synthesis from focus group discussion 30th Dec., 2011

The local people participation feelings have increased for the conservation of the hillside

enclosure. This indicates that they are convinced that the establishment of enclosures in the

locality as a solution to halt further land degradation and to promote rehabilitation. The

local people in Kajimma Umbulo perceived that the reason for cooler micro-climate,

reduced flooding, and even the aesthetic beauty of the environments are these conservation

structures and the hillside enclosure. However, it was not simple to mobilize and aware the

local people at the start for most of them perceived land given to investors.

4.4.2. On-Farm SWC Practices

About 58% of respondents reported constructing five different types of SWC practices on

their farms (Table, 7). Both fanya juu and soil bund consist narrow ridges and channels

which are made parallel or following contour for controlling erosion and assist terrace

development. As shown in table (7), tree planting, constructions of fanya juu and soil
bunds are the most common practices. The trend in the adoption frequency among the

wealth classes show similar as the tree planting, fanya juu, soil bund, diversion channel

and check dam on the farms in order of importance. The popularity of fanya juu and soil

bunds among farmers in the locality is in line with observations made in other areas in the

country where the structures are appreciated for their effectiveness in controlling erosion

and their potential to improve the productivity of land (Belay Tegene, 1992; Eleni Tesfaye,

2008; Menale Kassie et al., 2008).

Though the less likely is to construct diversion channel and check dam with the better-off

households, the poorer households construct these structures on their farms. This is either

attributed because of the ownership of marginal land in the poorer households or less

tendency for land management of the better-off households. Out of the on-farm SWC

implementers 8.8% constructed diversion channel and 7.3% used check dam. This

indicates that these households are also victims of gullies on their farm or in the vicinity of

their surroundings. The farmers were forced to employ check dam and diversion channel

because of the flood in the rainy seasons and aggressive gullies forms dissecting their

farms. In agreement to this, Awdenegest Moges and Holden, (2008) found that most of the

gullies surveyed in 2005/6 have developed in the farming areas after the intensive

cultivation of upslope areas which once were covered with forests. As a result, farmlands

flooding in high intensity rainfall become common in downstream areas.

Table : Adopter’s on-farm SWC practices by households in Kajimma Umbulo

SWC practices Wealth classes Overall

on-farm (N=68) Better-off Medium Poor
N % N % N % N %
Soil bund 10 100 30 85.7 17 73.9 57 83.8
Fanya juu 10 100 32 91.4 21 91.3 63 92.6
Tree planting 10 100 33 94.3 21 91.3 64 94.1
Diversion 1 10 3 8.6 2 8.7 6 8.8
channel
 Check dam 0 0 3 8.6 2 8.7 5 7.3

On the other hand, around 42.4% of respondents did not report any on-farm SWC

practices. Though none of the respondents claimed on-farm SWC practices as unnecessary,

92% of them mentioned lack of awareness about importance of SWC measures and the

technique for construction as the major problem (Table, 8). Land shortage and avoiding

loss of production land due to SWC structures (74%) were reported as the next important

reasons. The reasoning of the non-practitioner households of farm SWC frequency trend is

lack of knowledge and skills, land shortage and the SWC structures make land out of

production, lack of labor and lack of credit access in order for all the wealth classes except

the wealthier households. The better-off make the second important reason for not

practicing the farm SWC structures is lack of labor than land shortage and from the

perception that the structures reduce the production area. Contrary to this, the poorer

households have less land holding and farm land available for them and they require less

labor for managing their farms than the wealthier households.

Although lack of knowledge and skill was also reported to influence the adoption of on-

farm SWC practices, there was no significant association between education level and

adoption of on-farm SWC practices (χ2=0.614, p=0.736 (Appendix 4)). On the other hand,

a significant difference in average land holding size was observed between households

employing on-farm SWC structures and those without any SWC structures (t = -2.886, p =

0.004 (Appendix 3)). Therefore, area of farmland owned by households appears to be an

important factor that influences adoption of SWC practices in the locality. The lesser the

farmland holding the lesser on-farm SWC structures which may arise from the belief that

the structures reduces productive area. This is similar with the finding of Menale Kassie et

al. (2008), with farmers’ perceived shrinkage of the shortly productive area and SWC
structures need to weigh higher advantage for the farmers to practice and in fact this is

strongly true for the medium and poor class of the households.

Table : Reasons for non-practitioners of on-farm SWC in Kajimma Umbulo

Reasons for non-practitioners of Wealth classes Overall

on-farm SWC (N=50) Better-off Medium Poor
N % N % N % N %
Lack of knowledge & skills 3 100 22 91.6 21 91.3 46 92
Land shortage & gets out of 1 33.3 16 66.6 20 86.9 37 74
production
Lack of labor 2 66.6 9 37.5 9 39.1 20 40
Lack of credit access 0 0 2 8.3 0 0 2 4
 4.5. The Impact of Hillside Enclosure on Local Livelihoods

4.5.1. Impacts on Livelihood Assets

Livelihood assets in the pentagon of SLF (natural, financial, social, physical and human

assets) were examined for the possible change as a result of the Mendel people’s project

intervention of enclosure on hillside.

4.5.1.1. Natural Assets

The natural assets were seen from the changes of farmland productivity in terms of crop

yield, livestock status and biodiversity in the hillside enclosure (grasses and trees).

Box : Hillside enclosure impacts

The hillside enclosure activities protected soil erosion, no shouting at rainfall events for
the flood has reduced after the hillside enclosure establishment. There was no hyena for
removing died body however now wildlife coming to the enclosure and even our farm
productivity improved with better yield without adding additional fertilizer from the past.
Source: Narration from focus group discussant on 30th Dec., 2011 with own translation
4.5.1.1.1.Change in Farmland Productivity

Average land holding in the study area is approximately 0.78 ha (Table, 3) and households

allocate their land to different uses such as crop cultivation both annuals (maize, haricot

bean, sweet potato) and perennials (Enset). The change in productivity was assessed in

terms of change in the yield of major crops. Both changes in the amount of fertilizer use

and change in crop yield were gained from two points of time before the intervention

(three years/2007/8 before) and the current time (2010/11 onwards). Accordingly, impact

of hillside enclosure measures was evaluated in terms of the benefits generated with

increases in crop yield.

The t-tests results in table (9) below shows the changes in both fertilizer usage and major

crops yield after the hillside enclosure intervention are statistically significant. Both the

fertilizer usage and the yields of major crops have increased in three years duration. The
local people still perceive that the hillside project intervention had increased the crop yield

as the farmland gets productive without any increased usage of fertilizer but, reduced farm

erosion. About 63.6% of respondents perceived crop yield is increasing because of the

hillside project intervention (Table, 11). In line with this, DFID, (2000a) reported farmers

perceive the advantage of SWC as increase in crop yields for the land becomes productive.

Even key informants and Focus Group Discussants assured crop yield has increased after

the hillside project intervention with no change in fertilizer use. Though both fertilizer use

and yields increased significantly, farmers perceived land productivity improvement is not

only arising from hillside enclosure activities but also the advanced fertilizer usage from

the past. Thus, hillside enclosure activities impacted in crop yield increase. The change of

crop yield indicates the change in land productivity. The change in the yield of the crop

signifies that change in the land productiveness.

Table : Fertilizer amount use and crop yield change for the major crops

Sig. (2- Mean 95% CI of the Difference

t Df tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Fertilizer use change in kg per hectare
Maize 6.185 117 0.000* 12.4 8.4 16.4
Haricot bean 3.726 106 0.000* 12.3 5.7 18.9
Enset 2.269 54 0.027* 3.7 0.4 7.0
Sweet potato 3.021 88 0.003* 2.3 0.7 3.8
Pepper 5.579 76 0.000* 8.2 5.3 11.1
Crop yield change in quintal per hectare
Maize 9.243 117 0.000* 5.4 4.2 6.5
Haricot bean 8.630 106 0.000* 1.8 1.4 2.2
Enset 9.115 54 0.000* 1.7 1.3 2.0
Sweet potato 5.363 88 0.000* 5.8 3.6 8.0
Pepper 6.760 76 0.000* 1.1 0.7 1.4
Note: * refers the level of significant at the (P < 0.05).
 4.5.1.1.2.Fertilizer Use and Crop Yield Change among Wealth Classes

Fertilizer use change among the wealth classes was not differed in all measured crop

(Table, 10). This signifies the fertilizer use between the wealth classes in households of

Kajimma Umbulo is more or less equally experienced among these groups of households.

Table : Mean comparisons of fertilizer use and crop yield change in wealth classes

Poor Medium Better-off Sig.

Average fertilizer use change in kg per ha
Maize 12.0 10.7 21.1 0.298
Haricot bean 15.4 10.1 11.5 0.755
Enset 9.4 2 3.6 0.335
Sweet Potato 1.4 2.8 2.7 0.657
Pepper 8.0 7.9 10 0.902
Average crop yield change in quintals per ha
Maize 4.9 5.9 4.9 0.650
Haricot bean 1.3 1.9 2.5 0.163
Enset 1.3a 1.5a 3.4b 0.032*
a a b
Sweet Potato 1.2 1.3 2.6 0.003*
Pepper 1.1 1.0 1.8 0.241
Note: Superscripts with different letters indicate significant differences between wealth classes at (P <
0.05)

However, the crop yield change differs for Enset and sweet potato among the wealth

classes. The results of one way ANOVA reveal no difference in the yields of crops except

for Enset and sweet potato in the wealth classes implying that the other crop yields are

having no difference from the past. The yield of Enset differed between the wealth classes

except between the medium and the poor households. Besides the hillside enclosure

contribution, this is because of intensive livestock manure use for enset crop made yield

higher where the better-off own higher number of livestock and have higher livestock

manure available. Studies indicate traditional enset-based livelihood systems maintains

balance between livestock and access to manure as a source of soil fertility and the size

and vitality of enset plantations (Almaz Negash, 2001; Dougherty, 2002; Tesfaye Abebe,

2005) and Abay Ayalew and Mikias Yeshitila (2011) reported enset farms need farm yard
manure intensively; and this is also true for sweet potato since the wealthier farmers plant

near home next to enset for easiness of manure fertilization (Tesfaye Abebe, 2005). Thus,

the better-off households can have better farm yard manure for their enset crop than

medium and the poor

4.5.1.1.3.Change in Livestock Holding

Majority of the local people 67.8% of the households in Kajimma Umbulo perceived

communal grazing land size was decreasing and 28% of the households claim no change.

The livestock population and type are also perceived as in a decreasing trend. However,

livestock population trend was retrospectively checked in before-after situation in between

2008 and 2011 the current livestock holding exceed the past. The mean TLU value

increased 3.23 to 4.40 and found statistically significant (t = 6.075, p =0.000 (Appendix

5)). The communal grazing lands are diminishing from the past time in the expense of

conversion of the communal grazing and pasture lands to farmlands. Currently the private

grazing systems are supplemented by crop residue fodder predominantly Enset and maize

crop residue in the home. Similarly, Funte et al. (2010) reported the use of communal and

forest areas has decline from the two decades and crop residues cover the majority of feed

resources in Umbulo Wache watershed which bounds the study area. Thus, households

shifted livestock management in stall feeding system.

Table : Local people perception on the trend of assets on time

Status of assets on time Frequency Percent

Communal grazing land Size No change 33 28.0
Decreasing 80 67.8
Increasing 5 4.2
Livestock population No change 51 43.2
Reducing 65 55.1
Increasing 2 1.7
Land productivity/crop yield No change 10 8.5
Reducing 33 28.0
Increasing 75 63.6
4.5.1.1.4.Livestock Holding among Wealth Classes
ANOVA test revealed tropical livestock unit change has significantly differed among the

wealth classes. The mean TLU change comparisons in between better-off and the poor

wealth classes showed significant difference. The hillside enclosure impacted the better-off

households higher than the poor. The hillside enclosure establishment force them to use

crop residue and enset products for livestock feed by which the wealthier households can

feed better than the poor.

Table : Mean comparison for TLU change among the wealth classes

Poor Medium Better-off Sig.

TLU 0.4a 1.3ab 2.9b 0.006
Note: Superscripts with different letters indicate significant differences between wealth classes(P < 0.05)

The impact between the wealth classes varied for the crop yields and the TLU. Crop yield

change was seen to impact more the better-off households and less impacted both the

medium and poor households. On the other way, TLU change shows most impacted the

better-off households and less impacted the poor households. In both the crop yield

changes and TLU changes livestock have vital role which the wealthier households hold

better. The wealthier the households the better the impact on crop yield as they incorporate

other inputs than the poorer households. On the other hand, the livelihood activities show

that the poor household’s engagement in labor works in particular and off-farm and non-

farm livelihood cash income share is higher than the wealthier households. Thus, the poor

and the medium households tend to diversify as coping strategy for income shortage since

lower cash income from on-farm livelihood activities than the better-off.

The poor households with low crop residue and enset products available who formerly

depend largely on communal grazing for their livestock are affected to some extent

negatively than the wealthier households. However, the local people might not raise this

issue; since the hillside was not able to support livestock feed and they perceive hillside
enclosure impacts positively due to reduced flooding problems for most affects all of them.

Therefore, the hillside enclosure activities affected the local people depending on the

socioeconomic situation i.e. wealth classes.

4.5.1.1.5.Change in Environmental Products (Grasses and Tree

Resources)

Box : Hillside enclosure benefits

The flood coming from the hillside are retarded with the SWC structure constructed,
before the establishment of the enclosure the hillside looks bare stony land but now we see
grasses and planted trees cover green with cooler temperature. We were having trouble in
finding thatch before the establishment, since the enclosure we buy with cheap price for
building homes.
Source: Key informant interview 24th Dec., 2011 with own translation
Grasses are of high importance as they are used for house roofing and most of the residents

build house from it. About 91.5% of households in Kajimma Umbulo are solely dependent

on grass-roofed houses and 3.4 and 5.1% households have both tin & grass roofed and tin-

roofed houses, respectively. The hillside enclosure guard with the order of kebele leaders

and committee cut grasses for only roofing purpose with cheap price to the local people.

Consistently, other studies showed one of the benefits from enclosures in many parts of

Ethiopia is grasses for thatch (Betru Nedasa et al., 2005; Emiru Birhane et al., 2006;

Tefera Mengistu et al., 2005). Therefore, the impact of hillside enclosure in this respect is

through rehabilitating the degraded hillside and ensuring the availability of this important

product to the local people. Trees started regenerating (e.g. Acacia albida) and the planted

seedlings are growing which in the future is used by the local people.
 Figure : Grass-roofed house in Kajimma Umbulo kebele

4.5.1.2. Financial Assets

Box : Labor work demand for financial deficit

The labor work participation covers the school fee and exercise book expenses of the
children if you have space we need to involve there. The hillside enclosure activities help
us in financial deficits.
Source: Own translation and synthesis from female focus group discussion 30th Dec., 2011
Financial asset considered payments for labor work on hillside enclosure activities.

Although cash for work (CFW) approach is used only 85% of payment is actually made

whereas 15% is considered as free labor contribution by local people but the cost of the

project for implementing the enclosure activities was not seen in this study. The labor work

employment changed from 19.5% to 41.5% in three year time (Table, 14) increases the

cash income to the households. However, the project labor work employment is limited to

150 individuals whereas only one individual per household is allowed but the demand for

labor work is high according to the key informants.

4.5.1.3. Physical and Social Assets

The hillside enclosure project has resulted in the construction of SWC structures on

hillside and will remain important physical structures benefiting the local community
provided that sufficient attention is given for their maintenance. Besides, the project has

established an experienced working team and also enhanced the capacity of the local

people to organize collective activity in SWC activities.

4.5.1.4. Human Assets

The project intervention has added experience and knowledge on SWC structure layout

and construction. These have created familiarity with the construction of structures

practically to the participant individuals. Furthermore, labor asset of the locality is

absorbed by the hillside enclosure activities as working opportunity for the laborers.

Information regarding land management is delivered to farmers through development

agents, NGOs, trainings & field days and to some extent neighbor farmers in descending

order of importance to the locality and with no difference in the trends of the wealth

classes from the general frequency trend. Information on land management systems for the

farmers is of vital importance as 88.9% of the on-farm SWC implementers get information

regarding the land management information from NGOs like the project (as one of

information provider next to extension service is the project which impact aiding

information available for the farmers) (Table, 13). In line with this, Habtamu Ertiro (2006)

reported that farmers receive better information from development agents and other study

according to Paudel and Thapa (2004), indicated NGOs role in providing information and

developing farmer’s capability to seek and get necessary support from GOs and NGOs.

Adoption of on-farm SWC practices was also not isolated from the land management

information gained. According to Habtamu Ertiro (2006), informed farmers better assess

impact of erosion on productivity of their farmland and adopt practices which resolve

problems of soil degradation. However, the adoption of on-farm SWC measures were

influenced by the size of farmland that households own. Thus, implementers of on-farm
SWC have higher land holding (t = -2.886, p = 0.004 (Appendix 3)). Similarly, Aklilu

Amsalu and Graff, (2005) found farmland size affected the adoption of bunds positively.

Table : Sources of land management information for individual farmers

Source of land management Wealth classes Overall

information (N=118) Better-off Medium Poor
N % N % N % N %
Neighbor Farmer 4 30.7 26 44.1 20 43.5 50 42.4
NGOs (like hillside project) 13 100 55 93.2 37 80.4 105 88.9
Regular Extension/DAs 13 100 59 100 44 95.7 116 98.3
Trainings and Field Days 12 92.3 45 76.3 32 69.6 89 75.4

4.5.2. Impacts on Livelihood Strategy and Outcomes

The engagement in livelihood activities has changed such as reduced temporary migration

(19.5% to 5.9%) and petty traders (27.9% to 22.8%) because of intervention by hillside

project in Kajimma Umbulo. Labor works, on the other hand increased from 19.5% to

41.5% after the hillside enclosure intervention. These changes are attributed to the

availability of labor works through the hillside project and other non-farm as well as off-

farm labor opportunities in the locality and cart transport activities hold emerging cash

income source and increased in engagement. On-farm livelihood activities being the

dominant, off-farm and non-farm livelihood activities show improvement in engagement

and tendency of additional cash income to households. So, the hillside enclosure project

remains one of the labor work livelihood activities and reduced the temporary migrated

wage labor.
Table : Livelihood activities change over time
Livelihood activities Prior to 2007/8 After 2010/11
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Crop production 118 100 118 100
Livestock production 103 87.3 104 88.1
Petty trade activities 33 27.9 27 22.9
Labor works 23 19.5 49 41.5
Cart transport service 5 4.3 21 17.8
Salaried/wage job 1 0.8 1 0.8
Temporarily migrated wage labor 23 19.5 7 5.9

The hillside enclosure activities impact to the household livelihoods by creating labor work

opportunity from which participants earn money, reduced the risk of flood hazards in the

lower catchment dwellers, and increase the productivity of farmlands for the runoff is

lowered. The sustainable livelihood framework links labor asset, knowledge and skills of

the people; and the degraded hillsides through labor work livelihood activities transformed

in to livelihood outcomes. These are manifested through increased income, reduced

vulnerability (reduced flooding problems) and improved resource base (e.g. land

productivity of down farmlands and the hillside itself recovered) to Kajimma Umbulo.

Local people in Kajimma Umbulo participate in hillside enclosure as a vulnerability

reduction/coping strategy. As a result they look totally as positive at the expense of the

flooding and associated problems they were having. Similarly MoWR (2010) reported that

local people in the Umbulo catchment are highly interested to actively take part in

conservation initiatives since flooding is seriously affecting their livelihoods. Thus, the

project hillside enclosure is intervening to rehabilitate the degraded hillside with the

participation of the local people. Moreover, many individual farmers want to work on the

hillside as a laborer since it reduces the annual financial deficit of their households.

Therefore, the hillside enclosure activities can be looked from two perspectives (1)

important for coping up the income shortage for the households and makes labor work
available and (2) rehabilitating the degraded hillsides reducing the flood intensity. Both

reduce the vulnerability of farming households which improves their livelihoods through

livelihood diversification9 and abate flooding problems.

The hillside enclosure and the SWC activities rehabilitate degraded hillsides through

adding natural stocks like grasses, trees and the cooler microclimate that farmers

recognized are some. Gullies were also treated by reshaping and planting trees on the sides

of the gullies on the degraded hillside. The plant species commonly put in the gullies were

Cajuns Cajun for stabilizing the gullies on the hillside. In addition, Acacia saligna,

Gravellia, Cordia africana, Olea africana, and Moringa olifera were also planted on the

hillside. Acacia albida is under regeneration in response to the favorable condition of

enclosure. Therefore, the growth rate of gullies to the adjacent farmland will reduce as the

flood water level is going low as compared to the past. Similarly Pathak et al. (2005)

reported flooding as one of the exacerbating cause for gully development and hillside re-

vegetation as means to minimizes the rate of gully formation.

People suffering from the flood occurrence in the rainfall events now got stable. Prior to

the intervention the hillside was bare soil with little vegetation cover, unable to support

livestock grazing and releases runoff to the lower catchment where the people settled. As

to the key informants and local people after the hillside treatment the level of runoff

generated dramatically decreased. Eight people and animals died as a result of the flooding

hazards no more after hillside treatment. Farmlands at the downstream areas have

increased the land productivity. In line with this, the adjacent farmlands improved the

productivity as a result of enclosures on uphill areas (Kibret Mamo, 2008). Therefore,

hillside enclosure activities has impacted on the livelihoods of the people in Kajimma
9
Livelihood diversification is the process by which rural families construct a diverse portfolio of activities
and social support capabilities in their struggle for survival and in order to improve their standards of living
(Ellis, 1998).
Umbulo through reduced flood problems, enhanced productivity of farms, generated

additional income and paved a way to get grass for thatch.

In addition to the on-farm livelihood activities, people are engaged in other supplementing

livelihood activities to enhance income for their households. Involving in labor work

livelihood option has changed as a result of the hillside enclosure activities. The enclosure

activities on hillside made in one hand, labor work available as a means to get income for

the income demanding individuals in different households and on the other hand, it

reduced (19.49% to 5.93% households) the temporarily migrated wage laborers from

getting off from their locality (Table, 14).

Almost all households depend for cash income from the mixed farming strategy. However,

the poor household’s percent share of cash income (23.8%) of off-farm and non-farm

livelihood activities is greater than the overall share of cash income (18.7%) but the less

for the wealthier (17%). This shows household wealth status determined the dependence of

livelihood activities getting difference in the cash income share. More resource

limited/poor households are more employed in livelihood diversification activities to cope

up income deficit than the better-off. Hussein and Nelson (1998), also stated the efforts of

individuals and/or households to diversify for improving the incomes while reducing risk,

which differ with the degree of freedom of choice (to diversify or not). Diversification

activities are mostly regarded as the basis of their roles as a mechanism for coping for the

poor for survival; adaptation and accumulation for the better-off (Carswell, 2000). It is a

strategic way in maintaining the sustainable livelihoods across the globe (Menfese

Tadesse, 2010; Toulmin et al., 2000).

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions

This research investigated the main livelihood strategies that the local people employ and

the impacts of hillside enclosure intervention on local livelihoods at Kajimma Umbulo

kebele. The research used sustainable livelihoods framework to explain the impacts of

hillside enclosure on the livelihoods. Mixed farming system has been the main livelihood

strategy of Kajimma Umbulo communities accounting for 81.2% of the household’s cash

income.

The hillside enclosure intervention has resulted in betterment of livelihoods of the local

people in three ways. First, the creation of job opportunities helped households at least to

protect their livelihood assets. Second, construction of SWC structures, planting of trees

and rehabilitation of hillsides enabled households to obtain some direct benefits (e.g. grass

for thatch) and indirect benefits such as reduction of households’ vulnerability to flooding.

Third, hillside enclosure contributed to increased knowledge and skills to further expand

and adopt SWC structures on farmlands in order to improve land productivity.

The impact of hillside enclosure between the socio-economic groups defined by wealth

classes varied in crop yield and the TLU that different farming households employed for

their livelihoods. Generally the wealthier households were better as they use integrated

inputs at their hand for both crop and livestock production than the poorer households.

This implies that the hillside enclosure activities affected the local people to some extent

differentially depending on the socioeconomic situation as defined by the wealth classes.

5.2. Recommendations

Based on the findings of the research the following recommendation is forwarded:

 The enclosure is younger, only grasses for thatch are extracted however, integration of

apiculture owing the recovered vegetation (built natural asset) and adding some

preferred bee flora species on the hillside enclosure will improve cash income.

 Since mixed livelihood strategy depends on land resources, proper land management is

essential for the sustainability of this livelihood system.

 If the hillside enclosure is not governed in the local context, everyone will utilize the

resource without considering the carrying capacity. Governing the resource requires

designing locally appropriate rules and regulations to overcome the challenges from

benefit sharing complexities from the hillside enclosure in the future.

 This research leads to further in the areas:

o The proximity to the hillside enclosure may influence the impacts as that of the

socioeconomic status define the local wealth status. Therefore, it is imperative

to look also this aspect if there are any differences in the impacts of the

livelihoods of the local communities.

o The impacts of incentive and vulnerability status for the sustainability of the

assets built on the hillside enclosure.

REFERENCES
Abate Feyisa (2009) Climate Change Impact on Livelihood, Vulnerability and Coping
Mechanisms: A Case Study of West Arsis Zone, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Lund
University, Sweden. (LUMES). pp10
Abay Ayalew and Mikias Yeshitila (2011) The Response of Enset (Ensete ventricosum
(Welw) Cheesman) production to Rate and Frequency of N and P Nutrients:
Application at Areka, in Southern Ethiopia. Innovative Systems Design and
Engineering. (2) www.iiste.org
Abiy Tsetargachew (2008) Area Closure as a Strategy for Land Management: A Case
Study at Kelala Dalacha Enclosure in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. M.Sc.
Thesis, AAU, Addis Ababa.
Adato, M. and Meinzen-Dick, R. (2003) Assessing the impact of agricultural research on
poverty and livelihoods. Quarterly Journal of International Agri. 42(2)149-167.
Aerts R., Nyssen J., Mitiku Haile (2009) On the difference between "exclosures" and
"enclosures" in ecology and the environment. Arid Environments (73) 762-763.
Aklilu Amsalu and Graaff, Jan de (2005) Determinants of adoption and continued use of
stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed.
Ecological Economics (61) 294 – 302
Almaz Negash (2001) Diversity and Conservation of Enset (Ensete ventricosum Welw.
Cheesman) and its Relation to Household Food and Livelihood Security in South-
western Ethiopia. Wageningen University &Research Centre
Ashley, C. and Hussein, K. (2000) Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact
Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa.
Overseas Development Institute, Working Paper 129.
Asian Development Bank (2006) Impact Evaluation Methodological and Operational
issues, Stock No. 080906. Asian Development Bank, 6 ADB Avenue,
Mandaluyong City, Philippines (www.adb.org/economics),
Awedenegest Moges and Holden, M. (2008) Estimating the Rate and Consequences of
Gully Development, A Case Study of Umbulo Catchment in Southern Ethiopia.
Land Degradation & Development, (19) 574–586.
Badege Bishaw (2005) Agroforestry and Community Forestry for Rehabilitation of
Degraded Watersheds on the Ethiopian Highlands. College of Forestry, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, U.S.A
Bakker, J., Poschlod, P., Strykstra, R., Bekker, R., and Thompson, K. (1996) Seed banks
and seed dispersal: important topics in restoration ecology. Acta Botanica yearly
(45) 461-490
Balgis, O., Elhassan, G., Ahmed, H., and Zakieldin, S. (2005) Sustainable livelihood
approach for assessing community resilience to climate change: Case studies from
Sudan. AIACC Working Paper No.17,
Bekele Shiferaw and Holden, S. (1998) Resource degradation and adoption of land
conservation technologies in the highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of Andit Tid,
North Shewa. Agricultural Economics (18) 233-247
Bekele Shiferaw, and Holden, S. (1999) Soil erosion and smallholders conservation
decisions in the highlands of Ethiopia. World Development 27(4):739-752.
Belaineh Legesse (2003) Risk Management Strategies of Smallholder Farmers in the
Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia. Doctoral Dissertation Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Belay Tegene (1992) Farmers’ perceptions of erosion hazards and attitudes towards soil
conservation in Gunono, Wolayita, and southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Development Research (14) 31–58
Berhanu Gebremedhin, Fernandez-Rivera, Mohammed Hassena, W, Mwangi and Seid
Ahmed (2007) Maize and livestock: Their inter-linked roles in meeting human
needs in Ethiopia. Research Report 6. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. 103 pp.
Berhanu Gebremedhin, Gebremedhin Woldewahid, Yigzaw Dessalegn, Tilahun Gebey and
Worku Teka (2010) Sustainable land management through market-oriented
commodity development: Case studies from Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving
Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project. Working Paper 21.
ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.
Betru Nedessa, Jawad Ali, and Ingrid Nyborg (2005) Exploring ecological and socio-
economic issues for the improvement of area enclosure management. A case study
from Ethiopia, dryland coordination groups Report No. 38, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Blanco, H. and Lal, R. (2008) Principles of Soil Conservation and Management. Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.
Boyd, Charlotte and Turton, Cathryn(Ed) (2000) The Contribution of Soil and Water
Conservation to Sustainable Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Areas of Sub-Saharan
Africa. Agricultural Research & Extension Network. Network Paper No 102.
Bryman, A (2003) Social Research Methods. 2nd edi. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
New York
Butcher, C. (undated) Undertaking Social Impact Assessment Using a Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach: The Case of Two Roads in Central and Southern Ethiopia.
GY Associates and Smita Biswas WSP International Management Consulting.
20pp.
Butler, L.M. and Mazur, R.E. (2007) Principles and processes for enhancing sustainable
rural livelihoods: Collaborative learning in Uganda. Published by International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology (14) 604–617.
Carney, D (Edi.) (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What contributions can we make?
Papers presented at the DFID’s Natural Resources Advisors’ Conference, UK.
Carney, D. (2002) Sustainable livelihoods approaches: Progress and Possibilities for
Change.
Carswell, G. (2000) Livelihood Diversification in southern Ethiopia. IDS working paper
117. Pp 35
Cavestro, L. (2003) Participatory Rural Appraisal Concepts Methodologies and
Techniques. Master in Cooperazione Allo Sviluppo Nelle Aree Rurali, Universita'
Degli Studi Di Padova. 38pp.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1991) Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the
21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS.
CSA (2007) National Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa.
De Janvry, A., Dunstan, A., and Sadoulet, E. (2011) Recent Advances in Impact Analysis
Methods for Ex-post Impact Assessments of Agricultural Technology: Options for
the CGIAR. Increasing the rigor of ex-post impact assessment of agricultural
research: A discussion on estimating treatment effects, organized by the CGIAR
Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, Berkeley, California, USA.
DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. DFID of the UK
DFID (2000a) Strategies for improved soil and water conservation practices in hillside
production systems in the Andean valleys of Bolivia. Strategy for Research on
Renewable Natural Knowledge Systems, Natural Resources Systems Programme.
Final Technical Report.
DFID (2000b) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Guidance Sheet. DFID of the UK
Dobson, A.P., Bradshaw, A. D. and Baker, A. J. (1997) Hopes for the Future: Restoration
Ecology and Conservation Biology. Human-dominated ecosystems: articles.
www.sciencemag.org.
Dougherty, M. (2002) Gendered Scripts and Declining Soil Fertility in Southern Ethiopia.
African Studies Quarterly (6) 1 & 2
Edwards, Sue (Edi.), (2010) Ethiopian Environment Review No. 1. Forum for
Environment, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Eleni Tesfaye (2008) Continued Use of Soil and Water Conservation Practices: a Case
study in Tulla District, Ethiopia. Erosion and Soil & Water Conservation Group
and Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Ellis, F. (1998) Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Development
Studies, 35(1), 1-38.
Ellis, F., Ssewanyana, S., Bereket Kebede and Allison, E. (2006) Patterns and Changes in
Rural Livelihoods in Uganda 2001-05: Findings of the LADDER 2 Project.
Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) and Overseas Development Group
(ODG). Final Report
Emiru Birhane, Demel Teketay and Barklund, P. (2006) Actual and potential contributions
of enclosures to enhance biodiversity in drylands of Eastern Tigray, with particular
emphasis on woody plants. Drylands 1(2): 134-147
Endris Damtew (2006) Comparative Financial Evaluation of Soil Conservation Measures
in North Wollo: The Case of Golo River Catchment, Habru Wereda. M.Sc. Thesis,
Alemaya University, Alemaya.
EOSA (2007) Baseline Survey of Dendi, Awassa Zuria and Hetosa Districts of Ethiopia.
Ethio-Organic Seed Action in Collaboration with Center for Genetic Resources, the
Netherlands.
Estrella, M and Gaventa, J. (1998) Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and
evaluation: A literature review. IDS working paper 70.
Farrington, J., Ramasut, T and Walker, J. (2002) Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches in
Urban Areas: General Lessons, with Illustrations from Indian Cases, ODI Working
Paper 162, London, UK.
Funte, S., Negesse, T. and Legesse, G. (2010) Feed Resources and Their Management
Systems in Ethiopian Highlands: The Case of Umbulo Wacho Watershed in
Southern Ethiopia. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, (12) 47 - 56
Gertler, P.J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L.B., Vermeersch, C.M.J. (2011) Impact
Evaluation in Practice. The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, The World Bank.
Ghebremedhin, S. Z. (2002) Assessment of Soil and Water Conservation Activities in
Afdeyu, Eritrea. Technical and Socio-Economic Aspects. Berne,CDE
Girma Tadesse (2001) Land Degradation: A Challenge to Ethiopia. Environmental
Management, (27) 815–824.
Habtamu Ertiro (2006) Adoption of Physical Soil and Water Conservation Structures in
Anna Watershed, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. MA thesis, AAU. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Holden, S, Bekele Shiferaw, and Pender, J. (2005) Policy Analysis for Sustainable Land
Management and Food Security in Ethiopia: A Bioeconomic Model with Market
Imperfections. IFPRI sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty,
Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA.
Hurni, H. (1988) Degradation and Conservation of the Resources in the Ethiopian
Highlands. Mountain Research and Development, (8)123-130
Hurni, H. (1997) Concepts of Sustainable Land Management. ITC Journal, 3(4) 210-215.
Hussein, K. and Nelson, J. (1998) Sustainable Livelihoods and Livelihood Diversification.
IDS Working Paper 69. 32pp
Kato, E., Ringler, C., Mahmud Yesuf and Bryan, E. (2009) Soil and Water Conservation
Technologies: A Buffer against Production Risk in the Face of Climate Change?
Insights from the Nile Basin in Ethiopia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00871.
Kebrom Tekle (1999) Land degradation problems and their implications for food shortage
in south Welo, Ethiopia. Environmental Management 23(4):419–427
Ke-rong, S., Jie, F. and Hai-long, M. (2006) Sustainable Rural Livelihood and Ecological
Shelter Construction in Upper Reaches of Changjiang River: Case Study of
Zhaotong of Yunnan Province. Chinese Geographical Science, (16) 32-40
Kibret Mamo (2008) Enclosure as a Viable Option for Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands
and Biodiversity Conservation: The Case of Kallu District, Southern Wello. M.Sc.
Thesis, AAU, Addis Ababa
Kusters, K., Belcher, B. and Ruiz-Pérez, M. Achdiawan, R. (2005) A method to assess the
outcomes of forest product trade on livelihoods and the environment. CIFOR
Working Paper No.32. Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia
Mahmud Yesuf, Alemu Mekonnen, Menale Kassie, and Pender, J. (2005) Cost of Land
Degradation in Ethiopia: A Critical Review of Past Studies. EEPFE and IFPRI.
McHugh,O.V., Collick A.S., Liu B.M., Debele Bekele, Haldeman, J.E., and Steenhuis,
T.S. (undated) Can Integrated Watershed Management Bring Greater Food Security
in Ethiopia? Department of Biological and Environment Engineering Cornell
University, Ithaca NY 14853 USA
Mekuria Argaw (2005) Forest conversion - soil degradation - farmers’ perception nexus:
implications for sustainable land use in the southwest of Ethiopia. Ecology and
Development Series No. 26,
Melaku Tefera (2011) Oxenization Versus Tractorization: Options and Constraints for
Ethiopian Framing System. International Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3 (1)
11-20
Menale Kassie, Holden, S., Köhlin, G., and Bluffstone, R. (2008) Economics of Soil
Conservation Adoption in High-Rainfall Areas of the Ethiopian Highlands.
Environment for Development. Discussion Paper Series. 37pp
Menfese Tadesse (2010) Living with Adversity and Vulnerability: Adaptive Strategies and
the Role of Trees in Konso, Southern Ethiopia. Doctoral Thesis Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences,Uppsala.
Miller, K., Allegretti, M.H., Johnson, N. and Jonsson, B. (1995) Measures for conservation
of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components. In: Heywood, V.H. and R.T.
Watson, (Edi.) Global Biodiversity assessment. The United Nations Environment
Programme and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mitiku, H., Herweg, K., Stillhardt, B. (2006) Sustainable Land Management: A New
Approach to Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia. Mekelle, Ethiopia: Land
Resources Management and Environmental Protection Department, Mekelle
University, Mekele. 269 pp.
MoARD (2011) Revised Project Implementation Manual for the Sustainable Land
Management Program.
MoWR (2010) Rift Valley Lakes Basin Integrated Resources Development Master Plan
Study Project. Phase 3: Final Report J. Lake Hawassa Sub-Basin Integrated
Watershed Management Feasibility Study. Vol 4, ANNEXES G-J. Halcrow Group
Ltd. and GIRD Consultants.
NAP (2008) Timor-Leste NAP to Combat Land Degradation: Revised Draft. Dimi,
December, 2008
Osman, M. and Sauerborn, P. (2001) Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia:
Experiences and Lessons. Review Articles, JSS - J Soils & Sediments 1 (2) 2001.
Pathak P, Wani SP and Sudi R. 2005. Gully control in SAT watersheds. Global Theme on
Agroecosystems Report no. 15. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 28 pp.
Paudel, G.S., and Thapa, G.B. (2004) Impact of social, institutional and ecological factors
on land management practices in mountain watersheds of Nepal. Applied
Geography (24) 35–55
Pender, J., Place, and Ehui, S.( Edi.) (2006) Strategies for Sustainable Land Management
in the East African Highlands. IFPRI 2033 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., and Freeman H. E. (2004) Evaluation: A systematic
Approach. 7th edi. Sage Publishers Ltd
Salerto, I. (2006) Impact Assessment of the Soil and Water Conservation Project:
Participatory Impact Assessment. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Jyvaskyla, 2006.
Scoones, I. (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, A Framework for Analysis, IDS
working paper number 72, Brighton.
Sengupta, M. and Dalwani, R. (Edi.) (2008) Evaluation of socio-economic and
environmental impacts of the watershed management projects: A case study of the
Zanjan river restoration project. Proceedings of Taal2007: the 12th World Lake
conference: 1214-1219.
Serrat, O. (2008) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Knowledge Solutions
Shah, A., Devlal, R., Joshi, H., Desai, J., and Shenoy, R. (2004) Benchmark Survey for
Impact Assessment of Participatory Watershed Development Projects in India.
Gujarat Institute of Development Research Ahmedabad. New Delhi.
Simon Adebo (2000) Training Manual on Participatory Rural Appraisal. Freelance
Consultant, Addis Abeba. 34pp
Sonneveld, B. and Keyzer, M. A. (2002) Land under Pressure: Soil Conservation Concerns
and Opportunities for Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Develop.,( 14) 5–23
Tagese Helore (2010) Changing the spiral: Restoration effort of degraded land in Ethiopia,
challenges and prospects, the case of Hadiya zone. MA Thesis. The Hague, the
Netherlands.
Tefera Mengistu, Demel Teketay, Håkan Hultén, and Yonas Yemshaw (2005) The Role of
Communities in Closed Area Management in Ethiopia. Mountain Research and
Development, (25) 44–50.
Tesfaye Abebe (2005) Diversity in homegarden agroforestry systems of Southern Ethiopia.
PhD thesis Wageningen University, Wageningen. ISBN 90-8504-163-5
Tesfaye Lemma (2003) Livelihood strategies in the context of population pressure: A case
study in the Hararghe Highlands, Eastern Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation, University of
Pretoria, South Africa.
Tigneh Eshete (2009) Spatial Analysis of Erosion and Land Degradation Leading to
Environmental Stress: The case of Lake Hawassa Catchment. M.Sc. Thesis, AAU.
Toulmin, C., Leonard, R., Brock, K., Coulibaly, N., Carswell, G., and Dea, D. (2000)
Diversification of Livelihoods: Evidence from Mali and Ethiopia. IDS Resarch
Report 47. IDS Bringhton, Sussex BN1 9RE, England.
Wagayehu Bekele (2003) Economics of Soil and Water Conservation: Theory and
Empirical Application to Subsistence Farming in the Eastern Ethiopian Highlands.
Doctoral thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Wagayehu Bekele and Lars, D. (2002) Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Measures
by Subsistence Farmers in the Eastern Ethiopia. Symposium no. 06, paper no. 1747,
Poster presentation. 17th WCSS, 14-21 August 2002, Thailand.
Wagayehu Bekele 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.
White, H. (2006) Impact Evaluation the Experience of the Independent Evaluation Group
of the World Bank. Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank. MPRA
Paper 1111, University Library of Munbetter-off, Germany.
Wolde Mekuria, Veldkamp, E., Mitiku Haile, Kindeya Gebrehiwot, Muys, B. and Nyssen,
J. (2009) Effectiveness of exclosures to control soil erosion and local community
perception on soil erosion in Tigray, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural
Research, 4 (4) 365-377
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.
Yeraswork Admassie (2000) Twenty years nowhere: property rights, land management and
conservation in Ethiopia. The Red Sea press, Inc.
Young, A. (1998) Land resources now and for the future. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, UK.
APPENDIXES

Appendix : Checklist for the Key Informants and the Focused Group Discussion

1. What are the main livelihood strategies/options in the locality? How is their order
of importance to the households?
2. What productive assets do the local people add to improve their income?
3. How do you describe the seasonality of income, availability of work and food in a
year? How do the local people cope up with the deficit/challenge?
4. How was the hillside enclosure activities initiated? How was the first reaction to
the initiative? How was mobilization carried out?
5. How was the history of the site in the land cover condition, occurrence of flood and
drought, and cropping schedule?
6. What are the hillside enclosure measures implemented so far and their
impact/effect on livelihood? What change do you have seen since the project
intervention?
7. How do the hillside enclosure activities contribute to the households’ livelihood?
8. If hillside enclosure measures are important, how are their management and
protection from destruction? Is there any institutional set up?
9. How do you access resources from the enclosure site?
10. Do the people fully obey the rules and the regulations regarding accessing
resources? For improving benefits from hillside enclosure measures additionally
what rules/regulations do you recommend?
11. In which time/month do the enclosure measures implemented in a year?
12. Is there any diffusion of hillside enclosure technology to the on-farm condition
from the hillside conservation works?
13. Where was and is the grazing land? How is the size of livestock in the past and
now?
Appendix : Household Survey Questionnaires

Enumerator name___________Time_______Date of interview________Sign. __________

Household Id. ________________ ketena____________village____________________
SECTION I: General Information on Respondent
1. How is your family size? [______]Please fill appropriately on the next table below
accordingly.
1. * Full 2. 3. 3. Is the 4. Sex 5. Marital 5.Educatio
PI Name of Relation Ag member (0=male status n (number
D household to e currentl 1=female [Married=1 of years
member househol y living ) , Single=2, completed)
d head together Widowed=3 wr=writin
with the , g
family? Divorced=4 &reading
]
1 househol
d head
2
3
.
.
.
SECTION II: Socio-Economic Information
2. Were you born here? ______ Yes = 1, No=0,………… if No go to question 3,
3. How long you have been here? [_______years]
4. Do you own land? [Yes, No] ………… if Yes go to question 5,
5. How much land do you have? [_______ha/___________timad]
6. How do you allocate the land
Allocated land Area covered in ha
1 Enset planted land
2 Cultivated land
3 Others
7. How many livestock does your household possess?
Livestock type Livestock population Reason for difference
Before With the Bought = 01, Death =
Mendel Mendel project 02, Sold = 03, Gifted
Project = 04, and specify if
other reason
1 Oxen
2 Cows
3 Bulls
4 Heifer
5 Horse
6 Donkey
7 Mule
8 Sheep
9 Goat
 10 Poultry

8. What is the roofing type of your house? _____ [Thatched grass roof = 1,
Corrugated iron sheet = 2, No house = 3]
9. What are the major livelihood activities your household perform
Major livelihood activities Yes=1 Estimate the
or No=0 annual cash
income of
activities in
Birr (2003
E.C.)
1 Crop production (maize, haricot bean, pepper, Enset,
…)
2 Livestock production and their products (cattle, sheep,
goat, poultry,…)
3 Petty trade
3.1 Trading in food crops (grains, pulses, vegetables)
3.2 Trading in livestock or livestock products
3.3 Selling firewood or charcoal, construction wood and
grass or fodder
3.4 Selling other goods
3.5 Local shop
4 Formal waged/salaried work
5 Casual labor
5.1 In Mendel project
5.2 In PSNP
5.3 Off-farm
6 Remittance (sent from relatives)
7 Migration (local, national or global)
8 Horse/Donkey Cart services
9 Specify if you have any other_____________
10. How was the rank the livelihood strategies according to the cash income to your
household before the start of the project? Write in front of the alternatives.
a) ____Crop production f) ____Non-farm labor
b) ____Livestock production g) ____Remittance
c) ____Petty trade h) ____Wage/salary
d) ____Migration i) ____Specify if
e) ____Off farm labor other[________]

11. Why such a change in the rank of these livelihood strategies (if there is a difference
from the rank indicated by table 9 above)?
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
SECTION III: Impact of Hillside Enclosure Activities on Livelihoods
12. If you are participating as laborer in the Mendel project,
1.1. If yes, why are you participating in the project?
 ___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
1.2. If no, why are you not participating in the project?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
1.3. What skills/experiences you get from the conservation activities
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
1.4. How much birr you got last year from employment in hillside enclosure
activity?[____________Birr]
1.5. How did you spend the money from enclosure employment in the past three
years? Rank them in order of amount of expenditure
a) __ Buying Food f) __productive assets
b) __Agricultural inputs (plough, cart,…)
purchase g) __ other assets (radio,
c) __ Children schooling tape recorder, )
d) __livestock purchase h) __ other expenses
e) __Health/medication specify[_________]
13. Can you, please, rank the most important benefits and losses/costs of the hillside
enclosure project activities to your household?
Types of benefits Rank benefits Types of Rank
1, 2, 3,.. or if losses/costs loses/costs 1, 2,
not 0. 3,..or if not 0.
1 Employment/cash Reduced
income grazing land
2 Reduce damage from Reduced access
flooding to firewood
3 Increased productivity Reduced time
of farmland for farm works
4 Increased technical
knowledge on SWC
5 Thatch and fodder
access
6 Cooler climate
14. Change for the productivity of farmlands, livestock and size of communal grazing
lands.
Change in time from Status Reason
the past No change = 01, over population =01,
Becoming Enclosure/SWC on hillside =
scarce/lower = 02, immigrants increasing =
02, Increasing = 03, Flood from the hillside =
03 04, Use of improved farm
technology = 05, shortage of
grazing lands = 06, Shift of
livelihood strategies = 07 and
specify if other
 1 Communal grazing
land
2 Productivity of agri.
Land
3 Livestock population

15. How is the seasonality of cash income, food and fertilizer and seeds in a year? Tick
mark if available in time.
Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun.
Household cash income
Food
Fertilizer and seeds
Calendar of SWC(No. days in a month)
Month Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec
Household cash income
Food
Fertilizer and seeds
Calendar of SWC (No. days in a month)

16. How do you cope up the times of deficit/crisis in cash income? Rank in order to
your importance 1, 2, 3 and if not make 0.
a) _____Rationing out the available food and cash income
b) _____Using savings (cash or kind)
c) _____Borrowing from local money lenders
d) _____Support from relatives/friends (remittance)
e) _____Credit
f) _____Sale of livestock
g) _____Migration for labor work
h) _____PSNP/FFW
i) _____specify if you have other strategy[_________________]

17. What are the consequences of flooding in the locality? Please rank 1, 2, 3, … and if
not 0 the consequences of flooding for your farm and household.
a) ___Killed humans f) ___Reduced productivity of
b) ___Destructed the homes farm
c) ___Farm erosion g) ___Soil moisture increased
d) ___Killed livestock h) ___removed the seeds sowed
e) ___Risk of fear for flooding i) ___if any other
specify[__________]

18. With the project and without the project situation analysis
Before Mendel After Mendel
project project
intervention intervention
(Higher=1and (Higher=1and
Lower=0) Lower=0)
1 Flood on farm
2 Farm soil erosion
 3 Land productivity
4 Crop yield
5 Cash income level
6 Risk of flood
7 Wage labor availability/employment
opportunity
8 Number of SWC structures
implemented
9 Trees planted on farm
1 Biodiversity status of the enclosure
0
If any other specify[______________]

19. How do you evaluate the change in fertilizer application and use of improved
technologies (if any)?
19.1. Which type of fertilizer do you use a) DAP b) UREA c) if any other
specify[__________]
19.2. Amount of fertilizer applied on a unit of ha for crop
Use of technology Before Mendel After Mendel
project intervention project intervention
(in kg)/yes or no (in kg)/yes or no
1 Fertilizer per hectare for maize
2 Fertilizer per hectare for Haricot
Bean
3 Fertilizer per hectare for Enset
4 Fertilizer per hectare for Sweet
Potato
5 Fertilizer per hectare for pepper
1 Manure
1
1 Intercropping
2
1 Soil bund
3
1 Fanya juu
4
1 Seedling planted
5
1
6

20. How do you evaluate the change in crop yield (if any) /land productivity as a result
of the Mendel project?
Major crop Yield Before Mendel project After Mendel project
intervention (in intervention (in
Quintals/100kg) Quintals/100kg)
1 Maize per hectare
 2 Haricot Bean per
hectare
3 Enset per hectare
4 Sweet Potato per hectare
5 Pepper per hectare
21. Why do the yields increased or reduced? Tick mark on it
Reason for higher yields on farm Before Mendel After Mendel
project intervention project intervention
1 Higher flood
2 Reduced flood
3 Use of improved seeds
4 No improved seeds
5 Lack/lower use of fertilizer
6 Use of fertilizer
7 SWC practice on hillside
8 SWC practice on farm
9 Applied fertilizer was washed
from the cropland when flood
comes
22. Have you implemented SWC measures on farm? [Yes, No]
23. If Yes to the Question above, what soil and water conservation measure have you
implemented on farm?
a. ______Stone bund e. _____________________
b. ______Soil bund f. _____________________
c. ______Fanya juu g. _____________________
d. ______Plant tree seedlings h. _____________________

24. If No to the Question above, Why?

a) ___Lack of Knowledge & e) ___Shortage of land
skill f) ___No saved money
b) ___Lack of credit access g) ___Not necessary
c) ___Takes the land out of h) ___specify if other
production reason[_______]
d) ___Lack labor
25. Who is your source of information (rank them in order) regarding conservation
strategies of land management?
a) ___Neighboring farmers d) ___Field days & training’s
b) ___NGOs e) ___if any other
c) ___Extension services (DAs) specify[_____]

Appendix : Land holding size of on-farm SWC adopters and non-adopters

Land holding size Mean land size in ha. t-test

On-farm SWC implementers (N=68) 0.88 t = -2.88636
Non-implementers of on-farm SWC (N=50) 0.64
p = (0.004)
Appendix : Education status and on-farm SWC implementation

On-farm SWC
Educational status Implementer Total χ2 -test
Non-implementers
s
Illiterate 25 30 55
χ2=0.614
Can read and write 15 25 40
(p=0.736)
Literate 10 13 23
 
Total 50 68 118

Appendix : Livestock holding in TLU t-test between 2008 and 2011

Livestock holding over time Standard Deviation Mean t-test

Past TLU (before the intervention) 2.47 3.23 t = 6.0756
Current TLU (after the intervention) 3.30 4.40
p = (0.000)

Appendix : Relative cash income share among wealth classes

Cash income sources Proportio Wealth classes

n% Better-off Average Poor Overall
(N=13) (N=59) (N=46) (N=118)
Crop production 100 51.2 65.7 61.8 61.2
Livestock production 88.1 31.9 17.4 14.3 20.0
On-farm 83.1 83.1 76.1 81.2
Petty trade 22.9 5.1 7.3 9.4 7.3
Salaried/waged job 0.8 3.6 0 0 0.9
Labor work 41.5 0.7 5.1 7.7 4.8
Temporarily migrated 5.9 0 0.4 1.6 0.7
wage labor
Cart transport service 17.8 7.4 3.9 5.1 5.0
Off-farm & non-farm 17.0 16.8 23.8 18.7
Mean annual cash income 2689.8 1211.2 863.2 1238.5

Appendix : Coping strategies of the income and food deficit by wealth classes

Coping Strategies Respondents coping strategies ranks

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Better-off households (N=13)
Ration 13 0 0 0 0 0
Using saves 0 3 2 1 0 0
Borrowing 0 0 2 0 0 0
Sale of livestock assets 0 9 2 1 0 0
Migration of labor work 0 1 0 0 0 0
Petty trade 0 0 3 1 0 0
Medium households (N=59)
Ration 58 0 0 0 0 0
Using saves 0 20 3 0 0 0
Borrowing 1 2 13 2 0 0
Credit 0 0 1 3 0 0
Sale of livestock assets 0 27 5 4 3 0
Migration of labor work 1 0 3 0 0 0
PSNP/FFW or others 0 2 6 1 0 0
Petty trade 0 1 2 1 0 1
Poor households (N=46)
Ration 45 1 0 0 0 0
Using saves 0 19 0 0 0 0
Borrowing 0 2 12 1 0 0
Credit 0 0 1 3 0 0
Sale of livestock assets 0 13 1 3 3 0
Migration of labor work 0 2 5 0 1 1
PSNP/FFW or others 0 2 3 2 1 0
Petty trade 0 0 4 2 0 1
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author Biruk Tagesse was born in Hossana, southern Ethiopia, in 1988. He attended

his primary schools in Hossana kutirand, Holy Trinity and Hossana kutrisost primary

schools in Hossana town in Hadiya Zone, SNNPR and secondary and preparatory at

Wachemo comprehensive secondary high and preparatory school. He joined Hawassa

University, WGCF & NRs and obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in Natural

Resource Management in July 4/2009. Then, he has worked in Semera Universiy as a

graduate assistant for a year. In September 2010 he joined school of Graduate Studies of

Hawassa University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources.