Integrated Agroforestry System [Ethiopia]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: GERBA LETA
- Editors: Julia Doldt, Noel Templer, Kidist Yilma
- Reviewers: William Critchley, Rima Mekdaschi Studer
Mitikarsamino Ersha
approaches_6622 - Ethiopia
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
Key resource person(s)
land user:
Gabiba Afra
+251 934 73 5738
Farmer
Dale District, Shoye kebele Sidma Regional State Ethiopia
Ethiopia
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
13/01/2023
The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:
Ja
1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies
2. Description of the SLM Approach
2.1 Short description of the Approach
The integrated agroforestry system is a self-initiated approach by a land user to implement agroforestry as part of an indigenous practice and has evolved over the years through technical support, training, and supplies of coffee and tree seedlings by the Office of Agriculture and Coffee Improvement Project. Had there been a participatory process throughout it would have helped in design and also in scaling up.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
The integrated agroforestry system was independently initiated by land users during the Derg regime (1974-91). During the regime, farmers were failed by two distinct and polar development approaches: socialist and the mainstream local approaches. The earlier one involved the communist approach of communal production and sharing the output according to contribution. The latter ones employed a conventional approach and included non-members of the so-called Farmers Producer Cooperatives. As a non-member of the earlier one, the land user had to develop his farm alone. The solitary agroforestry initiative described here has gradually evolved to a fully-fledged system that currently serves as a model SLM practice for scaling up across similar agroecological and farming system. Thus, there was little participation involved during the early intensification of agroforestry in Ethiopia. Rather, it is considered an indigenous practice that now receives publicity as a form of “regenerative agriculture” with ecological, economic, and social benefits. As it has global significance in terms of emission reduction and sequestration of carbon, it is the favourite technology among the government and other development practitioners.
The farmer started agroforestry by planting enset and coffee. Over time, with emerging technical support, access to training, and supply of coffee seedlings by the agriculture and coffee improvement project offices, the land user has continued intensification of the agroforestry around the homestead by adopting the correct planting space for coffee and enset, and other companion fruit, fodder crops, and shade trees. The former Ministry of Coffee and Tea, and the current Ministry of Agriculture have had an immense contribution by supplying technical support, training, and inputs (notably coffee and tree seedlings), and by ensuring access to fertilizers. The latter was supplied to the farmers on a credit basis through the then Service Cooperative.
As the initiative was the farmer's own, the tendency to plant incompatible crops was not uncommon. Even so, the agroforestry trees and shrubs still had immense ecological and economic value. They ameliorate the extreme temperature experienced during the dry season, improve the microclimate, recharge the surface and groundwater via improving water infiltration, and reduce runoff losses. Improving soil fertility and soil health are among other benefits. Despite the substantial benefit the technology confers on land users, the lack of a participatory approach in planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at the community level restricts the adoption and scaling up of this beneficial approach. Despite the achievements of the land user, earlier engagement of other smallholders and institutionalizing the approach decades ago might have positively influenced the design as well as wider-scale adoption and application of the technology. However, regardless of any limitations, the technology is evidence-based and inspirational.
2.3 Photos of the Approach
General remarks regarding photos:
The photo shows the practice rather than the approach. However, the existing scene is just the outcome of the approach (farmer's own) employed to establish and maintain the agroforestry practice.
2.4 Videos of the Approach
Comments, short description:
Videos of the approach is not documented.
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Ethiopia
Region/ State/ Province:
Sidama
Further specification of location:
Shoye kebele (Kebele - lower administrative level).
Comments:
As perennial crop enset (false banana) is a staple food in the area, the farming system is tree based but vary with degrees of intensification.
Map
×2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
1980
Comments:
It is a continuous, non-ending self initiative inheritable by the generation to come.
2.7 Type of Approach
- traditional/ indigenous
2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach
A traditional approach was initiated to change the land use/ land cover and optimize the benefit of the degraded land by reducing the negative effects of overgrazing and its consequence.
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- enabling
The long-standing tradition of the society promotes planting and preserving trees.
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- enabling
Access to in-kind credit services such as fertilizers from farmers' cooperatives enables the land users to effectively implement the practice.
institutional setting
- hindering
The lack of institutional setting might have influenced the rate of scaling the technology.
collaboration/ coordination of actors
- enabling
Foster farmers access to training, technical support, exchange visit...
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- enabling
Enables the development of a sense of ownership and accountability to properly implement and manage the practice.
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- enabling
Promote effective implementation, management, and use of the return from the practice.
markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
- enabling
The availability of a fair and subsidized market enables the approach.
- hindering
Lack of reliable market compels to change the approach to another income-generating practice/approach.
workload, availability of manpower
- enabling
The availability of manpower enables one to accomplish the job without pressure.
- hindering
Shortage of manpower disables effective implementation of the practice.
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
Land users and local communities
Plan and implement the technology, and sharing labor, skills and knowledge.
- SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
Development agents (DAs) and district experts
Provide training, and technical support, facilitate land users' access to inputs such as seedlings and fertilizers, monitor and evaluate, and documentation of successful practices for pervasive application and use.
- researchers
Regional Agricultural Research Institute, and under/graduate students.
Generate supportive specific and relevant technologies, learn the lesson, and recommend best-fit technologies/practices.
- local government
District administration and colleagues
Acknowledge the farmers/technology adopters as a model to showcase their experience and encourage the scaling out of the initiative.
3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities | Specify who was involved and describe activities | |
---|---|---|
initiation/ motivation | self-mobilization | Land user: Initiated coffee and enset plantation little by little and accessed training and technical support from DAs and Woreda office of Agriculture experts. |
planning | self-mobilization | Land user and development agent: In consultation with DAs, the land users plan based on available labor and capital every other year. |
implementation | self-mobilization | Land users and family member. They involved in various implementation/management activities. |
monitoring/ evaluation | passive | Government development agents, and experts coordinate mobilization of the communities to visit and learn from the ongoing practice. |
3.3 Flow chart (if available)
Description:
A flow chart depicting the evolution of practice from self-initiative indigenous coffee planting practices to a multistorey agroforestry system with the participation and support of public organization agents and farmers' primary cooperative.
Author:
Gerba Leta
3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies
Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
- land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:
The land user was the initial decision maker that later cross-fertilized or complemented by research and development actors.
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
- personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
4.1 Capacity building/ training
Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?
Ja
Specify who was trained:
- land users
- Development agents
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.
Training is usually provided to literate farmers who are capable of reading, taking notes, and sharing with other peers back home. Women-headed household are inclusive to represent the gender parity.
Form of training:
- public meetings
Form of training:
- Training and visit
Subjects covered:
Coffee production and management such as preparation of planting pits, refilling the soil back to the pit, planting space, fertilizer application, weeding, mulching, planting shade trees, etc.
Comments:
Integrating enset, shade trees, and soil bunds with productive barriers into the farm eventually evolves into the agroforestry system.
4.2 Advisory service
Do land users have access to an advisory service?
Ja
Specify whether advisory service is provided:
- on land users' fields
- at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:
The training used to be given in permanent centers such as development stations in the past and Farmers Training Center since recent a decade ago and was associated with a visit to a farmers field.
4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)
Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
- no
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Nee
Comments:
A sort of visit may be organized by development agents to the coffee plantation but not in a way address the role of monitoring and evaluation and documentation.
4.5 Research
Was research part of the Approach?
Nee
5. Financing and external material support
5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach
If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
- < 2,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):
Only in kind support such as coffee seedlings and technical support such as advisory service was provide by the government agricultural office through development/extension agents. Otherwise, it is privately financed business with main expense geared toward supplying seedlings and agricultural inputs such as fertilizers.
5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users
Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?
Ja
If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):
In the past (during Derg regime) there was subsidy for fertilizers as a country which is entirely removed in the recent years.
5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)
- other
Other (specify) | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
Fertilizer | partly financed | In the past, the government import and supply fertilizer on subsidized basis. The trend was changed over the last a couple of decades. |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- voluntary
Comments:
Family labor used to manage the family farm.
5.4 Credit
Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?
Nee
5.5 Other incentives or instruments
Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?
Nee
6. Impact analysis and concluding statements
6.1 Impacts of the Approach
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The approach was mainly based on self initiative. The assistance that came in later on was top-down where farmers were urged to plant coffee and companion tree crops. However, later it has evolved into agroforestry and SLM that empower local land users to join.
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
It is not entirely the approach but the outcome of intensifying the technology that eventually enables land users and other stakeholders to make an evidence-based decision.
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The prevailing system compels farmers to integrate land management practices such as soil bunds, food and non-food tree species into the farm that enable land users to adopt and uphold SLM technology.
Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
,
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Through public meetings and social learning from peers and better-off farmers, land users' knowledge and skills to implement the technology have been improved.
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Virtually through social learning and labor sharing.
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
It was a solitary approach but later adopted by numerous land users.
Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
It doesn't deliberate about gender disparity and equity as it was an indigenous initiative in the long past.
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
The established technology built youths trust in SLM.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Actually, implementing the agroforestry improved food and nutrition security of the family farmers.
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Harvest from the integrated system improved farmer's access to market.
Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Through promoting biogas technology in mixed tree-crop-livestock system.
Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Again, it is not the approach but the applied technology has improved farmers adaptation to climate change/climate variability.
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
It creates all year round employment opportunity for family labor and other casual laborers.
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- increased production
Improve crop production and productivity; diversify crops and reduces risks of crop failure; improved soil fertility and reduce runoff.
- increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
Land users managed to generate income from the sale of cash crops such as coffee, and fruits as compared to the investment in managing the system.
- reduced land degradation
Permanent land cover by trees, shrubs, and perennial food, cash, and fodder crops reduces land degradation. Also, enrich the land with litter and organic matter.
- reduced risk of disasters
Reduce the risk of flood and soil runoff, diversify crops and reduce the risk of failure owning to climate change/variability.
- prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
Land user becoming the richest in the community implies earning from the investment makes her/his prestigious within the community.
- environmental consciousness
The reduction of adverse effects due to the implementation of the technology allows for an increase in environmental consciousness.
- enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
- yes
If yes, describe how:
Despite the implementation approach employed by the land user, the technology is highly commended by the land users and the public at large. The income generated from the sale of crops adequately supports the livelihoods of family farmers as well as effectively finances the maintenance of the system. However, the new beginners need external support to make sure the technology is properly implemented and scaled out for wider application and use.
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
Enables improved crop production and productivity and reduces risks of crop failure due to climate change/variability. |
Motivate farmers to reduce soil erosion and land degradation and improve soil fertility. |
The approach creates an enabling environment to intensify agroforestry and improve the microclimate of the area and ensure sustainability of the system. |
Increased land users' status in the community to feel confident as local elites and friendliness to the environment. |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
The agroforestry system creates economic, ecological, and social benefits for the family farm. |
It ensures sustainable land management becomes in place as well as improves land users' understanding of SLM. |
Ensure productivity and product stability, and serve as a permanent source of income and insurance for a family farmer. |
6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Failure to promote collective action that end up with shortage of labor with increasing size/ areas of technology. | Establish and promote collective action and labor-sharing techniques. |
Lack of participatory planning and decision make to put in place proper trees-crops integration. | Promote participation that enables to select and plant trees and crops with desirable characteristics to the agroforestry system. |
Lack of active women participation with clear role and their share of the benefit from the system. | Improve women's participation and share of the benefit. |
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view | How can they be overcome? |
---|---|
Lower level of mainstreaming the approach and the technology at earlier stage that led to land users lower level of understanding of the multi-storey agroforestry system. | Improve land users understanding of Agroforestry and the SLM through capacity building and exchange visits. |
The solitary approach led to relatively lower adoption of the technology. | Improve participation, access to training, technical support, and credit services to optimize the benefit of land users at scale. |
Evolving the approach from solitary approach to large mass of land users constrained by shortage of farmland. | Promote intensification through introduction of high - value crops and optimize the return from the smaller holdings. |
7. References and links
7.1 Methods/ sources of information
- field visits, field surveys
3
- interviews with land users
One land user
- interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
2
7.2 References to available publications
Title, author, year, ISBN:
An Agroforestry Guide for Field Practitioners. 2013. ISBN 978-92-9059-333-1
Available from where? Costs?
https://www.worldagroforestry.org
7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online
Title/ description:
SUSTAINABLE LAND USE FORUM
URL:
http://publication.eiar.gov.et
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules