1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 17, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 64, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Ethiopia (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) - Ethiopia', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Enclosing and protecting an area of degraded land from human use and animal interference, to permit natural rehabilitation, enhanced by additional vegetative and structural conservation measures.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Area closure involves the protection and resting of severely degraded land to restore its productive capacity. There are two major types of area enclosures practised in Ethiopia: (1) the most common type involves closing of an area from livestock and people so that natural regeneration of the vegetation can take place; (2) the second option comprises closing off degraded land while simultaneously implementing additional measures such as planting of seedlings, mulching and establishing water harvesting structures to enhance and speed up the regeneration process. The focus of this case study is on this second type.

The selection of measures chosen for rehabilitation depends mainly on the land use type, and to a lesser extent on climate, topography and soil type. Degraded croplands with individual land use rights are normally treated with additional structural measures to retain soil moisture and trap sediment, and with agronomic measures to restore soil fertility. Open access grazing lands are closed for natural regeneration while partly treated with additional measures, and open access woodlands are simply closed. In the case study area 60% of the enclosed area is under treatment with additional conservation measures and 40% is under natural regeneration. First, the area to be closed is demarcated and protected with fencing, usually live fences, and a site guard may be assigned to further ensure protection. Structural measures such as micro-basins, trenches, and bunds that enhance water infiltration and soil moisture may be constructed to increase survival rate of vegetative material planted. Hillside terraces, spaced at a 1 m vertical interval with a width of 1 m are constructed on steep slopes (exceeding 20%). Nitrogen-fixing and multipurpose shrubs/trees (for fodder, fuel) such as Acacia saligna, Sesbania sesban, Leucaena leucocephala as well as local grass species such as napier (Pennisetum purpureum) and rhodes (Chloris gayana) are planted as additional measures for conservation.

The maintenance of area enclosures involves activities such as replanting, maintaining of fences, pruning of trees and weeding. After one year, cut-and-carry of grass for stall-feeding can be partly practiced - which is of economic benefit to the farmers. Rehabilitation normally takes about 7-10 years depending on the level of degradation and intensity of management. Land use is limited to selective cutting of trees, collection of dead wood and cut-and-carry of grass for livestock fodder. On individually owned enclosures land users start cutting trees after three years (for eucalyptus) and after 7–8 years (for other trees), while on communal land farmers are allowed to collect dead wood after 3-–4 years, and the community decides about the use of trees.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• conserve ecosystem

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Comments:

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): Over 30% of the land in the study area is degraded, resulting in low crop yields and poor livestock production. Severe water erosion is the main cause of land degradation on all slopes, followed by fertility depletion due to intensive cultivation practices and overgrazing. Serious gully formation and a high sediment load in the Bilate River threaten Lake Abaya. Communal grazing lands, woodlands with open access, and cultivated lands on steep slopes without conservation measures are particularly affected. By tradition, land users in rural Ethiopia can own as many livestock as they wish, which encourages overstocking.

Ranching: (before SWC)

Other grazingland: mixed silvo-pastoral (after SWC): cut-and-carry, trees

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• area closure (stop use, support restoration)
• cross-slope measure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Wt: loss of topsoil / surface erosion, Wg: gully erosion / gullying, Wo: offsite degradation effects, Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content, Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Planting of trees (Eucalyptus spp., Grevillea robusta) as well as	(early rainy season).
2.	Oversowing/interplanting with local grass species: napier grass	(early rainy season).
3.	Marking the boundary and establishment of live fences: digging pits	early rainy season (before June).
4.	Construction of structural measures such as micro- basins, trenches, bunds or hillside terraces.	before rains

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	175.0	175.0	50.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	25.0	25.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0
Plant material	Seedlings	ha	1.0	150.0	150.0
Construction material	Stone	ha	1.0
Construction material	Wood	ha	1.0
Other	site guard (kg grain/ha/year)	ha	1.0	1.0	1.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					391.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					391.0

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 2 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Mulching with tree leaves/grass around newly planted trees, before	before rains / initial establishment
2.	Replanting/gapping up live fence and trees during rains in the early	during rains /
3.	Harvesting grass	during rainy season. /
4.	Pruning of trees	in the dry season. /
5.	Weeding	after rains. /
6.	Repairing breaks in structures	before rains./

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labour	ha	1.0	35.0	35.0	100.0
Equipment	Tools	ha	1.0	5.0	5.0	100.0
Plant material	Seeds	ha	1.0	10.0	10.0
Plant material	Seedlings	ha	1.0	40.0	40.0
Other	site guard (kg grain/ha/year)	ha	1.0	1.0	1.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					91.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					91.0

Comments:

Labour for establishment activities: 250 person days per ha for structural measures and planting of trees, plus guarding. Labour for maintenance: 50 person days for replanting/weeding. A common daily wage is US$ 0.70 (= 6 Ethiopian Birr), however in this case the site guards were given 3 kg of grains per ha per year. They can control over 200 ha.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Altitudinal zone: Also 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l. (ranked 2) and 2001-2500 m a.s.l. (ranked 3)
Slopes on average: Also hilly (ranked 2) and moderate (ranked 3)

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil depth on average: Also moderately deep (ranked 2) and deep (ranked 3)
Soil fertility: Low
Topsoil organic matter: Also medium and high (both ranked 2)
Soil drainage/infiltration: Good
Soil water storage capacity: Very high

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Off-farm income specification: from petty trade, weaving, etc

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• individual

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Other ecological impacts

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 91-100%

Comments:

300 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

90% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: Adoption rate has considerably increased owing to improved ownership feeling and immense benefits obtained through the practice. However, if labour-intensive structural measures are required people rely on food-for-work incentives.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Reduction of on-site and off-site land degradation, reclamation of degraded non-productive land (regenerating fertility) How can they be sustained / enhanced? Strengthen maintenance and protection to increase biomass production of enclosure.
Fodder shortage is reduced through cut-and-carry of grass in enclosures (after 1 year) How can they be sustained / enhanced? Introduce more productive and nutritious grass/legume species.
Collection of dead wood from enclosures (after 3–4 years) mitigates fuelwood shortage How can they be sustained / enhanced? Introduce alternative fast growing multi-purpose tree species such as Grevillea robusta (fodder for smallstock in very dry periods).
Cutting wood for construction of houses and wooden farm implements (after 7–8 years) How can they be sustained / enhanced? Continue planting of multipurpose trees.
Increased honey production through increased bee activity in enclosures Emerge of springs, which have disappeared due to deforestation/land degradation Income generation: farmers sell grass/wood collected from area enclosures; they make profit despite seven years enclosure How can they be sustained / enhanced? Improve beehives, ‘bee feed’ (bee-friendly plants), and access to market. Maintain proper ground cover to improve infiltration and percolation of rainwater. Better management of planted grass, making of hay, improve market systems.
Emergence of springs, which have disappeared due to deforestation/land degradation -> Maintain proper ground cover to improve infiltration and percolation of rainwater. - Income generation: farmers sell grass/wood collected from area enclosures; they make profit despite seven years enclosure -> Better management of planted grass, making of hay, improve market systems. Editors’ comments: Protecting degraded land against grazing is a common practice worldwide. In Ethiopia it is the second most important SWC practice after structural conservation measures. About 1.2 million hectares of degraded lands have been closed for rehabilitation in Ethiopia during the past three decades. As this case study shows, results are encouraging both in terms of effective protection and enhanced production. Land use rights: open access on woodlands and grazing lands (communal land use rights), individual on cropland

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
On highly eroded areas and in areas with low rainfall the survival rate of trees and shrubs is low and as a result the benefits only come after a very long period. This situation becomes unacceptable to the land users	Select suitable local and exotic multipurpose tree/shrub species adapted to the local conditions (Acacia spp., Eucalyptus spp., Grevillea robusta etc). Construct water-harvesting structures (trenches, micro-basins). Raise awareness among land users through meetings and training.
Investment costs are rather high for land users	Credits, loans, cooperatives.
Inequitable share of benefits	Awareness should be increased through enhancing the LLPP approach.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Chadokar PA: Multipurpose Plant Species for Soil and Water Conservation. Assistance to Soil and Water ConservationProgramme. ETH/81/003. 1985.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Betru Nedassa: Biological Soil Conservation Measures. Land Rehabilitation and Reforestation Project. Project 2488MOA/WFP. 1995.