Women user group members harvest and carry their share to the market (Tena Alamirew)

'Cut and Carry' Grazing system or 'Zero Grazing' (CCG) (Etiopía)

Ensesa Asro Memgeb (Amharic)

Descripción

Cut and carry grazing system (alternatively called zero grazing) is an approach where the community is consulted to identify and agree on areas to be closed and protected from free grazing; establish user groups are established to share the fodder biomass harvested from communal closed areas equitably; they utilize tree/shrub fodder planted on bunds.

Aims / objectives: Zero grazing aims to reduce the impact of livestock management on land degradation. The objectives are: 1) implement cut and carry grazing system by establishing user groups for equitable share of biomass, 2) increase forage quantity and quality by improving the fodder and grass biomass production per unit area, 3) Protect further soil degradation and vegetation loss

Methods: Cut and carry employs series discussion with community to identify zero grazing sites and set bylaws to implement the approach. The watershed committee together with Development Agents and Kebele administration consult the community to identify and decide on the right beneficiaries of benefits gained from closed communal areas. Once the community agrees on the bylaws, the Kebele unit council approved and passed to district court for endorsement. The watershed committee, now renamed as Watershed Users Association, is the legitimate body authorized to regulate watershed management and benefit sharing among entitled users. The money collected from penalty fee from those who violate the rules use as a revolving fund to be used for other watershed development activities. The beneficiaries organize themselves into groups and they divided the benefits on equaitable basis at every harvest season. The users keep their animals around homes or sheds and feed them on harvested fodder/grass.

Stages of implementation: 1. Consultation and discussion with community in order to identify areas free from livestock access, formulate bylaws, control free grazing, and protect the developed watersheds from livestock interference,
2. Identification and organization of right beneficiaries into user groups who actually used to benefit previously on the selected area and new users that are believed to share the benefit,
3. Undertaking treatment of area closures with biological, structural and land use management measures as well as planting bunds on crop lands with fodder and grass species,
4. Watershed Committee start to implement or enforce the agreed bylaws on those who violate the rules (allow livestock in the protected areas, harvest biomass or cut tree from closed areas by untitled users, etc.),
5. Utilization of the biomass by user group members through equal share of the harvested biomass.

Role of stakeholders: Community: The community was responsible to select closed areas from livestock interference, identify beneficiaries, harvest and utilize the biomass as per the agreement, and respect and comply with the rules/bylaws;
Development agents: Supported the watershed committee in regulating protected areas, provide technical advice in the implementing integrated watershed interventions and subsequent maintenance activities or operations, and provide awareness creation and training about fodder utilization;
Watershed committee/watershed users association: It played the key role in planning, managing the developed watershed and regulate the benefit utilization arrangements. It applies the rules for those who do not comply with;
Kebele administration: The administration was responsible to control and manage the overall activities and supervise the implementation
Command post: Both the district and kebele command post (adhoc committee) is responsible to supervise the activities and solve problems;
Research: research involved to take part in introducing improved technologies that increase biomass production (like improved species with high quality and biomass) and efficiency (harvesting and packaging implements);
Project/WLRC: Provided material and technical support for the planning, implementation and monitoring activities.

Other important information: Cut and carry grazing system is an important intervention in the Ethiopian farming system where livestock and crop farming are mixed and livestock husbandry is means of crop production and household asset. Livestock farming is a subsistence production, which is not yet commercialized.

Lugar

Lugar: Bahir Dar Zuria, Mecha, Yilmna Densa, Dessie Zuria, Amhara National Regional State, Etiopía

Georreferencia de sitios seleccionados
  • n.d.

Dato de inicio: 2011

Año de conclusión: n.d.

Tipo de Enfoque
Closed area used to harvest grass by identified user groups through cut and carry approach (Tena Alamirew (WLRC))
Women user group members harvest and carry their share to the market (Tena Alamirew (WLRC))

Metas del Enfoque y entorno facilitador

Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque
The Approach focused on SLM only

The main objectives of cut and carry or zero grazing is protection of land degradation and loss of vegetation on communal lands and controlling damage on the soil and water conservation measures implemented on watersheds. Specifically, it is to practice cut and carry feeding system by establishing equitable share of biomass among user groups, increase quantity and quality of forage, and protect further degradation of land and loss of vegetation.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems targeted to address by implementing cut and carry or zero grazing approach are: growing challenges of land degradation due to overgrazing and compaction/trampling effects; growing shortage of livestock feed; lack of communal land resource management regulation and actions.
Condiciones que facilitan la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque
Condiciones que impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque
  • Disponibilidad/ acceso a recursos y servicios financieros : Inadequate diversification of income from livestock production due to its low carrying capacity of the grazing lands, low input and technology supply as well as low financial capacity of farmers Treatment through the SLM Approach: Zero grazing approach helps to increase livestock productivity and attain better weight gain for market.
  • Entorno institucional: Lack of common property management and regulation to share benefits equitably among users. There is reluctance to respect local initiated bylaws to stop free grazing. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Watershed committee is institutionalized to govern zero grazing implementation procedures and entitle use rights to right beneficiaries in a group.
  • Marco de trabajo legal (tenencia de tierra, derechos de uso de tierra y agua): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately hindered the approach implementation Since there is tradition of open access grazing (animals allowed to graze freely) and pasture lands are communally used, this tradition affects the sustainability of the approach. Although there are community bylaws attempted to enforce through the watershed committee, farmers not yet fully practice cut and carry system of grazing. This, because they wanted to maximize the benefit by entitling individual use rights for communal land resources.
  • Conocimiento de MST, acceso a apoyo técnico: Lack of immediate feed options and lack of knowledge of improved fodder production and forage utilization. Low level of understanding about multiple advantages of zero grazing. Degradation of natural resources in the form of compaction, loss of organic matter and soil erosion and damage to grass and plant biodiversity. Treatment through the SLM Approach: The approach support to build the skill and knowledge of users about the forage production and utilization techniques by research actors as well it enables to understand feed requirement per household.

Participación y roles de las partes interesadas involucradas

Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles
¿Qué partes interesadas/ entidades implementadoras estuvieron involucradas en el Enfoque? Especifique las partes interesadas Describa los roles de las partes interesadas
usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales The watershed Users Association, kebele administration and development agents Individual land users has to play role to control free grazing and practice zero grazing. The closed areas are owned in group and need to protect and control in group. The role of men was mainly dedicated to control free grazing activities and involved in harvesting forage. Women were involved in the plantation of vegetative measures, in bunds and area closures, they took care of animals around their homestead, sometimes they transported forage/biomass for livestock. The approach entitled those who do not own animals to share the biomass collected from communal closed areas. They earned cash by selling the biomass harvest for forage purpose.
especialistas MST/consejeros agrícolas They are involved in the planning, support and supervision of the implementation, monitoring and evaluating the implementation
gobierno local The district agriculture office
gobierno nacional (planificadores, autoridades) Decision makers They play role to enforce the rules and mobilize the community to control free grazing
Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque
ninguno
pasivo
apoyo externo
interactivo
auto-movilización
iniciación/ motivación
planificación
The community and individual land users agree to delineate areas closed from free grazing. At this stage land users should involve and agree.
implementación
land users need to participate and involve actively to control free grazing and practice cut and carry feeding system.
monitoreo y evaluación
Land users are involved in the evaluation and field days.
Research
Land users are involved in participatory technology generation and promotion.
Flujograma

The district office of agriculture together with its Kebele unit is the supervisory body for implementing cut and carry or zero grazing approach. The main implementers are the kebele administration, the watershed users' association and development agents. The Watershed Users' Association (WUA) or sometimes called watershed committee is the implementer of the daily activities or operations to manage and regulate developed watersheds and specifically zero grazing approach by enforcing the agreed bylaws. The Kebele administration unit support and manage administrative matters associated to zero grazing while the development agents assist the WUA and user groups on technical issues. User groups and land users are part of the implementation of the processes.

Autor: Gesesse, Gizaw Desta (WLRC, P.O.Box 8707, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia)
La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología MST

Las decisiones fueron tomadas por

  • solamente usuarios de tierras (autoiniciativa)
  • principalmente usuarios de tierras con el apoyo de especialistas MST
  • todos los actores relevantes, como parte de un enfoque participativo
  • principalmente por especialistas MST en consulta con usuarios de tierras
  • solo por especialistas MST
  • por políticos/ líderes

La toma de decisiones se basa en

  • la evaluación de conocimiento MST bien documentado (la toma de decisiones se basa en evidencia)
  • hallazgos de investigaciones
  • la experiencia personal y opiniones (no documentadas)

Apoyo técnico, fortalecimiento institucional y gestión del conocimiento

Las siguientes actividades o servicios fueron parte del enfoque
Construcción de capacidades/ capacitación
Se proporcionó capacitación a las siguientes partes interesadas
  • usuarios de tierras
  • personal de campo/ consejeros
  • leaders at local level
Forma de capacitación
  • en el contexto de trabajo
  • de agricultor a agricultor
  • áreas de demostración
  • reuniones públicas
  • cursos
Temas avanzados

Magnitude and extent of land degradation and the impact of livestock pressure on depletion of natural resources. The community was advised to reduce livestock number and to rely on small number of improved breeds supplemented with intensive forage production and treated crop residues. Development staff was involved in trainings about forage production and management. Leaders also took part in trainings and awareness workshops about land degradation and natural resources conservation.

Servicio de asesoría
Se proporcionó servicio de asesoría
  • en los campos de los usuarios de tierras
  • en centros permanentes
Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES); Key elements: Training and awareness creation of farmers in Farmer Training Centers (FTC), Provision of inputs and package, and demonstrations on the Farmer Training Centers (FTC) and experience sharing visits, On job training; The method gives high emphasis to training and to some extent practical demonstrations supported with experience
sharing visits but less emphasis to advisory of farmers on site.


Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The extension system is quite adequate to ensure continuation of activities. The government service is adequate to ensure the implementation. Furthermore, if the newly structured and formulated Watershed Users Association functions well, it is sufficient to regulate the approach and sustain land conservation.
Fortalecimiento institucional
Se fortalecieron/ establecieron instituciones
  • no
  • sí, un poco
  • sí, moderadamente
  • sí, mucho
en el siguiente nivel
  • local
  • regional
  • nacional
Describa la institución, los roles y las responsabilidades, miembros, etc.
Tipo de apoyo
  • financiero
  • construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento
  • equipo
Detalles adicionales
The support is mainly awareness creation and training. The local institutions like watershed users association, User Groups, Farmer Training Centers are supported by training.
Monitoreo y evaluación
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Free grazing by animals; land users who practice zero grazing bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Forage biomass harvested and shared among the land users technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Fattening practice; change in animal body performance socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Formation of User Groups and share of benefits; Conflict reduction; role of actors economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: Fattening benefits; area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Area covered by zero grazing no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Land users who practice zero grazing or who voilate the rules management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by None through measurements; indicators: Damage to treated areas by free grazing There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: As a result of monitoring and evaluation the practice of zero grazing is expanded. Strict enforcement of the bylaws brought change in zero grazing practices and some also attempted to reduce their livestock number There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Investigación
La investigación trató los siguientes temas
  • sociología
  • economía/ marketing
  • ecología
  • tecnología

The research support is most of the time in form of on-farm research. Research is part of the approach. The research provides technical backstopping by introducing improved agricultural technologies like improved forage species and breeds that complement the SLM technologies where the approach is designed for.


Research was carried out on-farm

Financiamiento y apoyo material externo

Presupuesto anual en dólares americanos para el componente MST
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.d.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Through technical and material support and capacity building): 28.0%; local community / land user(s) (For scouting by Watershed Users Association, free labor for implementation, and sometimes wage for guards): 72.0%
Los siguientes servicios o incentivos fueron proporcionados a los usuarios de las tierras
  • Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras
  • Subsidios para insumos específicos
  • Crédito
  • Otros incentivos o instrumentos
Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras
The inputs like seedlings and grass splits raised in the nurseries for the implementation of vegetative measures and other technologies that support the efficiency and management of the SLM technologies are supported by the government and/or projects.
parcialmente financiado
totalmente financiado
equipo: herramientas

Hand tools for construction

agrícola: semillas

Tree seedlings and grasses

El trabajo de los usuarios de las tierras fue

Análisis de impacto y comentarios de conclusión

Impactos del Enfoque
No
Sí, un poco
Sí, moderadamente
Sí, mucho
¿El Enfoque ayudó a los usuarios de tierras a implementar y mantener Tecnologías MST?

The approach aim to rehabilitate unproductive and degraded lands and thereby the soil moisture and biomass productivity improve. It also helps to increase the level of awareness to protect and manage communal resources and share of benefits out of it. It also gradually increases the ecosystem services such as increase the duration of flow of streams, increase stream flow and water availability, improve the diversity of plant species, and improve the micro-climatic conditions.

¿El Enfoque empoderó a grupos en desventaja social y económica?

Land users who do not have animals also share the benefit equally with the land users who own animals. Thus, they improve their situation by selling grass biomass for feed. Others also employed to prepare and raise tree and grass seedlings in nurseries.

¿El Enfoque mejoró cuestiones de tenencia de tierra/ derechos de usuarios que obstaculizaron la implementación de la Tecnologías MST?

Forage biomass production and improved forage development were parts of the SLM technologies help to reduce the feed shortage problem. The approach is thus help to improve feed shortage by producing alternative fodder production strategies on bunds, gullies, area closures and backyards while controlling free grazing by implementing community agreed bylaws and setting entitlement to group use rights.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

The cut and carry system is gradually expanded to adjacent watersheds and villages after sharing experiences during field days. Land users become aware of the benefits of cut and carry system on livestock production and health. Experts and leaders from other districts visited the approach and plan to expand to their areas.

Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST
  • producción incrementada
  • incremento de la renta(bilidad), proporción mejorada de costo-beneficio
  • reducción de la degradación del suelo
  • reducción del riesgo de desastres naturales
  • carga de trabajo reducida
  • pagos/ subsidios
  • reglas y reglamentos (multas)/ aplicación
  • prestigio, presión social/ cohesión social
  • afiliación al movimiento/ proyecto/ grupo/ redes
  • conciencia medioambiental
  • costumbres y creencias, moral
  • conocimiento y capacidades mejorados de MST
  • mejoramiento estético
  • mitigación de conflicto
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement
Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque
¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?
  • no
  • incierto

It can be sustained if adequate technology supply, effective capacity development, and regulatory systems become effective. Additional efforts on increasing the technical skill of farmers and especially for members of Watershed Users Association on regulatory practices by employing continuous awareness creation, training and demonstration activities.

Conclusiones y lecciones aprendidas

Fortalezas: perspectiva del usuario de tierras
  • The approach give benefit to those who have less power within the community. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen and empower user groups in particular and watershed users' association in general.)
  • Improved body performance of the animals treated in zero grazing. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Provide continuous advisory services to land users in order to implement zero grazing and practice fattening.)
Fortalezas: punto de vista del compilador o de otra persona recurso clave
  • Increase the attitude and knowledge of land users about land degradation and sustainable land management. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Launch continuous training sessions or capacity building activities in the Farmer Training Centers (FTC).)
  • Degraded lands become rehabilitated and productive and off-site ecosystem services enhanced, and restore the lost plant biodiversity on degraded lands and waste lands.
    (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Maintain interventions and comply with agreed bylaws.
    )
  • Strengthen grass root level institutions that govern the management of resources in watersheds.

    (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Provide support and increase their technical and financial capacity.)
  • Communal degraded lands are entitled to organized use rights and gives opportunity to those who do not access benefit from communal lands.

    (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen the Watershed Users Association and user groups.)
  • Enable to introduce improved livestock production system that improve livestock productivity as a result of controlled feeding and avoidance of long distance movement of animals and gradually change from subsistence to (semi) commercial production.
    (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Provide technical support and link to market information and opportunities.)
Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos: perspectiva del usuario de tierrascómo sobreponerse
  • Zero grazing applies only when the number of animals per household is minimum while large livestock flock size is required to use for trampling and as a risk aversion mechanisms. Options of agronomic practices without trampling and other agricultural implements that substitute trampling has to be introduced and adopted.
  • The approach has limitations in areas where there is forage constraints and shortage of communal land for grazing purposes. Introduce intensive forage production systems (for example backyard) that improve productivity per unit area.
Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos: punto de vista del compilador o de otra persona recurso clavecómo sobreponerse
  • All land users were not equally committed and took accountability. Motivate and engage them in every decision making process.
  • Inadequate support to watershed committee in enforcing the rules from higher level administrative units. Establish forums or platforms for discussing challenges and solve problems.

Referencias

Compilador
  • Gizaw Desta Gessesse
Editors
Revisado por
  • Fabian Ottiger
Fecha de la implementación: 16 de mayo de 2014
Últimas actualización: 24 de julio de 2017
Personas de referencia
Descripción completa en la base de datos de WOCAT
Datos MST vinculados
La documentación fue facilitada por
Institución Proyecto
Referencias claves
  • Area closure. WLRC Brief No. 2 June 2015: www.wlrc-eth.org
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International