1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación de la Tecnología

Nombre del proyecto que financió la documentación/ evaluación de la Tecnología (si fuera relevante)

Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación de la Tecnología (si fuera relevante)

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Ethiopia (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) - Etiopía

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

01/07/2003

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT:

Sí

1.4 Declaración de la sostenibilidad de la Tecnología descrita

¿La Tecnología aquí descrita resulta problemática en relación a la degradación de la tierra, de tal forma que no puede considerársela una tecnología sostenible para el manejo de la tierra?

No

1.5 Referencia al (los) Cuestionario(s) de Enfoques MST

2.1 Breve descripción de la Tecnología

Definición de la Tecnología:

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 Descripción detallada de la Tecnología

Descripción:

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 Fotografías de la Tecnología

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde la Tecnología fue aplicada y que se hallan comprendidos por esta evaluación

2.7 Introducción de la Tecnología

Especifique cómo se introdujo la Tecnología:

• mediante proyectos/ intervenciones externas

3.1 Propósito(s) principal(es) de la Tecnología MST

• mejorar la producción
• reducir, prevenir, restaurar la degradación del suelo
• conservar el ecosistema

3.2 Tipo(s) actuales de uso de la tierra donde se aplica la Tecnología

Comentarios:

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 Información adicional sobre el uso de tierras

Provisión de agua para la tierra donde se aplica la Tecnología:

• de secano

Especifique:

Longest growing period in days: 120 Longest growing period from month to month: Jun - Sep

3.4 Grupo MST al que pertenece la Tecnología

• veda de zona (detener uso, apoyar la restauración)
• medida de pendiente transversal

3.5 Difusión de la Tecnología

Comentarios:

Total area covered by the SLM Technology is 20 m2.

3.6 Medidas MST que componen la Tecnología

3.7 Principales tipos de degradación del suelo encarados con la Tecnología

Comentarios:

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 Prevención, reducción o restauración de la degradación del suelo

Especifique la meta de la Tecnología con relación a la degradación de la tierra:

• restaurar/ rehabilitar tierra severamente degradada

4.1 Dibujo técnico de la Tecnología

4.2 Especificaciones técnicas/ explicaciones del dibujo técnico

Rehabilitation of degraded land based on enclosure with live fence. Natural regeneration of vegetative cover is supported by water harvesting structures and planting of nitrogen-fixing/multipurpose shrubs and trees as well as local grass species. On steeper slopes hillside terraces may be established.

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: improvement of ground cover, increase of infiltration, control of dispersed runoff, control of concentrated runoff, increase in soil fertility

Secondary technical functions: increase / maintain water stored in soil, less sediment deportation

Mulching
Material/ species: tree leaves/grass

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: T : trees / shrubs

Vegetative measure: oversowing grasses
Vegetative material: G : grass

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass

Vegetative measure: Vegetative material: G : grass

Trees/ shrubs species: Acacia saligna, Sesbania sesban, Leucaena leucocephala, Eucalyptus spp., Grevillea robusta

Grass species: nepier (Pennisetum purpureum), rhodes (Chloris gayana)

Structural measure: micro-basins (opt.)

Structural measure: terraces (opt.)

Structural measure: bunds (opt.)

Other type of management: land use change, enclosure,, cut-and-carry

4.4 Actividades de establecimiento

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

4.5 Costos e insumos necesarios para el establecimiento

	Especifique insumo	Unidad	Cantidad	Costos por unidad	Costos totales por insumo	% de los costos cubiertos por los usuarios de las tierras
Mano de obra	Labour	ha	1,0	175,0	175,0	50,0
Equipo	Tools	ha	1,0	25,0	25,0	100,0
Material para plantas	Seeds	ha	1,0	40,0	40,0
Material para plantas	Seedlings	ha	1,0	150,0	150,0
Material de construcción	Stone	ha	1,0
Material de construcción	Wood	ha	1,0
Otros	site guard (kg grain/ha/year)	ha	1,0	1,0	1,0	100,0
Costos totales para establecer la Tecnología					391,0

Comentarios:

Duration of establishment phase: 2 month(s)

4.6 Actividades de establecimiento/ recurrentes

	Actividad	Tipo de medida	Momento/ frequencia
1.	Mulching with tree leaves/grass around newly planted trees, before	Agronómicas	before rains / initial establishment
2.	Replanting/gapping up live fence and trees during rains in the early	Vegetativas	during rains /
3.	Harvesting grass	Vegetativas	during rainy season. /
4.	Pruning of trees	Vegetativas	in the dry season. /
5.	Weeding	Vegetativas	after rains. /
6.	Repairing breaks in structures	Estructurales	before rains./

4.7 Costos e insumos necesarios para actividades de mantenimiento/ recurrentes (por año)

	Especifique insumo	Unidad	Cantidad	Costos por unidad	Costos totales por insumo	% de los costos cubiertos por los usuarios de las tierras
Mano de obra	Labour	ha	1,0	35,0	35,0	100,0
Equipo	Tools	ha	1,0	5,0	5,0	100,0
Material para plantas	Seeds	ha	1,0	10,0	10,0
Material para plantas	Seedlings	ha	1,0	40,0	40,0
Otros	site guard (kg grain/ha/year)	ha	1,0	1,0	1,0	100,0
Indique los costos totales para mantenecer la Tecnología					91,0

Comentarios:

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 Clima

5.2 Topografía

Comentarios y especificaciones adicionales sobre topografía :

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 Suelos

Si se halla disponible, adjunte una descripción completa de los suelos o especifique la información disponible, por ej., tipo de suelo, pH/ acidez de suelo, capacidad de intercambio catiónico, nitrógeno, salinidad, 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 Las características de los usuarios de la tierra que aplican la Tecnología

Indique otras características relevantes de los usuarios de las tierras:

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

5.7 Área promedio de la tierra que pertenece a o es arrendada por usuarios de tierra que aplican la Tecnología

5.8 Tenencia de tierra, uso de tierra y derechos de uso de agua

Tenencia de tierra:

• estado

Derechos de uso de tierra:

• acceso abierto (no organizado)
• individual

6.1 Impactos in situ demostrados por la Tecnología

Impactos socioeconómicos

Producción

Ingreso y costos

Impactos socioculturales

Impactos ecológicos

Ciclo de agua/ escurrimiento de sedimento

Suelo

Otros impactos ecológicos

6.2 Impactos fuera del sitio demostrados por la Tecnología

6.4 Análisis costo-beneficio

¿Cómo se comparan los beneficios con los costos de establecimiento (desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de tierra)?

¿Cómo se comparan los beneficios con los costos de mantenimiento/ recurrentes (desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de tierra)?

6.5 Adopción de la Tecnología

De todos quienes adoptaron la Tecnología, ¿cuántos lo hicieron espontáneamente, es decir, sin recibir incentivos/ pagos materiales?

• 90-100%

Comentarios:

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 Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades de la Tecnología

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
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 Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos de la Tecnología y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
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.

7.2 Vínculos a las publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

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