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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC) - Ethiopia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

16/05/2014

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

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

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.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

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.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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	none
planning	interactive	The community and individual land users agree to delineate areas closed from free grazing. At this stage land users should involve and agree.
implementation	interactive	land users need to participate and involve actively to control free grazing and practice cut and carry feeding system.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Land users are involved in the evaluation and field days.
Research	interactive	Land users are involved in participatory technology generation and promotion.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• leaders at local level

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Awareness creation is provided to all land users both men and women, development staff and local leaders.

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

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.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

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.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

The support is mainly awareness creation and training. The local institutions like watershed users association, User Groups, Farmer Training Centers are supported by training.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

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

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

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

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

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%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

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.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

The labor is totally contributed by land users voluntarily through community mobilization approach.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

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.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
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.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
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.)

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?
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.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
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.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Area closure. WLRC Brief No. 2 June 2015

Available from where? Costs?

www.wlrc-eth.org