Technologies

Community-Based Closed Area Management [Ethiopia]

Area Closure

technologies_4135 - Ethiopia

Completeness: 92%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Carbon Benefits Project (CBP)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Bureau of Agriculture - Amhara Nation Regional State - Bahir Dar (amhboard) - Ethiopia
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC) - Ethiopia
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)
CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland

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

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Area closure is a protection system to improve land with degraded vegetation and/or soil, by excluding livestock grazing and applying initial inputs and continuous maintenance. Once recovery is taking place through natural regeneration, area closures can become part of the agricultural system, thereby improving forage quantity and quality and also enhancing the fertility of land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The area closure technology has been applied in community-based watershed development in Abagerima since 2012.
The area was closed from livestock free grazing, allowing grasses, bushes and trees to recover, thereby conserving soil and water, improving soil moisture, and preventing on- and off-site erosion.
Area closures serve as buffer zone by preventing siltation, acting as meteorological regulator, enhancing the water cycle, and improving the productivity of the land.
Generally, area closures can enhance the livelihoods of the community in social. economic, political. environmental and cultural aspects.
The major activity at the beginning is to create community awareness about the technology. After that, construction of trenches, planting of trees (e.g. grevillea rubusta) and some maintenance is needed.
Area closures have many benefits, like economical, reducing conflicts, etc., and most land users know these benefits and thus accept the technology.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

General remarks regarding photos:

The photos were all taken during field work on 24 October 2018, while several technologies were assessed by different compilers. In the Abagerima area a full watershed was developed in 2013 by the Water and Land Resource Centre, Addis Ababa University and Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, funded by Swiss Development Cooperation and its Ethiopian partners.

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

Country:

Ethiopia

Region/ State/ Province:

Amhara Region, West Gojam Zone, Bahir Dar Zurya

Further specification of location:

near Bahirdar, the capital of Amhara region

Specify the spread of the Technology:
  • evenly spread over an area
If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, specify area covered (in km2):

0.1

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:
  • 0.1-1 km2
Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2012

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:
  • less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:
  • through projects/ external interventions
Comments (type of project, etc.):

Water and Land Resource Centre Project

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • create beneficial social impact

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

Grazing land

Grazing land

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
  • Improved pastures
Animal type:
  • cattle - dairy
  • cattle - non-dairy beef
  • goats
  • horses
  • mules and asses
  • poultry
  • sheep
Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

No

Products and services:
  • eggs
  • milk
  • skins/ hides
  • transport/ draught
Species:

cattle - non-dairy working

Count:

1656

Species:

mules and asses

Count:

600

Species:

sheep

Count:

280

Species:

goats

Count:

180

Species:

poultry

Count:

4300

Forest/ woodlands

Forest/ woodlands

  • Tree plantation, afforestation
Type of tree:
  • Acacia senegal
  • Grevillea robusta
Are the trees specified above deciduous or evergreen?
  • mixed deciduous/ evergreen
Products and services:
  • Timber
  • Fuelwood
  • Nature conservation/ protection
Comments:

Livestock population for the whole watershed

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

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?
  • Yes (Please fill out the questions below with regard to the land use before implementation of the Technology)
Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

Grazing land

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:
  • Ranching
Intensive grazing/ fodder production:
  • Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
  • Improved pastures
Animal type:
  • cattle - dairy
  • cattle - non-dairy beef
  • cattle - non-dairy working
  • goats
  • horses
  • mules and asses
  • poultry
  • sheep
Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

No

Products and services:
  • eggs
  • meat
  • transport/ draught
Waterways, waterbodies, wetlands

Waterways, waterbodies, wetlands

  • Drainage lines, waterways

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)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

agronomic measures

  • A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
  • A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
  • A5: Seed management, improved varieties
vegetative measures

vegetative measures

  • V1: Tree and shrub cover
  • V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants
structural measures

structural measures

  • S2: Bunds, banks
  • S3: Graded ditches, channels, waterways
  • S4: Level ditches, pits
management measures

management measures

  • M2: Change of management/ intensity level
  • M3: Layout according to natural and human environment
  • M5: Control/ change of species composition

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

soil erosion by water

  • Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • Wg: gully erosion/ gullying
soil erosion by wind

soil erosion by wind

  • Et: loss of topsoil
  • Ed: deflation and deposition
physical soil deterioration

physical soil deterioration

  • Pc: compaction
biological degradation

biological degradation

  • Bc: reduction of vegetation cover
  • Bh: loss of habitats
  • Bs: quality and species composition/ diversity decline
water degradation

water degradation

  • Hs: change in quantity of surface water
  • Hp: decline of surface water quality

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:
  • prevent land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

This picture represents a typical sample of a closed area within Abagerima Watershed. Unlike for the described technology there are no hillside terraces shown in this sketch, while the technology contains such structures for tree planting.

Author:

Bekalu Bitew

Date:

24/10/2018

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:
  • per Technology area
Indicate size and area unit:

11 ha

Specify currency used for cost calculations:
  • USD
Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

3.0

4.3 Establishment activities

Activity Timing (season)
1. surveying October (after the main rainy season)
2. preparing materials October
3. community awareness October
4. design and layout the structure November
5. implementation December to February (main dry season)

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 hillside terraces (13 x 400 m) person-days 65.0 3.0 195.0 75.0
Equipment hand tools Number 100.0 3.0 300.0 50.0
Equipment waterlevel Number 24.0 4.0 96.0
Plant material seedling number 2500.0 0.5 1250.0 50.0
Plant material seed Kg 50.0 2.0 100.0 50.0
Plant material preparing pit Number 2500.0 0.04 100.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 2041.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 2041.0
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC) and Government

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Activity Timing/ frequency
1. trench March (before rainy season)
2. planting tree seedlings July and August (height of rainy season)

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 Hillside terraces person-days 15.0 3.0 45.0 75.0
Plant material planting tree seedlings Number 2600.0 0.04 104.0 49.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 149.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 149.0
If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC) and Government

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

labour availability and timing

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Specify average annual rainfall (if known), in mm:

1300.00

Specifications/ comments on rainfall:

there is a raingauge nearby

Indicate the name of the reference meteorological station considered:

Abagerima

Agro-climatic zone
  • sub-humid

The rainfall is seasonal, from April to November and a main period in July to August

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms:
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitudinal zone:
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:
  • not relevant

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil):
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface):
  • medium (loamy, silty)
Topsoil organic matter:
  • low (<1%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

medium

Water quality (untreated):

poor drinking water (treatment required)

Water quality refers to:

both ground and surface water

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Yes

Regularity:

episodically

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

'Flooding' relates to immediate surface runoff during heavy storms

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:
  • medium
Habitat diversity:
  • low

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:
  • Sedentary
Market orientation of production system:
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
Off-farm income:
  • less than 10% of all income
Relative level of wealth:
  • average
Individuals or groups:
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
Level of mechanization:
  • manual work
Gender:
  • men
Age of land users:
  • youth
  • middle-aged
Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Other land users mostly have the same characteristics.

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

  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?
  • small-scale

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

Land ownership:
  • state
Land use rights:
  • communal (organized)
  • individual
Water use rights:
  • communal (organized)
  • individual
Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
education:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
technical assistance:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
employment (e.g. off-farm):
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
markets:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
energy:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
roads and transport:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
drinking water and sanitation:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good
financial services:
  • poor
  • moderate
  • good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

fodder production

decreased
increased

fodder quality

decreased
increased

animal production

decreased
increased

wood production

decreased
increased

forest/ woodland quality

decreased
increased

non-wood forest production

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

we refer to grass production

risk of production failure

increased
decreased

product diversity

decreased
increased

production area

decreased
increased

land management

hindered
simplified
Comments/ specify:

closed area management needs more rules and regulations and cannot be freely managed any more

energy generation

decreased
increased
Comments/ specify:

collection of scrubs and deadwood as wood for cooking

Water availability and quality

drinking water availability

decreased
increased

drinking water quality

decreased
increased

water availability for livestock

decreased
increased

water quality for livestock

decreased
increased
Income and costs

workload

increased
decreased

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced
improved

health situation

worsened
improved

land use/ water rights

worsened
improved

cultural opportunities

reduced
improved

recreational opportunities

reduced
improved

community institutions

weakened
strengthened

national institutions

weakened
strengthened

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced
improved

conflict mitigation

worsened
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups

worsened
improved

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased
increased

water quality

decreased
increased

harvesting/ collection of water

reduced
improved

surface runoff

increased
decreased

excess water drainage

reduced
improved

groundwater table/ aquifer

lowered
recharge

evaporation

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

we refer to evapotranspiration

Soil

soil moisture

decreased
increased

soil cover

reduced
improved

soil loss

increased
decreased

soil accumulation

decreased
increased

soil compaction

increased
reduced

nutrient cycling/ recharge

decreased
increased

salinity

increased
decreased

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased
increased

acidity

increased
reduced
Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Vegetation cover

decreased
increased

biomass/ above ground C

decreased
increased

plant diversity

decreased
increased

invasive alien species

increased
reduced

animal diversity

decreased
increased

beneficial species

decreased
increased

habitat diversity

decreased
increased

pest/ disease control

decreased
increased
Climate and disaster risk reduction

flood impacts

increased
decreased
Comments/ specify:

we refer to immediate surface runoff during storms

landslides/ debris flows

increased
decreased

drought impacts

increased
decreased

impacts of cyclones, rain storms

increased
decreased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases

increased
decreased

fire risk

increased
decreased

wind velocity

increased
decreased

micro-climate

worsened
improved

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

water availability

decreased
increased

reliable and stable stream flows in dry season

reduced
increased

downstream flooding

increased
reduced

downstream siltation

increased
decreased

groundwater/ river pollution

increased
reduced

buffering/ filtering capacity

reduced
improved

wind transported sediments

increased
reduced

damage on neighbours' fields

increased
reduced

damage on public/ private infrastructure

increased
reduced

impact of greenhouse gases

increased
reduced

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change
Season increase or decrease How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature increase moderately
seasonal temperature dry season increase moderately
seasonal rainfall dry season decrease moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
tropical storm well
local rainstorm well
local thunderstorm well
local hailstorm well
Hydrological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
flash flood well
Biological disasters
How does the Technology cope with it?
epidemic diseases moderately
insect/ worm infestation moderately

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?
Short-term returns:

negative

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?
Short-term returns:

slightly positive

Long-term returns:

very positive

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

  • 11-50%
If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

480 in Abagerima Watershed

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?
  • 51-90%
Comments:

WLRC project and government allocate some resources to the community, e.g., water levels and some hand tools

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Area closures prevent and protect from runoff which creates an on-site and off-site erosion problem.
Uncultivated land is protected from free grazing, it increase land productivity and regeneration of natural vegetation species.
Closed area management generates income for poorer land users, and it thus reduces conflicts among neighboring communities.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The closed area management technology has economical, political, social, cultural and environmental benefits.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
land users cannot freely graze their livestock any more give extension service
Closed areas are a job burden on females who cut and carry grass and wood create awareness to organise work jointly
allocation of resources and management of livestock is not organised well consider resource allocation per livestock
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Area closures create job burdens on females introduce gender equality discussions

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

During field day local land users were approached and issues discussed. The compiler himself is currently doing field work for his master's thesis in the area.

  • interviews with land users

No formal interviews, but spontaneous discussions were held

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

The Abagerima WLRC technician was present in the field and provided information as required, since he had several years of experience in the watershed.

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

24/10/2018

Comments:

All information was compiled in the field.

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

none

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

none

7.4 General comments

WOCAT is interesting.because it provides a standardized format and makes technologies comparable between watersheds, regions, nations and continents. The structured approach helps saving time and money.

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules