The paper is aimed to study the challenges and prospects of community managing Area Enclosures in Halaba Special Woreda, SNNPR. Objectives were framed to examine the community management of area Enclosures (AEs). The methodology of the study is descriptive survey design, and Both Quantitative and Qualitative data have been gathered. Quantitative data has been collected through questionnaire and the questionnaire was composed of open ended and closed ended questions.
The qualitative data has been collected through FGD, key informant interview and direct observation. Data for this study has been collected from primary and secondary sources. In this study respondent farmers were the major sources of primary data. As part of the primary data, information also has been collected from woreda agricultural office, Kebele Head administrators, and experts from District land and Water Conservation Department as key informants. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Techniques have been adopted in Multistage sampling methods for the study.
From the study area two kebeles have been selected among the four kebeles (Asore, Habibo Furnaye, Chorroko and Mudda mafaya) by using simple random sampling (lottery method). Then, from the sampling kebeles each gotts are registered. The total HHs from the two kebeles were 1033 and 15% of the total households have been selected from the list of households in selected kebeles by using systematic random sampling method. To analyze the quantitative data the researcher used frequencies, percentage, mean standard deviation and chi square. Qualitative data was used to triangulate with quantitative data to make the study valid and reliable.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abbreviations
Abstract
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
1.2. Statements of Problem
1.3. General Objective
1.3.1. Specific Objectives
1.4. Research Questions
1.5. Significance of the Study
1.6. Scope of the Study
1.7. Limitations
1.8. Operational Definitions
1.9. Organization of the Study
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.1.1. General Overview
2.2. An Over View of Land Degradation
2.2.1. Global Over view
2.3. The Degree of Land Degradation in Ethiopia
2.4. The Consequences of Land Degradation in Ethiopia
2.5. Immediate Cause of Land Degradation
2.5.1. Human Induced Causes of Land Degradation
2.5.1.1. Over Grazing
2.5.1.2. Deforestation
2.5.1.3. Dung and Crop Residue
2.6. Bio-diversity losses
2.7. Poverty and Land Degradation
2.8. Major Role of Area Enclosures
2.8.1. Bio-diversity Conservation
2.8.2. Protection of Soil Erosion and Enhancing Productivity
2.8.3. Source of Non-Timber products
2.9. Efforts to reduce the Problem of Land Degradation
2.10. Area Enclosure as One of the Mechanisms
2.11. Objectives of Area Enclosure
2.12. Bringing Rehabilitated Products to Economic Benefits
2.13. Community Participation and Empowerment
2.13.1. Women Participation
2.13.2. Local Government
2.13.3. Others
2.14. Local institutions and Management of Area Enclosures
2.14.1. Informal Institutions
2.14.2. Traditional Leaders
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Description of the Study Area
3.1.1. Location
3.1.2. Climate
3.1.3. Soil and Vegetation
3.1.4. Topography
3.1.5. Population and Demographic Characteristics
3.2. Methodology of the Study
3.2.1. Research Design
3.2.2. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Techniques
3.2.3. Sources of Data
3.2.4. Pilot Test
3.2.5. Data Collection Tools
3.2.5.1. Questionnaire Survey
3.2.5.2. Direct Observation
3.2.5.3. In-depth Personal Interview
3.2.5.4. Focus Group Discussions
3.2.6. Methods of Data Processing and Analysis
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of respondents
4.2 Economic structures of sampled HHs
4.2.1. Farm land size
4.2.2. Livestock holding of respondents
4.3. Understanding of their area
4.4. Management of AEs
4.5. Training and Capacity Building
4.6. Local by-law development
4.7. The level of community participation
4.7.1. Gender Equality and participation in Issues in AEs
4.8. The Role of Local Institutions in the management of AEs
4.8.1. The role of formal Institutions
4.8.2. The Role of informal Institutions
4.8.2.1. Social Institutions
4.8.2.2. Religion Institutions
4.8.2.3. Traditional Institutions
4.9. Impacts of AEs in the Study Areas
4.10. Access to Benefits for Local Livelihood
4.11. Problems Related to AEs
4.11.1. Shortage of Grazing Land
4.11.2. Increasing of Wildlife
4.11.3. Problems Related to Border
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Summary and Conclusion
5.2. Recommendations
5.3. Future Research Area
References
Appendices
Appendix I Semi- Structured Questionnaire
Appendix ii Pictures of Physical Structures and Community Participation in AEs
Appendix iii Difference Between AEs and Degraded Areas (Habibo)
Appendix iv Pictures of Researcher During FGDs and Key Informant
Appendix v Pictures of Rehabilitated Area Enclosure ( Asore)
Appendix vi Table of Family Size of Respondents
Appendix vii Table of the Livestock Holding of Respondent Households
DADICATION
DEDICATED TO MY LATE MOTHER W/RO WORKINESH NEENKO
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“How can I repay the Lord for all his goodness to me?” Ps.115: 12 NIV
First of all, always and forever my heartfelt and eternal love and admiration goes to my Almighty God and Father, who is always with me for giving all the endurance and everything I ever asked, to keep myself on track. Without His blessing I would never have succeeded.
I am greatly indebted to my advisor Dr. A. Joseph who provided me limitless and considerate consultation, advice and assistance throughout the research work. I want to express my deep respect and appreciation to his simplicity and thoughtfulness.
I would like to extend my deepest thanks to my beloved wife W/o Meselech Wakayo for her heartfelt assistance in dealing with matters that concerned me and also I would like to extend my deepest thanks to my children for the moral support they gave me.
I would like to extend my recognition to Halaba Special Woreda Administration office especially to Ato Nurdin The Chief Governor of the Woreda, Woreda Agricultural Office and Department of NRM, SNNPR EPNRMA, MERET project Expertise, Ato Erkeno from WFP, to Ato Tsegaye from Halaba special Woreda ENRM desck.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to W/ro Azeb Kebede Office assistant of Culture and Tourism Bureau and others Experts for their uncountable support. I am very much thankful to all of the staff in Culture and Tourism Bureau and for the bureau also for their Transport and kind assistance in several matters.
Finally, the unfailing prayers and support rendered from my Father and late Mother deserves great thanks.
LISTS OF FIGURES
Figure - 2.1 Conceptual Framework
Figure - 3.1 Map of the Study Area
Figure - 4.2 Parts of Highly Degraded area in Habibo
Figure - 4.5 Revitalized Pond in Habibo
Figure - 4.6 Parts of Area Left by Farmers Because of Warthog
LIST OF TABLES
Table - 2.1 Table of Deforestation Rate from 1990-2010
Table - 3.1 Sample Size Per Selected Kebele
Table - 3.2 Sample Size Determined by Gotts
Table - 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Table - 4.2 Farm Land Use of Respondents
Table - 4.3 Numbers of Livestock Holding of Respondents
Table - 4.4 Understanding of Their Locality
Table - 4.5 Trends in community
Table - 4.6 Managing Power of the Community
Table - 4.7 attending training for soil and water conservation
Table - 4.8 The issues of By-law
Table - 4.9 Role of Informal Institution in NRM
Table - 4.10 Direct and Indirect Impacts of AEs
Table - 4.11 Benefits gained from AEs
Table - 4.12 Type of Grazing System and Pasture Respondents Use
Table - 4.13 Major Problems of House Hold on Livestock Rearing
Table - 4.14 Driving Forces for Mentioned Challenges
Table - 4.15 Challenges of Area Enclosures
Table - 4.16 General Feelings of the Respondents on AEs
Table - 4.17 Final suggestions of Respondents
Table - 4.18 Expected Threats to the Community
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
ABSTRACT
The paper is aimed to study the challenges and prospects of community managing Area Enclosures in Halaba Special Woreda, SNNPR. Objectives were framed to examine the community management of area Enclosures (AEs). The methodology of the study is descriptive survey design, and Both Quantitative and Qualitative data have been gathered. Quantitative data has been collected through questionnaire and the questionnaire was composed of open ended and closed ended questions. The qualitative data has been collected through FGD, key informant interview and direct observation. Data for this study has been collected from primary and secondary sources. In this study respondent farmers were the major sources of primary data. As part of the primary data, information also has been collected from woreda agricultural office, Kebele Head administrators, and experts from District land and Water Conservation Department as key informants. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Techniques have been adopted in Multistage sampling methods for the study. From the study area two kebeles have been selected among the four kebeles ( Asore, Habibo Furnaye,Chorroko and Mudda mafaya) by using simple random sampling (lottery method). Then, from the sampling kebeles each gotts are registered. The total HHs from the two kebeles were 1033 and 15% of the total households have been selected from the list of households in selected kebeles by using systematic random sampling method.To analyze the quantitative data the researcher used frequencies, percentage, mean standard deviation and chi square. Qualitative data was used to triangulate with quantitative data to make the study valid and reliable. The major findings of the study noted ecological and biodiversity were regenerated and benefited community as a whole, however, there are certain lacunae, they are: lack of transparency, low level of community participation, problems of equity in access to benefit sharing, very low level of gender equality, absence of strong utilization including benefit sharing & management system, weak integrity of stakeholders. Depending on these findings a researcher opines unless corrective measures are taken the sustainability of AEs will be very difficult. Thus the study recommends that strong system should be established for sharing the benefits of Area Enclosures.
Keywords : Enclosure; rehabilitation; participation; belongingness, benefit Sharing.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
This is broadly known Land degradation is one of the most serious problems of the developing countries with its multifaceted effects that consider being the decreased productivity of land, gradual decline of soil fertility and vegetation cover are the major consequences of land degradation. Land degradation is one of the biggest problems in Sub-Saharan Africa, affecting the lives of millions of people. Betru et al.,( 2005 ), described that the main consequences of land degradation which negatively affect human livelihoods and the environment as shortages of firewood and other wood, shortages of non-timber forest products, increased sediment deposits, floods and landslides, drying up of springs and water bodies, siltation of dams, increased incidence of water-borne diseases, loss of biodiversity, climate change and desertification. On the other hand, nearly three billion people in developing countries live in rural areas. But most of the land available to meet the current and future food requirements is already in production, and further expansion will involve fragile and marginal lands. As a result, the increasing scarcity of land forced farmers to apply intensive agriculture that in turn result in soil erosion, salinization, deteriorating water quality, and desertification Chasek , et al.,( 2006 ).
“Deforestation and land degradation in Ethiopia, however, are impairing the forests and the land to contribute to food security and to provide other profits such as fuel wood and fodder” (Badege, 2001). As Badege pointed out, in Ethiopia, population increase have resulted in extensive forest clearing for agricultural use, overgrazing, and exploitation of existing forest for fuel wood, fodder and construction materials which leads to land degradation and hindering the restoration process. On the other hand, Holden and Shiferaw, (2004) described that land degradation, poverty and food security is pervasive and interconnected problems in Ethiopia.
The Hararghae highlands in Eastern Ethiopia, Tigrai, Wollo, and Semen Shoa highlands in the North and the Gamo-Gofa highlands and the Bilate River Basin, which starts in Eastern slopes of Gurage highlands and stretches through Eastern Hadiya and Kembatta highlands are some of the seriously eroded land surfaces in Ethiopia (Wolde Aregay, 1996 ). Alaba Special Woreda is also one of the areas which are highly degraded.
The possible mechanism to mitigate the problems resulted from land degradation is restoration. “Ecological restoration offers the prospect of generating healthier relationships between people and the ecosystem in which they live”, (Eric, S.Higgs 1997). “Rehabilitation is seen as the most viable way of mitigating the effects of land degradation” ( Blay, D . et al 2004:12 ).to tackle the continuous deterioration of natural resource base in Ethiopia, environmental conservation and rehabilitation efforts were started in the 1970s with the particular focus on the forest deteriorating high land areas ( Bedru , et al 2010 ).
According to Bendz, (1986), Areas Enclosure are becoming pertinent strategies and planning in dry lands where plantations are unsuccessful due to many reasons. Establishing area enclosure is quick, cheap and lenient method for the rehabilitation of degraded lands. Based on this, to overcome problems which come with the damage of soil degradation different soil conservation techniques have been carried out either by the government or non-governmental organizations. Among the known soil conservation practices, Area Enclosure is also one of the land rehabilitation techniques in degraded areas. The major objective behind establishing enclosure areas in those areas is to reduce and reverse land degradation to check the adverse effects of runoff to improve the microclimate and create conducive atmosphere for humans and livestock by maintaining environmental stability.
This paper is aimed in assessing the remarkable challenges and prospects those related to the management of Area Enclosure at community level and specifically assessing the level of participation of community members to create sense of belongingness/ownership and the current management system. Finally, it aimed to find out the level of participations of various formal and informal institutions in Natural Resource Management.
1.2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The total land area of Halaba special woreda is 64,116.25 ha of which 48,337 ha (75%) are considered suitable for agriculture, As a result of long history of agriculture and high population in the area, vegetative cover is very low. Consequently, erosion hazards in the sloppy areas are enormous. Huge gullies are observed towards the southern end of the woreda, where soils are totally removed beyond recovery. This is believed to have been aggravated due to the easily detachable nature of the soil (IPMS, 2005).
More than 7000 ha, of degraded land have been enclosed by MERET project including the woreda NRMEPD and local community. The selected study areas (ASore and Habibo) cover 970 ha and managed by 1033 Households. Because of this remarkable progresses have been recorded: many highly degraded areas became rehabilitated and covered by a number of plant species. The surrounding micro ecology started to being improved (WAO 2012).
The local community also begins to obtain benefits from the areas those are rehabilitated, such as fuel wood, fodder and incomes from the sale of products as well as different social institutions have been constructed for the community. However, some reports from kebele and observations indicate that unsatisfactory situations which are reflected from the local community about improper utilization of existing natural resources. The attention towards these resources in the conservation area is observed as mismanaged.
The demand of farm and grazing land is increasingly coming from the surrounding community; Needed Guidelines for the NTP from the AEs didn't develop. There is no strong system for effective management and Utilization of AEs. Although improvement in the physical situation of forest and tree resources on both sites have been reported, equitable use of forest products such as fuel wood, fodder and other non- timber forest products with in community have not been clearly demonstrated.
The amount of forest product which can be harvested from the AEs is insufficient to meet the needs of the users and the process involving the distribution of these products. Unless those problems are solved in a proper way the productive part of the forest and including resource management could be paralyzed and hence there would be efficient. So the researcher has motivated to address these issues for the sustainability of those Enclosures. Therefore the intention of this research is to look into the challenges and options of livelihood diversification in connection with Area enclosure and the prospects of it. This is because of researches in the area are more of assessments of the status and progress of the closure areas, challenges and prospects are less studied and literatures are scanty.
1.3. GENERAL OBJECTIVE
The general objective of this research is to assess the challenges and prospects of community managing Area enclosures in Halaba Special Woreda.
1.3.1. THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. To assess the level of participation of the community members to create sense of the ownership (belongingness).
2. To assess the current management practice in Area closures
3. To find out various formal and informal institutions participation in natural source management
4. To assess the challenges of Area enclosures in the study areas.
1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the level of the participation of community members on AEs management?
2. What is the level of management which carried out by the community for sustainability of AEs?
3. What formal and informal institutions exist in AEs management in the study area?
4. What are the challenges and prospects of AEs management in local community?
1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The results of this study will have contributions in identifying the challenges which are observed in the management of the existing AEs in the study woreda in terms of the level of community participation with general problems of transparency and effectiveness of the system which designed for the management of AEs. On other hands, external problems which are related to animal feeds, grazing land and coming needs for farm land can be shown for the sought of concerned body. Recommendations which will be given as a solution may help for policy and decision makers and NGOs as well as for coming researchers as a reference on the area. This may help the concerned bodies to reconsider some issues who are in charge of Area enclosure and furthermore, the result of this study may add an important input for the existing community and development studies in general, and for the knowledge of Area Enclosures in particular.
1.6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Proposed research sites are found in four peasant associations in Halaba special wereda, among these two kebeles (PAs) have been selected by simple random sampling method. This is because it is difficult to address all issues in this study due to the limitation of resource, time constraints and problems of physical accessibility. So the scope of this research has covered the real management practice, challenges and prospects of Area Enclosures in two kebeles.
1.7. LIMITATIONS
In this study some limitations have observed, like busyness of the respected individuals by their duties to provide information, lack of consistent sector information among different institutions, and lack of transport access and geographical location were the major limitations.
1.8. OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF SOME TERMS
Enclosures:- Enclosures which are a type of land management, implemented on degraded, generally open access land are a mechanism for environmental rehabilitation with a clear biophysical impact on large parts of the formerly degraded commons (Tucker and Murphy, 1997). Mostly, many authors use “enclosure” and “closure” as the same word. Area Enclosures, (Closure) in the Ethiopian context can be defined as the degraded land that has been excluded from human and livestock interference for rehabilitation (Betru at al., 2005). For this study both words used as an above defined.
Capacity:- is reviewed as institutional capacity where, people and institutions engaged in management of Area Enclosures are required to be capacitated to achieve their goals. Capacity building includes training and allocation of human resource, and other existing natural resources in the Enclosures.
Natural Resource management: - Natural Resources Management (NRM) concerns the sustainable utilization of major natural resources such as land, water, air, minerals, forests, fisheries, and wild flora and fauna. But in this study it refers to the management of natural resources such as land, water, soil, plants and animals, with a particular focus on how management affects the quality of life for both present and future generations in the AEs.
Collective Action: - Collective action is defined as action taken by a group (either directly or on its behalf through an organization) to achieve a common objective, when the outcome depends on interdependence of members.
Rehabilitation refers to repairing or restoring a damaged ecosystem without necessarily attempting a complete restoration to any specific prior conditions or status (Bradshaw, 1990).in this regards both restoration and rehabilitation are used to refer to the use of area enclosure in the recovery of native and newly planted vegetation, and their diversity as well as the change in soil attributes on degraded sites.
1.9. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The study has five chapters. The first chapter deals with introduction which includes: background of the study, statement of problems, General Objectives, specific Objectives, and significance of the study, scope of the study, and limitation of the study. Chapter two portrays the review of literatures. Chapter three deals with materials and methods of the study. Chapter Four deals with an interpretation of the collected data. Lastly, Chapter Five is conclusion and recommendation.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEWS
2.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.1. General Overview
This chapter mainly deals with theoretical framework. Concepts or theories are defined in different perspectives on the bases of natural resource management which belongs to the Area Enclosures (i.e. soil, vegetation cover and wildlife). These perspectives or conceptual frameworks share communalities with those current in development studies. For example, structural functionalists' perspectives include political economy and (common property) institutional economics oriented perspectives, post modernist perspectives and social actors oriented perspectives
Political Ecology perspectives built on neo-Marxist thinking and on radical development geography. These perspectives pay attention to the diversity of local environmental/ecological contexts, the role of the wider economy and the state in shaping environmental change, the centrality of poverty as a cause of ecological deterioration, and to the diverse responses of decision-makers (Vernooy, 2005).
This approach considers the relation among the groups who have relation to land; the managers of land and their direct relations with land, their relations with each other and other land users, and groups in a wider society who affect them in any way, which in turn determine land management (Blaikie, and Brookfield, 1987). The relation among the actors in the process of land use and management, and to the land itself, determines the fate of restoration effort and results.
According to Blaikie (2008), political ecology evolved to reformulate the understanding of society-nature relations. The relation between society and nature, the degree of interaction and the reciprocal effect to each other can be understood with the lens of political ecology. Usually society nature relation is exploitative in a sense that the society extracts resources out of the nature as much as possible. The relation among the society is based on maximizing their respective needs. The limited environmental resources, the limitless needs of human society and the scramble to exploit these resources are now the nexus between ecology and political economy.
Post-Structural Political Ecology perspectives built on political ecology, but pay much more attention to issues of access and control of resources . Discourse analysis and discourse deconstruction are central features. A common feature is also the focus on resistance (movements) to development discourse and policies. Postmodernism rejects the claim that resource management technologies have universal application. In this approach, the central issue is that people know best for themselves. So one has to listen to and actively seek after their voices, which are “authentic and legitimate”, and brings sustainable resource management (Pretty and Shah 1997) as cited in Tola and Woldeamlak (2007). This new approach incorporates and glorifies the term “participation” (Carney and Farrington 1999). Participation comprises the strategy to involve the beneficiaries in natural resource management. But there exists no consensus on the definition of participation and participatory approaches.
One has to be cautious in using and interpreting participation and reference must be made to the type of participation because most of the participation typologies like manipulation, passive and consultation threaten the goals of projects rather than promoting. Such participation involves no more than telling what is going to happen or requiring responses to some questions where the locals respond, and contribution of resources like labor in return for food or cash to put to practice what has been already decided by “outsiders”. In genuine participation, on the other hand, local people actively involved in decision-making, implementation of activities affecting their lives and sharing the benefits there of (Pretty and Shah, 1997). This approach is believed to bring many benefits that include enhancement of efficiency, transparency and accountability, empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged, mitigation of natural resource degradation, livelihood improvement, sense of belongingness and capacity to learn and act (Pretty and Shah 1997; Uphoff 1992; World Bank 1994).
Social Actor Oriented Approaches (many of them inspired by the work of Norman Long, (2002) and colleagues) provide another perspective, although still relatively few studies in CBNRM have fully embraced them. All these perspectives have in common the notion that, although natural resources (and environment) have clearly physical attributes, management and related notions of use, abuse, degradation and conservation, are socially constructed concepts and hence influenced by power dynamics including contestation and conflict. An analysis of power is therefore important (and thus, for example, one needs to look critically at the meaning of “community”), as well as the need to pay attention to different reactions to change and patterns of social differentiation (Vernooy 2005).
Based on these theories, the proceeding study will be on the post-structural political ecology. In genuine participation, on the other hand, local people actively involved in decision-making, implementation of activities affecting their lives and sharing the benefits there of (Pretty and Shah, 1997). This approach is believed to bring many benefits that include enhancement of efficiency, transparency and accountability, empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged, mitigation of natural resource degradation, livelihood improvement, sense of belongingness and capacity to learn and act.
2.2. AN OVERVIEW OF LAND DEGRADATION
2.2.1. Global Overview
Globally, land degradation affects 33 percent of the earth's land surface, with consequences for more than 2.6 billion people in more than 100 countries. The GEF defines land degradation as “any form of deterioration of the natural potential of land that affects ecosystem integrity either in terms of reducing its sustainable ecological productivity or in terms of its native biological richness and maintenance of resilience.” The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) specifically considers land degradation as a reduction or loss, in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas, of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rain fed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a process or combination of processes, including processes arising from human activities and habitation patterns (UNCCD 2009).
Land degradation refers to how one or more of the land resources have changed for the worse (Stocking and Murnaghan, 2001). As a result, land loses its productive capacity for present and future use (UNFPA and POPIN, 1995, de-Queiroz, 1993). Land degradation results from an intricate nexus of social, economic, cultural, political and biophysical forces operating across a broad spectrum of time and spatial scale, and often involves competing perceptions on what are considered to be positive and negative changes in the environment (ibid). According to Blaikie and Brookfield, (1987) the relationship between these factors and management of resources has been a major subject of the development debate in recent decades.
In recent years, because of the perceived global ecological and socio-economic crises, and the apparent dependency of many of the world's poor on common pool resources, the management of particularly these resources in Asia and Africa has gained importance (Bromley and Coernea, 1989; Singh, 1994). World Bank, (1997) described as a result of the apparent failure of the government in managing common pool resources, greater involvement of non-governmental and community based organizations has been suggested. Therefore, governmental policies are being adjusted to facilitate comanagement of common pool resources by involving communities and nongovernmental organizations (Nagothu, 2000; Wisborg et. al, 2000). The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) also recommends urgent and increased support to marginal rural areas such as the dry lands of Africa focusing on sustained natural resource management, increased food security, and poverty alleviation. Mostly affected countries, including Ethiopia, are currently implementing the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (Mossige et. al, 2001).
2.3. THE DEGREE OF LAND DEGRADATION IN ETHIOPIA
Land degradation is a severe problem across sub-Saharan Africa and Ethiopia is among the most affected countries. Land degradation in Ethiopia is especially severe in the highlands where the average soil loss from farmland is estimated to be 100 tons/hectare/year (Hagos, 2003; FAO, 1986). Deforestation, overgrazing, inappropriate agricultural practices such as over-cultivation, fertilization, and nutrient depletion are reported to be the major human caused factors of land degradation (UNFPA and POPIN, 1995).Because of these and other factors land degradation has been identified as the most serious environmental problem in Ethiopia (Hagos and Holden, 2002).
For these cases many professionals and organizations including (EFAP, 1994; Bojo and Cassels, 1995; Herweg and Stillhardt, 1999) broadly described as these factors cause biophysical land degradation and hinder sustainable agricultural development in the country. According to those authors, all physical and economic evidence shows that loss of land resource productivity is an important problem in Ethiopia and that with continued population growth the problem is likely to be even more important in the future.
To compensate for the low agricultural productivity, forest lands are being converted to arable land in Ethiopia for centuries. Rate of deforestation in Ethiopia, which amounts to 163,000 - 200,000 ha/yr, is one of the highest in tropical Africa (Reusing, 1998). As a result, Kuru, (1990) and EFAP, (1994) stated that the natural forest cover in Ethiopia has declined considerably from 1900s approximately 40% to just less than 3% at present (Kuru, 1990; EFAP, 1994 cited by Tesfaye 2011:4).
Natural forests and woodlands covered 15.1 million ha in 1990. This area declined to 13.7 million ha in 2000. In 2005, the forest cover had further declined and was estimated to cover 13.0 million ha. In other words, Ethiopia lost over 2 million ha of forests, with an annual average loss of 140 000 ha (FAO, 2010) between 1990 and 2005. Currently, the area is estimated at 12.3 million ha, i.e. 11.9 % of the total land area. Of this, the remaining closed natural high forests are 4.12 million ha or 3.37% of Ethiopia's land area.
Table 2.1. Deforestation rates from 1990-2010
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: FAO (2010).
Soil degradation has its major impact on soils of lower fertility and where population density is low. On fertile soils, soil degradation tends to be compensated by fertilizer application, many areas, populated by a large percentage of the people are in a critical state, where fertility loss needs urgently to be compensated by new external impacts and/or soil conservation measures need to be implemented. According to the National Review Report (2002) The most vulnerable areas are in North Ethiopia In addition to these general assessments, current reports on specific issues show that a loss of 30,000 ha annually due to water erosion, with over 2 million ha already severely damaged.
Mulugeta, (2004) on his side stressed that in Ethiopia land degradation in the form of soil erosion and declining fertility is serious challenge to agricultural productivity and economic growth Several studies have shown that extensive areas of the highlands have high rates of erosion. In the mid-1980s it was estimated that 4% of the highlands (2 million ha) had been so seriously eroded that it could not support cultivation, while another 52% had suffered moderate or serious degradation (Wood, 1990). Average soil loss rates 21 to 42 tons per hectare per year on cultivated lands (Hurni, 1988; Kebede, 1996). The degradation of agricultural land causes a serious risk to current and potential food production in the highlands of Ethiopia (Hurni, 1988; Azene, 2001; Sonneveld and Keyzer, 2002).
Land degradation in Ethiopia is also intensified by soil nutrient depletion, arising from continuous cropping together with removal of crop residues, low external inputs and absence of adequate soil nutrient saving and recycling technologies (Bojo and Cassels, 1995; Sahlemedhin, 1999). According to the study conducted by FAO in 38 sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries, including Ethiopia showed that Ethiopia is one of the countries with the highest rates of nutrient depletion. The aggregated national scale nutrient loss was 41 kg/ha yr for N (Nitrogen), 6 kg/ha yr for P (phosphorus) and 26 kg/ha yr for K (Potassium) (Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990 stated by Tesfaye (2011).
2.4. THE CONSEQUENCES OF LAND DEGRADATION IN ETHIOPIA
The costs of land degradation in Ethiopia include direct and indirect effects, Direct Costs of nutrients lost with top soil erosion (or the replacement costs of these nutrients), Lost production due to nutrient and soil loss, Costs of forest removal, Loss of livestock carrying capacity while Indirect Costs: Loss of environmental services, Silting of dams and river beds, Increasing irregularity of stream and rivers and reduced groundwater capacity. Other indirect costs relate to social and community losses due to malnutrition, poverty and migration, while poverty is compounded by the lack of economic marketing structure. Some of these costs can and have been quantified, others are more difficult (Bojo and Cassells. 1995).
2.5. IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF LAND DEGRADATION
There are multiple interacting forces, which have caused and are causing land degradation in Ethiopia. The proximate causes include clearing of woodlands and forests, unsustainable arable farming techniques, the use of dung and crop residues for fuel and overstocking of grazing lands. These all are acknowledged as those human induced causes of land degradation.
2.5.1. Human Induced Causes of Land Degradation
2.5.1.1. Overgrazing
The livestock population of Ethiopia is believed to be one of the largest in the world and the largest in Africa totaling up to 134, 33 million animals comprising 49.3 million Cattle, 25.02 million sheep and 21.88 million Goats (NABC, 2010). More than 90% of the livestock is kept on natural pastures, the composition of which depends on altitude, rainfall and soil (Alemu, 1982). Therefore, the pasture and rangelands in the highlands are very severely overgrazed. Thus, overgrazing is much more severe in the highlands compared to the lowland areas. Some recently published studies carried out in Northern Omo Zones in the southern Ethiopian Highlands, concluded that the forage bio-mass produced for livestock shows high stocking rates with concentration of animals of up to 23 TLU ( tropical livestock unit) per ha.
2.5.1.2. Deforestation
The clearing of forests has been a long historical process in Ethiopia and it continues at a conservatively estimated rate of 62,000 ha per year. This is mostly converted into cropland with a greatly reduced vegetative cover and accelerated soil erosion. Also importantly the change in land use can change the hydrological pattern of runoff, reducing infiltration and increasing stream flow during and after rain so deforestation leaves the land surface barren and open to serious land degradation processes (Berry, 2003).
2.5.1.3. Dung and Crop Residues
As rural populations have grown and woodland is converted to cultivation, the use of dung and crop residues for fuel has become much more important. The situation with energy use is one of the most critical land degradation issues in Ethiopia. Studies show that the Estimates of current demand for fuel wood approach 55 million cubic meters per year with an estimated sustainable production of 13 million cubic meters per year. While per capita use may be reduced and tree-planting programs may meet some of the gap the pressure on the growing use of crop residues and dung for fuel will continue and the pressure on soil productivity will increase.
2.6. BIODIVERSITY LOSSES
Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defined ‘‘ biodiversity'' as the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.'' (CBD, 1992).The diversity of species on Earth constitutes a natural heritage and lifesupport system for every country and all people. But species are disappearing at 50-100 times the natural rate largely due to human activities including the over-exploitation of biodiversity, habitat degradation and fragmentation, global climate change, pollution, and invasion by introduced species (Salim, 1999).As species and their habitats disappear, humanity risks losing the ecological systems that make human life itself possible. Especially the forest ecosystems, including tropical, subtropical, temperate, boreal and woodland, have the highest species diversity of any ecosystems.
Ethiopia is an important regional centre of biological diversity, and the flora and fauna have a rich endemic element .The country has the fifth largest flora in tropical Africa. The flora of Ethiopia is very heterogeneous and is estimated to include between 6,500 and 7,000 species of higher plants, and about 12 to 15% of these are endemic (Sayer et al., 1992; WCMC, 1992 cited in Meron, 2010). As a result of deforestation, Ethiopia's forests and woodlands have been declining both in size and species richness. Due to the continuing encroachment, it is highly probable that the present fragmented forests in the highlands are much more impoverished in terms of floristic diversity than the forests which once occupied the same site.
2.7. POVERTY AND LAND DEGRADATION
As it is described by numerous studies, poverty and hunger are often related to Environmental Degradation, and also many evidences from developing countries illustrate and conceptualize that environment and poverty are closely linked. This is also justified by (Chamshama and Nduwayezu, 2002) whom reveled in their study that poverty-led environmental degradation is responsible for much of the degradation of marginal lands, deforestation, overgrazing of fragile rangelands, cultivation of steep slopes, consequently affect majority of the rural poor rely heavily on forests and woodlands for income and subsistence. The fact that the majority of the population is dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods, particularly on agriculture, the natural resource base is shrinking (i.e., forest cover, grazing land, arable agricultural land, and water resources), and the incidence of poverty tends to be greater in ecologically fragile marginal agricultural areas with few routes to escape poverty.
Ethiopia is facing challenges to properly manage and utilize its natural resources and improve the livelihood of its citizens. Rural poverty is considered to be both an agent and a consequence of environmental degradation in the country (Mersie 2004). Also, Thomas and Million Bekele, (2002) described that Poverty affects more than half of the inhabitants of Ethiopia and this situation is probability responsible to many activities contributing to deforestation and land degradation in the country.
2.8. MAJOR ROLES OF AREA ENCLOSURES
2.8.1. Biodiversity Conservation
Land abandonment or systems of fallow are the common conservation strategies to promote restoration of biodiversity in degraded agricultural and grazing lands worldwide (Hobbs and Harris, 2001).According to those authors; Restoration of degraded lands reduces the loss of biodiversity. In the absence of restoration, the overall sustainability of ecological/ecosystem processes, including species diversity, will be further threatened. Biodiversity, plays a critical role in overall sustainable development and poverty eradication, and is essential to the human well-being and to the livelihood and cultural integrity of the people. Indeed, if degraded lands restored or rehabilitated, have the potential to generate significant environmental and livelihood benefits, besides the fulfillment of ecological functions and biodiversity conservation (Tefera Mengistu, 2001)
2.8.2. Protection of Soil Erosion and Enhancing Productivity
As mentioned earlier, Current rates of soil erosion documented in Ethiopia range from 16-300 tons/ha/year (Hurni, 1988 and Hawando, 1989, Hawando, 1995). The Ethiopian highlands reclamation study (FAO, 1984) suggested the average annual soil movement is100 tons/ha/year for the Ethiopian highlands. The amount of annual soil movement (loss) by erosion is estimated to range from 1,248-23,400 million tons per year from 78 million ha of pasture and range lands and cultivated fields throughout Ethiopia. Rapid vegetation restoration though Area Closures are an efficient measure for Soil and Water conservation because of their increased capacity for infiltration and sediment trapping. If vegetation coverage is chosen to be the best alternative form of land use, not only prevent the loss of soil, but also that it prevents deposits in river bottoms, lakes and dams (FAO, 2001). Restoration evolves returning native species to an area, stabilizing soil and reducing soil erosion. The influence of trees in soil physical properties is also very important in augmenting the overall capacity of the land to be productive.
Tefera et al., (2005) stated that currently in Ethiopia closures are playing an important role in conserving the remaining vegetation and soil resources and improving soil fertility. They improved soil fertility by adding soil nutrients from decomposed plant remains. Closures also reduced nutrient loss from a site by controlling runoff (vegetation acting as a physical barrier to soil erosion). This eventually improves the capability of the land to support other vegetation types, including exotic plantations and/or support livestock.
2.8.3. Source of Non-Timber Products
There is unlimited dependence of people on tree and forests, according to (ILO 2002) almost 1.6 billion people in the world rely on forest resources for their livelihood and 1.2 billion people in developing countries use trees on farms to generate food and cash (ILO ,2002). NTFPs (Non- Timber Forest Products) have traditionally provided a source of nutrition and income for millions of indigenous women and men in some of the most remote areas of developing countries. Additionally, area enclosure has remarkable contribution on Income and Local Livelihood (Warner et al., 2008).
2.9. EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE PROBLEM OF LAND DEGRADATION IN ETHIOPIA
In Ethiopia, rural communities depend primarily on common property resources for irrigation water, construction material, fuel wood, and grazing land. Population pressure, market and government failures, and the absence or ineffectiveness of use regulations of common property resources have resulted in severe degradation of the resources (Stahl 1990; Gebremedhin 1998). Perhaps as a result, Ethiopia has been identified as the country with the most environmental problems in the Sahel belt (Hurni 1985).
Efforts to contain the problem of land degradation have been made at several levels. Two of the main activities have been soil and water conservation works and the establishment of Area Enclosures (AEs). The implementation of the soil and water conservation activities on a large scale started in the mid 1970s with the help of the World Food Program (WFP) through food for work projects. In 1980, WFP's relatively small-scale, fragmented projects were consolidated under one support program called "Rehabilitation of forest, grazing and agricultural lands (ETH-2488)”. The beginning of the ETH-2488 project marked the beginning of large-scale soil and water conservation and land rehabilitation programs in the country (Betru, 2003). After some years of operation, this program was criticized as being entirely top-down with more emphasis on the technical solution to the problem of land degradation. Techniques were applied without taking into account the diversity of the farming systems and agro-ecological conditions in the country.
Since 1991, the policies of the national and regional governments emphasized natural resource conservation as a key component of the agricultural development strategy. Unlike during the military government, decentralization of resource management has been encouraged. For example, in Tigray Region, woodlot management has been devolved from community (tabia, which usually consists of four or five villages) level to village level to sub-village level and to individual farmers (Jagger, Pender, and Gebremedhin, 2003 as cited in Berhanu, et al., 2002) However, most of the woodlots in the region still remain under community management.
The conservation and management of natural resources calls for the integrated development and utilization of the resource bases (land, soil, water and forest) to enable the transition to improved livelihoods, and to protect these resources for future generations. This led to the consideration of changing or modifying the large-scale watershed management approach to community based approach. This was first started with an exercise known as minimum planning which eventually gave birth to the current local level participatory planning approach (LLPPA) used in planning natural resource management including the AEs ( Betru et al.,2005).
2.10. AREA ENCLOSURE AS ONE MECHANISMS
Another important set of activities has been the establishment of AEs. The inception of AEs dates back to the early 1980s, which coincides with the beginning of large-scale land rehabilitation and soil and water conservation programs in Ethiopia. The establishment of AEs has been one of the strategies for rehabilitating the degraded hillsides within the catchments delineated for the rehabilitation and soil and water conservation programs. And also the Ethiopian Agriculture Research Organization (EARO, 1990) identified among the needs for research on the diversity biology, ecology, Silvi-culture and economic importance of trees and shrubs for rehabilitation of degraded lands Having realized the seriousness of the problem, the government and the people in Ethiopia are trying to rehabilitate degraded land in an effort to reverse the problem, to do this several approaches have been tried. Among this, area enclosure was a promising one.
According to Meiso, (2005) cited in Abiy, (2008), Area Enclosure is the most crucial way of overcoming environmental degradation; loss of biodiversity, and deforestation problem of the country especially to determine the way rehabilitating severely exploited vegetation and degraded dry land and environment. Because Area Enclosure generally believed as important way for the protection of land resources such as soil, wild flora and fauna or water from degradation.
According to Betru at al., (2005) Area Enclosures (AEs) in the Ethiopian context can be defined as the degraded land that has been excluded from human and livestock interference for rehabilitation. Of course, the practice of enclosing land in Ethiopia is not a new one. It has been traditionally exercised for centuries around church boundaries by restricting the use of forests around only as prestige for the religious sites. In principal, human and animal interference is restricted in the AEs to encourage natural regeneration. In practice, however, cattle are allowed to free graze in several of the AEs. Cutting grass and collection of fuel wood from dead trees and bee keeping is also allowed. In some areas, soil and water conservation activities are also being undertaken.
In Ethiopia, rehabilitation starts with area enclosure that involves the protection and resting of severely degraded land to regenerate its productive capacity (WOCAT, 2007 ). There are two types of area enclosure practices in the country. The first one involves closing of an area from livestock and people so that natural regeneration of the vegetation can take place. And secondly, it 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 (ibid, 317).
In an attempt to change the spiral, there should be various ecological aspects to be considered. The level of success of restoration is determined by the extent to which various aspects of the ecology are considered. “Failures to achieve clarity on moral and cultural considerations will hinder the ecological restoration's potential to generate healthy relationships between the people and the land, (Eric, S. Higgs 1997). According to Eric, good ecological restoration entails negotiating the best possible outcome for a specific site based on ecological knowledge and the diverse perspectives of interested stakeholders; to this end as much process as product oriented.
Bedru, et al., (2010) discussed the multi-criteria decision analysis to community forests in northern Ethiopia. The AEs and community woodlots were established by the government primarily for ecological regeneration and biodiversity conservation. The concept of economic benefits was seldom explicitly addressed in the early years of their establishment, although there was an implicit acknowledgement that after many years of regeneration, the areas might be opened up to controlled use (Betru ea al., 2005).
2.11. OBJECTIVES OF AREA ENCLOSURES
The establishment of area enclosure can have different objectives in Ethiopia depending on the importance of area enclosure in specific area. Most of the times commonly known objectives are to:
- Halt and reverse land degradation
- Check the adverse effect of run-off
- Create natural resources highly demanded by livestock, human beings and the
- Improve the micro-climate of respective places and thereby maintain environmental stability in the region
- Create habitat for wildlife
- Conserve the diminishing biological resources, mainly forest trees, shrubs,
Herbs and Grasses (Forester, 2000, cited in Betru et al., 2005)
At the outset of these programs it was assumed that these mainly ecological objectives could best be achieved by the total exclusion of animals and people from the AEs for longer periods of time. According to a limited number of ecological studies conducted in a few of the AEs, this assumption seems to hold, in that biomass inside these areas has increased, as has the number of species in certain areas studied (NORAGRIC, 1999; Birhane, 2002; Asefa et.al.,2003). Particularly increasing in biomass is apparent, as in many of the areas degradation was so severe that before intervention vegetation was nearly absent. In relation to this, Enclosures which are a type of land management, implemented on degraded, generally open access land are a mechanism for environmental rehabilitation with a clear biophysical impact on large parts of the formerly degraded commons (Tucker and Murphy, 1997 as cited by Abiy (2008). In principle, human and animal interference is restricted in the AEs to encourage natural regeneration. The obvious increase in biomass has convinced both communities and the government about the great potential of the AEs to restore vegetation in areas of extreme degradation.
Generally, it is more suggested by many authors that the maximum benefits of AEs are becoming promising alternatives to combat desertification and conserve biodiversity in completely degraded lands. By facilitating vegetation, succession through modification of both physical and biological site conditions (Ediyo and Emiru, 2005). Area closure improves soil quality mainly organic matter accumulation (Tefera Mengistu, 2001). In addition, offer viable promises for actual and potential socio economic and environmental benefits to the local people (Badege, 2005).
2.12. BRINGING REHABILITATED PRODUCT TO ECONOMIC BENEFITS
As stated above, the motivations behind the establishment of AEs were mainly regeneration and biodiversity conservation. It became clear however; that economic returns became relevant sooner than what was expected by policymakers. As that observed, among mostly enclosure areas some of the areas were less severely degraded than others at the outset, while others with comparatively good soil conditions regenerated more quickly than expected, both resulting in the possibility of harvesting benefits earlier than anticipated. At that point in time, however, there were as yet no institutional mechanisms to deal with the management of these benefits. Recent studies describe that; increased expectations of the community about economic benefits from these areas will present a major management challenge in terms of technical inputs and institutional arrangements for utilization and distribution of benefits (Gebremedhin et. al., 2000; Wisborg et al., 2000).
2.13. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT
Participation can be categorized as Passive Participation, Participation in information giving, Participation by consultation, and Participation for material incentives, Functional Participation, Interactive Participation, and Self-Mobilization. Among this Interactive Participation the one which is important for People to participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures and practices.
Stakeholders and empowerment mutually depend on each other for their effectiveness of an access to participation in public life and decision- making process. Participation also will be limited if the group does not gain certain entitlements of operation within a frame work of basic human rights. The effectiveness of stakeholder participation is therefore contingent up on an enabling socio- political frame work, which is supportive of civil devolution of powers, makes a significant contribution. The participatory approach in any development programmes is crucial in current development debates. Eugene R. Turner (2005) discussed the importance of the inclusivity of all society to build strong restoration programmes than a narrowly supported programme.
According to Eugene, the importance of involvement of the society in the restoration as a great way to restore is not only the environment but also the society. To restore the society implies here the threat to the society if the ecology is beyond the resilience and restoring the ecology is indispensable from the society in the surrounding ecology. Mass mobilization in this sense is participation of the society in the restoration programme and implies participation in planning, implementing and evaluation of the restoration process. Sinha, Subir (2000) also stated that, sustainable rural development agendas in many cases rely on ‘local community participation' that is potentially a deep political process aims to transfer the control over resources and decision-making to groups which have so far been excluded from such control.
However to go from participation to empowerment there is a qualitative progresses from implementation to distributive policy making. Empowerment of the poor has two main characteristics: participation in decision making and access to productive resource. It is predicted up on the premise of enabling policy and instrumental environments that are supportive of robust participation local communities in the process of resources distribution and policy implementations by government of other agencies. The World Bank (1992) considers empowerment as an objective of popular participation in the context of a more equitable sharing of power and a higher level of political awareness of strength for disadvantaged people.
According to Betru et al., (2005), the establishment of AEs in Ethiopia has been extensive, and the economic and ecological significance considerable. However, despite the overall desire on the part of the government and NGOs to address the development needs of the rural people, these efforts mainly focused on the physical aspects and protection of natural resources. The activities were mainly planned and implemented using a top-down approach without any form of community participation during the Derg regime (Dessalegn, 1994). In fact, the communities had a rather negative experience with the AEs, where they were actively excluded from participating from the time of the Derg regime. Thus, in spite of the impressive results of ecological rehabilitation and improvements in productivity, communities were denied the use of benefits such as grass or wood produced in the AEs.
As mentioned above, the communities did not have any power of decision on the management and utilization of the resources. This adversely affected the sense of ownership and the community's commitment for effective protection and sustainable management of the resources. Despite attempts to include communities in decisionmaking in more recent efforts, there is still evidence that the earlier experiences with government control, and the ambiguity of current government policy, has an affect both on the way communities are allowed to and are willing to participate. It is also clear that different stakeholders have different views on exactly what is meant by community participation, something which results again in ambiguity on what exactly the role of the community is in the establishment and management of the AEs (Betru et al., 2005).
Currently community participation in any aspect of development programmes become central and at each administration level the government encourages the local community participation in planning implementation and evaluation of development programmes in Ethiopia. Community has an important role to deal with the problem in a sense that their relation and the degree of cooperation to each other determine the results of the restoration effort. Community based conservation is one of the approaches in community based natural resource management mainly in common property arrangements. But in most cases, it is about the communities' active participation in the natural resource conservation process given that there is the facilitation role of the government.
2.13.1. Women Participation
Although boundaries and user groups seem to be relatively clear to local people in relation to the AEs, this is not always the case, and this has not in itself guaranteed equitable distribution of benefits (Wisborg et. al., 2000). For example, patriarchal cultures and low representation of women raise questions about the gender balance of all aspects of management of common property resources. A case study on gender issues in the Wag Environmental Rehabilitation Program in Ethiopia conducted by Larsen and Rye (1999) suggests that in order to involve women in development initiatives, gender awareness is needed in the conceptualization and planning stage.
However, recently improvements are observed during the public mobilization in NRM through the most areas of the country for example in 2004EC/ 2011/12 total number of women participated in different activities of natural resource management was 1,259,656 among the total population who participated 3,449,671. This covers 36.5% from the participated population (RNRMEPA 2004 EC report: 12). Even though, this is very encouraging it does not mean the expected number of women have participated in NRM.
2.13.2. Local Government
As the sphere of government closest to the community, local government is responsible for good governance and the care and protection of local communities and their environment within a framework of sustainable development. Local government is responsible for undertaking, managing, supporting and regulating, a wide range of activities that may impact upon Natural Resource Management (NRM). This includes the development and implementation of land use planning schemes, managing public land, and regulating private activities. Local government also has a key role to play in translating the NRM policies State governments for local and on ground projects. In Ethiopian context local government has the role of ensuring the preservation and developing the natural resources. Which is elaborated in SNNPR revised constitution article 108: 1c, administrative council shall ensure the preservation and development of the natural resource is performed highly initiate and coordinate the people of development activities.(SNNPR Revised Constitution 2001)
2.13.3. Others ( NGOs, Donors, Private Sectors)
NGOs played an important facilitator and capacity building role in many of the cases, helping to bridge divergent views between local people and government agencies and manage conflict within or among communities. Funding from donor agencies was critical in financing the development and facilitation of devolution. Donors often attached conditions to their funding, forcing governments to review their policies and practices to favor local needs. In most countries, donors, together with NGOs, were instrumental in driving the agenda towards greater local control (Shackleton et al, 2002).
The private sector played a key role in income generation in some devolution initiatives. Private operators provided capital, expertise and market access. There were, however, many examples where local people benefited little from private sector involvement, particularly where the state continued to capture revenues or make decisions regarding private sector involvement.
2.14. LOCAL INSTITUTIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF AREA ENCLOSURES
Generally we define an Institution as an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character. It can be classified into formal and informal manner. “Formal institution” refers to state bodies (courts, legislatures, bureaucracies) and state enforced rules (constitutions, laws, regulations), while “Informal institution” encompasses civic, religious, kinship, and other “societal” rules and organizations.
Local institutions are defined broadly to comprehend as many institutions, both formal and informal, which are directly engaged in resources management which belongs to area Enclosures and/or use at local level. Generally, local institutions refer to structures that shape the behavior of rural community's towards forest resources management through a range of indispensable functions they perform in rural contexts such as information gathering and dissemination, resource mobilization and allocation, skills development and capacity building, providing leadership, and networking with other decision makers and institutions.
Local institutions are easy to understand and enforce, locally devised, take into account differences in types of violations, help deal with conflicts, and help users and officials accountable to lead to effective governance of forest resources (Agrawal, 2007). It facilitate capacity building, participatory decision-making and sustainable approaches to forest conservation and can modify the effect of factors thought to be driving force of deforestation.
2.14.1.Informal Institutions
Informal institutions are systems of rules and decision-making procedures which evolved from endogenous socio-cultural codes and give rise to social practices, assign roles to participants, and guide interactions among CPR users (Appiah-Opoku and Mulamoottil, 1997). Mostly it is accustomed that in rural areas community members get together and set rules to govern the commons they share, and those who violet the advantage of commons will be sanctioned according to the rule they set and other social sanctions under the local community organizations called ‘Iddirs', even under the religion the community set its bylaw and other governing rules.
“Iddirs” are community-based organizations (CBO)/ burial associations established on the bases of neighborhood, ethnicity, sex, and work place with the primary purpose of providing financial, material and moral support in times of death for the bereaved members and/or their families. Although, ‘Iddirs' are initially organized by the members of the local community to help each other in the time of death, they are currently influencing the governance of commons at the local level through social sanctions. Any violation of the commons in the community members is treated through ‘iddirs'. Here the assumption is that the degree of participation of the local community members in the restoration process and their sense of belongingness determine the restoration results in the study area.
The composition of local institutions is an important aspect to consider. Institutional framework must be able to sort out the roles and responsibilities of all of the stakeholders involved in the AEs, defining in particular the relationship between the community and the government. Absence of an appropriate institutional framework gives rise to (inter- institutional) rivalries thus making implementation and integration at local level difficult. Also, the composition of local institutions is an important aspect to consider. Male dominated, elite-based local power structures may make it difficult to adjust institutions to promote more participation of women and other excluded community members in decision making on AEs. Therefore, capacity building of local institutions is crucial for integration and effective implementation of strategies developed for resource management (Yifter and Haile, 2002 cited in Betru et al, 2005).
2.14.2. Traditional Leaders
In almost all the African states, traditional authorities continued to play a role in NRM with varying degrees of legitimacy and control. Traditional leaders were provided an ex-officio or non-executive role, for instance as patrons on committees (e.g. Namibia). In others, such as Malawi, the NRM committees reported to traditional leaders who remained external to the committee. Another model was to leave communities to decide whether or not to elect hereditary leaders onto local committees. Where traditional leadership was strong and legitimate it had positive impacts in promoting local people's priorities (e.g. Malawi, Makuleke, Lesotho and Guizhou, China). Where it was weak or biased towards certain ethnic groupings, as in the Botswana case, lineage leaders had little support or role in new NRM structures.
Depending on the above theories and situations preceding conceptual framework reveals the absence of transparency, low level of community participation, absence of access to benefit sharing and equity, gender equality and strong utilization and management system including absence of integrity of stakeholders reduce active participation of the community and loss of belongingness with the result of encroachment, Stochastic events, Sending Animals to AEs, Destruction of physical structures, Enmity b/n human & wildlife Damage of Biodiversity: The final output of these problems can lead to the reduction of the sustainability of AEs and process of scaling up to other areas.
Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework of the study
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source; constructed by the Researcher, 2013
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
3.1.1 Location
The study area is located between 38o00E to 38o15 E longitude and 7o15 N to 7o30N latitude at about 310km far from Addis Ababa ( Capital City of Ethiopia) to south and about 85kms far from Hawassa to North West. As a part of the chains of the mountains of northeast escarpment of the region, the special woreda covers about 65,193 ha of land of which a major portion is on degraded hills and Bilate river basin. The land use system of the woreda, comprises 44,020 ha cultivated land, 4,316 ha grazing land, 4,592 ha forest land, out of 3,644.45ha cultivable land, 2,805 ha is un productive land and 5,816.05 ha of land is covered by others (WAO). Halaba is one of the 4 special woredas in the SNNPRS. It consists of 79 rural kebeles and its capital Kulito, is found on the main road, which runs from Shashemene to Wolayta Sodo. The selected study sites Asore and Habibo Furana are situated at 12km South North and Northeast of the town Kulito respectively (WAO).
These conservation areas or enclosure areas are selected depending on their importance for integrated watershed management and socio economic reasons. The first site is named “Asore”, this site covers 470 ha and is the oldest (16years) compared to other sites of age 10 years and 6 years area enclosure that are located some 18 and 21kms from Asore respectively and has been established in 1996 by WFP in collaboration with local administration. According to wereda NREP desk, the land was completely barren due to intensive grazing and browsing prior to delineation as area enclosure site. Following SWC and moisture harvesting structures have been constructed and the area is completely protected from grazing and human interference under the management of WFP, FFW incentives. Later however, after 4-5 years, the management handed over to the community/Kebele 529 households who agreed to formulate local law to manage the common resources.
Habibo Furana is the second site in the wereda which covers 500 ha. This is the youngest one (6years) compared to other sites of age 16 year and 10 years. This area is located around 21 and 3 kms from Habibo Furana. The site has been established in 2006 by WFP in collaboration with local administration the same to other sites. According to the wereda Natural Resource and Environment Protection Desk (NREPD), this area was completely barren and stony due to intensive grazing and browsing prior to delineation as area enclosure site. Following SWC and moisture harvesting structures have been constructed and the area is completely protected from grazing and human interference under the management of WFP, FFW incentives.
The other part of the Habibo site is still highly degraded and already it is important for nothing unless it will become under closure. Later however, after 3-4 years, the management handed over to the community/Kebele members of 504 households who agreed and formulated the local law to manage the common resources. Accordingly, every member of those Kebele associations (PA) can use the resource (grass or domestic fodder through the cut-and-carry system and fire wood for fuel) from these conserved areas (WAO).
3.1.2 Climate
The study area consists of two distinct agro-climatic zones. These include Kolla (3%) and dry Weynadega (97%). The area has a bimodal rain fall distribution such as "Belg" and "Kiremt". "Belg" is the short rainy season that lasts between March and May. The "Kiremt" season, which is the longest rainy season, extends between June and September. Rain that occurs during this period is very erratic, intensive and sometimes long, hence, the majority of soil loss and land degradation occurs. Although the rain fall has bimodal distribution, most of the crop production takes place from May to September. The dry month in the area extends from October to mid-March and May is also included in dry season. The mean annual rain fall of the study area is about 857 mm (WAO)
This figure has been removed by GRIN for copyright reasons.
Figure 3.1 Map of Ethiopia source: www.mtholyoke.edu.
This figure has been removed by GRIN for copyright reasons.
Map of SNNPR. Map of the study area
3.1.3 Soil and Vegetation
The dominant soil type of the study area is Andosol (Ferralic, Orthic) followed by Phoeozems (Orthic) and Chromic Luvisol (Orthic), its texture ranges from sandy loam to clay. Sandy loams 80%, Clay 10%, Sandy 5%, and Loam 5% (WAO). The vegetation cover of the study woreda is 7% mainly dominated by Eucalyptus and Acacia species due to long history agricultural practice and high population. Erosion hazards from steep slopes are enormous. The commonly observed remnant tree species in the farm lands are Acacia, Cordia Africana and Croton species. According to wereda Agricultural Office, There are no natural forests in the woreda. Vegetation on the mountain slopes consists of mainly of bushes and shrubs and sometimes eucalyptus. Acacia woodlands are found in some parts of the alluvial plain.
3.1.4 Topography
The study woreda topography vary from plain to mountainous, plain 70%, sloppy 27% and 3% mountainous. Most of the woreda is flat and flooding is a major problem because of poor vegetation cover, erratic rains and soil crusting effects.
3.1.5 Population and Demographic Characteristics
The total population of the study woreda is about 210,243. Among this 103,024 are men and 107,219 are women. The area is characterized by large ethnicity and high population densities (703.7/km2 according to CSA, 2012 projection). According to Woreda Agricultural Office, The total population of the two selected study sites is about 5957 (1033 HH).Among this 3338 are men and 2619 are women (Asore men 1633 women 1524, total 3157(529 HH) and Habibo Furana men 1705 women 1095 Total 2800 (504 HH).
3.2. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
According to Dawson (2002), and kasley& Kumar (1988), Methodology is a philosophy or general principle, which guides a study. Research Methodology generally relies on Qualitative and quantitative research. The study adopted descriptive survey method. The method was chosen for its low cost and its suitability to observe different cases in the study areas. The sources of data, Sample Size Determination and Sampling Techniques, Data Collection Tools, methods of data analysis are discussed below
3.2.1. Research Design
As mentioned above, the study has adapted descriptive survey method. Both Quantitative and Qualitative data have been gathered for descriptive survey method. Quantitative data has been collected through questionnaire and the questionnaire was composed of open ended and closed ended questions. The qualitative data has been collected through FGD, key informant interview and direct observation.
3.2.2. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Techniques
An important decision that has to be taken while adopting a sampling technique is about the size of the sample. Appropriate sample size depends on various factors relating to the subject under investigation like time, cost and, the degree of accuracy desired, etc (Rangaswamy, 1995; Gupta and Gupta, 2002). Multistage sampling methods were adopted for the study. From the study area two kebeles have been selected among the four kebeles (Asore , Habibo Furnaye, Chorroko and Muddamafaya) by using lottery method. Then, from the sampling kebeles each “gott”s are registered. The total HHsfrom the two kebeles were 1033 and 15% of the total households have been selected from the list of households in selected kebeles by using systematic random sampling method (see tables 3.2 & 3.3.). The reason why a researcher decided to take 15% of the total population is because of different factors such as research cost, time, human resource, environmental condition, accessibility and availability of transport facilities were taken into consideration.
Accordingly 80 households from Asore and 76 from Habibo have been drawn and thus the study sample forms 156 households. Then, to determine the sample fraction which a researcher used is k=N/n= 1033/156 = 7. This show to determine the first number of the sample is used by giving code for each numbers of the population. Therefore, the first individuals became the first (1st member and the next member also became 8th, then 15th ... etc) It continued down the list until has been added up to 156 sample population has taken out.
Hence the data was categorized in two strata, the number of households in each site was calculated as:
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Where, n1= sample population in the first site
n = number of households in the first site
N1 = total number of sample household included in the study
N = total number of population in both sites
Table 3.1, Sample Size Per Selected Kebele
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Application of Formula (Daniel, 1995)
After this has been taken, the “gotts” which are close/ near to the Area Enclosure have been selected purposively because of the proximity and direct contact with the AEs. Depending on that three “gotts” from Asore (Meltaka and Lagunte, Odocho and Odoracho, and Dekentto) from Habibo kebele: (Sufame, Suname, and Toronbora) have been selected. From each selected “gotts” the required numbers of respondents have been selected by using simple random sampling. Determination of sample size has been done proportionally by using the above formula Daniel,(1995). So generally, the researcher has used multi- stage sampling methodology. To summarize this:
Step one- The study Woreda has been selected purposively because of the above mentioned problems in “Statements of the problems”
Step two- The study sites (kebeles) have been selected by simple random Sampling Method among the existing four kebeles which are the activities of AE have been implemented
Step Three- Selection of “Gotts” has been done purposively because of the proximity and direct contact with the AEs in both study areas.
Step Four- Determination of number of Respondents (Sample size) in each kebele has been determined based on the existing population size. So it has been done proportionally.
Step Five- Selection of sample respondents has been done by using systematic sampling formula as mentioned above.
Table 3.2. Sample size Determination by Gotts
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: field survey 2013
3.2.3. Sources of Data
Data for this study has been collected from primary and secondary sources. In this study respondent farmers were the major sources of primary data. As part of the primary data, information also has been collected from woreda agricultural office, Kebele Head administrators, and experts from District land and Water Conservation Department as key informants. Secondary sources of information has also been used for this study including published and unpublished documents such as reports, plans, official records, census records, project reports, research papers and data files from reliable/authentic internet/ web pages.
3.2.4. Pre- Test
The pre- test has been conducted to test the validity of the instruments with the objectives of checking or not the items contained in the instrument could enable the researcher to gather relevant information. And the questionnaire was distributed for 20 heads of household in both selected kebeles. Based on the reflection of pre-test participant the instrument was improved by removing irrelevant, shortening some questions and paraphrasing some unclear items before them being administered to the main respondents of the study.
3.2.5. Data Collection Tools
The following tools have been utilized to obtain reliable and important data
- Questionnaire survey
- Direct observation
- Key informant interview
- Focus group Discussion
3.2.5.1 Questionnaire Survey
A guided questionnaire administered for 156 respondents. This was mainly a part of quantitative data. Since I do not speak Halaba language and 57.7% of respondents were illiterate, so I was obliged to use four enumerators and one supervisor who are a native Halaba.
3.2.5.2 Direct Observation
“Observation by definition is a systematic and purposeful watching of phenomenon, events, states or processes in its natural setting” (Ayalew, 1995). Thus, the researcher has used this method to collect information through personal observation of the day-to day activities of the local community around the Area Enclosures, their labour organization and level of participation of the community as well as to observe how the built structures for soil and water conservation are managed in enclosed areas. This has been undertaken through the time of research duration in that area.
3.2.5.3. Key Informant Interview
This is concerned with key informant interview and Six Key informants from different categories of those who are influential in their political, traditional and professional status in their localities. Those have been identified and selected for in depth interview. Checklist has developed to use it during the discussions. This included two experts from Wereda agricultural Office, Two Kebele Leaders, one expert from Regional Natural Resource Development and Environment Protection (RNRDEP) desk and one traditional leader.
3.2.5.4. Focus Group Discussion
A group of knowledgeable individuals who were believed to have sufficient knowledge about their locality have been selected for discussion. This method helped the researcher in reconciling some disparities that might be encountered in individual interviews and while using different data collection methods.
Purposive sampling method has been used to select individuals on the bases of the following criteria; individuals whose social, administrative, cultural position to make the issue of existing natural resource management and their immediate concern. In this discussion seven persons in each FGD session also have been enrolled in two groups from the total population (N)
3.2.6. Method of Data Processing and Analysis
Following the completion of the data collection, the data has been coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20 computer program for quantitative analysis. To analyze the quantitative data the researcher used frequencies, percentage, mean standard deviation and chi square. Qualitative data FGD,KII has made to triangulate with quantitative data to make the study valid and reliable.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter deals with the description of the sample population, presentation, analysis and interpretation of data based on the information obtained from the questionnaires, key informant interviews and focus group discussion. The chapter consist details presentation and explanation about demographic and socio-economic situations of the study areas.
4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLED HOUSE HOLDS
Household is a demographic concept, defined by various literatures as all persons who live in the same dwelling unit. The dwelling units may be a house on apartment or other group of rooms or a room. The definition indicates both conventional and non conventional household consist of those individuals who live in the same dwelling until or in connected buildings and have common eating arrangements ( eat their food together) mostly, under the leadership of an individual (CSA, 1994). Here the conventional household is in variably relevant to the study, sociologically and fully based on this definition.
Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of respondents
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey, 2013
Demographic characteristics of the sampled household heads revealed that out of the 156, respondents, 79% are male and the rest 21% were female. All (100%) of the respondents belong to Halaba ethnic group. Among the sampled respondent /households, 97% of the respondents belong to Muslim. In terms of education status 57.7% respondents were illiterate, 11.5% attended an informal education, the remaining 31% of respondents have attended primary, junior and secondary education. Marital status of respondents is shown as 89.1% of respondents are married.
Respondents' age structure revealed that 39.7% of them were found in the age category of 20-35, 37.2% in the age of 36-45, 15.4% in the age category of 46-55 and 6.4% in age of 56-65 and lastly1.3% in age above 65 years old. While seemed largest frequency were found in the age category of 20-35 years old. It is evident that significant numbers of respondent households were found in the active work force category.
On the other side the family size of respondents were categorized as follows, 11.5% of the respondents have 3 and below 3 family members ,51.3% have 4-6 family members, 31.4% have 7-9 and the remained 5.8% have more than 9 members of family. While we look at the highest frequency belongs to 4-6 family members. So the average family size of the sampled households is 6 (ranging from 2-17)
4.2. ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE SAMPLED HOUSEHOLD HEADS
4.2.1. Farm Land Size
Table 4.2. Farm land size of respondent
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Halaba special woreda revenue office since 1998.
In this section the economic structure of the household are described based on bases of farm land size and the livestock owned by the respondents. In this regards, 57% of the respondents have the farm land size 0.51-1.50 hectares. 16% of the respondents have below0.50hactars, and 25% of the respondents have 1.51-2.20 hectares. The remaining 2% have above 2. 5hactars of farmland. Based on this, the highest frequency has the household who have 1.51-2.50hactars of land. When we look at from the obtained data the average farm size of sampled household is 1.24hactars.
4.2.2. Number of Livestock Holding
Livestock ownership varies depending on the wealth status and the overall farm production objectives. In mixed farming system of the highlands and mid-altitudes of Ethiopia where crop production is important; cattle are the most important livestock species for cultivation, threshing and manure (Getachew et al., 1993). Depending on this the number of livestock which belongs to the respondents are shown below on (Table4.5).
Table 4.3. Number of livestock holding of respondent
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013.
The number of livestock which belong to the sampled household shows that the list number of domestic animals (excluding fowls, cats and dogs),in each type is depending on the economic status of the individuals. It can be understood by seeing the mean on the table.
4.3. UNDESTANDING OF THE AREA
Understanding of the general characteristics, situation, problems and challenges is very important for relevant solution and generally for decision making in a given area. Based on this, on the study area the community has better knowledge or understanding on the general situation of their areas whether fertile or degraded. So 68% and 46.3% of the respondents in Habibo and Asore understood that their area is bare and degraded because of deforestation.
Table 4.4. Understanding of their locality
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field Survey 2013
Majorities (100%) of respondents believe and understand the real problems of land degradation in their area. Majority of the respondents revealed that deforestation is the major problem for area degradation and nobody revealed that continuous Cultivation and overgrazing are causes for the degradation of their environment. According to Shetto, (1999) Conventional flat cultivation whether done by the hand hoe, draft animals or tractors, needs to be accompanied by appropriate soil conservation measures, or it will encourage soil degradation. The adoption of the ox-plough is usually associated with extension of cultivated land which may need clearing. Plough pans may form with continuous cultivation and the extensive use of sledges increases risks of soil erosion. This idea raised during the FGDs and discussion with key Informant that continuous cultivation without any activity of soil and water conservation also resulted this degradation before.
Table 4.5. Trends in community on the practice of conservation before
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013
Although 47.4% of the respondents revealed that the trend of community in the practice of natural resource management was good on private and communal land before. during the practical observation, the trends which the local community has is not strong for natural resource management at household level except physical works which are led by the programmes of the government and other stakeholders. Situation which is observed especially in Habibo can be an evidence.
4.4. MANAGEMENT OF AREA ENCLOSURES
It's obvious that succession sequences and rates of replacement must be regulated for the development of biotic communities that meet conservation needs. The dynamicity and uncertainty of changes should be understood when assessing whether natural resource management proposals are ecologically practicable or not. According to Dereja et al., (2003), one good example is the recovery of degraded lands and their potential for development through the application of area closure.
The management of the area enclosure in the study area is undertaken by the community and kebele Administration. Less number of the community members in the study area participate on the management works including maintenance of old physical structures, such as trenches, micro-basin, eyebrow basin, half moon, finya-juu, stone check dams and others. In this regard, participated community members work together with their strong motivation and commitment to sustain the rehabilitation of bio diversity in the Enclosure area. The works of managing the area enclosure, especially in “Habibo Furnaye” kebele is very good and participants are highly committed. The most of upper part of Habibo is highly degraded and susceptible for heavy erosion. However, this commitment could not be reflection for majority participation, because from the expected participant the majority of them do not involve.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Picture 4.1..Part of highly degraded areas in Habibo taken by the researcher 2013
On other hand, most of the physical works which have been constructed in that area subjected to be demolished by the heavy flood and by the grazing animals which belongs to the community in the kebele. So the community reconstructs and maintains the existing and demolished once.
Table 4.6. managing power of the community over the AEs
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013. Fre. Frequency.
86.5% of the respondents understand that the management of the Area Enclosure must be carried out by both the kebele administration and the community. However, it is not strong because of this in both study areas the AEs are protected against theft and grazing by hired guards with food for work program. Even though, the guards are hired especially in Habibo, the AEs at the road side being damaged by community's domestic animals. Because of this physical structures which have been constructed in different times are subjected for destruction and the Elephant Grass (Pennisetum purpureum ) planted on some structures are highly grazed.
On the other side different bodies (key informants) during informal discussion revealed that even Asore 's AE is kept by the strength of kebele administration because the governmental structure of Asore is relatively strong autocratically. They reveal that secrete of existence of Asore AE is determined by the strong persons in the kebele administration. In this regard the role of community is into the question, that's why it reminds to raise critical question to answer does the community have given empowerment to administer the AEs in Asore. Based on this, in general 42.3%, 26.9% and 20.5% of respondents revealed that management power to control over the natural resource in the AE: weak, medium and strong respectively.
While we compile the general management activities by the community in both AEs is not satisfactory, because in Habibo even though the guard has been hired, damaging the AEs could not be reduced. Also the problems of encroachment are still observed.
4.5. TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
Capacity building relates to a range of activities by which individuals, groups and organizations improve their capacity through training and provision of technical advice it improves their capacity to achieve sustainable Natural resource management. Capacity building in this context includes awareness, skills, knowledge, motivation, commitment and confidence. It is already believed that capacity building for natural resource management goes beyond the traditional top-down approach of enhancing skills and knowledge through training and provision of technical advice. It also focuses on enhancing genuine community engagement in all aspects of natural resource management from planning to on-going action. The goal of capacity building in our country is creating institutional capacity in order to achieve the intended development goals. According to the FDRE Capacity Building Strategies and Programmes Document (2002), the government has given emphasis on building capacity of the three pillars of development: government with its leading and coordination role, local community as the main actor of the overall development plan and the private sector to make active participant in the development process.
Based on this the regional state stretched the continuous schedule for capacity building for both professionals and local community up to the ground level. So many farmers have been trained in awareness creation and technical skill development.
Table 4.7 attended training related to soil and water conservation
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field Survey 2013
In this regards among the total respondents 60.3% of them attended once or more than one awareness creation and technical training. The remaining 39.7% didn't get training at different times because of different social and personal reason. In practical observation most of the participant during the maintenance and construction of physical Structures in AEs are doing their works by knowledge. In researcher observation a given training for the local community in study area especially in Habibo, fostered social cohesion within community and social and human capital have started to being capacitated in terms of awareness, skills and motivation among the community.
4.6. LOCAL BY-LAW DEVELOPMENT
Since the AE program announced at different times the community has been discussing the importance and advantages of natural resource conservation. At that time there was much confusion among the community on the announced issue. Because during the Derg regime, property rights especially at common pool there were many unclear issues which played their own role on the degree of acceptance. However, little agreement has been created and the area has been closed from the interference of human and domestic animals. To concretize this decision, different systems were designed to keep the area from the coming problems; Such as local by-laws, using national laws and others.
Table 4.8. the issue of by-law
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013.
While we come to the study area, 32.1% of Respondents believe that by-law has developed by the community and as it is very strong. However, 67.9% of respondents do not agree that the existing by-law is strong and hesitate to say whether any by-law is present. Because, this is bypassed every time and 24% of them revealed that there is problem with the implementation. Even if there is by-law in the kebele, 68% of respondents revealed that the by-law have got acceptance with continuous discussion, practically written document could not be found at both kebeles. On other hand, 54% of respondents suggested that it needs amendments. However none of them can tell that the written document is available at each level. Even it was tried to get its copy at woreda and regional level nothing has obtained. At general discussion with regional key informant it showed that most of the situations are not systematized well and the availability of by-laws is not exceeded than talk and nobody can confirm it.
4.7. THE LEVEL OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Participation can be categorized as Passive Participation, Participation in information giving, Participation by consultation, and Participation for material incentives, Functional Participation, Interactive Participation, and Self-Mobilization. Among this, Interactive Participation is the one which is important for People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures and practices.
Participation of the local community could be possible to rehabilitate protected areas through collective action (Knox and Meinzen-Dick, 2001). Even if there is a claim that local people have participated in establishing a closed area, participation as it appears may not automatically lead to sustainability (Kelboro, 2000). Kelboro elaborates that the level of participation and growth where process is organized and how much it is effective to engage all socio-economic strata are the important question that need to be assumed.
Depending on this, the level of local community participation in the process of establishing these AEs revealed as, 53% of the respondents haven't been participated during the decision making because of different reasons. Among the remained participant during decision making 46% of respondents declare that the kebele elites, representatives of the local community and the woreda Agriculture Office have worked together during demarcation.
On other cases, the goals of participatory approach are to promote local people's active involvement in management of protected areas and other natural resources Kiss, (1990). Currently community participation in any aspect of development programmes became central and the government encourages the local community participation through planning, Implementation and evaluation of development programmes in Ethiopia at each administration level.
While talking about active participation, this should not be jumped at any step of decision making. But 65% of respondents revealed that community participation is not fully practiced especially on AEs management in both study areas. And also, at the practical work the level of participation is not relatively equal at each step like starting from planning to monitoring and evaluation. Only 28% of the respondents have participated at all level. But the majority 72% of respondents is participating at practical work/ by labor. This idea also suggested by almost key informants at Woreda, and regional levels that community participation is not strongly implemented especially in the management of AEs.
4.7.1. Gender Equality and Participation Issues in AEs
According to Wisborg et. al., (2000), although boundaries and user groups seem to be relatively clear to local people in relation to the AEs, this is not always the case, and this has not in itself guaranteed equitable distribution of benefits For example, patriarchal cultures and low representation of women raise questions about the gender balance of all aspects of management of common property resources. According to Larsen and Rye (1999), this is particularly important in the case of gender-segregated and patriarchic societies where men often have the sole power of decision-making, especially in institutions beyond the household.
When we come to the study area participation of women in Natural resource management in AEs, among the total selected respondents 21.2% of them are women. Most of the respondents described that the participation of women in the management of natural resource in Area Enclosure is very low. That is suggested by 81% of them that they haven't attended the meeting during decision making and 76.2% of them didn't attend during the implementation of closing the areas. 86% of them claimed that even though, ideally it has been told them to being beneficiary such as fuel wood and fodder from the AEs, after the area has rehabilitated the benefit which they have got is not better as such. In this regards, key informants revealed that women participation is weak during the decision making. Mostly husbands' domination is very high in the society as remaining parts of the country.
On the other side, in our community, Women are responsible for the collection of fuel wood; livestock feed, and water from long distances where these are scarce in the area. Whereas AEs started to generate these materials but women could not able to collect these products from the AEs instead of walking long distances saving their time and labor. Habibo's women around the AE, have a chance to fetch water from recharged (revitalized) pond, however, that does not represent the majority.
4.8. THE ROLE OF LOCAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF AEs
North (1990) stated that the management of forest resources is not only determined by ecologic, economic or demographic factors, but influenced by a heterogeneous set of institutional arrangement. Local level institutions provide the rules of forests , both as enabling as well as disabling factors ( Stellmacher,2006) local institutions are easy to understand and force , locally devised, take in to account, differences in types of violence, help to deal with conflicts, and help users and officials accountability to lead to effective governance of forest resources. According to (North, 1990) informal institutions are the rules governed by behavioral norms in society, family, and / or community, and include sanctions, taboos, traditions and code of conduct Local institutions fit into this category. They may take the shape of a formal organizational structure, but commonly consist of informal norms and practices within a community or ethnic group Friis-Hansen, (1999). Depending on these ideas while we test the role of locally available Institutions in the study area, the result shows that the role of these institutions is not active.
4.8.1. The Role of Formal Institutions
“Formal institution” refers to state bodies (courts, legislatures, bureaucracies) and state enforced rules (constitutions, laws, regulations). The finding of the research revealed that the major formal institutions engaged in Area Enclosures management are kebele administration, woreda Agricultural office (mainly Natural resource and Environment management and protection desk). As mentioned above the role of these institutions is focused on awareness creation among the local community about the use, management and conservation of Management of AEs in the study area. On other hand kebele administration as the state-initiated institutional framework through which governmental policies ought to be implemented ‘on the ground' has the activities of monitoring and sanctioning of illegal users' activities in the demarcated areas. Additionally “gotts” Limat Budins are governmental structures which are responsible for their surrounding human and natural resources mobilization and management.
The Woreda NREMPD is engaged in facilitating and controlling the activities of each institution engaged in AEs management and also provides logistic accordingly the woreda Administration has irreplaceable role by undertaking the overall situations and activities in kebeles and Area Enclosures based on the Revised Constitution, 2001 of the SNNPR (South nation Nationalities and Peoples Regional State) Article 98, sub-article1 (f) which says;
“It shall preserve, protect, develop natural resources and mobilize the inhabitants for development activities”
On other hand, these institutions work by raising awareness through training and by building capacity of both community and of kebele executives. However, according to the key informant at woreda and Region level, because of the lack of strong systems for the over control and utilization guidelines on AEs, there is big gaps on the structuring the stable system for the access to benefits, transparency and accountability on both kebele and at the community level.
4.8.2. Informal Institutions
This study focused on the locally available institutions which are actively run their activities socially, like Idir, Traditional and Religious Institutions.
4.8.2.1 Social Institutions
The published evidence so far supported the argument that informal institutions in many rural settings of Sub Sahara African have contributed to sustainable CPR management by mobilizing social capital, solving collective action problems, and serving as entry points for interventions in sustainable CPR management. Additionally, when compared to formal institutions, informal institutions have higher potential to survive, regardless of the changing socio-economic and political conditions (Yihäisi, 2006).
Local institutions can vary depending on its locality and functions what they Can perform. This study focuses on the locally available informal institutions such as Idir, religious and traditional as informal institutions and kebele administration as a forma local institute. “Idir” is an institution which activates on mutually assistances. In this regards the role of this institution/ Idir is very significant in different social affairs. Now a day's these institutions transforming from one activity or issue to multi dimensional social affairs or activities like helping the needy, participating in developmental activities and others very important social works. In terms of NRM Idirs can perform if they are given an opportunities and responsibilities. In case of the study area during FGD the participant revealed that Idirs lack playing an important role on the area of natural resource management including AEs. Even the governmental structures do not give them attention to hug in wide activities of natural resources management in their locality.
Table 4.9.The role of Informal Institutions in AEs management
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013
Based on this, 70.5 % of respondents revealed that Idirs do not play an expected role in the management of both Area closures and 29.5% of them revealed as rarely Idir plays role by teaching and encouraging active participation of their members on the management of Area closures.
4.8.2.2. Religious Institutions
The majority of the woreda populations are Muslim. Above 97% of the respondents are Muslims. Basically its organizational or institutional arrangement is very strong. It may have great role in different situations over the existing population. In terms of Natural Resource Management in AEs the importance of this institution is very weak, because it does not involve in the activities of management in Area Enclosures. Among randomly selected respondents 70.5% of them believe that this institution would have a big ability to teach and encourage their members on any developmental issues or agendas. This is also supported by FGDs that if it has provided clear assignment, they could play great role in NRM by teaching and encouraging their members. But practically they are not active in the practices of the Management of AEs as Institution.
4.8.2.3. Traditional Institutions
Traditional institutions are institutions which have very huge capacity to shape the behavior of their community in different disciplines and their leaders also have power to make decisions on individuals and community issues in terms of cultural and in many social issues. In the study areas the Halaba nationality has very strong traditional institution which is known as “Seera”. If they are utilized properly they can play significant role on natural resource management especially on common pool resources (AEs).
However, 63.5%of respondents revealed that traditional institutions: do not have clear participation, 22.4% revealed that they encourage their members and 14.1%, teaching their members to be active participant on Area Enclosures management respectively. Basically, the strength of both religious and traditional institutions in Halaba is strong and they have very important impact on the community. This strength could be helpful and the right consensus could be built for sustainable resource management in area enclosures if they are invited to participate.
While this idea is compiled the participation of locally available institutions especially informal institutions is not strong and their role is very minimal in the management of AEs. Generally, this should be understood that the sustainable fate of AEs can be determined by the active participation of these locally available informal institutions rather than others. So their involvement should not be skippe
4.9. IMPACT OF AEs IN THE STUDY AREAS
Bendz, (1986) described that Area closures are determinant ways of rehabilitating severely exploited vegetations and degraded dry land environments and are established due to their advantages in being cheap, quick and lenient to return degraded sites. Studies indicated that enclosures often involve restriction of humans and live stocks and had improved biomass production, species composition, density, richness and diversity as well as soil diversity than the open sites (Kebrome, 1998). According to FAO,(2005), Rehabilitation of natural vegetation improves the microclimate and biodiversity of the area and enclosures often provide multipurpose benefits like animal fodder, fuel wood access, fiber, access of medicinal plants, rehabilitation of soil fertility (Example: Leguminous plants) and provide habitats for various beneficial species (pollinators and biological control) and wildlife as well.
The impact of AEs in the study areas can be studied as direct and indirect manner. Direct impacts can be described as increase in fodder, grass for thatching, improvement in local/ micro ecology, ponds recharging, soil fertility improvement and others. On the other hands improvement in livestock health and productivity can be mentioned as indirect impacts of AEs
Table 4.10. Direct and Indirect benefits from AEs
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013
Depending on this, 64.1% of respondents revealed that because of the area Enclosure the amount of grass for livestock and thatching has increased in the area. But it is not enough and 19.9% of respondents believe that the micro ecology has improved. Practically, in Habibo a pond which has been dried before the area has treated it got recharged / revitalized and serves the local community (figure4.2). Women and children who live around the AEs have got chance to fetch water for house use and drinking. Whereas 71.8% of respondents said clearly that they couldn't able to define indirect benefits from AEs.
Because low availability of direct benefits in terms of grasses for their livestock from AEs favors for low understanding on the indirect benefits which obtained (Table4.12). For instance, increase in animal productivity and improved health situation might be depended on the extension programmes which are given by the government regularly rather than the indirect impact waited from the AEs.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Fig 4.2. Picture of revitalized pond in Habibo. Photo by the researcher, 2013.
4.10. ACCESS TO BENEFITS FOR LOCAL LIVELIHOOD
The AEs were established by the government primarily for ecological regeneration and biodiversity conservation. At the outset of these programs it was assumed that these mainly ecological objectives could best be achieved by the total exclusion of animals and people from the AEs for longer periods of time. In researcher personal observation and according to the FGD, there is a very good change in biomass, as in many of the areas degradation was so severe that before the intervention and vegetation was nearly absent. According to Mengistu et al., (2005b), land area closed for the purpose of rehabilitation on nature protection can provide benefit to the local people.
These in closured areas used as a source of diverse products like construction materials and grasses .The local people in the study areas describing that they observed enclosures increased land productivity, as resulted in more grass ( for thatching and their livestock) and construction materials. The tangible increase in biomass has convinced both communities and the government about the great potential of the AEs to restore vegetation in areas of extreme degradation. Generally vegetation cover is seemed as a new area has formed in those study Area Enclosures. Depending on this, the local community has motivated to establish another area enclosure.
All respondents in Habibo revealed that the ecological benefits of those area enclosures are very high and people live below the enclosures survived because of the reduction of high flood in that area. Practically, 12(twelve) Households have been dislocated because of high flood and after the area enclosure has been established and the restoration of the area started, those farmers returned back to their land and they are leading their regular life and striving to their economic development. Additionally, the key informants and FGD revealed that the observed change through the establishment of AEs is greater achievement for both the government and the local community.
On other case, during the establishment of Area Enclosures the community has awareness that after the rehabilitation of the enclosure the community would be benefited from the enclosures by different ways. Because of this the community has expected to use it as usual for duties. After the areas have rehabilitated and while they face different climatic change and shortage of fodder for their livestock, the surrounding community revealed that they are not benefited from the area enclosures individually. However, 96% of the respondents believe that the importance of the AEs is very high in terms of communal asset creation such as health post, farmers training centers. School classes, Kebele office especially in Asore. So these social institutions have been constructed and many people have supported during accidents happened in Asore and other kebeles.
Table 4.11 any benefit gained from AEs
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field Survey 2013
However, 69% of respondents revealed that they are not benefited individually from the AEs whether by grasses or fuel wood; because of different cases (like “not permitted yet”, “it is not rehabilitated well”, “the unfairness”...).This is suggested by 54%of respondents for unfairness and 13% for not rehabilitated. On the other side, from Asore AE during the sales of grasses for cattle and for thatching, some poor community members can get access and they sale it for town community by better price, in this case they can get advantages to cover their daily expenses for food and other needs. This idea is described by the kebele elites. But the number of such community members is insignificant or very low because of the lack of clear systems for utilization of the availing resource from the AEs.
4.11. PROBLEMS RELATED TO AREA ENCLOSURES
As it is known positive attitude of local community is fundamental for the sustainability of AEs. In this regards, in both study areas the surrounding community has positive attitude for those rehabilitated areas. Because of the changes which observed on those localities, the community looks the AEs positively. However, some problems are raised by the respondents in relations with Area Enclosures:
4.11.1. Shortage of Grazing Land
Animal Feed Sources are classified as natural pasture, crop residue, improved pasture and forage, agro industrial by products and other by-products like food and vegetable refusal, of which the first two contribute the largest feed types (Alemayehu, 2003, cited in Yeshtila 2008). One can easily notice that livestock in the area are suffering from shortage of feed.
Table 4.12 Type of grazing system and Pasture Respondents Use
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: field survey 2013
In both study areas there is serious shortage of fodder, fire wood and construction wood materials. The seriousness of fodder and grazing land shortage is for live stock can be major problems in livestock raring and farmers rely on crop residue in addition to natural pasture for their livestock. Among the total respondents 88% have one or more than one domestic animal, all 100% (19.2 +80.8. Table 4.12) respondents use both Natural Pasture and crop residue. Again 78.2% of the respondents do not have their own grazing land. This is obvious that most of the livestock pass a day by picking crop residues from the farm land, on the other side dried grasses are left in the closured areas.
Table 4.13 Major Problems of House hold on Livestock Rearing
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field Survey 2013
As mentioned above, because of the changes which observed on those localities, the community looks the AEs positively. However, 51.3% of respondents revealed that some problems which are related with the AEs have observed in terms of both shortage of fodder/ grazing land and the remained 26.9% and 21.8% revealed that they face either shortage of fodder or grazing land.
However, 75.6% of the total respondent revealed that the availability of fodder is decreasing over the time. In addition to this, in observation and during FGDs, the transfers of grazing lands to cultivation for crop production and absence of grazing land management are some of the reasons for fodder reductions from grazing lands. Accordingly, in both research areas the availability of livestock feeds/fodder especially at dry season is very difficult to find easily. In this case especially at dry season the animals face shortage of feeds. Even, crop residues could not be available on the farm during dry season. This unavailability of livestock fodder has many implications for the management of the emerging needed grasses in the Area Enclosures. During the informal discussion people describe that they will be compelled to use grasses or fodder from the Enclosures without keeping the will of local government
4.11.2. Increase in Wild Life
Before the area had been demarcated the community had decided to keep the area from the interference of man and domestic animals until the area will be rehabilitated. depending on this decision, the area have been kept for a long time and in these rehabilitation years while the areas begins to be covered by plants and different wild animals introduced to the area in number and species. Among these, Warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus), Monkey, vervet (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), spotted Hyena (Crocutu crocuta), Porcupine (Hystrix cristata), Caracal (Felis caracal) Hare, Abyssinian (Lepus habessinicus) and other birds species are timely exhibited. This resulted human wild life conflict more in specific area that prone to the Asore Area Enclosure. Among these wild animals warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus) is taking a destructive effect primarily in the area by raiding the crop.
Among the 80 respondents from Asore 74% of them stressed that warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus) is the major problem in that area. And 26% revealed that monkey is next to the warthog. In general expression, 58% of respondents revealed that warthog raids crops and sometimes it tried to attack human (This is suggested by 22% of the total respondents). On other hand from carnivore animals Hyena (Hyaenidae), is the one which attack domestic animals, however its problem is not significant. The major problem of human wild life conflict around the AEs is confined between man and warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus). Because of this especially in Asore more than 15 households left their farm and they subjected to different social and economic problems. This is assured by 81% of respondents that above 15 households have enforced to change their land use system and became totally out of production. This also suggested by FGD and key informant from woreda and PAs concerned bodies.
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Fig,4.3. Part of the area left by farmers because of warthog ( Asore) photo by the researcher. 2013
In Asore raising any question about warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus) is not easy and nobody takes it as a result of rehabilitation of that area. Although different measures have been taken to reduce this problem which comes from Warthog, that could not be effective as it is evident from the picture above (Fig.4.3). To protect the warthogs (Phacochoerus aethiopicus) not to come out of the forest the Woreda Agricultural Office and WFP tried to dig 50cm x50cm depth/width ditch and soil band that could not be solution for a long time because warthogs dig and demolish it by their tusks. Warthogs use their tusks both for fighting off unwanted predators and other competing male warthogs, and the warthogs also use these tusks for digging in the dirt for grubs and insects. Warthogs have a diet that consists mainly of grass, fruit, berries, roots and insects but warthogs are also known to occasionally eat small mammals, birds and reptiles. The diet of the warthog however, depends on the season and what is growing and therefore available for the warthog to eat.
The local government and community appealed repeatedly for concerned Regional Bureaus such as Culture and Tourism, Agriculture Bureaus and RNREPA. But sill curative solution could not be achieved except digging trench and soil bund at one side of the AE in Asore. Because of this, the community is in big grievance and most of the community regretted by the previous commitment for the rehabilitation of this area. This idea is not only observed by the community but it also reflected on different government officials at PA and Woreda level. Even during FGD everybody stressed about the damage caused by Warthog. They revealed that while sometimes damages caused by Warthog on the individuals; they do not have any support and compensation. They emphasize that their threat will continue unless this problem has given more attention and also the fate of this area Enclosure will be threatened soon. So the community or farmers need to be compensated or the problem needs to be solved.
4.11.3. Problems Related to Borders
Unfortunately some AEs established between kebeles and some are established within a kebele. So the security of the rehabilitated area might be determined by the consensus which created between kebeles and/or within the community. In some part of Habibo problems of AE's are created Repeatedly which are related to the boundary, that means especially the upper part of Habibo is far from the area where the local community lives, because of this, the existing enclosure area has been seriously degraded, no body lives around the upper part of the AE. So 50% of respondents from Habibo revealed that problem which related to border needs great attention. This problem is created by some individuals from the neighboring kebeles. They come and cut trees, grasses and release their livestock for grazing also, sometimes they make stochastic events/fire.
Table 4.14. Driving forces for mentioned challenge
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013.
On other hand, 52.6% of respondents in Habibo pointed out that increase in livestock population and the land value are the driving force for those problems. However, human population is not threat for a time being. Farm land scarcity will be the one driving factor for the future in Habibo unless the soil and water conservation measures undertaken widely around the AEs. Because, especially land degradation can results the scarcity of farm land is discussed by different scholars at different times. So the need to Farm Land in Habibo can be related to the effect of Land degradation in the Area. Whereas 66.3% of respondents from Asore revealed that increasing wildlife population as a result of conservation area is the number one driving force for the hatred which created on AE in that kebele.
Table 4.15. Challenges of Area Enclosures
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013.
Human wildlife conflict, border/ encroachment problems are sounding problems around the AEs which are revealed in 34% and 33.3% respectively. In this regards, the problem which rose around the borders of AEs in Habibo show that the work of creating consensus among the community hasn't taken place at the community who belongs to the neighboring kebeles. According to the key informant from Habibo, discussion has been undertaken between two kebeles, however individuals who live at the border of AE are passed the border and result damage on the AE.
Table 4.16 General feelings of the respondents on AEs
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: field survey 2013.
The general perception of the sampled respondents on existing area enclosures is very positive and they are believed that different improvements have been observed after these areas have enclosed. Because of this 42.9% of respondents feel very good, while 30.1% feel good and remained 26.9% didn't feel good. The reason for those who didn't have good feeling on the existing AEs is the challenges which were observed around the AEs such as the problems which are related with the shortage of grazing land, animal fodder and wild animals. In addition to these reasons, they also mentioned problems related with the above detailed, like transparency, accountability and access to benefit including the lack of participation during decision making at some level of situations
Table 4.17. final suggestions of respondents
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013
The final recommendation what the respondents have given as 23.7%,23.3%,and 50.0% revealed that to protect these wild animals especially Warthogs: these animals must be avoided from the area, the Enclosure area must be fenced, and fairness should be practiced on benefit sharing respectively. When we look at these three ideas something should be thought about how problems will be solved to assure the sustainability of natural resource in each AE in such situation by balancing both issues (the security of human livelihood and wildlife). Depending on the above data each site has its own problems and needs on how the existing problems should be tackled. But commonly sounding recommendation is the issue of fairness (50.0%) and the remained are determined by each site/ locality.
Table 4.18. Expected threats to the community for the future
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source Field survey 2013
Depending on the above situation respondents point out the future threats in different ways like the expected threat for future in Habibo 76.3% and 22.4% revealed that shortage of grazing and farm Land respectively, whereas 73.8% and 25% of respondents revealed that increase of wild animal in number and type/ species and also shortage of grazing land as a coming threats respectively in Asore.
Increasing in livestock population could not be easy problem in terms of the shortage of grazing land and fodder in the area, because strong extension works and programmes are implementing to increase the productivity of cattle for farmers household. In this case the quality and productivity of cattle is becoming improved. This requires better and enough feeds for their better productivity. So the change which comes by increasing on livestock could be threat for Area Enclosures before their rehabilitation well unless the rearing system and feeding habits are improved.
CHAPTER FIVE
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Enclosures are sources of wood for construction, farm implements, and non-timber forest products. They also play an important role in conserving remaining soil resources and improving soil fertility. Enclosures improve soil fertility by augmenting soil nutrients from decomposed plant remains. According to Tefera et al., (2005), Enclosures also limit nutrient loss from a site by controlling runoff (vegetation acting as a physical barrier to soil erosion). This eventually improves the capability of the land to support other vegetation types, including exotic plantations, or otherwise support livestock. Nevertheless, in many cases success is obstructed by lack of clear management guidelines. The purpose of the present study is to explore the level of community participation, current management status of AEs, participation of various formal and informal institutions and challenges of AEs.
As observed before at theoretical frame work on the post-structural political ecology the genuine participation of local people actively involved in decision-making, implementation of activities affecting their lives and sharing the benefits there of (Pretty and Shah, 1997). In this regard it is believed that to bring many benefits that include enhancement of efficiency, transparency and accountability, empowerment of the poor and disadvantaged, mitigation of natural resource degradation, livelihood improvement, sense of belongingness and capacity to learn and act.
Challenges of Area Enclosures in Halaba special woreda which have their own characteristics depending on the locality they found. In Asore the coverage of trees and shrubs is relatively better than Habibo. The landscape of Asore is plain than some parts of Habibo and the trend of land and environment management in Asore is better than Habibo, especially from the upper part of Habibo. The rehabilitation status of AEs in both sites still has difference in their bio-diversity and coverage of vegetation. Because the times which each site has been established are different between 16 (Asore) to 6 (Habibo) years old. On the other hands the management which carried out on both study areas is relatively different in terms of the composition of vegetation and the level of rehabilitation. But in both sites, there are many similar features can be observed except the level of rehabilitation. i.e. both closured areas were highly degraded before they have been enclosed. Different physical and biological soil and water conservation measures have been employed.
These Area Enclosures have been administered by the government until it has been devolved for the local community. Devolution of these areas for local community was aimed at the transferring of the ownership and empowering the community for sustainable management of AEs. Then now they are managing by the collaboration of both local government and the community, Because of this, the local community obtained chance to manage the existing natural resource and some members of the local community started getting benefits from the sales of grass from the AEs.
However, the study finding shows that the strength of management is not as such, and is not promising because of lack of clear system which designed for transparent utilization as well as full participation of the community.
As stated by Tefera et al.,(2005), The major objectives of the AE in Ethiopia are to maintain biologically diverse vegetation and ecologically productive rather than less valuable open degraded land. It helps to change marginal lands to potentially productive area. Pretty and Shah, (1996),explained that the community's social and economic benefit refers to the social services and economic outputs such as products, financial income or an increase in the productivity of land or labor that the community tangibly gains. Tangible and fair social and economic and environmental benefits are fundamental determinants of CP SWC activities. According to their explanation People engaged in development activities only when they see clear preferably tangible net benefit in terms of production, income and services.
This will take place by strongly implementing the processes of empowerment of the local community depending on the characteristics of empowering the poor which based on the process of decision making and access to productive resources or benefits from the area enclosures. In this regards especially Asore can be transferred strongly to the implementation of empowering the community at all stages in the management of AE. These should be potentially deep political process to transfer the control over resources and decision making to the local community which is in and around the area enclosures. This idea also supported by World Bank (1992), by stating the construction of empowerment as an objectives of popular participation in the context of a more equitable sharing of power and higher level of political awareness of strength for disadvantaged people.
Another finding is the real economic, social and environmental benefits from the AEs are not yet fulfilled because of the absence of organized system to sale forest products and share the benefits for local community.
The main claim (Finding) which is raised by the community is the absence of systematization of clear and transparent methodology for sustainable management of AEs and benefits which the community should get. Socially, there is better achievement that transforms its benefits on construction materials availed for the purpose of social institutions construction such as health post, school classrooms, FTCs, kebele offices and others. Environmentally both AEs provide very great benefits for the locality. For example, as mentioned above improvement on micro-ecology, reduction of runoff, and others erosions. Above all, the established AEs influence the attitudes of the local community for positive initiation in natural resource management in the study area. But because of above mentioned problems: like lack of systematized procedures and methodologies, grievances have created among the local community.
As it is known informal institutions can contribute their role for sustainable Natural Resource Management especially on common pool by regulating access to Common Property Rights at low cost for users; developing and mobilizing social capital; acknowledging incorporation of local knowledge and mechanisms of the community in common pools management; and enhancing collective action among member users at low transaction costs. Mostly it is discussed by different bodies that the contributions of informal institutions are enhanced mainly under conditions of active community participation in common pools management, high social capital and shared beliefs among property users, and in the presence of well-established village structures.
The study shows that the participation of informal institutions does not observed and they do not have visual place on the management of AEs, So the importance of these informal institutions should not be bypassed and they should get access to participate in Natural Resource management in AEs for its sustainability.
Another findings from this study show that: problems of transparency including benefit sharing and problems of equity are the emerging challenges around the existing Area Enclosures and the absence of clear guideline for safe and sustainable utilization.
CHALLENGES OF THE AES
In addition to the problems on the management of AEs these problems which related to AEs are also other challenges of the study areas, For example: border related problems, shortage of fodder for the community's livestock, problems transparency and enclosure close to the roads should be given attention.
It is clear that problems around border can happen around many natural resources , in this regards especially in Habibo the neighboring kebele and community didn't build consensus around the Area Enclosures and resource available in especially, the community who live near and around the area enclosure should participate in natural resource management whether they live in or nearby( the neighboring kebele) leaders should construct common understanding on the management of AEs for the benefits of community.
Shortage of fodder for live stock and other domestic animals is very serious. The unavailability of common grazing land and shortage of crop residue at off farm time can subject the animals for low productivity and the health of animals can be affected. On the contrary, grasses in the Area Enclosures are dried without any benefit. This needs balanced observation to address the problems of local community during feeds scarce. Providing or selling grasses for local community especially for their livestock may strengthen the belongingness among the community to accept and manage the existing natural resource. But the study shows that belongingness creation in the community is not strong. It can be eroded because of the lack of transparency and accessibility for benefits.
During the sales of non-Timber forest products (NTFP) from the enclosures it needs transparent system with strong responsibilities. As observed during the study especially in Asore the kebele elites lack transparency and most of respondents do not have trust on the kebele elites in terms of natural resource management. A committee assigned by the community for the management of AEs is not transparent and therefore the community does not trust the committee. Regional NREMPA the region bodies and representative of WFP as well as Woreda NREPD also believe that the enabling system should be established to solve such type problem
In both study areas some parts of the AEs situated close to roads. These areas are more subjected to be damaged by both human and domestic animals, especially in Habibo the lower part is highly affected by human and animals. Many physical structures are destructed and plants around the roads are grazed by the animals. That is why; there is no trap or fence around the AEs. Indeed fencing could be problem for a time being, but some important animal's feeds species can be planted around the AEs. If they are planted at road side it can stop animals from the entrance to the AEs, apparently they can be used as the planting material for the local household s.
As mentioned above, after the AEs have been rehabilitated, different wild animals introduced/ entered to the forest and started to multiply. In this case the increases in wild animals disperse to the neighboring farm and eventually start raiding crops. while the increase in wildlife can be seen as a clear indication of the success of AEs, on the other hand the community started feeling threatened by the wild life increase. When we say the micro ecology has changed because of the AEs, the impact which came by this rehabilitation should be accepted in balanced way.
Different mechanism can be employed to reduce the effect this may include both physical and metaphoric mechanisms. Physical method implies constructing physical and other biological mechanisms. So to tackle this problem, it would be better to bring different stakeholders together. This problem is severe particularly for those farmers who are near to the AEs to refuse accepting agricultural technology by the fear of these wild animals. This has caused major problem, leaving their farm land. As mentioned above more than 15(fifteen) households are subjected to food aid and many social and economic problems.
Fencing mechanisms may be used to maintain the existing status or rehabilitated areas and are used to keep neighboring farms from the damage which comes by wild animals. For this purpose living fences such as hedgerows can have many additional benefits. These may be made from groups of trees, shrubs, and grasses that are planted along road ways, fences, field edges or other non-cropped areas Earnshaw,(2004). They enhance wild life barrier separating adjacent fields, diversity incomes, conserve water and soil and decrease wind damage Forman and Baudry,(1984). If the existing AEs are being fenced by living fences trees which grown with AEs can have chance to be established well and are saved from the animals damage. Especially this is very important for Habibo. While we think about living fence, they should be multipurpose trees/ plants those can be used as fodder in addition to their purpose. Additionally thorny fences can be planed to protect adjacent farms from the damage of wild animals (ex. Caesalpinia decaetala (qonxxir). To develop this living fence no big money is required. The seeds can be collected and planted easily within a short time it can be used as a fence.
In our country there is no clear system of compensation for the people who is damaged by wildlife. In my opinion it must be designed. Victim House Holds which are affected by Warthog should be compensated and this and similar systems should be designed. Because the Government need to keep Natural resources including wildlife, while the number of wildlife increase, their effect on the surrounding farmers can be increased and at that time enmity between human and the wildlife can be developed. So, the communities should be compensated by the government for wildlife damage. In this regard, each problem directly or indirectly attached with the sustainable fate of existing AEs. So above mentioned problems in this study area need fast response, otherwise AEs may lose support among the community.
On other hand, there is another opportunity to strengthen the benefits of the local community in the study area, which is tourism. It does not developed yet, but the potential for tourism is very high. So the result which obtained through the AEs can be one and additional destination for tourist in the area. At the same time the local community can have a chance to get benefits from his existing and newly merged opportunities.
Local institutions are easy to understand and enforce, locally devised, take into account differences in types of violations, help deal with conflicts, and help users and officials accountable to lead to effective governance of forest resources (Agrawal, 2007). It facilitate capacity building, participatory decision-making and sustainable approaches to forest conservation and can modify the effect of factors thought to be driving force of deforestation.
Locally available institutions especially social, religious and traditional institutions are a great means for strengthening the bondage within the community. The strength of these institutions can be used as one input and supportive instruments for locally undertaken activities because the people belongs to them is the main power of developmental activities and programmes. But the finding shows that these informal institutions do not have remarkable role in the management of AEs in the study areas.
To manage locally available Natural resource, regulation and locally developed instruments ( by-laws) can build strong managing capacity for the community,
“Moreover, the success of public policies to improve natural resource management depends to a large extent on the presence and effectiveness of local-level institutions and organizations to enforce them (Rasmussen and Meinzen-Dick 1995). Hence, the solution to the problem of resource degradation in developing countries depends not only on appropriate technologies and efficient market prices but also on local-level institutions of resource management and the organizations to enforce them (Rasmussen and Meinzen-Dick 1995; Baland and Platteau 1996).
Community resource management institutions and organizations are now receiving greater attention as a viable alternative to regulation by the state or privatization as a means of rectifying inefficiencies caused by attenuated property right systems, externalities, and other market failures. However, devolving rights to local communities to help build institutions for common property management may not be a sufficient condition for sustainable use of such resources. Effectiveness in internal governance is needed for the effective application of community rules (Turner, Pearce, and Bateman 1994; Swallow and Bromley 1995). Hence, the need to identify factors that facilitate or hinder the development and effectiveness of local level institutions and organizations for natural resource management becomes important for developing policies to strengthen community resource management” cited by ( Berhanu et al., 2002: 258 )..
To strengthen the management capacity of the local community developing or practicing the existing by- laws are very important. But the study shows that locally developed bylaws are not available, nobody can able to show them because written documents couldn't be obtained.
Giving a chance for local community to participate on different and each steps of activities including planning, Implementation and evaluation as well as decision making can brings power for the local community to make decisions confidentially. While this practiced permanently, strong system of transparency and accountability will be established and resulting with the development of strong belongingness among the community. In practical observation and findings during the study reveal that management of AEs and community participation lack these all. As observed on study areas, and respondents revealed that access to benefit for local community is not well systematized and the community does not develop trust on elected forest command post or committee and kebele elites in terms of AEs. Lack of transparency and strong accountability are not systematized like to access to benefits.
In general the Absence of Transparency, low level of Community participation, problems of Equity in access to benefit sharing, very low level of Gender equality, The absence of Strong utilization including benefit sharing & management system, weak Integrity of stakeholders are the major problem of the study areas. In the presence of these limitations the sustainability of AEs will be very difficult for their future fate. These systems should be stabilized and the community should be aware on these at all. Halaba Special Woreda needs more Enclosures because of its geographic and high level of degradation and also the low coverage of vegetation. Currently established AEs must be kept as the beginning of best practices in the area as well as in the region. These all can be attached with the issue of governance, so the absence of good governance in natural resource management totally can erode the sustainability of natural resource. These problems can have negative effects on AEs directly or indirectly unless they are being solved on time. The sales of grasses and fuel wood should get trust among the community. In this regards, still it is yet to bring on track.
In the process of natural resource management different bodies are involved by contributing different inputs including ideas, technologies, other inputs, skills and others. In this regards, in the management of Area Enclosures in study areas different bodies (stakeholders) have involved either ideally or practically at different times, among these: bureaus of Agriculture, culture and tourism, Finance and Economy, World Food Program (WFP) and others. Each of them have their own purpose and role, but for the sustainability of AEs their collaboration is very lose except Agricultural Office, culture and tourism and WFP. While their integrity being strengthen, many positive situations would be took place, including experience sharing and scaling up on many cases. On other hand universities and research bodies can have strong capacity to undertake scientific research and can use these areas and progresses as teaching fields resulting by building capacities for sectors and for the community. On the other hands like WFP can take the work of advocacy to promote such obtained experiences for international bodies to bring sustainable benefits for the local community. So stakeholder integrity should be strengthening.
5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
To reduce problems which related wild life some measures should be taken:
- Protecting wild animals from damaging crops by constructing fences.
- Grasses which may be preferred by the wild animals should be planted in the area.
- Hunting should be permitted by professionals and it can brings money for the local community
- Compensation system should be designed for victim household
- Fencing mechanisms may be used to maintain the existing status or rehabilitated area.
- Community participation should be encouraged strongly; especially women and youth should be the main participant.
- To maximize the benefits for the community, strong systems should be developed or practiced at kebele level. And also diversified packages, intensive programmes (apiculture, fattening, saving, input provision...) should be sought.
- Utilizing and strengthening already present traditional systems; repeatedly consulting the community; communicating and building consensus with local elders, politicians and religious leaders and recognizing traditional knowledge for the sustainability of AEs.
- To strengthen the management capacity of the community in those areas most of the community should be trained, because the quality and effectiveness of AEs and other NRM will be better.
- Concerned governmental structures should work attentively with integrated manner
- Depending on the above finding, to encouraging the active participation of the community in the process of AEs management, training should be strengthen on different practical activities of Soil and Water ( biodiversity) conservation in the AEs.
- Informal institutions should have share on the mobilization and active participation of their members as well as on shaping their attitudes.
- Locally needed by-law for clear management of AEs should be developed and exercised and lastly the community should discuss on them.
- To reduce problems of encroachments on AEs consensus building should be done.
- Animal feeds development should be strengthen in the area and it must be deliberately led by the Government to rescue the AEs from coming adversity.
5.3. FUTURE RESEARCH AREA
Further study should be carried out on the role of enclosures in the recovery of woody vegetation species composition, density, and diversity and regeneration status of woody species and soil seed banks in enclosures.
REFERENCES
Abiy Tsetargachew. 2008. Area Closure as a Strategy for Land Management: a Case Study at Kelala Dalacha Enclosure in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. M.Sc Thesis. Addis Ababa University, 37p.
Agrawal. A. 2007. Rural Resource Institutions and Sustainable Governance. World Bank Workshop on “Mobilizing Rural Institutions for Sustainable Livelihoods and Equitable Development” February 12, 2007, Washington DC
Alemu Taddese.1982. Grassland Composition and Current Feeding Systems in Nekemite Awraja. M.Sc Thesis. Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, 92p.
Appiah-Opoku, S. and G.Mulamoottil.1997. Indigenous Institutions and Environmental Assessment: The Case of Ghana. Environmental Management 21 (2): 159-71.
Asefa, D. T.; Oba, G.; Weladji, R. B. and Colman, J. E. 2003. An Assessment of Restoration of Biodiversity in Degraded High Mountain Grazing Lands in Northern Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development 14: 25-38.
Assessment in Dry Land. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/drylands/implanddeg.htm accessed on 10th Dec, 2010.
Ayalew Gebre. 1995. The Arbore of Southern Ethiopia: A Study of Inter-Ethnic Relations, Social Organization, and Production Practices. Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.
Azene Bekele, 2001. “Status and Dynamics of Natural Resources in Ethiopia.”In T. Assefa (ed.) Food Security through Sustainable Land Use: Population, Environment and Rural Development Issues for Sustainable Livelihoods in Ethiopia (pp. 165-184). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: NOVIB Partners Forum on Sustainable Land Use.
Badege Bishaw, 2005. Agro Forestry and Community Forestry for Rehabilitation of Degraded Watersheds on the Ethiopian Highlands College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, U.S.A
Betru Nedessa 2003. Soil and Water Conservation Program in the Amhara Regional State. In: Natural Resource Degradation and Environmental Concerns in the Amhara National Regional Management State, Impact on Food Security. Proceeding of the Natural Resource Management Conference, July 24-26, 2002, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Betru Nedessa, Jawad Ali, Ingrid Nyborg 2005. Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management A Case Study from Ethiopia, DCG Report No. 38 DCG Report No. 38. Dry land Coordination Group, Tar land.
Bedru Babulo, Erik Mathijs, Bart Muys, 2010 ‘Assessing the Sustainability of Management: An Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Community Forests in Northern Ethiopia'. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 91 (2010)
Berhanu Gebremedhin, John Pender, and Girmay Tesfay, 2002. Collective Action for Grazing Land Management in Crop-Livestock, Mixed System in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Background Paper for the CAPR workshop on Methods for Study collective Action. Feb.25-March 1/2002.Nyeri, Kenya.16-19p
Birhane, E.2002. Actual and Potential Contributions of Enclosures to Enhance Biodiversity in Dry lands of Eastern Tigray, With Particular Emphasis on Woody Plants. MSc Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. 1987. Land Degradation and Society. London, ethuen.
Blaikie, P. 2008. ‘Epilogue: Towards a Future for Political Ecology that Works'. Geoforum, vol. 39 (2008) pp.765-772.
Blay, D., et al 2004. ‘Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands in Sub-Saharan Africa': Lessons Learned from Selected Case Studies.
Bojo, J. and Cassels, D.1995. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation in Ethiopia: a Reassessment. AFTES Working Paper. World Bank, Washington D.C. 17: 230.
Carney, D. and Farrington, J. 1999. Natural Resource Management and Institutional Change, Chamshama, S. A. O. and Nduwayezu, J. B. (2002). Rehabilitation of Degraded Sub-Humid Lands in Sub-Saharan Africa: a Synthesis. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).1992.Convention on Biological Diversity, Available at: www.biodiv.org/ (accessed 10 July 2007).
CSA. 1994. The 1994 Population and Housing Census Ethiopia Results for Amhara Region Vol. I: Part I, Statistical Report on Population Size and Characteristics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p. 39. 2012. Projection.
Daniel, W. 1995. Biostatics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Science, (6th Ed.). Georgia State University, New York.
Dereje Asefa, G. Oba, R. B. Weladji, and J. E. Colman, 2003. An Assessment of Restoration of Biodiversity in Degraded High Mountain Grazing Land in Northern Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development 14: 25.32.
Dessalegn, R.1994. Land Policy in Ethiopia at the Crossroads. Working Papers on Ethiopian Development No. 8. University of Trondheim.
De Queiroz, J. S. 1993. Range Degradation in Botswana: Myth or Reality. Pastoral Development Network 35b.
Ediyo Mieso 2005. Assessment of Plant Biomass in Area Closure at Tonqua Abergelle Woreda in Central Tigray Ecological Rehabilitation of Degraded Dry Land Forest Project.
Eric, S. Higgs 1997. ‘What is Good Ecological Restoration?' Conservation Biology, vol.1 (1997) pp. 338-346.
Earnshaw S. 2004, Hedgerows for California Agriculture a Resource Guide. Community Alliance with Family Farmers. California, U.S.A.
Eugene, R. Turner 2005. ‘On the Cusp of the Restoration: Science and Society'. Restoration Ecology vol. 13(2005) pp.165-173.
FAO 2001. News & Highlights: Forestry Forum Spotlights Poverty Alleviation. Rome, Italy.
2005b. The Importance of Soil Organic Matter: Key to Drought-Resistant Soil and Sustainable Food and Production, Soils Bulleti Rome, Italy.
2010. State of the World's Forests 2010. Rome.
Ministry of FDRE Capacity Building 2002: ‘Capacity Building Strategies and Programmes Document', Amharic version. Addis Ababa.17-18p
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority 2002. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, National Review Report, 2002. 36-41p
Friis-Hansen, E. 1999. The Social Economic Dynamics of Farmers' Management of Local Plant Genetic Resources. CDR Working Paper 99.3. Danish Center for International Studies. Department for Development Research.
Forman, R.T.T, and Baudry J. 1984 Hedgerows and Hedgerows networks in landscape Ecology Environmental management 8(6): 495-510.
Gebremedhin, B. 1998. The Economics of Soil Conservation Investments in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia. Ph D diss. Department of Agricultural Economics: Michigan State University.
Gebremedhin, B.; Pender, J. and Tesfaye, G. 2000. Community Natural Resources Manage the Case of woodlots in Northern Ethiopia. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 60. Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD). International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington D.C.
Gupta, SP. and M.P. Gupta, 2002. Business Statistics. Suttan Chand and Sons, New Dehli.
Hagos, F. and Holden, S. 2002. Incentives for Conservation on Tigray, Ethiopia: Findings from a Household Survey. Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agriculture University of Norway, unpublished.
Hagos, F.2003. Tenure Security, Resource poverty, Risk Aversion, Public Programs and Household Plot Level Conservation Investment in the Highlands of Northern Ethiopia. In: Poverty, Institutions, Peasant Behavior and Conservation Investment in Northern Ethiopia.[PhD Thesis]. Agriculture University of Norway. Norway.
Halaba Special Woreda Finance and Economy Office, 1997.
Halaba Special Woreda Agriculture Office, 2012.Halaba.
Hawando, T.1989.Increasing Agricultural Production in Ethiopia through Improved Soil, Water M. and Crop management Practices. In: Towards a Food and Nutrition Strategy the Proceedings the National Workshop of Food Strategies of Agriculture, 243-266.
1995. The Survey of the Soil and Water Resources of Ethiopia. NU/Toko. Desertification in Ethiopian Highlands. RALA REPORT NO. 200. Norwegian Church AID, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Herweg, K. and Stillhardt B 1999. The Variability of Soil Erosion in the Highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea: Average and Extreme Erosion Patterns. Soil Conservation Research Report 33, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Holden, S. Shiferaw, B.2004. ‘Land Degradation, Drought and Food Security in a Less Favoured Area in the Ethiopian highlands': A Bio-Economic Model with Market Imperfections, Agricultural Economics, vol. 30 (2004) pp.31-49.
Hurni, H. 1985. Erosion Productivity Conservation Systems in Ethiopia. IV. International Conference on Soil Conservation, Venezuela, 20.
1988. Degradation and Conservation of Resources in the Ethiopian High lands. Mountain Research and Development Vol. 8, No. 2/3, pp. 123-30.
ILO, 2002. http://www.ilo.org Accessed date April 20, 2010
IPMS team, 2005. Halaba Pilot Learning Site Diagnosis and Program Design
Kebede, D.1996. Brief Account on Soil Conservation Research Program and its Activities in Ethiopia. Paper Presented at the Workshop on Soil and Water Conservation Research, Nazareth, Ethiopia, April 29-30, 1996.
Kebrom Tekele. 1998. Ecological Rehabilitation of Degraded Hill Slopes in Southern Welo, Ethiopia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala.
Kelboro, G.2000. A Participatory Approach to Agro forestry in water Shade Management. A Case Study at Yanassie, Southern Ethiopia. MSc thesis. Wagenigen University and Research Center. Wagenigen, the Netherlands 8-10p.
Kiss, A.1990, ‘Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa', World Bank Technical Paper 130, Washington, DC.
Knox, A. and Menzen-DickR.2001.Collective Action, Property Rights and Devolution of Natural Resource Management and Implication for Policy. CAPRI Working paper No, 11.IFPRI. Washington, DC. USA.,
Kuru, A. 1990. Roots of Deforestation and Problems in Ethiopia. In: Palo, M. and Mery, G. (eds). Deforestation or Development in the Third World? Vol. II. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki. pp. 71-79.
Larsen, K. and Rye, S., 1999. A Case Study on Gender Issues in Wag Environmental Rehabilitation Programme, Ethiopia. Centre for International Studies and Environment (NORAGRIC), Agriculture University of Norway.
L. Berry, 2003, Land Degradation in Ethiopia: its Extent and Impact. Commissioned by Global Mechanism with Support from the World Bank.
Long Norman, 2002. An Actor-Oriented Approach to Development Interventions. Background Paper Prepared for APO Meeting, Tokyo, 22-26 April 2002.
Mengistu Asmamawu. 2011.The Role of Area Closures for Soil and Woody Vegetation Rehabilitation in Kewot District, North Shewa MSc Thesis. Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa 25-31P.
Mengistu, T., Teketay, D., Hulten.H and yemishaw, Y.2005b. The Role of Community Enclosed Area Management in Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development 25(1):44-50/
Meron Tekalign 2010, The Role of Area Exclosures for Biodiversity Conservation and its Contribution to Local Livelihoods The case of Biyo-Kelala Area Exclosures in Ada'a wereda. MSc Thesis. Addis Ababa.14-15p.
Mersie Ejigu 2004. Environmental Security and Conflict: the Quest for Sustainable Peace and Development in Africa. A summary of the main Report of the PAES Four-Country Study: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations. Series Paper No. 84, pp. 5-20.
Mossige, A.; Berkele, Y.; and Maiga, S. 2001. Participation of Civil Society in the National Action Programs of the United Nation's Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of an Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali. Centre for International Environment and Development Studies (NORAGRIC). Agricultural University of Norway.
Mulugeta Lemenih 2004. Effects of Land use Change on Soil Quality and Native Flora Degradation and Restoration in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Implication for Sustainable Land Management. Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Uppsala, Sweden.
Netherlands-African Business Council, 2010, Fact Sheet: Livestock in Ethiopia and Opportunity Analysis for Duth Investment.
Nogothu, U.S.2000. Decentralized Natural Resource Management: from State to Comanagement in India. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43 (1), 123-138.
NORAGRIC (Center for International Environment and Development Studies). 1999. A comparative study of common pool resource management with Respect to Forest and Natural Regeneration in Ethiopia and India. Final report. NORAGRIC, Agriculture University of Norway.
North, D. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.. ODI Development Policy Studies, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London Stellmacher, T.2006. Governing the Ethiopian Coffee Forests: A Local Level Institutional Analysis in Kaffa and Bale mountains, PhD Dissertation, ILR Bonn, Germany.
Oldeman, L. R. et al.1990. The Extent of Human Induced Soil Degradation. In: Oldeman, L.
Pretty, J. N. and P. Shah, 1996. Making Soil and Water Conservation Sustainable: From Coercion and Control to Partnerships and Participation. Land Degradation and Development, Vol. 8. 39-58, (1997). London: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Rangaswamy, R., 1995. A text book of Agricultural Statistics. Weley Eastern Limited, New Delhi. Regional Natural Resource Management and Protection Authority, 2004(2011/12) Annual Report
Reusing, M., 1998. Monitoring of Natural High Forests in Ethiopia. GTZ and MoA, Addis Ababa.
Revised Constitution, 2001, The Southern Nation Nationalities and people's regional State.32p.
Ronnie Vernooy, 2005.CBNRM Course: Some Notes About Theoretical Perspectives) http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/38382/1/128099.pdf
R.M. Shetto, 1999. Indigenous Soil Conservation Tillage Systems and Risks of Animal Traction on Land Degradation in Eastern and Southern Africa. Kaumbutho P G and Simalenga T E (eds), Harare. Zimbabwe.
Sahlemedhin S. 1999. Ethiopia: Integrated Soil Management for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Southern and East Africa. Proceedings of the Expert Consultation, 8-12 December, 1997, Harare, agritex, FAO, Rome, pp. 197-210.
Salim, E., 1999. Our Forests our Future: Summary Report of the World Commission on Forest and Sustainable Development. Manitoba, Canada, 6-30p.
Singh, K. 1994. Managing Common Pool Resources. Principles and Case Studies. Oxford City Press, Delhi.
Sinha, Subir 2000: ‘The ‘Other' Agrarian Transition? Structure, Institutions and Agency in Sustainable rural Development'. Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 27(2) pp.169-204.
SNNPR Natural resource and Environment protection Authority, 2012. Annual Report. Hawassa. 12p
Sonneveld, B.2002. Land under Pressure, the Impact of Water Erosion on Food Production in Ethiopia. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Stocking, A. M. and Murnaghan, N.2001.Handbook for the Field Assessment of Land Degradation. Earth Scan. London.
Tefera Mengistu, Demel,T., Hulten, H. & Yemishaw, Y.2005.The Role of Enclosures in the Recovery of Woody Vegetation in Degraded Dry Land Hillsides of Central and northern Ethiopia. J. Arid Environ. 60, 259.281
Tefera Mengistu, Demele Teketay, Hulten H. and Yonas Yemishaw, 2005. The Role of Communities in Area Closure Management in Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development. 25 (1): 44-50.
Tesfaye Habtamu, 2011.Assessment of Sustainable Water Shade Management Approach Case Study LencheDima, Tsegur Yesus and Dijjil Water shade. MSC Thesis. University.4p
Thomas, I. and Million Bekele,2002 Government of Republic of Ethiopia & FAO Netherlands Partnership Program Support to Sustainable Forest Management in Low Forest Cover Countries: Role of Planted Forests and Trees Outside Forests in Sustainable Forest Management. 27 March - 23 April, 200, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tola Gemechu Ango and Woldeamlak Bewket, 2007.Challenges and Prospects for Sustainable Forest Management in Wondo Genet Area, Southern Ethiopia, Ethiopian Journal of development Research, volume 29. No,2.
Tsedeke Kocho Ketema, 2007. Production and Marketing Systems of Sheep and Goats in Halaba, Southern Ethiopia. M.Sc Thesis. University of Hawassa, Hawassa
UNCCD 2009, investing in Land Stewardship GEF's efforts to Combat Land Degradation and Desertification Globally. Global Environment Facility.
UNFPA and POPIN, 1995. Population and Land Degradation. http://www.undp.org\popin\faol\land\land.html
Warner, k .McCall, E. and Garner. S. 2008. The Role of NTFPs in Poverty Alleviation and Biodiversity Conservation Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Theme in Hanoi, June 2007 February, 2008 Hanoi, Vietnam.
Wisborg, P. et. al. 2000. Rehabilitation of CPRs through Re-Crafting of Village Institutions: a Comparative Study from Ethiopia and India. Paper Presented at the Eighth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington, Indiana. May 31-June 4, 2000. Centre for International Environment and Development Studies (NORAGRIC), Agriculture University of Norway.
WACOT. 2007. Area Closure for Rehabilitation, at Bilate River Catchments, Halaba S. Ethiopia.
Wood, A. Adrian, F. 1990. The National Conservation Strategy Phase I Report. The Main Issues Office of the National Council for Central Planning (ONCCP) Addis Ababa (un pub).
WoldAragaye Berehe, 1996. Twenty Years of Soil Conservation in Ethiopia. A Personal Review. Regional Soil Conservation Unit/SIDA
World Bank, 1984. Ethiopia, Issues and Options in the Energy Sector. Report No. 4741- ET of the Joint UNDP/WB Energy Sector Assessment Programme.
World Bank, 1997. World Development Report: The State in a Changing World.
OUP, Oxford. WRI (World Resources Institute) 1992.World Resources 1992-1993. Oxford University Press, New York.
Yamane, Taro. 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., And New York: Harper and Row.
Yeshitila Admassu Mekonnen, 2008, Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources Utilization in Halaba Woreda, Southern Ethiopia, M.Sc Thesis. Haromaya University
Ylhäisi, J. 2006. Traditionally Protected Forests and Sacred Forests of Zigua and Gweno Ethnic Groups in Tanzania. Ph.D. Dissertation.. Helsingin Yliopiston Maantieteen Laitoksen Julkaisuja. Finland.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: QUESTIONNAIRE
1. PERSONAL SITUATIONS
Questionnaire number
Date of interview, day month year
Interviewed by
Data entered by
Zone woreda kebele
House hold number
1. Household characteristics
1.1 Name of HH head
1.2 Age of Household head
1.3 Sex of House Hold head- male , female
1.4. Marital status (1) Single (2) Married (3) Widower/ widow (4) Separate
1.5. Size of Household members
1.6. Ethnicity
1.7. Religion
Table 1. The composition of House Hold with age, sex group
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
1.8. Education status of the household head; (1) Cannot read and write (2) Reading and writing only (3) Primary education 1st cycle(1-4) (4) Primary education secondary cycle( 5-6) (5) 7-8 (junior) (6) 9-10 high school (7) 11-12 (8) College and above
1.9. Farmland holding (1) < 1 ha (2) 1-1.5 ha (3) 1.5-2 ha (4) 2-3ha (5) > 3ha
1.10. Livestock in number (1) ox , cow (2) Sheep , Goat (3) Mule , Horse , Donkey (4) Others (specify)
AREA SITUATIONS
11. What has this area looked like before 20 years? (1) Very green, (2) not as such, (3) no difference
12. Do you understand that your locality degraded or fertile? (1) it is degraded (2) it is fertile
13. If it is degraded what is the cause? (1) Over grazing, (2) continuous cultivation, (3) deforestation(4) the slope of the area being steep, (5) rain fall being too much, (6) other. Specify
14. Are there any trends in your community on the practice of conservation before 20 years? (1) Yes, (2) no,( 3) I don't remember
15. If yes was that Communal or private land? (1) Communal land, (2) private land If No why? Specify the reasons .
16. What are the main benefits from this closure? (1) Grass (2) fuel wood (3) 1and (4) protection of soil erosion (5) Increase crop productivity (6) all
17. Who explained to you about area closure trends and its uses for the first time?. (1) kebele DA (2) wereda administration (3) kebele administration (4) others, specify
18. Does the whole community have awareness on this area closure? (1). Yes (2). no
19. Do all community members have equal right to use the existing resource from the enclosures?. (1) Yes, (2) no
20. If no who is more privileged? (1) kebele leaders (2) nearby villages.
21. Do you believe that the community management structure represents the interest of all community resource users? (1) It is strong, (2) good, (3) weak
22. To what extent are the management / the power to control/ over the natural resources developed to community level? (1) highly, (2) medium, (3) weak)
23. What is the reason for weak power?
24. What was the criteria for the selection of this site (1) severity of land degradation (2) open accesses (3) communal land
25. was the present site selection criterion acceptable? (1)Yes. (2) No
26. Does the community participate on the decision making to select the area to be enclosure? (1)Yes (0) No
27. Have you participated during discussion making with the community when the site was enclosure? (1)Yes (2)No
28. Do you remember that, was there any compliant among the community during the decision? (1) yes (2) No
29. If yes what was the reason? (1) Lack of awareness (2) shortage of grazing land (4) lack of farm land (6) lack of trust on the programme.
30. Do you agree with the decision that has been taken by the community to establish this area? (1) Strongly disagree (2) agree (3) Disagree (4) strongly agree. (5) no comment
31. If you strongly agree and agree, why? (1) I understand the consequence of land degradation (2) I understand its benefits (3) I understand both consequence and its benefits
32. Who participate during demarcation? (1) Representatives of the community, (2) Kebele elites, (3) Both the community and kebele elites (4) wereda agricultural office (5) Others, specify,
33. Do you believe that demarcation is necessary? (1) I believe strongly, (2) I believe, (3) I do not believe, (4) strongly I don't.
34. If you do not believe why? (1) It reduce my benefits for grazing, (2) Reduce my benefit for farming, (3) other( specify)
35. was there disagreement from the community members on the demarcation? (1) Yes (2) No
36. If yes what is the reason behind? (1) To secure individual grazing land (2) to secure Individual farm land (3) to use communal grazing land (4) others, specifies.
37. was there any traditional or religious reason for disagreement behind? (1) yes traditional, (2) yes religious, (3) yes traditional but not religious, (4) yes religious but not traditional (5) nothing.
38. Who manages the enclosure/ closure area? (1) Kebele and community, (2) community only (3) WAO (4), others, specify,
39. Do you face shortage of grazing land due to enclosure/ closure? (1)Yes (0) No,
40. If yes how do you manage them? (1) Reduce live stock size (2) focus on other source (3) cut and carrying system (4) all (5) others, specify,. Institutional situation
41. What is the role of informal institutions ( IDIR, Religions) in this natural resource management?
42. Does the community have any bylaw for the administration of natural resource? (1) yes, (2) no
43. If yes, how far it helps? (1) strongly, (2) as usual, (3) weak
44. If it is weak what is the reason? (1). It is still by-passed, (2). It is not strong, (3) . It has implementation problem
45. Who is responsible to set the community by-laws? (1) Local; community by itself (2) Kebele administrative body (3) Wereda agricultural office (4) All jointly (5) other's, specify,.
46. By the way, who develop this bylaw? (1) the community,(2) kebele administration, (3) woreda BOA, (4) Other specify
47. . How the community by-laws have got acceptance within the people? (1) They are traditionally existed (2) discussions have been undertaken repeatedly (3) Already the community accepted it easily (4) still it require further discussions
48. What amendment needs to make on the community by law? (1) Improve the existing once (2) Completely change the existing once (3) Continue with the existing once (4) all 49. If you have any domestic animal (except dogs, cats and chicken) what is the major problems of the household on livestock rearing ? (1) Shortage of grazing land, (2) Shortage of fodder, (3) Others if any,
50. What type of grazing system do you use most of the time for your livestock ? (1) Free grazing, (2) tie the animals,(3) both 51. What type of pasture ( forage do you use? (1) local, (2) by planting improved feeds seeds , (3) crop residue, (4) both local, improved and crop residue
52. Do you have your own grazing land? (1) yes, (2) No,
53. How do you describe the availability of fodder over time? (1) decrease, (2) Increase, (3) the same no change
Capacity building
54. How do you describe the contact you have with soil and water conservation experts ( DA) ? (1) non , (2) limited (3) good, (4) very good.
55. Have you ever attended training related to soil and water conservation? (1) yes, (2) no,
56. How do you describe your contribution (participation in natural resource management in your village? Only giving comments (2) Only contributing money 3). Only contributing labor (4) Participating during planning, decision making and implementation and monitoring and evaluation process
ASSET CREATED AND BENEFITS SHARING.
57. Are there any benefits you gained from the enclosures? (1) yes (0) no
58. If yes what type of benefits you gained? (1) fuel wood (2) fodder (3) both fuel wood and fodder (4) others, specify
59. If no why? (1) not rehabilitated (2) not permitted yet (3) other specify
60. Who benefits from the enclosure?(1) kebele leaders (2) community members (3) nearby villagers (4) all (5) others, specify
61. Is there any communal assets created from the enclosure benefits?.(1) Yes (0) no
62. Can you explain it? 1. from the sales of forest product, 2. From the sales of fodder or roof grass, 3. Others, if any
DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION
63. What is the direct impact which the enclosed area brings on ? (1) Increased forage availability (2) increase of grass/resources for roof thatching (3) Increased availability of woody materials (4 ) Already the local ecology has improved (5) recharging springs (6) improved soil fertility (7) increased wildlife
64. What is the indirect impact? (1) improved livestock health (2) increased livestock productivity
65. What problems has enclosure's brought to the community (1) grazing land shortage (2) farm land shortage (3) wild animals problem(4) none
66. What is the expected threat to the community for the future ? community (1) grazing land shortage (2) farm land shortage (3) wild animals problem (4) nothing
NRM CONFLICT
67. has there any conflict been happened around the conserved area ?( 1). Yes, (2). No
68. If your answer is Yes, what challenges are observed here in the conserved area? (1) within the community, (2) human wildlife conflict,(3) border conflict,(4) between stakeholders(5) other
70. What is the Driving forces for mentioned challenges ?( prioritize them)
- Human population growth
- Land use transformation
- Increasing livestock populations
- Increasing wildlife population as a result of conservation programmes
- Climatic factors
- Stochastic events (e.g. fire)
71. Which one is continuously happened? Prioritize them? (1) challenges within the community, (2) human wildlife conflict, (3) border conflict, (4) between stakeholders (5) other
72. What mechanism did you use to reduce this challenge especially within human conflicts? local bylaw, (2) The national law,(3) traditional methods
73. If your answer is NO, why? 1. Because the community has participated from the beginning, 2. The developed by-law is implemented properly, 3. Because every member of the community is equally benefited.
75. What are the causes of human wild life conflict? (1) Crop raiding, (2) killing domestic animals (3) attacking the human, (4) other specify
76. Which wild animal is responsible for this problem? (1) monkey, (2) African Warthog, (3) deer,(4) carnivores (specify)
77. What mechanism did you use to reduce human wildlife damage?
- Nothing
- Killing
- Using repellents
- Changing the type of crop
- Changing the route of pasture live stalk
78. Does this problem enforce you or other farmers to change your or their location? (1) Yes, (2) no.
79. If yes how many? (1) 1-10 household, (2) 10-15 HH, (3) above 15 HH
80. Is there any House hold that enforced to change his land use system or area? 1. Yes, 2. No
81. If Yes, how many? (1) 1-10 household, (2) 10-15 HH, (3) above 15 HH
82. What is your last solution or recommendation?
- Avoiding wild animal herds;
- Moving to a different place;
- Fencing of grazing land;
- Minimizing the population of wild animals;
- Compensation
- Other ( if any)
83. Do you have additional comment please ?
THANK YOU.
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WOMEN
1. Do you know why this area is in closed? (1) Yes I know (2) No, I don't know-
2. If yes how did you know? (1) I have been participated during training , (2) from my neighbor , (3) from my husband ,(4) from my organization (5) from Das
3. If No, why? (1) nobody has invited us. , (2) because of the time shortage (3) because of personal problem (4) because of our culture
4. Did you participate in decision making regarding on this area? (1) yes- (2) No-
5. Did you participate during the implementation? (1) yes , (2) no
6. If yes, what was your duty? (1) stone providing (2) food providing (3) digging(4) other
7. If No why?
8. What is your benefit from this conserved area? (1) fuel wood , (2) grass for the cattle ( 3) other (if any)
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WEREDA OFFICERS
Name of respondent
Responsibility
Interviewed day (DDMMYY)
1. What do you think about CBNRM, is it (1) effective? (2) not effective (3) it is difficult
- If it is effective what impact you observe among the community?
- It is difficult why?
2. Which community group is more beneficiaries? (1) the poor, (2) medium (3) richest people
3. Why?
4. So what is your recommendation/ solution to improve it?
5. Did you observe any conflict on those conservation areas? (1) yes (2)no
6. If yes, which type conflict? (1) within community , (2) B/n human and wild life (3) between private and community
7. What is the cause for such type conflict?
8. Is there any action has been taken ? (1) yes, (2) no
- If yes, what mechanisms did you followed?
1.
2.
3.
- If No. why?
9. Do you believe that our community has a good capacity to manage Natural Resource well? (1) yes---(2) No,
10. If your answer is No, what could be the reason? (1) Skill gap, (2) technical gap, (3) financial gap, (4) lack of integration within the community,(5) activities ( task) overlapping, (6) other, please specify.
11. Do you believe that the community has agreed to manage all types of natural resources including wild life together? (1) yes I agree strongly, (2) somewhat I agree, (3) agree, (4) disagree,(4) strongly disagree
12. If so, what is your suggestion?
FOR KEBELE LEADERS/ ADMINISTRATION
Name of kebele
Name of the respondent
Responsibility
Number of population in the kebele
1. When started the community to manage this area?
2. How the community owned this conservation area?
3. What was the reason for transference the management of this conservation area for the community ?
4. Can you describe the feelings of the community while it explained to transfer the ownership of this conservation area?
5. Can you describe the local organizations which belong to the kebele among the community?
6. What is the main contribution of these local organizations in NRM?
7. How do you evaluate the collective action what the community undertaken for NRM?
8. Do women participate in this NRM (1) yes (2) no
9. If no, why?
10. What is the role of traditional leaders on Natural Resource Management?
11. What is the role of kebele administration in NRM?
(1)._____
(2)._____
(3)._____
12. How do you describe the role/ participation of the community in NRM?
13. What are the major problems in the kebele? (1) soil erosion ,(2) low crop productivity (3) free animal grazing, ,(4) shortage of animal fodder (5) livestock health problem ,(6) shortage of fuel and construction wood problem .
14. What is the major types of land uses in the kebele ? Rate them. (1) Cultivation lend (2) Grazing land (3) Forest land (4) Bare land (5) area closure---
15. How do you describe the proportion of barren land in the kebele ?(1) increased (2)decreased (3) no change
16. what are the governing problems which affect the CBNRM programmes?
17. Is there any local organization which responsible for this conservation area? (1) (1) Yes, (2) no
18. If your answer is no, who does administer it ?
19. what do your suggestion?
THANK YOU.
FGD GUIDLINE
Respondents' identification
Date of FGD session
Time duration of FGD
Place of FGD session
Moderator of FGD
Note taker of FGD
The enrollment criterion
Sex, Age, Social cultural position, Economic structure
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Appendix. II Pictures of physical Structures and community participation in AEs
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Picture: Community at the maintenance of physical structures in Habibo AE.( Taken by the reasercher( 01/2013)
Appendices III Difference between AEs and Degraded areas In Habibo
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Parts of Degraded Land Vs AE
Appendices IV Pictures of Researcher during FGDs and Key Informant
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Photo: showing the researcher gathering information from one of the key informant in the office of Asore kebele on 2013
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
This picture shows FGD in Habibo Kebele taken by the researcher (01/2013)
Appendix. V Pictures of Rehabilitated Area Enclosure ( Asore)
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Part of Rehabilitated Area in Asore AE. This picture has taken by the researcher (01/2013)
Appendices VI Family size of respondents
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source own survey 2013
Appendices VI I Table of the Livestock holding of respondent Households
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Field survey 2013.
[...]
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.