Assessment of constraints, opportunities and farmers perception to area closure in siltie zone, SNNPR

Author info »

Introduction

Land degradation includes all process that diminishes the capacity of land resources to perform essential functions and services in ecosystems (Hurni et al.,2010). It is caused by two interlocking complex systems: the natural ecosystem and the human social system.Land use land cover changes, mainly agricultural expansion in response to the demands of population growth, has caused accelerated erosion and loss of biodiversity in Ethiopia (Hadgu et al.,2008). Consequently, it has significantly declined agricultural production with an estimated cost ranging from 2 to 6.75% of the AGDP per annum (Sonneveld, 2002). The impact of water erosion on food production in Ethiopia in response to the alarmingly degraded ecosystems, the practice of rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems is becoming an option to reclaim degraded sites globally (Young, 2000).

In Ethiopia, the trend of rehabilitation made in different watersheds has improved ecosystem health and land productivity (Sonneveld and Keyzer, 2003). They are degraded lands that have been excluded from human and livestock interference and left to regenerate naturally (Betru, 2003). Enclosures improve ecosystem conditions and enhance the provisioning services of ecosystem services that can improve the food access and economic wellbeing of the rural poor (FAO, 2001). Although land resources management strategy through enclosures is becoming a common trend in Ethiopia, especially in the highlands, researches documents that evaluate local community’ perception on socioeconomic and environmental contributions is lacking in the study area.

Assessment evaluation is a pre-requisite for the actual implementation of the rehabilitation strategy. This evoked the researcher to choose the issue as a research title so that the level of farmers’ perception was assessed and documented. The research findings will have significances for stakeholders by providing concrete scientific evidences about the local communities’ perception of land management practices and become a basis for future studies in the field area. So the objective of this study was to identify the purpose and benefits derived from the area closure, to assess the perception of local community of area closure and finally to identify the constraints and opportunities of area closure in Siltie zone, SNNPR and Ethiopia.

Methodology

Description of the study area

This research study was conducted in Siltie zone. The zone town is worabe which is found 169.91 km far from capital city of the country. From this zone Silti and Hulbareg wereda were selected. Silti woreda is bordered on south by Lanfro and Dalocha, southwest by Hulbareg, west by Alicho Werero, north by the Gurage Zone and east by the Oromia Region. In this woreda the total population is about 207,152 (101,460 male and 105,695 female) of which 191,765 rural and 19,211 are urban residents. The total area of the woreda is about 53,112 ha of which, 25,635 ha has Annual cultivated land, 11,221 ha perennial, 6,365 ha grazing land, forest and 6,904 ha bush land.

The woreda agro-ecology has totally w/Dega (77% moist W/Dega, 23% dry woina dega). The soil type has 73% clay loam, 27% silt soil. Majority of farming system practiced is mixed farming. Major annual crops are wheat, teff, maize and major perennial crops are enset and chat. The woreda receives 1,012 mm average rainfall annually. In this woreda the size of Area closed by community is about 13,500 ha it was from 2001. Presently 10 kebeles are exercising area enclosure activity. In this woreda have 157,304 cattle, 111,636 small ruminant and 32,636 equines animal resources.

Second Hulbareg woreda which is border on southwest by Hadiya Zone, west by Misraq Azernet, north by Alicho, northeast by Silti, east by Dalocha, and south by Sankurra woreda. The distance 188 km far from capital city of Ethiopia, from regional city 215 km, from zone town 15 km. Number of urban kebeles are 1 and rural 10, the total populations are 81,905, from those populations 37,732 Male 40,816 female. The total size of area closed by the community was around 14,200 ha. Totally 10 number of kebeles were experiencing area closure. In this woreda experience by area closure was 14 years which starting from 2007. The area gaining average annual rain fall was 1012 mm. and 73% of the soil type were clay loam, 27% silt soil. More than half of the area farming system was mixed farming. The traditional agro-ecology was totally woina dega (moist woina dega 77%, dry woina dega 23%). And latitude: 7°54'59.99" N and Longitude: 38°19'60.00" E. Annual cultivated land 13,500 ha, perennial land 3,840 ha, grazing land 2,943 ha. Major annual crops were wheat, teff, maize and major perennial crops Enset and Chat.

Sampling size and procedure

Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select sample districts and respondents. In the first stage, two districts were selected purposively from Siltie zone based on enclosure practices. In the second stage, from each district two kebeles were selected randomly. In the third stage, the sample respondents were selected by using systematic random sampling technique proportion to each kebele population. Finally, a total of 80 sample respondents were selected from the two districts for the household survey.

Data types and source

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from primary and secondary data sources. The primary data was collected directly from sampled households. Secondary data sources used for this study were journals, relevant text books, district agricultural and development office reports.

Methods of data collection

Different methods of data collection tools were used to acquire primary data. Among the data collection tools key informant interviews and focus group discussions with pre-defined social groups (elders, model farmers, women’s, Das and experts) were conducted before formal survey to collect general information about enclosure. A checklist was also used to guide the discussion. The required households’ data were collected from selected sample households with the help of pre-tested structured and semi-structured questionnaires.

Method of data analysis

Descriptive statistics data analysis methods were applied to analyze the data collected from smallholder respondents using structured questionnaire. The analysis was done by using SPSS version 25.

Results and Discussion

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristic of respondents

This study show that around 76% of the household was male headed and the rest 24% was female headed. The average age of sampled household was 41.29 whereas the mean education level of the household was 3.29 grades. About 98.8% of the respondent was married and only 1.2% was single. The average family size per household was 6.21. The average landholding by sampled household was 1.15 ha while the mean livestock holding per household was 2.25 TLU. Farming system of study area was commonly mixed type where farmers’ livelihood was based on both crop cultivation and livestock rearing. As indicated in Table 1, about 58.7% of the respondents’ livelihood was depending on crop cultivation and livestock rearing. There were very little additional sources of income rather than agricultural activities, off farm activities (2.5%) and non-farm activities (2.5%).

Table 1. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents.

Degraded land rehabilitation mechanisms and purpose of enclosure

The result in Table 2, shows that the communities have used different mechanisms to rehabilitate the degraded land. From that type of rehabilitation mechanism soil and water conservation was the major practiced which account 45% of the respondents. Enclosures were mostly rehabilitating mechanism to the community next to SWC. And according to respondents the area close for different purpose and the major purpose were to rehabilitates the degraded land which account 52.5% of respondents and the other purpose of enclosure within the communities were to cut and carrying of grass and to prevent overgrazing, for job creation like fattening, beekeeping, planting of grass or forage and tree planting from enclosed area, to control soil erosion and flooding, to improve climate condition, to improve species diversity, to improve soil quality and the remained one was said to improve ecosystem productivity, to apiculture activity, to animal fattening.

Table 2. Mechanisms for rehabilitation and its purpose of enclosure.

Type of enclosures in the study areas

There are different kinds of area closure exist within the study area and its shows that 51.3% which was more than half of the respondents said the type of enclosure exist were exclude from human and livestock interference and the other type of enclosure was closing off degraded land and simultaneously implementing additional SWC measure which account 18.8% from the respondents. 41.3% of the respondents responded that the number of year closed the degraded land exclude from human and livestock interference for long period of time, 31.2% were said from 5-10 years, 12.5% and 15% were from 1-3 and 3-5 years respectively. The result show that the rehabilitation time of one degraded land is different from another means one is fast to rehabilitate other slow based on the severity of degradation. This might indicate that the existence of variations in species diversity within different age categories of area closures was a result of heterogeneous distribution of species due to time factors. The higher evenness was encountered in the 25-year-old closure, which could partly be explained by difference in site condition (Ambachew, 2006). And also the result show that major respondents said that terracing and tree plantation and grass over sowing were the possible activity often undertaking within area closure, this show it is possible to do different activity within enclosure site simultaneously doing rehabilitation processes. Within the study area different kinds of project were support to the community in area closure activity. Benefit of the projects were by providing agricultural tools and financial support, awareness creation the community about enclosure and moral support, payment of farmer when doing terracing as purpose of job creation for farmers, providing different tree seedling, support during conservation SWC activity. The principal environmental impacts of land degradation include a rapid loss of habitat and biodiversity, modifications of water flows, and sedimentation of reservoirs and coastal zones (Project Development Facility 2007) (Table 3).

Table 3. Type of enclosure exist to ensure rehabilitation of the land.

Types and possible causes of land degradation in the study area

In the study area Soil erosion (82.5%), deforestation (53.7%) and lack of fodder (65%) were major land degradation types in the area. The most common causes of land degradation were flooding (90%), topography (85%), deforestation (76.2%), overgrazing (57.5%), poor land management (68.7%) and population growth (61.5%). Similarly, studies conducted in northern Ethiopia reported that a rapid population growth causes a negative impact on agricultural activity. Occurrences deforestation within the study area causes for land degradation and not only this it also change climate condition negatively. The major causes of land degradation in Ethiopia are rapid population growth, severe soil loss, deforestation, low vegetative cover and unbalanced crop and livestock production (Girma 2001) (Table 4).

Table 4. Land degradation incidence, degree of severity and its cause.

Farmers’ perception of enclosures and its benefit in the study areas

In the present study area, a majority of the respondent had a positive attitudes and perceptions towards area closures in their community. As summarizing below Table 5 establishing enclosures has a high contribution to the livelihood of local communities for the study area. As a result most of the local communities had a positive attitude towards the establishment of enclosures in the degraded land. Sample respondents’ have reported that enclosure provides high benefits for a communities such as improve ground vegetation cover (87.5%) this indicate enclosure enhanced different plant species composition, diversity and structure. Several studies indicated that establishment of enclosure in a degraded land enhances the floristic/flora diversity, composition, structure and density. Similarly, the abundance of woody species was larger in exclosure than adjacent open grazing land (Birhane et al., 2007). To prevent further degradation of land (97.5%), used as fodder source (86.3%), provide grass for sale (57.5%) This finding coincides with Abiy (2008) works at Kelala Dalacha, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia he said 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 dray land and environment.

Table 5. Farmers Perception of enclosure in the study areas.

Also enclosed area provides habit for wild animals (66.2%), source of income for local communities (71.2%) and encouraging apiculture practice and source of feed for bees (75%). Understanding peoples’ attitudes and addressing their needs and priorities towards successful utilization and management of common resources such as forest/woodland resources is critical (Carena, 1985). However, according to sample respondents’ enclosure practice reduce available grazing land (36.3%), cause for border conflicts (45%), illegal cutting and grazing in enclosure (37.5%) and limit free access to foul wood (35%). About 90% of respondents have satisfied from benefit sharing of enclosure. About 53.8%, 28.7% and 6.3% of the household have satisfied from enclosure highly, moderately and poorly.

Major constraints of enclosure sustainability in the study areas

No guard for enclosure (96.25%), limited training (78.7%), no experience sharing about enclosure (78.7%), continuous follow up limitation by respective bodies (70%), fair benefit sharing problem in the local community (65%), expansion of urbanization (48.57%), no enough agricultural tools to reduce intervention in enclosure (47.5%), border conflicts (45%), poor awareness of the farmers about enclosure (41.25%) and enclosure competed communal grazing land (36.25%) were major constraints of enclosure sustainability in the study areas (Table 6).

Table 6. The major constraints that limit sustainability of enclosure.

Major opportunities of enclosure in the study areas

Enclosure makes common share of benefits (90%), communities’ accountability for by-laws (90%), cutting and currying grass in enclosure (90%) access of extension services (80%), good farmers’ motivation in the area (80%), good social work and coordination of the communities (76.25%), payment free participation of the farmers (76.25%), good awareness by communities about benefit sharing (58.75%) and presence of project intervention to strength enclosure (52.5%) were major opportunities to strength the sustainability of enclosure (Table 7).

Table 7. The major opportunities of enclosure.

Conclusion

From this study it was concluded that understanding of personal, socio-economic, institutional factors would contribute to the design of appropriate strategies to achieve technical change in soil and water conservation process and rehabilitation of degraded land in simultaneously area closure the study area. And enclosure enhancing the natural regeneration rates, potential to reduce erosion, improving soil nutrient content and properties and also improve the socio-economic benefits of the local communities. It improves the livelihood of the local community by providing animal feed, fodder, beekeeping activity and other non-wood forest products. Majority of the local communities are supported the establishment of enclosure on the degraded grazing land because it is easy to establish, cheap and support their livelihoods. Soil and water conservation was the major mechanisms to rehabilitate the degraded. And more than half of the respondents said the type of enclosure exist were exclude from human and livestock interference, Soil erosion, deforestation and lack of fodder were major land degradation types in the area. The most common causes of land degradation were flooding, topography, deforestation, and overgrazing and poor land management and population growth. Despite of the ecological and socioeconomic roles there are also some challenges for enclosure practices like lack of enough training and experience sharing about enclosure, improper benefit sharing that resource getting from enclosure site and lack of enough grazing lands are some of the challenges listed by the respondents of the communities.

Recommendation

Government organizations and concerned body should be educate or create more awareness to the local communities to developed sense of belongingness to the enclosure. Concerned body must be create balance both male and female participant in order to affirmation of gender equality regard to area closure. According to the results more than half the respondents were not getting training and experience sharing this indicates the community should be need further getting of training and experience sharing regard to enclosure.

References

Abiy, T.L. (2008). Area closure as a strategy for land management: A case study at Kelala Dalacha enclosure in the central rift valley of Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University).

Google Scholar

Ambachew, W. 2006. Vegetation and soil property changes following degraded hillsides exclosure and its socioeconomic significance in east Shewa, Ethiopia. Master Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SLU.

Nedasa, B. (2003). Soil and water conservation program in the Amhara National Regional State.

Google Scholar

Birhane, E., Teketay, D., Barklund, P. (2007). Enclosures to enhance woody species diversity in the dry lands of eastern Tigray, Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences, 1:136-147.

Google Scholar, Crossref

Newman, E.I. (2008). Applied ecology and environmental management. John Wiley and Sons.

Google Scholar

Carena, M. (1985). Putting people first: Sociological variables in rural development. A world bank reports publication.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2001). News and highlights: Forestry forum spot lights poverty alleviation. Rome, Italy.

Girma, T. (2001). Land degradation a challenge to Ethiopia international livestock research institute environmental management. 27:815-823.

Google Scholar

Hadgu, K.M., Epema, G.F., Van Bruggen, A.H.C. (2008). Biodiversity and sustainability in agricultural landscapes in tigray, Northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Agriculture Sustain.

Google Scholar

Hurni, H., Abate, S., Bantider, A., Debele, B., Ludi, E., Portner, B., Zeleke, G. (2010). Land degradation and sustainable land management in the highlands of Ethiopia.

Google Scholar

Giday, K. (2002). Woody biomass estimation in community managed closure areas in central Tigray: contributions to sustainable management.

Google Scholar

Fisher, J., Scholes, R., Montanarella, L. (2018). Assessment Report on land degradation and restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Google Scholar, Crossref

Project Development Facility. (2007). Strategic investment programme for sustainable land management in sub-saharan africa: assessment of the barriers and bottlenecks to scaling-up sustainable land management investments throughout Sub Saharan Africa.

Sonneveld, B.G.J.S. (2002). Land under pressure: the impact of water erosion on food production in Ethiopia. Shaker.

Google Scholar

Sonneveld, B.G.J.S., Keyzer, M.A. (2003). Land under pressure: soil conservation concerns and opportunities for Ethiopia. Land Degradation and Development, 14:5-23.

Google Scholar, Crossref

Young, T.P. (2000). Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biological Conservation, 92:73-83.

Google Scholar, Crossref