Content uploaded by Tesfa Worku Meshesha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tesfa Worku Meshesha on Aug 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science
2016; 5(5): 64-72
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/wros
doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20160505.11
ISSN: 2328-7969 (Print); ISSN: 2328-7993 (Online)
Farmer’s Perception on Soil Erosion and Land Degradation
Problems and Management Practices in the Beressa
Watershed of Ethiopia
Tesfa Worku Meshesha
1, 2, *
, Sangharsh Kumar Tripathi
2
1
Department of Water resource and Irrigation Management, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berehan, Ethiopia
2
Department of Water Resources Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India
Email address:
hopee2011@gmail.com (T. W. Meshesh), tesfaworku.worku@gmail.com (T. W. Meshesh)
*
Corresponding author
To cite this article:
Tesfa Worku Meshesha, Sangharsh Kumar Tripathi. Farmer’s Perception on Soil Erosion and Land Degradation Problems and Management
Practices in the Beressa Watershed of Ethiopia. Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science. Vol. 5, No. 5, 2016, pp. 64-72.
doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20160505.11
Received: July 23, 2016; Accepted: August 2, 2016; Published: September 13, 2016
Abstract:
In Ethiopia erosion and land degradation on the livelihood resource had become a key issue, resulted for food
insecurity and difficult to break through the poverty gap using subsistence farming. Previously implemented soil and water
conservation practice were not halted the threat, because it was mass mobilization without detailed study of real situation and
without convicting farmers. Over sighting the past experience, community based watershed management practice was
recommended as a possible option against the ongoing problem. Therefore, this paper analyzed farmer’s perception on soil
erosion and degradation problems and their management practice. From 92 randomly selected households using survey, formal
and informal discussion with farmers and field observation were employed to generate the data. The result indicated that
farmers were acknowledged the prevalence of soil erosion and land degradation in their watershed (93.5%) and affecting their
livelihoods. However, mostly they noticed erosion and degradation when it forms gullies. They identified many prominent
causes for natural resource degradation such as improper conservation practice, traditional farming practice, continuous
cultivation without fallow periods, deforestation and over population. To tackle the ongoing problems, many ranges of
conservation technologies were used by farmers. Following the intervention and rehabilitation practice, the rate of erosion and
degradation overtime moderately reduced (58.7%). Though the practice was not demand driven and site specific management
practice. Finally, this study concluded important points which needs immediate consideration for community based watershed
management practice effort not only for the study area but also for the country at large are: Identifying and integrating
technical as well as efficiency of indigenous and site specific and demand driven technology help to cope erosion and
degradation hazard –hence increase short and long term benefit obtained from the practice.
Keywords:
Community Watershed Management, Erosion and Degradation, Farmer’s Perception, Conservation Technology,
Ethiopia
1. Introduction
In Ethiopia, deforestation, rapid rate of soil erosion and
degradation of land are a serious environmental problem
resulting food in insecurity and reducing agricultural
productivity. Natural resource and the benefits they provide
in the form of income, food, and wood, watershed protection
have no options and have critical role in enabling peoples to
have stable and adequate food supply [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
Deforestation and natural resource degradation, therefore,
are severely reducing the capacity of natural resource to
contribute for food security, and other benefits, such as
fodder and fuelwood in Ethiopia [2, 7, 8, 9]. Alarming rate of
population growth, more demand for food and expansion of
settlement resulting deforestation for expansion of
agriculture, construction materials, fuelwood, and
overgrazing [10, 11].
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2016; 5(5): 64-72 65
Natural resource degradation and resulted in reducing
productivity, has increased poverty and food insecurity [7, 8,
12, 13] In developing countries, the cost of resource
degradation varies from less than 1% to greater than 9% of
their growth on national product with estimate of Ethiopia
6% to 9% growth on national product, it implies the
phenomenon is very intense in Ethiopia, even though all parts
of the country is not suffering uniformly [14, 15]. The extent
and severity of the problems different in spatial variations, is
subject to difference in altitude, ecology, settlement,
topography, and land use system [15, 16]. As of natural
resource degradation is the major environmental problems
resulting for decline of agricultural productivity [7]. The
average rate of soil erosion in the country wide was estimated
at 12 t/ha/annum, giving a total annual soil loss of 1,493Mt.
The severity is much higher in agriculture land, in which
85% of the total population depends on it to get their survival
[5].
Sustainable, effective and efficient methods against
erosion and degradation is an integral component of natural
resource management to achieve productive agriculture, food
security and restoration of ecology [15, 17].
To protect the livelihoods of rural peoples which are
experienced fragile ecosystems, resource degradation, loss of
fertile soil and stress of soil moisture, watershed management
has been convinced as strategy. It used to secure availability
of water for domestic use, livestock, and irrigation,
increasing fodder for their livestock, diversifying income and
employment opportunity for farm households and landless
through enhancing the productivity of agriculture in general
[18, 19, 20].
To avert food security and environmental rehabilitation,
the government of Ethiopia has been implemented different
natural resource management strategies in many parts of the
country. Physical and biological soil and water conservation
and rehabilitation of hillsides, and area closure, have been
practiced since in the early 1990s. Through food for work
program in northern part of the country tremendous
increment (26%) in forest and woodland cover has been
registered, scaled-up to all food insecure regions through
Safety Net Program during Plan for Accelerated and
Sustainable Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) and
currently Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP).
Rehabilitated natural resource through different physical and
biological soil and water conservation work has been
increased from 0.82Mha by 2004/ 2005 to 3.77Mha in
2009/2010 during PASDEP. Through community based
watershed management additional 15Mh covered with soil
and water conservation activities [5].
Despite tremendous efforts has been made by the
government of Ethiopia to reduce natural resource
degradation, still serious threat in achieving sustainable
agricultural growth and stable economic development [21].
In developing countries most of the time farmers are
enforced to participate in the conservation activity without
any clear identification and priority needs of them [15, 22].
Natural resource degradation is closely related to the
interests of farmers, so proper identification of degradation
prone area and site specific natural resource management
techniques is the interests of the users [23]. Perception and
knowledge of farmers about natural resource degradation is
the determinant social factor which is important in deciding
the options to curb the losses. Considering farmers’
knowledge and conservation techniques is undeniable and
effective mechanism for the sustainable implementation of
soil and water conservation activities [24]. According to [25],
identifying site specific problems with integrating local
knowledge and available local row materials is the key
components of successful soil and water conservation
programs in sustainable way. Thus, without identifying how
local peoples are deciding to use their land, soil erosion, land
degradation and conservation cannot be understood [26, 27].
Therefore, the study investigates farmer’s level of thinking
about erosion and degradation and their management
techniques as well as watershed management technology
employed in Beressa watershed.
The specific research objectives were (1) to evaluate what
farmer’s awareness about erosion and degradation hazard (2)
evaluate farmer participation on watershed management
practice
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Site
The study was conducted in Beressa watershed, central
highlands of Ethiopia, covering an area of 213.2km
2
, the part
of Abay basin which is situated at an altitude of 2200- 3600m
a.s.l. It is located at 39° 37’E, 9°41’N. The average
temperature of the area is 19.7°C per annum, with maximum
and minimum rainfall amount of 1083.3mm/annum and
698.5mm/annum respectively, even though the area receives
dual rainfall, most of the time it is highly concentrated in July
and August. Cambisols (locally known as Abolse), vertisols
(Merere), Fluvisols, Andosols and Regosols are the dominant
soil types of the study area. The farming system is
characterized by traditional mixed crop- livestock system on
a subsistence scale in which majority of the population live.
Barely, wheat, horse beans, field peas, lentils and chick peas
are commonly growing crops in the area. Cattle and sheep
are the dominant types of livestock, but goats, equines, and
chickens are also common. Since the farming system is
depending of rain-fed system, therefore, farmers are always
worried about the duration and intensity of rainfall.
2.2. Data Collection and Analysis
Different community based watershed management
practice was started in different parts of the country. On the
basis of severity of the problems in the area, Beressa
watershed was randomly selected for the study. A number of
households are a member of the watershed. With the list, a
random sampling technique was used to select a total of 92
sample households. Data were collected using survey under
taken from May to August, 2015. Initially structured
66 Tesfa Worku Meshesha and Sangharsh Kumar Tripathi: Farmer’s Perception on Soil Erosion and Land Degradation
Problems and Management Practices in the Beressa Watershed of Ethiopia
questionnaire was prepared and pre-tested for quantitative
information. The interview was done in the watershed while
they were doing community based soil and water
conservation activity. Additional information was obtained
through informal discussion while community watershed
management practices implementation undertaken.
Structured survey questionnaires was comprised of both open
and closed ended questions. The issues included in the
questionnaires was farmer’s view of soil erosion and
degradation hazard and its cause, farmer’s perception and
participation in conservation activities, and willingness to
continue watershed management practice, watershed
management technology employed in the area and cause for
productivity decline. After having the entire pertinent
information descriptive statistics, frequency distribution and
chi-square was used to test the relationship between literacy
and age level with willingness to participate in conservation
activities, perception of erosion and degradation hazard,
trend of climate change and land ownership was done using
SPSS version 23.
3. Result and Discussion
In this section the researchers discussed survey result
conducted from June to August 2015. The following key
points were discussed about household characteristic,
perception of farm household on erosion and land
degradation, prevailing cause for the problems, awareness
about soil and water conservation practice, different
conservation technology practiced.
3.1. Household Characteristics
The age of farm households ranged between 28 to 67
years, with averagely 50 years. The survey result confirmed
that 93.5% of the respondents were male, the dominance on
male respondents revealed that they were dominant in the
participation of soil and water conservation activity. Of the
total respondents, 91.3% were married, whereas 5.4% and
3.3% were single and divorced respectively. Like in most
rural part of Ethiopia, the literacy rate in the study area was
low. Half from the respondents (50%) were illiterate,
whereas 35.9% were able to read and write and only 13%
from the total got their first and second cycle education.
The majority of households in the Beressa watershed have
more than 5 members-positively contributed to accomplish
their farming activities and soil and water conservation
activities.
Even though since 1975 land reform has belong to public
ownership, recently the government of Ethiopia design new
policy to secure land use right of farm households. Land is
the most important natural resource for achieving the aim of
national food security and economic development in general,
the study watershed in particular. Although the size of farm
land is variables between <0.5ha and >1ha, all the
interviewed farmers possess land. The mean land holding of
the area was 1.8ha which is incomparable from the national
average of 1.02ha [28].
Table 1. Household Characteristics.
Household characteristic N=92
Proportion of the total (%)
Gender Male 86 93.5
Female 6 6.5
Marital
status
Single 5 5.4
Married 84 91.3
Divorced 3 3.3
Age (year)
#
<30 3 3.3
31-45 20 21.7
46-60 61 66.3
≥61 8 8.7
Household
size
$
≤3 10 10.9
4-7 60 65.1
≥7 22 23.9
Educational
status
Illiterate 46 50
Read and write 33 35.9
First cycle 12 12
Second cycle 1 1.1
Land
holding
(ha)
*
<0.5 25 27
0.5-1 60 65
1-1.5 5 5.4
>1.5 2 2.2
* Mean=1.8, standard deviation= 2.6 # minimum age= 28, maximum age= 67
$ Minimum= 1, maximum= 8, mean= 6, standard deviation=1.67
3.2. Perception of Erosion and Degradation Hazard
As indicated in Table 2, almost all the interviewed farm
household included in the survey acknowledged the
prevalence of soil erosion and land degradation, which
contributed negatively for the health of their land in
particular, for agricultural productivity in general. Farmers
reflect due to loss of soil from farm fields decreased the
thickness of topsoil and hence reduction in crop productivity.
Though the chi-square test reflected insignificance difference
between literacy level of the respondents and perception of
farmers about the prevalence of erosion and degradation
hazard (X
2
=0.146, P=0.986), contrary to this statistically
significance difference exists between the age of household
and perception of erosion and degradation as a problem
(X
2
=19.963, P=0.0918). Asked to indicate about the
prominent causes for the problems, majority of them replied
improper soil and water conservation practice, traditional
farming practice, free grazing, over cultivation and
population pressure, deforestation, topography and land
fragmentation was repeatedly mentioned, as a serious cause
for accelerated natural resource degradation. Even though
farmers were perceived erosion and degradation as a problem
of their farm land, the level of understanding about the
severity of the problem was confined mostly to gully
formation. As can be observed from the field, sheet and
formation of rills erosion caused for decline in productivity
and limited perception other than gully erosion could
influence their participation in the conservation activities
(Table-2).
According to National Meteorological Service Agency
/NMSA cited in [28], deforestation, unsustainable farming
practice, and alarming rate of population growth put a great
pressure on natural resource. The relationship between
increasing number of population and fixed quantity of land
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2016; 5(5): 64-72 67
resource make confronting the country and underline for the
difficulty of securing food for their survival. As the figure-1
depict that for over 100 years period from 1950 to 2050 the
number of peoples living per km
2
of arable land. If the
growth rate continues for the coming 2050, per km
2
of arable
land 270 farm households will enforced to live, which is very
high compared to 35 in 1950.
Figure 1. Estimated population per arable km
2
, 1950-2050 sources:
National Meteorological Service Agency/NMSA. (2001) as Cited in Teshome
2014.
Concerning indicator of erosion and degradation, yield
reduction and poor crop performance, dissection of field and
gully was repeatedly mentioned by the respondents. Rill
formation, removal of top soil by runoff and poor water
holding capacity of soil was less believed to be an indicator
for the prevalence of natural resource degradation.
In recent year farmers also noticed that natural resource
has become more susceptible to erosion and degradation
because of change in rainfall pattern. The rising of
temperature in the study watershed, elsewhere in the world,
was increasing and become a serious problem for the survival
of their livelihoods. Eighty-nine% of respondents replied
climate has been increasing for the last 30 years (see Table-2
and Figure-2) and coupled with the irregularity of rainfall
making things complex to satisfy food security. The duration
of dry season has been extended for long period, in reverse
the rainy season has significantly decreased and with
distractive rainfall when it came. The chi-square test result
indicated no significance difference between the literacy
level of the respondents and perception on rate of climate
change over time (X
2
=3.375, P=0.760). Whereas, perception
of climate change overtime and age the respondents were
statistically significant (X
2
=46.182, P=0.00905). It was
suggested that elder farmers have long experience to
differentiate the trends of climate change for the area.
Table 2. Farmers’ view of soil erosion and land degradation, cause and
indicators.
Farmers response: Proportion of the total (%)
Yes No
Soil erosion and land degradation problem 93.5 6.5
Cause for soil erosion and land degradation
Improper conservation practice 64.1 35.9
Traditional farming practice 68.5 31.5
Free grazing 69.6 30.4
Over cultivation and Population pressure 82.6 17.4
Topography 69.6 30.6
Deforestation 82.6 17.4
Land fragmentation 53.3 46.7
Indicator of the problems
Yield reduction 87 13
Rill formation 18.5 81.5
Dissection of field and formation of gullies
100 -
Crops become yellowish color 41.3 58.7
Top soil removed by runoff 23.9 76.1
Poor water holding capacity 21.7 78.3
Trend of climate change overtime
Increasing 89.1 9.8
Decreasing 9.8 89.1
Same 1.1 98
Figure 2. Annual temperature over time in study watershed.
68 Tesfa Worku Meshesha and Sangharsh Kumar Tripathi: Farmer’s Perception on Soil Erosion and Land Degradation
Problems and Management Practices in the Beressa Watershed of Ethiopia
3.3. Perception of Conservation Work
Recognizing of natural resource degradation hazard by
farmers is positively contributed for the adoption of soil and
water conservation practice. Respondents were asked to
respond over the benefit of management practice, 75% from
interviewed farmers were replied they were recognized the
benefit of soil and water management practice, whereas, 25%
didn’t recognized the benefit of community based watershed
management practice (Table-3). On the basis of chi-square
test result literacy level of respondents and willingness to
participate in the conservation activity was statistically not
significant (X
2
=2.282, P=0.516). Whereas, the age level of
respondents and willing to participation in the conservation
work has statistically significant relationship (X
2
=31.661,
P=0.383). Even though almost all the interviewed farmers
were participated in the conservation work, 65.2% from all
respondents use extension agent /DA/ as a driver to
participate in management practice and only 20.7% were
participated with their conviction and 7.6% were incentive/
food-for work used as a means for their participation in the
activity. In whatever way it is, 92.4% of them were
participated in their community based watershed
management practice whereas, 7.6% from them were not
involved in the activity. Some of them (5.4%) said they were
participated due to fearing of punishment if absent from
management practice without reasonable social problems.
Designing rules and regulation on the basis of farmer’s
knowledge, the demand they need and integrating with the
available local row materials could have immense
contribution for the sustainability of implemented community
based watershed management practice. From the surveyed
households, 83.8% replied they have rule and regulation-
which was very important for effectively managing and
rehabilitating their watershed. On the contrary, 16.2% from
all the surveyed farmers reflected they don’t know whether
they have rule and regulation or not. Likewise, rules and
regulation designed by the governmental bodies (62%) only
34.8% of respondents were assumed to be participated in the
design of rules and regulation. Even though 63.4% of from
all interviewed farmers willing to adopt soil and water
conservation practice, 36.6% were not willing to adopt and
continue the conservation structure. Many reasons was
pointed out by farmer during interview, more than half of
them replied technology was not demand driven (58%).
According to [21] the context of watershed used to provide
over all framework to investigate complex and reciprocal
relationship between land use, soil, water and other natural
resource and the inter dependence of farmers with their
resource. Likewise, the immediate return of soil and water
conservation did not recognized by farmers – hence provision
of other means of income source to reduce continuous
pressure on natural resource willingness to adopt soil and
water conservation otherwise [23]. With respect to able to
implement the watershed technology, 55.9% of the
respondent said they were able to implement a range of
watershed management technology. Despite, 43% replied not
able to implement by their own without the help and guide of
watershed management expert. In this regard, identifying
compatible and easily adaptable with local indigenous soil
and water conservation technology should be taken to
consider.
Table 3. Farmers’ perception of conservation work.
Perception on conservation work Proportion of the total (%)
Knowing the benefit of CBSWC practice
Yes 75
No 25
Have you ever participated in CBSWC?
Yes 92.4
No 7.6
Motive to participate in the activity
Myself/willingly 20.4
Extension agent (DA)/ Forcefully 64.5
Food for work/ incentive based 7.5
Reason not to participate in SWC
I don’t have land 1.1
I don’t know the benefit 1.1
Other reason 5.4
Ability to implement CBSWC practice after
project
Yes 55.9
No 43
Do you have rules and regulations?
Yes Yes
No No
Responsibility to design CBSWC rules and
regulations
Government bodies 62
Ourselves 34.8
Willingness to adopt conservation practice
Yes 62.4
No 36.6
Is CBSWC practice is gender specific?
Yes 75.3
No 23.7
Is the practice is demand driven?
Yes 40.9
No 58.1
Seventy-five% from all the respondents replied there was
sensitivity of gender in participation of watershed
management as well as obtaining the benefit from it. Around
23.7% responds community based watershed management
was not gender specific, mainly male were determinant in
management of their watershed (Table-3). Participation of
women in community watershed management and
monitoring practice was limited. Previously because of social
taboos, women were neglected in participating, planning and
management of various decision making process, remained in
the house. Independence in economic and other task had
enabled them to recognize the contribution of women to their
households in particular and for the society and economy in
general [29].
3.4. Soil and Water Conservation Technologies
The finding of the study has examined different types of
soil and water conservation practice undertaken. These are;
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2016; 5(5): 64-72 69
check dam, terracing, tree planting, counter ploughing, soil
and stone bund, agro-forestry programs, water way, area
closure, cut and carry, multipurpose tree plantation and
percolation pit were the dominant structures under
implementation in cultivated and uncultivated fields, selected
and recommended by the concerned district and development
agent (DAs). Majority of the surveyed farmers depicted their
adoption and participation in the construction of various
conservation structures were undertaken against their will,
development agents was taken the lead to enforce and impose
punishment for not being participate in conservation
activities. The primary reason for this was not lack of
awareness about hazards of natural resource degradation and
shortage of householder size, but some of the revealed
feeling of ownership insecurity. Farmers repeatedly pointed
out if once community based soil and water conservation
practice was implemented in their land they feel that losing
and belongs to a communal land. Farmer possessing own
farm land likely adopt and continue conservation activity.
Likewise, short term tenants do no willing to adopt and
invest on conservation activity because they are not likely
obtaining the return [30]. The chi-square test indicated that
statistically does not exist between participation in
conservation activities and absolute private property of land
ownership (X
2
=0.0749, p=0.784). Likewise, associated with
the technology recommend to implement, they assumed to
some of the technology under implementation were a cause
for existence of rodent (stone bund). Contrary to this, study
undertaken by [31] in Tigay region, 64% of soil was trapped
by stone bunds. Likewise, the study concluded that no
serious long term negative effect reversing the benefit of
stone bunds. Farmers were using bund for multiple objectives
of which conservation of soil only one, for instance farmers
using for demarcating their farm plot against the
encroachment of the neighbors. This discrepancy in
objectives caused difference in soil and water conservation
technologies. Indigenous technologies follow boundary
based, in contrast the recommended technologies follow
contour based. In this regard understanding indigenous soil
and water conservation practice and the logic behind them,
and critically identify different conditions under which
farmers invest in conservation and the constraints inhibiting
such conservation technology [30].
Farmers complain were rational. It was observed that
construction of percolation pit in their plots of land didn’t
consider the real ground situation. Development agents were
simply followed the guide line ordered from the district. But
they didn’t consider the parcel and fragmented land, the slope
angle, intensity and amount and intensity of rainfall in the
area. Without having how much volume of rain fall, for how
long it will stay and how much runoff will generate in the
field, it is impossible to determine the size, dimension and
depth of structures. In Addition to this, construction of
different structures was manly carried out in lower slope,
because of fearing of collapse, if it built in higher slope. But
farmers still putting pressure over the steeper slope and
exposed for further erosion and degradation.
Table 4. Types of soil and water conservation activities Beressa watershed.
Types of conservation practice Proportion of the total (%)
Yes No
Check dam 90.2 9.8
Terracing 88 10.9
Tree planting 95.7 3.3
Counter ploughing 68.5 30.4
Soil and stone bund 90.2 8.7
Agro-forestry programs 94.6 4.3
Water ways 87 12
Area closure 85.9 13
Cut and carry 91.3 7.6
Multipurpose tree plantation 96.7 2.2
Fallowing 21.7 77.2
Percolation pit 89.1 9.8
3.5. Rate of Soil Erosion, Land Degradation and Fertility
Change over Time
Concerning the rat of prevailing problem over time, even
though difficult for farmers to differentiate the trend of
natural resource hazard and decrease in fertility of land, more
than half of the respondents believed to be moderate (58.7%),
mass implementation of different physical and biological soil
and water conservation management practice contributed for
the curbing of the problem and following the practice the
hazard has become minor (20.7%), though some of the
farmers believed the rate even after project implementation
sever and same as the previous 3.3 and 17.4% respectively.
The fertility of soil was one of the concern and determinant
of agricultural production in the Beressa watershed. Over
90% of the interviewed farmers observed soil fertility
problem in their farm fields over the years, only 9.8% from
respondents didn’t observe the problem of soil fertility in
their farm plot. Yield decline was reported by farmers
(81.5%), attributed to indicator of soil fertility decline the
remaining few of farmers reported soil structure and color
change, increased input demand and loss of soil wez
1
was
subjected to soil fertility decline from their farm plots. Asked
farmers about the reasons for fertility decline they give up
absence of fallowing (80.4%), continuous cultivation with
limited fallowing, limited use of modern fertilizer (51.1%)
and absence of using intercropping practice (80.4%) was
responsible factor for the decline of soil fertility.
Table 5. Perception of farmers on soil erosion, land degradation and soil
fertility change over time.
Farmers perception on: Proportion of total
respondents (%)
Erosion and degradation after project
implementation
Severe 3.3
Moderate 58.7
Minor 20.7
Unchanged 17.4
Soil fertility reduction problem
Yes 90.2
No 9.8
1
Wez is a local word that describes the appearance of the soil as dusty and with
poor structure
70 Tesfa Worku Meshesha and Sangharsh Kumar Tripathi: Farmer’s Perception on Soil Erosion and Land Degradation
Problems and Management Practices in the Beressa Watershed of Ethiopia
Farmers perception on: Proportion of total
respondents (%)
Indicator of soil fertility decline
Yield decline 81.5
Soil structure and color change 5.4
Increased input demand 1.1
Loss of soil “wez” 2.2
Methods of soil fertility management
Intercropping
Yes 19.6
No 80.4
Use of Manure
Yes 98.9
No 1.1
Fallowing
Yes 19.6
No 80.4
Use of modern fertilizer
Yes 48.9
No 51.1
Crop rotation
Yes 95.7
No 4.3
Gras strip and mulching
Yes 54.3
No 45.7
Bunning soil as a methods of soil fertility
management
Yes 82.6
No 16.3
soil fertility improvement after project
implementation
None 3.3
Some 72.8
Much 23.9
Interviewed farmers requested to respond concerning soil
fertility improvement after implementation of community
based soil and water conservation management, they noted
that to some extent (72.8%) they observed soil fertility
increase over time and 23.9% replied much increased
nevertheless 3.3% said none. From the interview and group
discussion, farmers recognized soil fertility change over time
influenced by soil and water conservation and rehabilitation
practice and other soil fertility improvement practice (Table-
5). In the study watershed burning of soil (locally called
“guie”) as a method of traditional soil fertility management
was practiced by farmers which account 82.6% but 16.3%
from the interviewed didn’t use (Table-5). According to
different studies elsewhere burning of soil using fire had
advantage and disadvantage, as [32] concluded, partial
burning of soil coupled with fallowing accumulation of soil
organic carbon could increase. In contrast due to long time
impact of burning especially 0-2cm the layer of soil in the
grass land of South Africa soil organic carbon was reduced
[33]. According to [34], cation exchange capacity and total
nitrogen content was reduced due to heating of soil using
fire, however it used to increase for the available phosphorus.
4. Conclusion
The result of the study revealed that farmers recognized
the prevailing natural resource degradation hazard cause for
the decline for productivity. Level of knowledge and
awareness is the determinant factor of sustainability and
adoption of soil and water conservation technologies. Even
though most farmers were perceived prevalence of erosion
and degradation hazard, all the asked respondents were
considered the problem to be severe when gullies form of
erosion and degradation appeared in their watershed. Farmers
in the study watershed had undergone different types of
watershed management techniques. Even though the rage of
intensity in implementation of the technology was variable,
the following watershed management techniques was under
implementation among them check dam, terracing, tree
planting, counter ploughing, agro forestry, cut and carry, area
closure, multipurpose tree plantation and percolation pit
widely implemented practice.
Watershed management officials must consider the design
of the management practice on the basis of farmer’s
preference and ground reality. The concerned officials must
recognize the reason why farm households not willing
(36.6%) to continue and adopt management practice
sustainably. Though around 62.4% of were willing to adopt
the practice, farmers reported that mostly they were
participated enforced by development agent (DA), instead of
enforcing them to pay punishment being absent from the
practice, it is batter offer education about the benefit of
conserving the watershed, so concerned officials
acknowledge and support the indigenous knowledge and
technologies. In line with this [23], concluded in working
successful soil and water conservation for farmer’s
indigenous soil and water conservation should take as a
starting point. In addition, so as to maximize the
compatibility as well as the adaptability of newly designed
soil and water conservation practice, clearly identification of
small holder production system and other family constraint.
Effectively rehabilitating and management of watershed
resource had considerable benefit for the achievement and
attaining food security of farm households. For the successful
implementation the project, farmers’ awareness about long
term and short term benefit obtained from rehabilitated
watershed on the one hand and long and short term
consequence of natural resource degradation hazard on other
are critical. Motivating farmers, empowering them in
planning and designing watershed management policies and
strategies is the critical factor for the adoption and expansion
successful practice and selecting the appropriate technology
on the basis of demand driven, and existing socio-economic
circumstance. Gender sensitization issue must be address to
empower women in planning and management of their
watershed.
In conclusion, community based watershed management in
Ethiopia should be designed on the basis of ground reality
and acknowledgment of indigenous knowledge.
Consideration of these and other important issues will
improve the sustainability; expansion of successful
management approach to other parts of the country- will
improve the livelihoods of the farmers.
Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 2016; 5(5): 64-72 71
Authors’ Contribution
In the acquisition of the data, data collection, data coding
and entry, data analysis, interpretation of the result, and
writing has been substantially contributed by TW. SKT has
been involved in critically advising, revising the manuscript
and made possible suggestion. Both the authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Ministry of education,
government of Ethiopia. Prof. S.K Tripathi, Department of
water resource development and management are
acknowledged for the valuable comment on the manuscript.
Sincere thanks also extended to all who took part for the
manuscript. For the insightful comments special thank
extended for editors and anonymous reviewers.
References
[1] Bishaw, B. (2005) Deforestation and Land Degradation in the
Ethiopian Highlands: A Strategy for Physical Recovery.
Northeast African Studies, 8 (1), 7-25.
[2] Berry, L. (2003) Land degradation in Ethiopia: Its extent and
impact. Commissioned by the GM with WB support.
[3] Anemu, B. (2006) Determinants of Farmers’ Willingness to
Pay for the Conservation of National Parks: The Case of
Simen Mountains National Park (Doctoral dissertation, MSc
Thesis in Agricultural Economics, Haramaya University).
[4] Tamene, L., & Vlek, P. L. (2008) Soil erosion studies in
northern Ethiopia. In Land use and soil resources (pp. 73-
100). Springer Netherlands.
[5] Authority, E. P. (2012) National Report of Ethiopia. In The
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio
(Vol. 20).
[6] Wolka, K., Moges, A., & Yimer, F. (2013) Farmers’
perception of the effects of soil and water conservation
structures on crop production: The case of Bokole watershed,
Southern Ethiopia. African Journal of Environmental Science
and Technology, 7 (11), 990-1000.
[7] Tesfa, A., & Mekuriaw, S. (2014) The Effect of Land
Degradation on Farm Size Dynamics and Crop-Livestock
Farming System in Ethiopia: A Review. Open Journal of Soil
Science, 2014.
[8] Sonneveld, B. G. J. S. (2002) Land under pressure: the impact
of water erosion on food production in Ethiopia. Shaker.
[9] Bekele, M. (2004) “Ethiopian Forestry Action Program and Its
Status”. In Shiferaw Eshetu (2015) In Integrates Forestry
Policy in Ethiopia. Proceeding of Public Meeting. Forum for
Environment in Partnership with Inter Church Organization
for Development Cooperation, Addis Ababa.
[10] Gashaw T. (2015) The implications of watershed management
for reversing land degradation in Ethiopia
[11] Worku, T., & Tripathi, S. K. (2015) Watershed Management in
Highlands of Ethiopia: A Review. Open Access Library
Journal, 2 (6).
[12] Dalhatu, S., & Garba, J. (2012) Soil Resources Degradation
and Conservation Techniques Adopted among the Small
holder Farmers in Gusau, North-Western Nigeria. Nigerian
Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 20 (2), 134-141.
[13] Tilahun, U., & Bedemo, A. (2014) Farmers' perceptions and
adaptations to climate change through conservation
agriculture: the case of guto gida and sasiga districts, western
Ethiopia. Academia Journal of Agricultural Research, 2 (10),
207-224.
[14] Barbier, E. B., & Bishop, J. T. (1995) Economic values and
incentives affecting soil and water conservation in developing
countries. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50 (2),
133-137.
[15] Shiferaw E. (2015) Awareness and views of farming
households regarding land resource degradation and
conservation- the case of Bule hora, Ethiopia.
[16] Gamachu, D. (1988) Environment and development in
Ethiopia. Beyond the famine: an examination of the issues
behind famine in Ethiopia, pp. 54-96.
[17] Tamene, L., Park, S. J., Dikau, R., & Vlek, P. L. G. (2006)
Analysis of factors determining sediment yield variability in
the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Geomorphology, 76 (1),
76-91.
[18] Rao, C. H. (2000) Watershed development in India: Recent
experience and emerging issues. Economic and Political
Weekly, 3943-3947.
[19] Arya, S. L., Panwar, P., & Yadav, R. P. (2011) Role of
watershed management in bridging demand–supply gap of
fodder for enhancing livestock production in Shivaliks,
Haryana. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24 (2).
[20] Johnson, J. N., Govindaradjane, S. and Sundararajan, T.
(2013) The role of rural women in watershed development
project. International J. Engineering Sci. and Innovative
Technology, 2 (1), pp. 540-544.
[21] Taddese, G. (2001). Land degradation: a challenge to
Ethiopia. Environmental management, 27 (6), 815-824.
[22] Bewket, W. (2003) Towards integrated watershed
management in highland Ethiopia: the Chemoga watershed
case study (Vol. 44). Wageningen University and Research
Centre.
[23] Amsalu, A., & De Graaff, J. (2007) Determinants of adoption
and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water
conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecological
economics, 61 (2), 294-302.
[24] Daba, S. (2003) An investigation of the physical and
socioeconomic determinants of soil erosion in the Hararghe
Highlands, eastern Ethiopia. Land degradation &
development, 14 (1), 69-81.
[25] GTZ (2005) Guidelines for Implementation of the WAJIB
Approach in Ethiopia. (Second Edition). Oromia Regional
State, Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development.
[26] Mazzucato, V., & Niemeijer, D. (2000) Rethinking soil and
water conservation in a changing society: A case study in
eastern Burkina Faso.
72 Tesfa Worku Meshesha and Sangharsh Kumar Tripathi: Farmer’s Perception on Soil Erosion and Land Degradation
Problems and Management Practices in the Beressa Watershed of Ethiopia
[27] Mbaga-Semgalawe, Z. and Folmer, H., 2000. Household
adoption behaviour of improved soil conservation: the case of
the North Pare and West Usambara Mountains of Tanzania.
Land use policy, 17 (4), pp. 321-336.
[28] Teshome, M. (2014) Population growth and cultivated land in
rural Ethiopia: land use dynamics, access, farm size, and
fragmentation. Resources and Environment, 4 (3), 148-161.
[29] Gate, S. (2001) Empowerment of Women in Watershed
Management Guraiya Panchayat, Madhya Pradesh. Indian
Journal of Gender Studies, 8 (2), 247-256.
[30] Kerr, J. M., & Sanghi, N. K. (1992) Indigenous soil and water
conservation in India's semi-arid tropics. IIED International
Institute for Environment and Development, Sustainable
Agriculture Programme.
[31] Vancampenhout, K., Nyssen, J., Gebremichael, D., Deckers,
J., Poesen, J., Haile, M., & Moeyersons, J. (2006) Stone bunds
for soil conservation in the northern Ethiopian highlands:
Impacts on soil fertility and crop yield. Soil and Tillage
Research, 90 (1), 1-15.
[32] Amare, T., Yitaferu, B., & Hurni, H. (2013) Effects of" Guie"
on Soil Organic Carbon and Other Soil Properties: A
Traditional Soil Fertility Management Practice in the Central
Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 5 (7),
236.
[33] Fynn, R. W. S., Haynes, R. J., & O'connor, T. G. (2003)
Burning causes long-term changes in soil organic matter
content of South African grassland. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 35 (5), 677-687.
[34] Parlak, M. (2011) Effect of heating on some physical,
chemical and mineralogical aspects of forest soil. Bartın
Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 13 (19), 143-152.
