Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on Land ... · Effect of Soil and Water Conservation...
Transcript of Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on Land ... · Effect of Soil and Water Conservation...
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 177 - 188 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 189
Effect of Soil and Water
Conservation Measures on Land
Degradation Under Climate
Change Scenario in Ethiopia: A
Review of Work
Ayub Jelde Keta
Ayub Jelde Keta
Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center
Ziway, Ethiopia
Abstract: Land degradation and its consequences is one of the more serious and complex problems in the
developing country particularly in Ethiopia. Land degradation results primarily from incorrect land use and bad
land management practices. Review of the study indicated that Causes for land degradation were: human
population growth, poor soil management, deforestation, insecurity in land tenure, variation of climatic
conditions, and intrinsic characteristics of fragile soils in diverse agro-ecological zones. Various forms of efforts
to control the land degradation through introduced Soil and Water Conservation measures have been undertaken
for several years. Farmer’s adoption rates and effects of SWC on soil loss, moisture retention, and crop yield and
climate change have been reviewed. Literature shows that SWC measures have promising effects on reducing soil
loss and runoff, trapping a significant quantity of sediment at early stages, mitigate climate change, improving
soil moisture and increases soil fertility. Crop yield improvement was repeatedly reported especially after two to
five years of the structure and frequently in low rainfall and drier areas. Due to conservation effects carbon
sequestration have been commenced as an effective tool for adaptation and mitigating climate change or extreme
weather events in the country. This paper suggests, based on a review of the literature, that Management decisions
regarding conservation practices, such as mulching, con¬servation agriculture, and returning crop residue to the
field to increase nutrient cycling, can contribute to carbon sequestration and help us mitigate and adapt to climate
change But an intensive labour requirement and other biophysical and socioeconomic factors discourage farmer’s
adoption of soil and water conservation structures. Our review suggests that without management decisions that
increase soil and water conservation, food security for the world’s growing population will be harder to achieve.
Keywords: SWC, Land Degradation, Adaptation, Climate, Mitigation, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 190
1. INTRODUCTION Soil degradation is a global threat (Cerdà et al., 2010; Mighall et al., 2012; de Souza Braz et al.,
2013; Wang et al., 2013). It has been affecting about two billion hectares of land (Oldeman et al., 1991).
While no region is immune, developing countries are more severely affected by soil degradation than
developed countries. Ethiopia, one of the developing countries in eastern Africa, is highly threatened by
soil degradation problems (Hurni et al., 2007). Soil degradation is a serious problem in Ethiopia,
particularly in the highlands, where population density is high and the bulk of crop production occurs
(Haile & Fetene, 2012; Karltun et al., 2013; Belay et al., 2014).. The Ethiopian highlands Soil erosion is a
severe problem in sloping areas, especially in the northern and central highlands where vegetation cover is
very low and soils are already very shallow (Jabbar et al., 2000).
The pressure from human and livestock populations, coupled with biophysical, social, economic, and
political factors, has caused severe degradation of resources and climate changes (Sonneveld, 2002;
Girmay et al., 2008). Depletion of soil organic matter (SOM) and nutrients, salinization, and soil erosion
by water were the most critical forms of soil degradation (Bewket, 2003; Girmay et al., 2008) and are
exacerbated by deforestation. Soil erosion varies with soil types (erodibility) and erosive factors like slope
of the land (length and steepness), rainfall characteristics (volume, intensity and duration), soil cover and
land management (Prasannakumar et al. 2012).
Soil erosion by water is by far the most prominent process of soil degradation in the highlands (Haile
& Fetene, 2012; Haregeweyn et al., 2013). It causes an annual loss of 30,000 ha (0.03%) of land area (EC-
FAO, 1998; National Review Report, 2002) and 1.5Mg billions of soil and severely damages over two
million hectares (Hurni, 1993). Soil erosion is severing in the weyna-dega and dega (cool) zones, which
mainly have rugged topography and cover over 60% of the area (WDNRMD, 2013
Over the past three decades, per capita food production in Ethiopia has declined from about 280 to
160 kg y-1
(Awulachew, 2010). As (Mitiku et al., 2006) reported that crop yield is declining by 1–3% y-1
,
but the population is growing at a rate of 3% y-1
, leading to a serious food–population imbalance. Ethiopia
has often faced food deficit in the past (Bewket, 2003) and may also face even more severe shortages in
the future.Soil degradation also increases vulnerability of people to the adverse effects of climate
variability and change, by reducing SOC concentration and water holding capacity, which in turn reduces
agricultural productivity and local resource assets (TerrAfrica, 2009).
Sustainable soil management technologies can enhance the SOC stock, reduce soil degradation,
increase crop productivity and decrease soil‟s vulnerability to climate change. In addition, judicious soil
management can increase people‟s capacity to adapt and mitigate climate change through carbon (C)
sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction (Vagen et al., 2005; TerrAfrica, 2009). Soil
C sequestration can improve soil quality, restore degraded ecosystems, and increase agronomic/biomass
productivity. Thus, C sequestration is often termed as a win–win or no-regrets strategy (Lal et al., 2003;
Girmay et al., 2008).
The decline in agricultural productivity and poor quality of natural resources signify the necessity of
initiatives that integrate resource conservation and development measures in Ethiopia. Therefore, the
government of Ethiopia, supported by donors and non-governmental organizations, adopted measures to
rehabilitate degraded soils and minimize risks of new/additional degradation (Bewket, 2003; Yitbarek et
al., 2010). Also (Girmay et al., 2008 and Kato et al., 2009) reported that significant contribution of SWC
technologies on reducing production risks in Ethiopia and opined that these measures may be considered as
a “climate-proofing strategy.” Contrarily, (Kassie et al., 2008) argued that physical-based SWC measures
did not have a positive impact but reduced yield in the high-rainfall areas of the Ethiopian highlands
compared with non-conserved plots. Thus, implemented SWC programs had mixed outcomes, because of
poor implementation of good technologies (Merrey & Gebreselassie, 2011). Therefore this work is aimed
to review several findings or reports regarding to the impact of SWC measures on land degradation and its
implications to climate change adaptation and mitigation in Ethiopia and to share a compiled information
for beneficiaries.
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 191
This paper reviews on:
a. the causes and consequences of land degradation and climate changes in Ethiopia,
b. the adoptability and challenges of soil and water conservation measures, and
c. effects of conservation practices on land degradation and climate change mitigation.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Soil Erosion and Land Degradation in Ethiopia
Land degradation results primarily from incorrect land use and bad land management (Blum et al.,
1998; Mazengia, 2010). Similarly, most studies in Ethiopia have also strengthened this thought. In
Ethiopia an estimate 17% of the potential annul agricultural GDP of the Country is lost because of physical
and biological soil degradation (Tilahun et al., 2007). Causes for land degradation are: human population
growth, poor soil management, deforestation, insecurity in land tenure, variation of climatic conditions,
and intrinsic characteristics of fragile soils in diverse agro-ecological zones (Bationo et al., 2006). Also
(Badege, 2009) pointed out that soil degradation in Ethiopia can be seen as a direct result of past
agricultural practices in the highlands. The dissected terrain, the extensive areas with slopes above 16%,
and the high intensity of rainfall lead to accelerated soil erosion once deforestation occurs.
The causes and effects of land degradation are complex, and have intermingled environmental
impacts. Deterioration of crop production particularly in the highlands is cited as a major and prime impact
of the land degradation, where soil and soil nutrient loss due to erosion is a leading cause (Badege, 2001;
Nyssen et al., 2009). Although the country has huge hydropower and irrigation potential, environmental
degradation, particularly erosion and vegetation clearance in the highlands, is threatening this potential
(Tadesse, 2001; Awulachew et al., 2007).
Soil erosion varies with soil types (erodibility) and erosive factors like slope of the land (length and
steepness), rainfall characteristics (volume, intensity and duration), soil cover and land management
(Prasannakumar et al. 2012). Among the soil types, Luvisols and Nitosols were found to be most
vulnerable to water erosion, while Vertisols and Phaeozems were less vulnerable (Herweg and Ludi 1999).
Due to erosion, farmlands in many parts of the highlands have shallow soil depths and poor fertility
(Ciampalini et al. 2008).
Degradation has also been influencing flora and fauna diversity and negatively impacted the micro-
climate (Asefa et al., 2003; Tilahun, 2006). Decline of the forest cover also contributed to this problem
(Tadesse, 2001). In recent times, frequent droughts, early end and late onset of the main rainy (Kiremt)
season and failure of the smaller rainy (Belg) season are linked with climate change and land degradation,
which could develop into desertification (Tilahun, 2006).
2.1.1. Impacts of Land Degradation in Ethiopia
Degradation on the earth surface is one of the most sever global problem of our times, which affect
33% of the land surface; with consequences for more than 2.5 billion people. About 40% of the world‟s
agricultural land is seriously degraded, were 80% of this degradation is caused by soil erosion. This
worldwide depletion of land resource continues to be serious hazard particularly, in the main pillar of their
economy. Land degradation in Ethiopia account for 8% of the global total (Mazengia, 2010), the north
shewa and its districts are among the most strongly affected by soil erosion induced degradation and
drought in the northern highland (Dejene, 1990; Mazengia, 2010).
According to 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. In line to this
(Hurni, 1993) also reported as much as 300 ton ha-1
annual soil loss from croplands with average rates of
42 ton ha-1
. Similarly, (Herweg and Ludi, 1999) estimated a higher than 110 ton ha-1
annual soil loss from
farmlands without terraces. The aggregated national scale nutrient loss was 41 kg ha-1
yr-1
for N, 6 kg ha-
1yr
-1 for P and 26 kg ha
-1yr
-1 for K (Stoorvogel and Smaling, 1990). Ethiopian highland reclamation study
(EHRS) estimated 1.9 billion tons annual topsoil loss from the highlands due to water erosion, which is
equivalent to 8 mm soil depth or 130 t ha-1
annual losses. This adverse effect was more sever in the
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 192
highland area where 85% of the human and 77% of livestock population are living and agricultural is
intensive (Mazengia, 2010).
As estimates from national level studies indicates more than 2 million hectares of Ethiopia‟s
highlands have been degraded beyond rehabilitation and additional 14 million hectares severally degraded
,which is reflected in cereal yield reduction averaging less than 1.2 tons per hectares in most of the
highlands (IJEMA, 2013). This has significantly contributed to the hunger faced by some five to seven
million people in the country, there by requiring external assistance every year for their survival and more
than 45% of the total population to toil below the absolute poverty line (Gete et al., 2006).
2.1.2. Land Use/ Land Cover Change and Its Implications on Land Degradation
Land use and land cover are interrelated but not synonyms (Jansen and Gregorio, 2003). Land use is
defined as human modification of a natural environment or wilderness into a new environment such as
agricultural fields, pasture and settlement, while land cover is the physical cover of the earth surface that
can be grass, water, forest, bare ground, crop field and others (FAO, 2000). LULC change occurs due to
human and natural drivers. Human-induced changes are associated with socio-economic activities such as
agriculture, mining, forestry, forest extraction, wars, settlement and policies. The natural drivers include
weather and climatic fluctuations, ecosystem and geological dynamics, and others (Riebsame et al., 1994).
However, there have been rapid dynamics in the past century (FAO, 2000). For example, the Global Forest
Resource Assessment (FRA, 2005) reported 13 million ha annual forest land conversion to agricultural
land at a global scale, while reforestation has been taking place at a very slow rate as compared to the net
deforestation, especially in Africa (Jansen and Gregorio, 2003).
The major LULC changes in Ethiopia occurred in densely populated areas, mainly in the highlands
(Amsalu et al., 2007; Assen and Nigussie, 2009). The changes were mainly conversion of forest and
grasslands into cultivation and grazing. With the increasing population, large forest areas were destroyed
and converted into agriculture in response to the ever increasing demand for food, grazing land and wood
(Feoli et al., 2002; Assen and Nigussie, 2009). Limited technology and livelihood options have aggravated
the competition between different uses, and government policy and tenure have also played a considerable
role (Tefera et al., 2002; Assen and Nigussie, 2009). For example, during the emperor period, farmers used
traditional shifting cultivation known as Mofer-zemt Ersha, where farmers clear forest to get new fertile
farmlands (Amsalu et al., 2007; Mekonnen and Bluffstone, 2008). These deforestation have been resulted
with today land degradation, climate changes and food insecurity in the country.
2.1.3. Climate Changes in Ethiopia
Climate change is predicted to have major adverse consequences for the world„s ecosystems and
societies. Although a global phenomenon, the severity of the adverse effects of climate change will differ
significantly across regions, countries and socioeconomic groups. Poor countries will suffer more, with the
poorest in the poor countries likely to suffer most. Africa is highly vulnerable to the potential impacts of
climate change and Ethiopia is often cited as one of the most vulnerable and with the least capacity to
respond and adapt (Thornton et al., 2006).
Ethiopia already suffers from historical climate variability and extreme climatic events (Mesfin,
1984; Pankhurst, 1985; McCann, 1987; IIRR, 2007). In particular, frequent droughts coupled with
environmental degradation and decline in food production are common and still remain major challenges
to Ethiopia (NMA 2006, 2007; Senbeta et al., 2002; Senbeta, 2006). Droughts and floods are common
phenomena in Ethiopia, occurring every 3 to 5 years (World Bank, 2006). The country has experienced
many major national droughts since the along with dozens of local droughts (World Bank, 2009). In
particular, there is increased incidence of meteorological drought episodes, famines and climate-sensitive
human and crop diseases in the northern highland and southern lowland regions of Ethiopia (World Bank,
2009; Aklilu and Alebachew, 2009; Oxfam International, 2010; UN-ISDR, 2010).
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 193
2.1.3.1. Adverse effects of climate change on temperature and rainfall in Ethiopia
In many areas of Ethiopia, the frequency of droughts and floods has increased over the years,
resulting in loss of lives and livelihoods National Meteorological Agency (NMA, 2007; Oxfam
International, 2010). Agricultural production in Ethiopia is dominated by small-scale subsistence farmers,
and is mainly rain-fed, thus highly exposed to climate variability and extremes. According to the (World
Bank, 2006), current rainfall variability already costs the Ethiopian economy 38% of its growth potential.
Analysis of historical climate data show an increase in mean annual temperature by 1.3°C between
1960 and 2006, translating into an average rate of 0.28°C per decade. The annual minimum temperature
increased by about 0.37°C every decade between 1951 and 2006 (McSweeney et al., 2008). In contrast,
precipitation remained fairly stable when averaged over the country (Schneider et al., 2008). Similarly, no
statistically significant trend in mean annual rainfall was observed in any season from 1960-2006 (NMA,
2006; McSweeney et al., 2008). However, the spatial and temporal variability of precipitation is high, thus
large-scale trends do not necessarily reflect local conditions.
Projecting into the future, most global climate models indicate some increase in rainfall in both dry
and wet seasons in Ethiopia (NMA, 2006). With regard to temperature, IPCC„s mid-range emission
scenario results show that compared to the 1961-1990 average mean annual temperature across Ethiopia
will increase by between 0.9 and 1.1°C by the year 2030, and from 1.7 to 2.1°C by the year 2050. The
temperature across the country could rise by between 0.5 and 3.6°C by 2080 (NMA, 2006). The increasing
temperature combined with rainfall variability will have serious consequences on ecosystems, economic
sectors and communities of Ethiopia.
Ethiopia„s NMA identifies drought and flood as the major hazards in the future as well, with
potential negative impacts on agriculture and food security (FDRE, 2011). A study based on the Ricardian
method predicts that a unit increase in temperature could result in reduction of the net revenue per hectare
by US$177.62 in summer and US$464.71 in winter seasons (Deressa, 2007). Understanding the nature of
climate change impacts, key vulnerabilities and indigenous adaptive responses at local levels, and the
national institutional responses are important for developing appropriate adaptation strategies at
community and farm levels.
2.1.3.2. Adverse effects of climate change on water in Ethiopia
In degraded watersheds, opportunities for water harvesting and management are few and of limited
use; access roads are continuously damaged by runoff and erosion, access to clean water for domestic use
is very difficult and incidence of water-borne diseases is very high. Unstable watersheds induce unstable
production systems and inefficiency of input utilization, as erosion and inefficient use of rainwater also
undermine efforts to enhance productivity (FAO, 2014).
Climate change affects directly or indirectly all the elements of the water cycle. An increase in
temperature results in an increase in evaporation and evapotranspiration. While there are large
uncertainties on the impact of climate change on precipitation, models converge in predicting more
variability in rainfall patterns, with increased occurrence of extreme events like intense precipitation or
longer periods of dry weather (FAO, 2011). These two factors contribute to disruption of the water cycle
which affects the soil water holding capacity, leading to longer periods of water deficit and more frequent
flood. Such changes will affect rainfed farming, and through increased variations in river runoff and
groundwater recharge will also affect irrigated agriculture, as well as livestock feeding and watering.
Because of this, the design of climate-proof farming practices needs to be viewed through a water lens
(FAO, 2013). They are therefore the best entry point for designing climate adaptation programs.
2.1.3.3. Impact of climate change on soil fertility and soil degradation processes
Climate change may have stronger or weaker, permanent or periodical, favorable or unfavorable,
harmful (sometimes catastrophic), primary (direct) or secondary (indirect) impact on soil processes.
Among these processes soil moisture regime plays a distinguished role. It determines the water supply of
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 194
plants, influences the air and heat regimes, biological activity and plant nutrient status of soil (Szabolcs,
1990; Várallyay, 1990b, 1994, 2002).
As it have been indicated by the findings of (Várallyay G., 2011) primary and secondary impacts of
climatic change on various soil degradation processes: Soil erosion; there are no linear relationships
between mean annual precipitation, surface runoff and the rate of erosion. The rate, type and extension of
soil erosion depends on the combined influences of climate (primarily the quantity and intensity of
rainfall), relief, vegetation (type, continuity, density), and soil erodability characteristics. Acidification;
Decreasing precipitation may reduce downward filtration and leaching. Climate determines the dominant
vegetation types, their productivity, the decomposition rate of their litter deposits, and influences soil
reaction.
On the other hand consequence of the expected global „warming‟ is the rise of ecstatic sea level:
increase of inundated territories (especially in the densely populated delta regions and river valleys), and
the areas under the influence of sea water intrusion.
2.2. Adoption and Failure of Soil Conservation Measures in Ethiopia
In response, government and development agencies have invested substantial resource in promoting
soil-water conservation practices as part of efforts to improve environmental conditions and ensure
sustainable and increased agricultural production. Despite the increasing efforts made and the growing
policy interest, adoption of those technologies by smallholder farmers outside of intensively supported
project location has generally been. Regardless of all those, effort the natural resource base is deteriorating
from time to time and becomes major cause for food insecurity and vulnerability (Berhanu et al., 2009).
Soil and water conservation technology is one which is implemented since the mid1970s in Ethiopia
(Alemu, 1999). Since then, huge areas have been covered with terraces, and millions of trees have been
planted (Yeraswork, 2000). Typical SWC technologies used in Ethiopia include soil bunds, stone bunds,
grass strips, waterways, trees planted at the edge of farm fields, contours, and irrigation (chiefly water
harvesting) (Kato et al., 2009) by top down approach system.
Since the early 1970s, following the disastrous drought and famine of the 1974/1975, soil
degradation has been recognized as a serious problem in the highlands of Ethiopia (Mengistu et al., 2015)
and established PAs, which were involved in mobilizing labor and assignment of local responsibilities
(Bekele and Holden, 1998; USAID, 2000). Between 1976 and 1990, 71,000 ha of soil and stone bunds,
233,000 ha of hillside terraces for afforestation, 12,000 km of check dams in gullied lands, 390,000 ha of
closed areas for natural regeneration, 448,000 ha of land planted with different tree species, and 526,425
ha of bench terrace interventions were completed (USAID, 2000) mainly through Food-for-Work (FFW)
program incentives. Incentives like FFW have to be paid so that farmers build the conservation structures
even in their own fields. Necessary repair and maintenance works are expected to be the responsibility of
individual farmers (GTZ, 2002). The objective of the incentive emanate from the recognition that farmers
do not have the necessary economic capacity to implement conservation measures, and therefore the FFW
programs has been used to overcome the initial difficulties (Herweg, 1993).
Parallel to the soil conservation practices, integrating soil conservation research with crop production
on different soil types was conducted, and the results confirmed that grass cover on soils could harness soil
loss better than different cropping systems (Girma, 2001). Contour strip-cropping and buffer strip-cropping
drastically reduced soil loss compared to continuous mono cropping.
However, adoption of soil and water conservation measures has been very limited. Knowledge
among farmers about integrated soil conservation and water and nutrient management measures is very
low (Girma, 2001); the emphasis has been largely on the construction of structural SWC measures in
cultivated fields and afforestation of hillsides (Grepperud, 1996, Bewket, 2003). This massive campaign in
soil conservation under FFW did not bring a wide dissemination and adoption of the practices by farmers.
This is because farmers constructed SWC practices during the campaign, but they had no interest to
implement or expand these without food for work (Shiferaw and Holden, 1998). Although, those
achievements were later evaluated as only quantitative with minimal desirable outcomes and largely less
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 195
effective and often unsustainable (Admassie, 2000, Hengsdijk et al., 2005). Most of the conservation
measures were removed after the government changed in 1991.
Between 1995 and 2009, for the second round promotion of soil conservation activities have been
undertaken as part of the agricultural extension package of the present government through mass
mobilization with a top down approach and without incentives for the time farmers spent on SWC
activities. The approach was to construct conservation measures at individual level but not at watershed
level. Emphasis was given to the quantity of measures rather than the quality of measures (Akalu et al.,
2016). SWC is mainly limited to physical measures and dis-adoption and non-adoption of SWC measures
were common phenomena in this period. This indicates that the extension system did not bring about
behavioral changes among farmers probably because the focus was on changing the farmland rather than
farmers‟ behavior.
Again also the study conducted by (Akalu et al., 2016) indicated that since 2010, the government of
Ethiopia has embarked again on a massive SWC campaign. The current approach is also mass
mobilization, but then at watershed level. And there is an attempt to make such SWC program more
participatory.
2.2.1. Method of soil and water conservation practices
The importance of planning soil-water conservation is to make up a system by selecting a set of individual
items, which are relevant to the conditions and which can be combined into a workable system (Addisu,
2011). These conservation structures were introduced with the objectives of conserving, developing and
rehabilitating degraded agricultural lands and increasing food security through increased food production
availability (Adbcho, 1991). Even if different factors influencing the soil-water conservation practices,
people across the world as well as in Ethiopia apply different methods of soil and water conservation
according to their land characteristics, degradation extent, and technology available. Among those
biological and mechanical soil and water conservation structures were the popularly practiced methods.
2.2.2. The Failure of soil and water conservation measures in Ethiopia
Studies conducted in different parts of the country come up with different factors that explain the low
level of success of conservation initiatives. These studies attributed the low level of success of the
initiative to different factors etc.
Institutional factors: During planning soil and water conservation intervention, top-down approach
was pursued where government officials tell peasant association (kebele) what to do to get the food aid.
This approach have local people little opportunities for discussion and participation on the initiative. The
local people did not have a say on the design and their role was limited to provision of labor for the
payment they get from the work. This made the local people see the initiative as imposition from the
government and additional burden farmers are made to bear (Wood, 1990).
The conservation endeavor was linked to food-for-work payment. This made the conservation
intervention to be concentrated in areas that are accessible. Hence, the coverage by the initiative was
limited. This payment made farmers see the conservation measures belonging to the government rather
than themselves. This in turn resulted, in poor quality of conservation structure constructed on farmlands.
Very often, farmers destroy these structures to obtain additional food for maintaining destroyed structures
(Woldeamlk, 2003).
Technological factors: Different conservation measure such as biological and agronomic
conservation practices that could have potential to provide incentives for adaption have been over looked.
In addition to this, these conservation measures have not been linked to indigenous conservation measure
for which the local people are well-acquainted (Pretty and Shah, 1996).
Decrease in total cultivable area by the owing to the requirement of the design, physical SWC
measures demand cut and fill and/or the mounding of stone and soil in graded or level alignments.
Therefore, the channel and embankment have different landforms than the area between inter-structures.
Spacing of the structures depends mainly on the slope of the land (Kebede, 2014).
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 196
Reports indicate that, depending on slope and structure type, significantly high proportions of
cultivable land are occupied by structures. Depending on slope (for a slope category from 5 to greater than
55%) and soil stability, grass strips, bench terraces and fanya juu occupy 1-15, 5-42 and 8-40% of
cultivable land areas, respectively (Tenge et al., 2005). In Ethiopia, it was recommended that fanya juu
occupies 2-15% of the land area for a slope of 3-15%, stone bunds occupy 5-25% for a slope of 5-50% and
soil bunds occupy 2-20% for a slope of 3-30% (Akalu Teshome et al., 2013). Literature of
(Vancampenhout et al., 2006) estimated that stone bunds occupy about 8% of the farmland in northern
Ethiopia. In experimental plots established in the central highlands of Ethiopia, soil bunds occupy 8.6
percent of cultivable land (Adimassu et al., 2012).
Social Factors: Personal characteristics of the household head like age, educational attainment, sex
and family size were hypothesized to influence the decision to adopt conservation practices. The age of a
farmer can enhance or prevent the retention of conservation structure. With age, a farmer may get
experience about his/her farm and can react in favor of retention of structures. Exposure to education will
increase the farmers‟ management capacity and reflect a better understanding of the benefits and
constraints of soil and water conservation. Education also increases the ability to obtain and apply relevant
information concerning the use of soil and water conservation practices. Gender of farmer is also
hypothesized to have an effect on adoption of conservation structures. Female headed or male-headed
households can have different conservation behavior (Teshome et al., 2013).
Physical Factors: Farm size is often related to the wealth of a farmer and is expected to be positively
associated with the decision to retain conservation structures. Farmers having larger farm size can afford to
leave the structures while the small farmers cannot and tend to destroy the structures to allow them to
produce more. Factors such as farm size, slope, and farm terrain, type of erosion, soil amendments, and
location of farmland and land quality differentials were some physical factors which affect farmers‟ ability
to adopt soil and water conservation measure (John, 2008).
Attitudinal Factors: Perception of soil erosion and recognizing it as a problem is an important factor
that influences the application of erosion controlling practices (Bekele and Holden, 1998). Thus, the
perception variable is hypothesized to influence the retention of conservation structures positively. The
role of perception of technology attributes in enhancing or eroding adoption decisions is well
acknowledged. In this review of study, it is hypothesized that farmers‟ expectation of the effectiveness of
conservation structures in retaining soil from erosion were mostly a positive effect on retention soil-water
conserving structures.
Economic Factors:
Off-farm employment generates income to the household and it may positively or negatively influence soil
conservation. Off-farm income-generating activities compete for labor resource that the household uses as
an input in conservation activities. Hence, those households that have off-farm income are less likely to
engage in activities that conserve soil and water. On the other hand, off-farm income may ease the liquidity
constraints needed for soil and water conservation investment or purchase of fertility enhancing inputs
(Bekele and Holden, 1998).
2.3. Effects of SWC for Reclamation of Land Degradation and Climate Changes
The country is mainly linked to the prevailing degradation problem caused by continuous cultivation
with limited amendment and wide spread use of dung and crop residue for household energy which
substantially contribute to the loss of soil organic matter (Aklilu, 2006).
The soil and water that we use is integral to our livelihood. Most people know that they need clean
air and clean water to health. Fewer people realize that their well-being also depends on the health of the
soil. Soils and waters are supports the growth of most of our food and fiber; so, its productivity is a major
factor in the overall development of all nations of the world. As part of development and modernization,
trees are cut and vegetation is chopped off, leading to large-scale erosion (Addisu, 2011). According to
(Sutcliffe, 1993) concluded that physical soil-water conservation activities are justifiable in moisture
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 197
stressed areas of Ethiopian highlands, where moisture conservation plays an important role in increasing
yield. In parallel to this (Joyce, 1999) confirmed that the benefits of soil-water conservation in agriculture
is proven and they offer small holders the opportunity to increase their productivity, safe guard, their land
and reduce the risks of total crop failure in drought years.
2.3.1. Advantages of SWC in reducing soil loss and retaining moisture
The fundamental benefits of SWC structures are to significantly reduce soil loss and its
consequences. Practically, the loss that can be reduced by the structures is not only soil particles but also
essential plant nutrients and applied fertilizers (Kebede, 2014). The SWC measures are identified as the
first line of defense that mostly acts as barrier due to the creation of obstacles against surface runoff. The
major barriers are a channel/basin and embankment of structures. The reduction of slope length between
structures also reduces the volume of runoff and thereby reduces soil loss. Most structures gradually
develop to bench and decrease the slope gradient and velocity of runoff. Owing to these characteristics of
the structures, (Tenge et al. 2005) reported that grass strips, bench terraces and fanya juu reduced soil loss
by 40, 76 and 88%, respectively, compared to the land without those structures.
According to (Tesfaye, 2008) reported that annual soil loss from croplands with level soil bunds
reduced by 51% when compared to the control plot. In Debre Mewi, Ethiopia, stone bund and soil bund
reduced soil loss by 72.9 and 83.7%, respectively compared to non-treated land (Teshome et al., 2013). In
northern Ethiopia, especially in Tigray, stone bund effective in reducing soil loss by 68% particularly at its
early age. Its effectiveness decreases as the depression on the upslope side of the bunds accumulates
sediment and thus requires frequent maintenance to sustain the effectiveness (Gebrernichael et al., 2005).
Even though soil bunds reduced soil loss by 47% in experimental site established in the central highlands
of Ethiopia when compared to the non-terraced land, the absolute soil loss from the terraced site was still
high (24 ton ha-1
year-1
) (Adimassu et al., 2012) and required certain improvements/support measures to
reduce absolute soil loss to a recommended tolerable range (Young, 1997; Schwab et al., 2002).
The channel and embankment of the physical SWC structures impound excess water and enhance the
possibility of its infiltration which otherwise takes surface runoff. As a result of this role, soil moisture can
be improved which is determinant for cropping in medium and low rainfall areas. In Tanzania, the physical
SWC measures (bench terrace, fanya juu and grass strap) were effective in conserving moisture (26-36%)
compared to the land without those structures (Tenge et al., 2005). The second order stochastic dominance
analysis in the Hunde-Lafto area, in eastern Ethiopia, implied SWC mitigated the adverse effects of
moisture stress in crop production, especially in the case of unfavorable rainfall (Bekele, 2005).
2.3.2. Effect of SWC on improving crop yield
The soil system remains a major determinant of crop yields when compared with plant genetic
potential and weather because of the environment it provides for root growth (Olson et al., 1999). Thus,
increasing and sustaining agricultural production should aim not only at sustaining higher levels of useful
biological productivity but also at ensuring that the system is stable enough to maintain soil quality
(Kebede, 2014). Productivity and SWC objectives are highly complementary because conservation of soil,
water and natural vegetation leads to higher productivity of crops and livestock and thus the improvement
of livelihoods (Kerr, 2002).
Literatures of (Ellis-Jones and Tengberg, 2000) assumed that without any SWC, crop yields will
decline approximately by 1.5% year-1
, being equivalent to a 30% decline over 20 years. The SWC
structures not only act as a partial barrier to water-induced erosion but also form a total barrier to tillage
erosion (Gebrernichael et al., 2005). The study by (Bekele, 2005) in the Hunde-Lafto area in eastern
Ethiopia showed that SWC resulted in higher yields in unfavorable rainfall conditions.
Grass strips, bench terraces and fanya juu have increased maize yields by 29.6, 101.6 and 50.4% and
bean yields by 33.3, 40 and 86.7%, respectively when compared to land without those structures (Tenge et
al., 2005). The effect of SWC structures is observed after some years of the structure being built. In three
year old structures, (Teshome et al., 2013) observed 10 and 15% yield increments in Debre Mewi and
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 198
Anjeni (Ethiopia) watersheds, respectively, when compared to the yield before constructing those
structures (fanya juu, soil bund). In this study, yield declined in the first and second years. In line with this,
(Kebede et al., 2013) reported that 79.3% of the interviewed farmers perceived the increment of yield after
2 years of SWC structures (the soil bund and stone bund) were put in place. Also Herweg and Ludi (1999)
indicated a 4-50% decline in yield during the first 3-5 after the construction of SWC measures due to water
logging problems; this was followed by subsequent yield increases ranging from 4-15%.
Report of (Nyssen et al., 2007) show that after a few years of its construction, stone bunds increased
cereal and teff yields by 8 and 11%, respectively, even by considering the area lost due to the conservation
structures. Indigenous stone bunds (Kab) have increased sorghum yields by 56-75% compared to other
non-terraced land in north Shewa, Ethiopia (Alemayehu et al., 2006). Literature review of (Kato et al.,
2011) indicated that stone bunds, soil bunds and grass strips have a robust and positive output on crops in
the low rainfall areas of the Blue Nile basin in Ethiopia and high risk reducing effects in high rainfall
areas. This study indicated that grass strips have the highest production elasticity among SWC
technologies in this low rainfall area. In these areas soil bunds have risk reducing effects. The stone bunds
aged 3-21 years increased crop yield by 0.58-0.65 t ha-1
in Tigray, Ethiopia (Nyssen et al., 2007).
In the central Kenyan highlands 82% of farmers perceived that SWC structures increased crop yields
(Okoba and de Graaff, 2008). Yield across five different locations, Mesfin (2004) found that grain yields
of maize produced under influence of fanya juu (29.8 q/ha), level bund (28.2q/ha) and graded bund
(21.6q/ha) were higher by 9.2 q/ha (44.6%), 7.6 q/ha (36.4%) and 1.0 q/ha (5.1%) over the grain yield
(20.6 q/ha) produced under the control plot respectively.
2.3.3. Physico-chemical properties of soil as affected by conservation measures
The impacts of the physical soil and water conservation measures can be classified into short- and
long-term effects based on the time needed to become effective against soil erosion (Morgan, 1995).
Accordingly, the short-term effects of stone bunds are the reduction of slope length and the creation of
small retention basins for runoff and sediment. They therefore reduce the quantity and eroding capacity of
the overland flow. These effects appear immediately after the construction of the stone bunds and reduce
soil loss.
Evaluated the effects of structural land modifying measures on physical properties of soil and found
higher content of silt and clay in terraced soil, which indicates that it has been least affected by erosion
(Quraishi et al, 1977, 1980). Terraced lands have higher values of the total macro and micro water stable
aggregates as compared to the unprotected land. Conserved soils had higher SOC concentration and SOC
stock than soils without SWC. In general, SOC concentration increases with an increase in the application
of crop residues to the soil (Girmay et al., 2008) because most agricultural crop residues are 40–50% C
(Delgado et al., 2011). Zeleke et al. (2004) observed a 67% increase in SOC concentration in Andosols
following 3 years of incorporation of maize (Zea mays L.) residues. The finding of (Dendooven et al.,
2012) shows 1.5 times higher SOC concentration in the 0 to 20 cm layer of no tillage compared with
conventional tillage where crop residue was retained and Arends & Casth (1994) reported that manure
application in Hungary increased SOC concentration by 1.0–1.7%.
2.3.4. Effects of SWC measures on climate changes mitigation
Conservation agriculture as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO, 2009), provides alternatives that can address not only some of the challenges posed by erosion, but
also some of the challenges presented by climate change and requiring urgent action and different
approaches of integrated conservation practices in the drylands and highland areas (FAO, 2014).
The FAO principles of conservation agriculture, including minimal disturbance of soils while
providing continuous plant residue cover and using diverse rotations and/or cover crop systems, are also in
sync with management options that can be used to sequester C and to help mitigate and adapt to climate
change. Similar results was reported by (Silici, 2010) after working with small farmers from some region
in Ethiopia, where conservation agriculture contributed to lower erosion, enhanced soil fertility, and
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 199
increased agricultural productivity. These results show that even for small farming systems with low
inputs, conservation agriculture and management decisions that contribute to C sequestration, such as
minimum soil disturbance, crop residue management, and crop rotation management, will help small
farmers mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Soil management can be used to mitigate climate change because soils can sequester large quantities
of atmospheric C across world agro ecosystems (Lal et al., 2011). Additionally, C sequestration could be
an effective tool to help us adapt to climate change or extreme weather events. Sequestering C will
increase SOM and water holding capacity, which can increase the likelihood of the crops being able to
tolerate drier conditions, especially if drought-tolerant varieties are used, which could increase water
storage in a future of expected higher air temperatures and evapotranspiration.
Nitrogen management by permanent vegetation can also be a key component in the mitigation of
climate change because emissions of N2O from the agricultural sector are significant (Lal, 2011). There is
potential to use nitrification inhibitors, controlled-release fertilizers, and practices that help increase N use
efficiency and reduce N inputs and net emissions of N2O to mitigate climate change. Additionally,
sequestering N and C in SOM and increasing N cycling, along with implanting other conservation prac-
tices, such as using cover crops or including a leguminous crop in the rotation, increases the potential for
soils to cycle more N.
Conservation practices, the (Delgado et al., 2011) review of the literature shows that good policies
that promote the implementation of conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change will
contribute to future food security, while a lack of good policies and/or the implementation of bad policies
will not, and may even increase the negative impacts of climate change on limited soil and water resources.
World croplands can sequester 0.02–0.76 Mg C ha-1
y-1
by adopting recommended management practices
(Lal, 2001). Research by (Girmay et al., 2008) estimated the historical SOC sequestration potential of
croplands in Ethiopia through adapting soil restorative measures at 215–638 Tg C over a period of 50
years.
3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Land degradation and soil erosion are major threats to rural livelihoods in the highlands of Ethiopia,
where population density is high and the bulk of crop production occurs. Integrated SWC interventions are
required to systematically tackle these challenges. SWC delivers multiple social, economic, and ecological
benefits including adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Literature shows that causes of land
degradation were due to inappropriate land management, land scape, land use land cover and natural
disasters that have been exaggerated by increment of human and livestock population. Thus these were
results with soil and nutrient loss, climate change and brought food insecurity more than two to three times
in the country.
From the reviewed literatures the government of Ethiopia have been promoting SWC measures to
adopt for reducing soil erosion and land degradation after the 1975 famine in the country, but the system
was top down approach and the focus was given only for quantitative structural measures rather than
evaluating quality of the work by integral participatory approach. Most of the farmers‟ perception on the
presence and impacts of soil erosion and land degradation were no question, but the structures were not
adopted accordingly due to: institutional, physical, attitude and social-economic factors of the time.
The current SWC based watershed management activities which are carried out by various
approaches/organizations, including massive public campaign, NGOs, safety nets, etc., should intensively
work on awareness of the land users after so that the rate of adoption and its effects have been stated.
Many cases studies indicated that biological measures and soil fertility management could improve
effectiveness of the structure, soil fertility, and yield and biomass productivity (Zougmore et al., 2002;
Adimassu et al., 2012). The improvement of soil quality had improved the soil water holding and nutrient
retention capacity and crop and biomass productivity and significantly reduced runoff generation and soil
erosion. As well the improvement in SOC stock contributes to the offsetting of anthropogenic GHG
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 200
emissions and the mitigation of climate change, while contributing to climate change adaptation through C
sequestration and improved agronomic/biomass productivity.
Depending on the Reviewed of Literatures the Following Recommendations were stated:
a. Furthermore, since preventing soil erosion is safer and cheaper than controlling it, land use plans and
policies should be practiced primarily for careful management and utilization of fragile and marginal
areas.
b. The current motive and mobilization for SWC based participatory watershed management should be
sustained and the strategy should be strengthened by national policies.
c. For better change, SWC intervention should always follow watershed logic, commencing from uphill
and progressing down toward the watershed outlet, but they should not be implemented in fragmented
distributions.
d. For better dissemination and adoption of the measures awareness creation on the communities‟
behavioral change should be sustainable through all stakeholders.
4. REFERENCES Adimassu Z., Mekonnen K., Yirga C. and Kessler A. 2012. Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses and crop yield
in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degradation Dev. 10.1002/ldr.2182
Akalu T., Rolker D. and de Graaff J. 2013, 2016. Financial viability of soil and water conservation technologies in northwestern
Ethiopian highlands. Applied Geogr., 37: 139-149.
Aklilu A. and Alebachew A. 2009. Assessment of climate change-induced hazards, impacts and responses in the southern
lowlands of Ethiopia. Forum for Social Studies, A.A, Ethiopia.
Alemayehu M., Yohannes F.and Dubale P. 2006. Effect of indigenous stone bunding (kab) on crop yield at Mesobit-Gedeba,
North Shoa, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev., 17: 45-54.
Amsalu A, Stroosnijder L, Graaff J. 2007. Long-term dynamics in land resource use and the driving forces in the Beressa
watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Management, 83(4):448-459
Assen M. and Nigussie T. 2009. Land-use/cover changes between 1966 and 1996 in Chiro kella micro-watershed, southeastern
Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences, 3(1):1-8
Awulachew SB. 2010. Improved water and land management in the Ethiopian highlands and its impact on downstream
stakeholders dependent on the Blue Nile. CPWF Project 19 report (draft).
Awulachew S.B., Yilma A.D., Loulseged M., Loiskandl W., Ayana M. and Alamirew T. 2007. Water resource and irrigation
development in Ethiopia. International Water Management Institute, Working Paper No. 123, pp 4-9
Aynekulu E, Denich M. and Tsegaye D. 2009. Restoration response of Juniperus procera and Olea europaea, subsp cuspidate
to exclosure in a dry afromontane forest in north Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development, 29(2):143-152
Badege B. 2009. Deforestation and Land Degradation in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Strategy for Physical Recovery: Ethiopian
e-Journal for Research and Innovation Foresight,1:4 15.
Bationo A., Hartemink, A., Lungu, O., Naimi, M., Okoth, P., Smaling, E., and Thiombiano L. 2006. “African Soils: Their
Productivity and Profitability of Fertilizer Use”, Buckground Paper Prepared for the African Fertilizer Summit,Abuja,
Nigeria.
Bekele E. 2003. Causes and consequences of environmental degradation in Ethiopia. In: Gedion, A. (Ed.), Environment and
environmental change in Ethiopia. Consultation Papers on Environment No. 1. Forum for Social Studies, Addis Ababa,
pp. 24–31.
Bekele S. and Holdesn, S.T. 1998. Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian
Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa. Agricultural Economics 18: 233-247.
Bekele W. 2005. Stochastic dominance analysis of soil and water conservation in subsistence crop production in the Eastern
Ethiopian highlands: The case of the Hunde-Lafto area. Environ. Resour. Econ., 32: 533-550.
Belay KT., Van Rompaey A., Poesen J., Van Bruyssel S., Deckers J. and Amare K. 2014. Spatial analysis of land cover changes
in Eastern Tigray (Ethiopia) from 1965 to 2007: Land Degradation & Development (in press) DOI: 10.1002/ ldr.2275.
Bewket W. 2003. Towards integrated watershed management in highland Ethiopia: the Chemoga watershed case study.
Wageningen University, Wageningen: The Netherlands; ISBN 90-5808-870-7.
Cerdà A., Hooke J., Romero-Diaz A., Montanarella L. and Lavee H. 2010. Soil erosion on Mediterr-anean type-ecosystems.
Land Degradation & Dev‟t. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.968.
Ciampalini R., Billi P., Ferrari G. and Borselli L. 2008. Plough marks as a tool to assess soil erosion rates: A case study in
Axum (Ethiopia). Catena, 75(1):18-27
de Souza Braz AM., Fernandes A. and Alleoni LRF. 2013. Soil attributes after the conversion from forest to pasture in Amazon.
Land Degr. & Dev‟t 24: 33–38. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1100.
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 201
Delgado, J.A., Groffman P., Nearing M.A., Goddard T., Reicosky D., Lal R., Kitchen N., Rice C., Towery D. and Salon P.
2011. Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 66(4):118-
129.
Ellis-Jones, J. and Tengberg A. 2000. The impact of Indigenous soil and water conservation practices on soil productivity:
Examples from Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Land Degrad. Dev., 11: 19-36.
European Commission and Food and Agricultural Organization (EC-FAO) 1998. Data collection and analysis for sustainable
forest management in ACP countries linking national and international efforts. Proceeding of Sub-regional Workshop on
Forest Statistics, IGAD Region, Nukuru, Kenya.
FAO 2000. Land covers classification system (LCCS): Classification concepts and user manual.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x0596e/x0596e00.
FAO 2009. Conservation Agriculture. FAO Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department. http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/.
FAO. 2011, 2013 and 2014. Climate change, water and food security. FAO Water Reports 36. FAO Land and Water Division
FAO, Rome, Italy. Available from: http://www.-fao.org/docrep/014-/i2096e/i2096e.pdf [Accessed 18/11/13]
Feoli E., Vuerich LG. and Zerihum W. 2002. Evaluation of environmental degradation in northern Ethiopia using GIS to
integrate vegetation, geomorphological, erosion and socio-economic factors. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
91(1-3):313-325
[FDRE] Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 2011. Climate Resilient Green Economy: Mission Statement. FDRE, Addis
Ababa.
FRA 2005. Global forest resource assessment (FRA): 15 key findings. http://www.fao.org/-forestry/ foris/data
/fra2005/kf/common/GlobalForest A4. Cited 20 Mar 2010 FAO site
Gebrernichael D., Nyssen J., Poesen J., Deckers J., Mitiku H., Govers G. and Moeyersons J. 2005. Effectiveness of stone bunds
in controlling soil erosion on cropland in the Tigray Highlands, Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use Manage, 21: 287-297
Girmay G., Singh BR., Mitiku H., Borresen T. and Lal R. 2008, 2009. Carbon stocks in Ethiopian soils in relation to land use
and soil management. Land Degradation & Development 19: 351–367. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.844
Graaff, J. De, Amsalu, A., Bodnar, F., Kessler A., Posthumus, H., and Tenge, A. J. M. 2008. Factors influencing adoption and
continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries. Applied Geography, in
press.
GTZ/ IFSP 2002. Integrated watershed management approach in IFSP South Gonder, Debre-Tabor, Ethiopia.
Haile GW and Fetene M. 2012. Assessment of soil erosion hazard in Kilie catchment, East Shoa, Ethiopia. Land Degradation &
Development, 23:293–306. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1082.
Haregeweyn N., Poesen J., Verstraeten G., Govers G., de Vente J., Nyssen J., Deckers J. and Moeyersons J. 2013. Assessing the
performance of a spatially distributed soil erosion and sediment delivery model (WATEM/SEDEM) in Northern Ethiopia.
Land Degradation & Development 24: 188–204. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1121.
Herweg, K. and Ludi E. 1999. The performance of selected soil and water conservation measures-case studies from Ethiopia and
Eritrea. Catena, 36: 99-114.
Hurni H., Bantider A., Herweg K., Portner B. and Veit H. 2007. Landscape transformation and sustainable development in
Ethiopia. Background information for a study tour through Ethiopia, September 4–20, 2006, CDE (Center for
Development and Environment) University of Bern, Bern.
Hurni H. 1993. Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In World soil erosion & conservation,
Pimentel D.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge;27–62.
[IIRR] International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. 2007. Leaving Disasters Behind: A Guide to Disaster Risk Reduction in
Ethiopia. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Nairobi & Save the Children USA, Addis Ababa.
IJEMA (International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis) 2013. 1 (4):1-2.
Jansen LJM and Gregorio AD. 2003. Land-use data collection using the land cover classification system, results from a case
study in Kenya.Land Use Policy,20(2):131-148
Karltun E., Lemenih M.and Tolera M. 2013. Comparing farmers‟ perception of soil fertility change with soil properties and crop
performance in Beseku, Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development 24: 228–235. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1118.
Kassie M., Pender J., Yesuf M., Kohlin G., Bulffstone R. and Mulugeta E. 2008. Estimating returns to soil conservation
adoption in the northern Ethiopian highlands. Agricultural Economics 38: 213–232.
Kato, E., Ringler, C., Mahmud Y., and Bryan, E. 2009, 2011. Soil and Water Conservation Technologies: A Buffer against
Production Risk in the Face of Climate Change? Insights from the Nile Basin in Ethiopia, IFPRI Discussion Paper
00871
Kebede W. 2014. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures & Challenges for its Adoption: Ethiopia in Focus. Journal of
Environmental Science &Technolog;7:185-199.
Kebede W., Moges A. and Yimer F. 2013. Farmers' perception of the effects of soil and water conservation structures on crop
production: The case of Bokole watershed, Southern Ethiopia. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 7: 990-1000.
Lal R. 2003, 2011. Soil C sequestration to mitigate climate change.Geoderma 123:1–22.
Ludi, E. 2004. Economic analysis of soil conservation: Case studies from the highlands of Amhara region, Ethiopia.
Geographica Bernensia, African Studies Series A18, Institute of Geography, Bern, Switzerland.
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 202
Mazengia S. 2010. Conservation of Natural resources for sustainable development: in case of Degem district of north shewa
zone, Oromia regional state, thesis for MA, AAU, Ethiopia.
McSweeney C., New M. and Lizcano G. 2008. UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles Ethiopia. (Available at http://country-
profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk)
Mekonnen A. and Bluffstone R. 2008. Policies to increase forest cover in Ethiopia. In: Bane et al. (eds), Proceeding of a policy
workshop organized by EEPEF (Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia) and EDRI (Ethiopian
Development Research Institute), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp23-68
Mengistu D., Woldeamlak B. and Lal R. 2015. Conservation effects on soil quality and climate change Adaptability of
Ethiopian watersheds. Land Degrad. Develop. 27: 1603–1621 (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2376
Mesfin A. 2004. The Effect of different Soil Conservation Structures on some properties of Soil and Crop Yield in Dalocha
Woreda of SNNPR. School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
Merrey DJ, Gebreselassie T. 2011. Promoting improved rainwater and land management in the Blue Nile (Abay) basin of
Ethiopia. NBDC Technical Report 1. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI.
Mighall TM., Foster IDL, Rowntree KM. and Boardman J. 2012. Reconstructing recent land degradation in the semi-arid Karoo
of South Africa: Land Degradation & Development 23: 523–533. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2176.
Mitiku H., Herweg K. and Stillhardt B. 2006. Sustainable land management – a new approach to soil and water conservation in
Ethiopia. Mekelle, Ethiopia: Land Resources Management and Environmental Protection Department, Mekelle
University; Bern, Switzerland: Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, and Swiss
National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North- South. 269 pp.
Morgan, R.P.C. 1995. Soil erosion and conservation. 2nd(Ed). New York: Longman.198P.
National Review Report. 2002. Government of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[NMA] National Meteorological Agency. 2006 and 2007. National Adaptation Programme of Action of Ethiopia (NAPA).
National Meteorological Agency, Addis Ababa.
Nyssen, J., Poesen J., and Deckers J. 2009. Land degradation and soil and water conservation in tropical highlands. Soil and
Tillage Research, 103(2):197-202
Nyssen J., Poesen J., Gebremichael D., Vancampenhout K., D‟aes M., Yihdego G., Govers G., Leirs H., Moeyersons J., Naudts
J., Haregeweyn N., Haile M., Deckers J. 2007. Interdisciplinary on-site evaluation of stone bunds to control soil
erosion on cropland in northern Ethiopia. Soil & Tillage Research 94: 151–163.
Okoba, B.O. and Graaff J. de. 2005. Farmers' knowledge and perceptions of soil erosion and conservation measures in the
Central Highlands,Kenya.Land Degrad. Dev.,16: 475-487.
Oldeman LR, Hakkeling RTA and Sombroek WG. 1991. World map of the status of human-induced soil degradation: an
explanatory note. ISRIC: Wageningen.
Olson, K.R., Mokma D.L., Lal R., Schumacher T.E. and Lindstrom M.J. 1999. Erosion Impacts on Crop Yield for Selected
Soils of the North Central United States. In: Soil Quality and Soil Erosion, Lal, R. (Ed.). Chapter 15, Soil and Water
Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA., USA, ISBN-13: 9781574441000, pp: 259-284.
Oxfam International. 2010. The rain doesn‟t come on time anymore. Poverty, vulnerability and climate variability in Ethiopia.
Oxfam International.
Prasannakumar V., Vijith H., Abinod S. and Geetha N. 2012. Estimation of soil erosion risk within a small mountainous sub-
watershed in Kerala, India, using revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) and geo-information technology. Geo
science Frontiers, 3(2):209-215
Quraishi, S., Alam, S.M. and Sinha, A.K. 1977, 1980. Effect of Terracing on Soil Fertility and crop Yield in the Upland of
Chotanagpur, Proc.Bihar Acad.Agri. Sci. Vol.28 (122), pp. 57-60.
Riebsame WE, Meyer WB and Turner BL. 1994. Modeling land use and cover as part of global environmental change. Climate
Change, 28(1-2):45-64
Schneider, 2008: Global precipitation analysis products of the GPCC. Technical report, Global Precipitation Climatology Centre
(GPCC), Deutscher Wetterdienst.
Schwab, G.O., Fangmeier D.D., Elliot W.J. and Frevert R.K. 2002. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, USA.
Senbeta F. 2006. Problems of Environmental Degradation: Implications on Rural Development in Ethiopia. In: Berhanu K,
Fantaye D, eds. Ethiopia Rural Development Policies: Trends, Changes and Continuities. p. 255-269.
Senbeta F., Teketay D. and Naslund B. 2002. Native woody species regeneration in exotic tree plantations at Munessa-
Shashemene Forest, southern Ethiopia.New Forests 24:131-145.
Shiferaw B. and Holden ST. 1998, 1999. Soil erosion and smallholders‟ conservation decisions in the highlands of Ethiopia.
World Development, 27(4):739–752.
Silici L. 2010. Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Crop Intensification in Lesotho, 61. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Tefera B., Ayele G., Atnafe Y., Jabbar MA., Dubale P. 2002. Nature and causes of land degradati-on in the Oromiya Region: A
review. Socio-economic and policy research, Working Paper No. 36, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI),
Nairobi, Kenya, pp 18-35
International Journal of Agriculture & Agribusiness
ISSN: 2391-3991, Volume 1 Issue 1, page 189 - 204 Zambrut
Zambrut.com
Keta, A. J.. Effect of Soil and Water Conservation Measures on ............ 203
Tenge, A.J., graaff J. de and Hella J.P. 2005. Financial efficiency of major soil & water conser-vation measures in West
Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Applied Geogr., 25: 348-366.
TerrAfrica. 2009. The role of sustainable land management (SLM) for climate change adap-tation and mitigation in Sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA).
Tesfaye M. 2008. Soil conservation experiments on cultivated lands in the Maybar area, Wello region, Ethiopia. Research
Report Soil Conservation Research Project No. 16, University of Berne, Switzerland
Thornton PK., Jones PG., Owiyo T., Kruska RL., Herrero M., Kristjanson P., Notenbaert A., Bekele N., Omolo A. 2006.
Mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa. Research report, ILRI, Nairobi.
Tilahun A., Habtemariam K., Gete Z., Abebe S., Simon K., and Melese T. 2007. “Working with Communities and Building
Local Institutions for Sustainable Land Management in the Ethiopian Highlands”, Mountain Research and
Development Vol. 27 No 1.
USAID. 2000. Amhara National Regional State Food Security Research Assessment Report, USAID Collaborative Research
Support Program Team, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
UN-ISDR. 2010. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (Africa). Country information Ethiopia. (Available at
http://preventionweb.net/english/countries/africa/eth/)
Vancampenhout K., Nyssen J., Gebremichael D., Deckers J., Poesen J., Haile M., and Moeyersons J. 2006. Stone bunds for soil
conservation in the northern Ethiopian highlands: Impacts on soil fertility and crop yield. Soil&Tillage Research, 90(1-
2):1-15
Várallyay G. 2011. The impact of climate change on soils and on their water management Agronomy Research 8 (Special Issue
II), 385–396, 385
Wang T., Yan CZ, Song X. and Li S. 2013. Landsat images reveal trends in the aeolian desertification in a source area for sand
and dust storms in China‟s Alashan plateau (1975–2007). Land Degradation & Development, 24: 422–429. DOI:
10.1002/ldr.1138.
World Bank. 2006. Ethiopia: Managing water resources to maximize sustainable growth. Country water resources assistance
strategy. Washington, DC.
World Bank. 2009. Ethiopia: Climate risk factsheet (Draft summary report). Addis Ababa.
Yitbarek TW, Belliethathan S. and Stringer LC. 2010. The onsite cost of gully erosion and cost-benefit of gully rehabilitation: a
case study in Ethiopia. Land Degradation & Development, 23: 157–166. DOI: 10.1002/ ldr.1065.
Zougmore, R., A. Mando and L. Stroosnijder. 2004, 2009. Soil nutrient and sediment loss as affected by erosion barriers and
nutrient source in semi-arid Burkina Faso. Arid Land Res. Manag., 23: 85-101.
© Copyright 2018 International Journal of Zambrut | Scientific Researcher Group