ISBN978-4-86611-323-4

Evidence Based Guideline for Implementing Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Technologies and Approaches

9784866113234_________ _______ _______ ______ _______ _______ ______ _______ _______ ______ _______ _Evidence Based Guideline for
Implementing Sustainable Land
Management (SLM) Technologies
and Approaches

SATREPS-Ethiopia Project (2023)

SATREPS-Ethiopia Project (2023)_________ _______ _______ ______ _______ _______ ______ _______ _______ ______ _______ __Evidence Based Guideline for Implementing Sustainable
Land Management (SLM) Technologies and Approaches
A Tool for Supporting the Implementation of Best SLM
Practices Based on Research Results of the SATREPS(Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable
Development) – Ethiopia Project:“Development of a Next-generation Sustainable Land
Management (SLM) Framework to Combat Desertification in
Ethiopia”
Jointly funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)February 2023
Tottori, Japan

Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable
Development (SATREPS)–Ethiopia Project

Evidence Based Guideline for Implementing Sustainable Land
Management (SLM) Technologies and Approaches

Edited by

Atsushi Tsunekawa1, Kindiye Ebabu1,2, Nigussie Haregeweyn1, Mitsuru Tsubo1, Derege
Tsegaye Meshesha2

With contributions by (Alphabetical)

Asaminew Tassew2, Asres Elias1, Atsushi Tsunekawa1, Ayele Almaw Fenta1, Birhanu Kebede2,
Dagnenet Sultan2, Derege Tsegaye Meshesha2, Enyew Adgo2, Fekremariam Asargew
Mihretie3, Firew Tegegne2, Getu Abebe3, Kindiye Ebabu1,2, Menale Wondie3, Mesenbet
Yibeltal2, Misganaw Teshager Abeje2, Misganaw Walie3, Mitsuru Tsubo1, Mulatu Liyew
Berihun2, Muluken Bayable3, Nigussie Haregeweyn1, Nobuyuki Kobayashi1, Shigdaf
Mekuriaw3, Simeneh Demissie2, Takeshi Abe4, Takeshi Taniguchi1, Temesgen Mulualem5,
Tesdalu Jemberu3, Toshiya Okuro6, Toshiyoshi Ichinohe7, Tsugiyuki Masunaga7, Yeshambel
Mekuriaw2, Zemen Ayalew2, Zerihun Nigussie2

1

Tottori University, Japan
Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia
3
Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute, Ethiopia
4Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan
5
Amhara Bureau of Agriculture, Ethiopia
6
The University of Tokyo, Japan
7
Shimane University, Japan
2

Citation: Tsunekawa, A., Ebabu, K., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Meshesha D.T (eds)., 2023.
Evidence Based Guideline for Implementing Sustainable Land Management (SLM)
Technologies and Approaches. SATREPS–Ethiopia Project, Imai Print Co., Ltd., Tottori, Japan.
129 pp.

iii

Publisher
Imai Print Co., Ltd., 683-0103 Tottori, Yonago-shi, Fumasu-cho 8, Japan, www.imaibp.co.jp© 2023 The Contributors
This guidebook is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0
International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0). The
contributors encourage the use, reproduction, and distribution of the material in accordancewith the terms and conditions of the copyright license. Contents may be downloaded, copied,and printed only for non-commercial uses (e.g., private study, research and teaching) provided
that the original contributors and source are properly acknowledged and cited.

Cover photos
Left top: Soil bunds combined with grass strips substantially reduced both runoff and soil loss
from cropland in the lowland agroecological zone of the Abay basin of Ethiopia;
the trenches covered with plastic sheet were installed to monitor runoff and soil
loss (photo by Prof. Atsushi Tsunekawa).
Left bottom: Napier grass integrated with Desmodium improved backyard forage productionin the midland agroecological zone of the Abay basin of Ethiopia (photo by Dr.
Kindiye Ebabu).
Right: Degraded hillsides rehabilitated following the implementation of soil and water
conservation measures such as terracing and use of exclosures in the midland
agroecological zone of the Abay basin of Ethiopia (photo by Mr. Anteneh Wubet).

ISBN (print): 978-4-86611-323-4
ISBN(e-print):
https://www.alrc.tottori-u.ac.jp/slm/en/activity/slm_guideline_e.pdf
Printed in Japan by Imai Print Co., Ltd.
Tel: 0859-28-5551
Email: imaibp@imaibp.co.jp

ivSupporting Institutions
This guideline was produced with contributions and support from the following institutions inEthiopia and Japan:
Ethiopia

Japan

Bahir Dar University (BDU)

Tottori University (TU)

Amhara Region Agricultural ResearchInstitute (ARARI)

Japan International Cooperation Agency

Japan Science and Technology Agency

The University of Tokyo(BoA)

Shimane Universityv

Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................... xi
Preface ........................................................................................................................................... xv
Foreword ....................................................................................................................................... xvi
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ xvii
Abbreviations/acronyms ............................................................................................................. xviii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Overview .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Purpose of the guideline ........................................................................................... 2
1.3. Target users of the guideline..................................................................................... 2
1.4. Procedures followed to produce this guideline ........................................................ 2

2. Land-use-based description of selected SLM technologies ......................................................... 5

2.1. SLM technologies for cropland ................................................................................ 5
2.1.1. Soil bunds reinforced with forage grass or legumes.......................................... 5
2.1.2. Teff row sowing ................................................................................................11
2.1.3. Reduced tillage for teff .................................................................................... 16
2.1.4. Irrigation for teff production in the dry season ................................................ 20
2.1.5. Teff lodging control ......................................................................................... 24
2.1.6. Polyacrylamide combined with lime ............................................................... 29
2.1.7. Cover crops ...................................................................................................... 33
2.2. SLM technologies for grazing land/forage development ....................................... 37
2.2.1. Developing improved forage: the case of Napier grass Desmodium mixed
cultivation .................................................................................................................. 37
2.2.2. Stall-feeding with improved forage ................................................................. 43
2.2.3. Exclosure ......................................................................................................... 49
2.3. SLM technologies for degraded hillsides ............................................................... 54
2.3.1. Exclosure combined with trenches .................................................................. 54
2.3.2. Assisted vegetation establishment on degraded hillsides ................................ 59
2.4. SLM technology for all land-use types: Acacia decurrens plantations.................. 64

3. Approaches to watershed-level SLM practices .......................................................................... 71

3.1. Community-based participatory gully rehabilitation ............................................. 71
3.1.1. Description....................................................................................................... 71
3.1.2. Procedures/steps for implementation: the case of gullies on communal
grasslands................................................................................................................... 71
3.1.3. Showcase: Research evidence on the impact of participatory gully rehabilitationin the midland agroecological site (Aba Gerima) ...................................................... 73
3.2. Developing alternative land-use and management scenarios ................................. 74
3.2.1. Description ....................................................................................................... 74
3.2.2. Steps to develop and evaluate alternative land-use and management scenarios
75
3.2.3. Showcase: Research evidence on the impacts of alternative land-use andmanagement practices at the highland agroecological site (Guder) .......................... 78
3.3. Developing an approach to SLM-based livelihood improvement ......................... 79
3.3.1. Description....................................................................................................... 79
3.3.2. Phases/steps to developing an inclusive livelihood improvement system ...... 80
3.3.3. Showcase: Evidence of improvement in the livelihoods of targets engaged inincome-generating activities ...................................................................................... 84
3.4. Facilitating farmers’ voluntary adoption of SLM technologies ............................. 85vi

3.4.1. Description....................................................................................................... 85
3.4.2. Features of the tool (a guide to starting profitable and sustainable land
management by farmers) ........................................................................................... 87
3.4.3. Procedures/steps of exercises in the tool ......................................................... 88
4. Challenges and solutions in adopting SLM technologies and approaches ................... 90
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 93
Annexes............................................................................................................................. 99vii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of major river basins and different agroecological zones of Ethiopia; Figure
from Fenta et al. (2021b). Berha = warm, arid lowlands; Kolla = warm, semiarid lowlands,
Weyna Dega = cool, humid highlands; Dega = temperate cool sub-humid highlands; Wurch= cold highlands (Fenta et al., 2021b) ................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Overview of the procedures for developing the guideline: evaluation anddocumentation of selected SLM technologies and approaches with the involvement ofrelevant stakeholders at different stages (identification, testing, and documentation) ......... 4
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the layout of soil bunds before (left) and after (right)
being reinforced by grass or legumes ................................................................................... 6
Figure 4. Simplified illustration of teff row planting: spacing between rows and total widthcovered by a teff row seeder that can be pulled by one person. Diagram redrawn from Gizaw(2014) and Gonite and Reda (2018). Letters represent the different parts of the row seeder:
wheel (W), handle (H), and fertilizer (F) and teff (T) containers ....................................... 11
Figure 5. Difference in the performance of teff between row and broadcast sowing methods at
the germination (a) and maturity (b) stages; Figure from Mihretie et al. (2021a) .............. 12
Figure 6. Differences in weed population from teff plots with (a) three tillage operations andbroadcast sowing versus (b) with one tillage operation and row sowing ........................... 16
Figure 7. Performance of teff irrigation in northwestern Ethiopia: (a) partial view of teff standunder irrigation at the Dembia site, and variations in grain-yield performance as influencedby (b) seeding rate and (c) nitrogen (N) fertilization at the Koga site ................................ 21
Figure 8.Teff yield gaps due to differences in management practices. Farm yield: average yieldunder rainfed conditions and farmers’ conventional practices (CSA, 2019); AY-Rainfed:
attainable yield under rainfed conditions (lodging not controlled), average yield of six
improved varieties at two locations (at Adet and Bichena sites in northwestern Ethiopia)
over 2 years (Bayable et al., 2021); AY-Irrigated: attainable yield under irrigated conditions,maximum yield obtained at the highest water treatment (Yihun et al., 2013); Pw-yield:
water-limited potential yield under rainfed conditions with lodging controlled by providing
mechanical support (Teklu and Tefera, 2005); PY: potential yield obtained under fully
irrigated conditions, high fertilizer application, and lodging control in a pot experiment at
the Adet site (Bayable et al., 2021). .................................................................................... 25
Figure 9. Differences in physiological features between (a) lodging-susceptible and (b)lodging-resistant teff cultivars, and between stands (c) with and (d) without mechanicalsupport. (e) Variations in grain yield performance among nine teff varieties with and without
mechanical support under rainfed and field conditions. The top photos (a and b) are adaptedfrom Bayable et al. (2020) .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 10. Simplified diagram showing the layout for mechanical support to control lodging
in row-planted teff. The spacing between two strings along and across rows depends on theplant height and density ...................................................................................................... 27
Figure 11. Illustrations of PAM and its effect on soil properties and erosion control: (a) granular
PAM; (b) macroscopic view of soil aggregates without PAM; (c) macroscopic view of soil
aggregates with PAM; (d) partial view of teff plot treated with PAM + lime amendment; and(e) partial view of teff plot not treated with PAM + lime amendment ................................ 29
Figure 12. Partial view of cover crops at the stage suitable for incorporating them into the soil;
photos taken at the Guder experimental site in the Abay basin of Ethiopia ....................... 34
Figure 13. Photos showing three key activities to be performed for improved forage
development and feeding: forage cultivation, cut and carry, and stall-feeding. Forage
cultivation/production can be done under rainfed conditions or by using irrigation facilities
viii
viii

............................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 14. Partial view of stall-feeding with Napier grass and Brachiaria forage grass,developed by using improved agronomic practices (applying manure, weeding, and proper
spacing). The double green arrows indicate nutrient cycling (grass to manure and vice versa)............................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 15. Layout and dimensions of two-sided (left) and one-sided (right) feeding troughs.
Depending on the economic status of the farmers or cooperatives, the barn roof can be madefrom locally available materials such as grass mat or from manufactured plastic andcorrugated iron sheets. The length, width, and height are determined by considering the
average size of cattle of different breeds ............................................................................. 48
Figure 16. Noticeable improvement in vegetation cover and diversity observed shortly after an
exclosure was established by fencing around 0.05 ha of cropland (CL, top photos) andgrazing land (GL, bottom photos) at the midland agroecological site (Aba Gerima) in the
Abay basin of Ethiopia. The photos were taken 3 months (August 2015, left) and 15 months(August 2016, right) after fencing part of the cropland and grazing land that had been under
free/frequent and heavy grazing for several decades. Figure from Ebabu et al. (2019). C,
Control; SBG, soil bunds with grass; E, exclosure; T, Trenches ........................................ 50
Figure 17. Schematic diagram representing establishment of an exclosure integrated withtrenches (blue rectangles) on a hillside. Drawings on the deep green background represent
the hypothesized gradual development of vegetation communities (grasses/herbs, shrubs,
and trees) following exclosure and the construction of trenches (dimensions and spacings
shown); drawings on the light green background represent the fact that the use of an
exclosure may result in a displacement effect of overgrazing unless zero-grazing oralternative livestock management/feeding practices are adopted ....................................... 55
Figure 18. Partial view of Olea europaea seedlings assisted (left) and not assisted (right) bysoil microbes from a church forest. (a) and (b) Growth performance of seedlings undergreenhouse conditions (see Abebe et al., 2020b); (c) and (d) growth performance underdegraded field conditions at the Aba Gerima site ............................................................... 60
Figure 19. Google Earth images showing coverage of Acacia decurrens plantations (the change
in green cover between 2005 (lower image) and 2020 (upper image)) in the humid highland
agroecological zone (Guder) of the Abay basin. The increase in coverage was greater laterin the period (2014–2019; Danyo, 2014) as the result of rapid adoption of these plantations
as an agroforestry practice .................................................................................................. 65
Figure 20. The four key activities for an Acacia decurrens plantation that produces charcoal:seedling production, plantation, harvesting, and charcoaling. It is worth noting that food or
feed production is also possible during the early stages of the plantation .......................... 68
Figure 21. Changes in soil protective cover under an Acacia decurrens plantation: dense
canopy and understory vegetation cover at an early stage (left) that can provide forage
biomass and protection against soil erosion by rainfall or overland flow versus a bare andsealed ground surface at a later stage (right) of the plantation, which can result in high runoff
and related impacts downstream (Ebabu, 2016; Sultan et al., 2018b) ................................ 69
Figure 22. Schematic flowchart showing inputs and activities for a participatory gully
rehabilitation approach: involving key stakeholders (actors), resources (inputs) to beeffectively used, and ways (participation, collaboration, and sharing) to engage stakeholders
in four steps/activities (identification, planning, implementation, and evaluation) of thewhole process ...................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 23. Effects of community-based participatory gully rehabilitation. Improvements invegetation cover after fencing (exclosure) of 1 ha of grazing land affected by gully erosion,as well as the sediment-trap efficiency of stone and brushwood combined check dams, canixixbe seen in the “after” photo. A total of 24 farmers who were direct users of the grazing land
(6 ha) were engaged at different stages (planning, implementation, and evaluation) of therehabilitation experiment. Note: flow direction was to the north; information on the upper
contributing area and flow accumulation/potential gully were extracted from very highresolution (0.5-m) digital elevation model data .................................................................. 74
Figure 24. Methodological flowchart for land use-based evaluation and scaling out of bestwatershed management practices ........................................................................................ 75
Figure 25. Practical flowchart for developing an SLM-based livelihood improvement system............................................................................................................................................. 79
Figure 26. Key informant interviews (top photos) and stakeholder meetings (bottom photos)
to identify and engage appropriate targets (youth, women, and the landless) .................... 80
Figure 27. SLM-centered dairy farming developed by involving key components for incomegenerating (IG) activities..................................................................................................... 83
Figure 28. Bimonthly meetings among members to collect monthly savings and share lessons
and challenges ..................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 29. Changes in household income after implementing income-generating activities:
dairy farming at Aba Gerima (midland) and poultry farming at Guder (highland) (Nigussie,
2021c).................................................................................................................................. 85
Figure 30. Schematic showing how to implement the SLM exercise tool: cycle of activities
and required inputs (knowledge and tools) ......................................................................... 87
Figure 31. Upward and downward flows of information in the course of distributing the SLM
exercise tool (i.e., the flows of inputs and feedback from farmers to higher officials and viceversa) ................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 32. Three key activities involved in exercises in the SLM toolset: introduction of the
purpose, land mapping, and market survey for cost benefit analysis from farmers to higher
officials and vice versa) ...................................................................................................... 89xx

List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of soil bunds reinforced with grass or legumes as an SLM technology
for croplands..........................................................................................................................6
Table 2. Activities and their corresponding frequency and timing for establishing andmaintaining soil bunds reinforced with grass or legumes .....................................................7
Table 3. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities for soil bunds reinforced with grass .................................................7
Table 4. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing soil bunds
reinforced with grass or legumes ..........................................................................................8
Table 5. Impacts of implementing soil bunds reinforced with grass on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland) .............................................................................................................................10
Table 6. Drawbacks of implementing soil bunds with grass, and the corresponding
solutions .............................................................................................................................. 11
Table 7. Characteristics of teff row sowing as an SLM technology for croplands .................12
Table 8. Establishment and maintenance activities and their corresponding annual frequencies
and timing for implementing teff row sowing ....................................................................13
Table 9. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance (crop management) activities in implementing teff row sowing ...................13
Table 10. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing teff row sowing.............................................................................................................................................14
Table 11. Impacts of implementing teff row sowing on ecological and socioeconomic
indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)...15
Table 12. Drawbacks of implementing teff row sowing, and corresponding solutions ..........15
Table 13. Characteristics of reduced tillage for teff as an SLM technology for croplands .....16
Table 14. Establishment and maintenance activities and their corresponding frequencies andtimings for implementing reduced tillage for teff ...............................................................17
Table 15. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities in implementing reduced tillage for teff .........................................17
Table 16. Suitable ecological and socioeconomic conditions for implementing reduced tillage
for teff..................................................................................................................................18
Table 17. Impacts of implementing reduced tillage for teff on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland) .............................................................................................................................19
Table 18. Drawbacks of implementing reduced tillage for teff, and corresponding solutions 20
Table 19. Characteristics of teff irrigation as an SLM technology for croplands ...................20
Table 20. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining teff irrigation ...................................................................................................21
Table 21. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities for teff irrigation .............................................................................22
Table 22. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing teff
irrigation ..............................................................................................................................22
Table 23. Impacts of implementing teff irrigation on selected ecological and socioeconomic
indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)...23
Table 24. Drawbacks of implementing teff irrigation, and corresponding solutions ..............24
Table 25. Characteristics of teff lodging control as an SLM technology for croplands ..........26
Table 26. Impacts of implementing teff lodging control on selected ecological andxixisocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland) .............................................................................................................................28
Table 27. Drawbacks of implementing teff lodging control, and corresponding solutions ....28
Table 28. Characteristics of polyacrylamide combined with lime as an SLM technology forcroplands .............................................................................................................................30
Table 29. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for applying (establishingand maintaining) polyacrylamide combined with lime.......................................................30
Table 30. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities when applying polyacrylamide combined with lime......................30
Table 31. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for applying PAM combined withlime......................................................................................................................................31
Table 32. Impacts of applying polyacrylamide combined with lime on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland) .............................................................................................................................32
Table 33. Drawbacks of using polyacrylamide combined with lime, and corresponding
solutions ..............................................................................................................................33
Table 34. Characteristics of cover crops as an SLM technology for croplands ......................33
Table 35. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining cover crops ......................................................................................................34
Table 36. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities for cover crops ................................................................................35
Table 37. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for planting cover crops ..........35
Table 38. Impacts of using cover crops on selected ecological and socioeconomic indicators at
three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland) .......................36
Table 39. Drawbacks of implementing cover crops, and corresponding solutions .................37
Table 40. Characteristics of improved forage development as an SLM technology for grassland.............................................................................................................................................39
Table 41. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining improved forage production ............................................................................39
Table 42. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities for improved forage development ..................................................40
Table 43. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing improved
forage development (the case of Napier grass + Desmodium)............................................41
Table 44. Impacts of implementing improved forage development on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland) .............................................................................................................................42
Table 45. Drawbacks of implementing improved forage development, and corresponding
solutions ..............................................................................................................................43
Table 46. Characteristics of stall-feeding as an SLM technology for grazing land ................44
Table 47. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining stall-feeding.....................................................................................................44
Table 48. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price level) for establishment andmaintenance activities for stall-feeding ..............................................................................45
Table 49. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing stall-feeding46
Table 50. Impacts of implementing stall-feeding on selected ecological and socioeconomic
indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)...48
Table 51. Drawbacks of implementing stall-feeding, and corresponding solutions ...............49
Table 52. Characteristics of exclosure as an SLM for grazing lands ......................................51
Table 53. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andxii
xiimaintaining an exclosure.....................................................................................................51
Table 54. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance of exclosure ....................................................................................................51
Table 55. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing exclosure ....52
Table 56. Impacts of implementing exclosure on selected ecological and socioeconomic
indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)...53
Table 57. Drawbacks of implementing exclosures, and corresponding solutions...................54
Table 58. Characteristics of exclosures integrated with trenches as an SLM technology for
degraded hillsides ................................................................................................................55
Table 59. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining an exclosure integrated with trenches .............................................................56
Table 60. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities for exclosures integrated with trenches ..........................................56
Table 61. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing exclosures
integrated with trenches. .....................................................................................................57
Table 62. Impacts of implementing exclosures integrated with trenches on selected ecologicaland socioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; andHL, highland) ......................................................................................................................58
Table 63. Drawbacks of implementing exclosures integrated with trenches, and corresponding
solutions ..............................................................................................................................59
Table 64. Characteristics of assisted vegetation establishment as an SLM technology for
degraded hillsides ................................................................................................................60
Table 65. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining assisted vegetation development on degraded hillsides ..................................61
Table 66. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance activities for assisted vegetation establishment .............................................61
Table 67. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing assisted
vegetation establishment on degraded hillsides ..................................................................62
Table 68. Impacts of implementing assisted seedling development on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland) .............................................................................................................................63
Table 69. Drawbacks of implementing assisted vegetation establishment, and corresponding
solutions ..............................................................................................................................64
Table 70. Characteristics of Acacia decurrens plantations as an SLM technology for all landuse types ..............................................................................................................................65
Table 71. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining Acacia decurrens plantations ..........................................................................66
Table 72. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment andmaintenance of an Acacia decurrens plantation .................................................................66
Table 73. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing an Acacia
decurrens plantations ..........................................................................................................67
Table 74. Impacts of implementing an Acacia decurrens plantation on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland) .............................................................................................................................68
Table 75. Drawbacks of implementing an Acacia decurrens plantation, and corresponding
solutions ..............................................................................................................................70
Table 76. Baseline data to be collected about the main factors affecting gully formation andrehabilitation .......................................................................................................................73
Table 77. Estimates of changes in watershed-scale annual runoff, soil loss, and SOC stocks for
xiii
xiii

alternative land-use (LU) and management scenarios (SC-I to SC-V), based on the resultsof case studies for the Kasiry watershed in the highland agroecological zone of the Abaybasin ....................................................................................................................................78
Table 78. Cash flows and NPVs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for the proposed
alternative future land-use and management scenarios (r = 10%) for a 10-year investment
period for the Kasiry watershed ..........................................................................................79
Table 79. Existing challenges for adopting SLM practices, and proposed solutions ..............90

xiv
xiv

Preface
This guideline was produced by the SATREPS-Ethiopia Project, which was jointly funded by
the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Japan Science and Technology
Agency (JST). It has been the flagship project of Bahir Dar University and ARARI (the Amhara
Agricultural Research Institute) and has contributed greatly to capacity building, research, anddevelopment activities. The project identified a list of potential sustainable land management(SLM) technologies and evaluated their impact in reducing soil erosion and improving the
productivity of three target land-use types (cropland, grassland, and degraded hillside). In
addition to evaluations based on laboratory and plot experiments of specific SLM technologies,
four approaches were developed and evaluated to support the large-scale implementation ofbest SLM practices. Best SLM technologies and approaches were then proposed on the basisof a comprehensive evaluation matrix containing multi-decision support criteria, including
impacts on key ecological and socioeconomic indicators such as soil and water conservationand improvement of land productivity and livelihood.
Documenting proven best technologies and approaches should help to provide suitable
information for relevant stakeholders who are engaged in developing and disseminating SLM
practices. This guideline is therefore based on evidence produced through research and piloting
activities, targeting mainly district level experts and farmers as immediate users. The scope andcontents of the document have been evaluated through a series of consultative and stakeholder
meetings. The guideline will help users in the sustainable use and management of land andwater resources, while also improving the livelihoods of rural households in Ethiopia.

Atsushi Tsunekawa (Prof.)
Principal investigator of the SATREPS-Ethiopia Project
Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, Japan

xv
xv

Foreword
Land degradation caused by detrimental natural and human activities has been recognized as amajor cause of the loss of ecosystem services in landscapes worldwide. This is particularly
important in developing regions such as Ethiopia, where improper practices greatly threaten
land productivity and food security. Several initiatives and programs have attempted to promotesustainable land management (SLM) practices with the goal of improving land productivity
and achieving sustainable livelihoods. Nevertheless, little has been done to validate anddocument best practices and approaches through participatory and field-based research
activities; moreover, the main actors in land management, such as district-level experts andfarmers still lack appropriate information on environmentally sound, socially equitable, andeconomically viable SLM practices.
The aim of this guideline is therefore to provide a practical guide that can support andfacilitate the implementation of promising SLM practices in different environmental settingsof Ethiopia. The guideline provides procedures and illustrations for applying SLM technologies
and approaches that can best improve land productivity and ensure sustainable livelihoods. The
guideline was created for different SLM technologies, the effectiveness of which was evaluatedand verified through laboratory and field-plot experimentation in three contrasting
agroecological (highland, midland, and lowland) environments of the Abay basin of Ethiopia.
Many stakeholders have been involved at various stages (planning, monitoring, evaluation,and validation) of the creation of this guideline. Therefore, we strongly believe that the
information it contains will substantially support existing knowledge and efforts to implement
SLM at wider geographical scales.

Almaz Giziew (Dr.)
Deputy Bureau Head
Amhara Bureau of Agriculture, Ethiopia

xvi
xvi

Acknowledgments
This guideline was prepared with financial support from the Japan Science and Technology
Agency (JST) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). To provide a suitableknowledge tool for SLM, the guideline was developed through the proactive involvement of
stakeholders and researchers with different areas of expertise from different partner institutionsin Japan (Tottori University, The University of Tokyo, Shimane University) and Ethiopia (Bahir
Dar University and Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute).
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable inputs, support, and guidance received
from stakeholders in Ethiopia (Amhara Bureau of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture,
National Sustainable Land Management Programme, and Water and Land Resource Center of
Addis Ababa University).
The ALRC (Arid Land Research Center) of Tottori University provided a safe andproductive working environment for the researchers who contributed to this guideline, despite
the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors also express great appreciation
to the research assistants (Anteneh Wubet and Nigus Tadesse) of the SATREPS-Ethiopia
project for the facilitation of research works and review workshops, as well as to the community
members and target farmers of the three sites (Aba Gerima, Guder, and Dibatie) where research
activities were conducted to evaluate and validate the SLM technologies and approaches
included in this guideline.

xvii
xvii

Abbreviations/acronyms
ALRC
ARARI
CL
DA
DH
ETB
GL
HI
HL
JICA
JST
LL
ML
NPS
PAM
PD
SBA
SBG
SATREPS
SHEP
SLM
SLMP
SWAT
SWC
VI
WOCAT

Arid Land Research Center
Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute
CroplandDevelopmental agent
Degraded hillsides
Ethiopian Birr
Grassland
Horizontal interval
HighlandJapan International Cooperation Agency
Japan Science and Technology Agency
LowlandMidland
Nitrogen–phosphate–sulfur
Polyacrylamide
Person-day
Soil bunds alone
Soil bunds with grass
Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable
Development
Smallholder Horticulture Empowerment and Promotion
Sustainable land management
Sustainable Land Management Programme
Soil and water assessment tool
Soil and water conservation
Vertical intervalWorld Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies

xviii
xviii

1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
Land degradation due to soil erosion by water is recognized as a major environmental
problem in Ethiopia. Despite the implementation of different soil and water conservationinterventions over the last decades, preventing land degradation, restoring degraded lands,
and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems remain major challenges for land
managers, particularly in the highlands (Tadesse, 2001). The rapid depletion of ecosystemservices associated with the increase in population pressure requires suitablecountermeasures to protect, restore, and sustainably manage land and water resources.
Proper planning and implementation of effective land management practices andapproaches are essential to halt the detrimental effects of anthropogenic and natural factors
on the functioning of natural ecosystems. This is particularly important in the Abay basin,
where the livelihood of much of the population is essentially dependent on crop andlivestock production using traditional practices that can cause severe land degradation.
In Ethiopia, sustainable land management (SLM) programs have been undertaken withthe goal of reducing land degradation and improving land and livestock productivity andlivelihoods. A tremendous number of SLM technologies and approaches have been
introduced and implemented over the past several decades. Dissemination of theseapproaches for large-scale implementation, however, has mostly been done without welldefined guidelines, context-based practical details, and research-based evidence about thetechnologies and approaches. Furthermore, the adoption of some of the promisingtechnologies by the immediate land users (farmers) has been very limited, mainly becauseof a lack of proper demonstration and validation. A lack of approaches that could allow
the proactive involvement of relevant stakeholders and immediate actors in thedevelopment and dissemination of SLM technologies has also been recognized as abottleneck in the effective adoption of best-performing SLM practices.
In addition to lack of knowledge among land users, some of the existing SLM
guidelines and manuals for extension agents in Ethiopia have been adopted from abroad,and the approaches may not work well in the local contexts. A lack of research-based
evidence and low levels of participation of relevant stakeholders in the development of
SLM guidelines/manuals have also been reported as two important reasons for the failure
or unsatisfactory adoption rates of promising SLM practices (Adimassu et al., 2016;
Alemu et al., 2021).
This guideline, therefore, was developed by engaging relevant stakeholders at
different levels (farmers to policy makers) and researchers and experts from various
disciplines (e.g., crop production, livestock management, forestry/agroforestry, hydrology,
irrigation, socioeconomics, soil and water conservation, watershed management) toensure integrated and comprehensive evaluation and documentation of the best SLM
technologies and approaches. To support and improve the existing knowledge and efforts
towards achieving reduced land degradation, as well as improved land productivity andlivelihoods, the necessary details and scientific evidence are provided for 13 selected SLM
technologies. Evidence and remarks presented in this guideline are based on the results oflaboratory and field-plot experiments of the technologies on three major land-use types(seven technologies on croplands, three on grasslands, two on degraded hillsides, and one
for all three land-use types). This guideline also provides descriptions and evidence offour approaches developed to support the appropriate implementation of, and participationin, SLM at the watershed to larger spatial scales. The four approaches are (1) community11based participatory gully rehabilitation, (2) alternative future land-use and management
scenarios, (3) SLM-based livelihood improvement activities, and (4) facilitation of
farmers’ adoption of SLM practices (technologies and approaches).

1.2. Purpose of the guideline
This guideline is intended to support future endeavors to implement improved SLM
technologies and approaches in the Abay basin of the Amhara region, as well as in otherregions of Ethiopia with similar environmental and socioeconomic settings. The aims ofthe descriptions and illustrations provided here are to visualize proposed SLM
technologies and approaches and to demonstrate their impact in mitigating degradationand improving the productivity of three major land-use types (cropland, grassland, anddegraded hillside). Homestead-based income-generating activities (backyard forage
production and dairy/poultry farming) are also presented in relation to their contributions
to SLM. The guideline particularly provides land-use-specific descriptions of SLM
technologies and approaches that have been verified by multidisciplinary research
performed in three different agroecological zones (lowland, midland, and highland) of the
Abay basin of Ethiopia (Figure 1).
Overall, the information contained here is meant to support the appropriate
implementation of SLM technologies and approaches that can help sustainable use andmanagement of land and water resources and improve the incomes of rural households.
The guideline also provides users with information about the ecological andsocioeconomic impacts of proposed SLM technologies based on the results of case studies
at three sites (Aba Gerima, Guder, and Dibatie; see Figure 1) representing threeagroecological zones of Ethiopia (Hurni et al., 2016; Fenta et al., 2021b). The threeagroecological zones are as follows: (1) lowland (Kolla) areas characterized by anelevation range of 500–1500 m above sea level (a.s.l.) and mean annual precipitation of <900 mm; (2) midland (Weyna Dega) areas with an elevation of 1500–2300 m a.s.l. andmean annual precipitation of 900–1400 mm; and (3) highland (Dega) areas with anelevation of 2300–3200 m a.s.l. and mean annual precipitation of ≥1400 mm (Figure 1).

1.3. Target users of the guideline
The guideline was produced to target district- to kebele (small administrative unit) level
experts and farmers, who are the immediate actors in the implementation of SLM
technologies and approaches. The research-based evidence presented for selected
technologies and approaches can also support higher level experts and policy- or decisionmakers who are engaged in planning and scaling up of SLM practices. In general, thisguideline will serve as a useful tool for agroecosystem-based implementation of SLM
practices in the Abay basin of the Amhara region and beyond. The guideline is being
presented in two languages (English and Amharic) to support its wider dissemination andeasier applicability by experts and other stakeholders from different backgrounds.

1.4. Procedures followed to produce this guideline
The guideline was prepared by involving different stakeholders, researchers, and experts
from various disciplines. The technical inputs and evidence used to develop the guideline
were based on research activities supported by the SATREPS-Ethiopia Project (2017–2022). A total of 43 technologies and four approaches were investigated for their impacts
on ecological and socioeconomic indicators; 13 technologies and all four approaches were22

selected and demonstrated with the involvement of relevant researchers and stakeholders.
By using the WOCAT approach (https://explorer.wocat.net), a comprehensive evaluation
matrix (Annex 6) was developed to document the necessary data obtained by laboratory
or field-plot experiments and household surveys for the selected SLM technologies andapproaches. The data from the matrix were then compiled and presented for use here as
scientific evidence. The draft versions of the guideline were reviewed in a series of
stakeholder meetings and editorial workshops and revised by a prominent expert (Lakew
Desta) in SLM guideline development in Ethiopia. The final version was then edited in
English, translated to Amharic (the local language), and endorsed by the relevant
authorities for publication. Figure 2 presents the steps involved in the development of theguideline: (1) planning and identification, (2) testing and verification by research, and (3)development of guidelines for the selected technologies or approaches, targeting suitableusers.

Figure 1. Map of major river basins and different agroecological zones of Ethiopia; Figure from
Fenta et al. (2021b). Berha = warm, arid lowlands; Kolla = warm, semiarid lowlands, Weyna Dega
= cool, humid highlands; Dega = temperate cool sub-humid highlands; Wurch = cold highlands(Fenta et al., 2021b)

3
3

4

Figure 2. Overview of the procedures for developing the guideline: evaluation and documentation of selected SLM technologies and approacheswith the involvement of relevant stakeholders at different stages (identification, testing, and documentation)
42. Land-use-based description of selected SLM technologies
2.1. SLM technologies for cropland2.1.1. Soil bunds reinforced with forage grass or legumes
Description
A soil bund is an embankment of soil built along the land contour to control soil erosion
by reducing the slope length and velocity of overland flow (Dehn, 1995). It is one of themost widely implemented physical soil and water conservation (SWC) measures forcroplands in Ethiopia up to a slope steepness of 50% (Hurni et al., 2016). Reinforcing soilbunds with forage grass or legumes can substantially improve the efficiency of controlling
runoff and soil loss as the grass or legume stabilizes the bunds and provides protection
against raindrop impact (Herweg and Lud,1999; Amare et al., 2014; Ebabu et al., 2019).
In addition, it offers other benefits, such as reduction of maintenance costs, provision ofanimal forage, and compensation for land loss by the bund structures. Different forage
grass or /legume species, including Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum), elephantgrass (Pennisetum purpureum), vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides), tree lucerne(Cytisus proliferus), and sesban (Sesbania sesban), can be used to stabilize soil bunds,
depending on the biophysical conditions of the target areas.
The layout and spacing of soil bunds can depend on several factors, including the
purpose, slope, soil type, and rainfall. Bunds can be level for moisture stressed areas andgraded (1% gradient) in high rainfall areas. As a rule of thumb, the vertical interval
between two bunds is 1 m for slopes less than 15%, but it can be 2.5 times the soil depth
for steeper slopes (Hurni et al., 2016). A case study in the midland agroecological zone
(Demissie et al., 2022a) found that 12.7 m can be taken as an optimal spacing (horizontal
interval) between two consecutive bunds on cropland with a 9% slope gradient. For
general planning and allocation of resources on the basis of slope and rainfall regimes,
however, the vertical interval (the difference in elevation) and horizontal interval (thehorizontal distance) between two consecutive soil bunds can be computed by using thefollowing formulas (Tripathi and Singh, 2008, refer to Annex 2 for more details):
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 0.3 �𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏,(1)

where VI is vertical interval (m), S is land slope (%), and a and b are constants; a is 2 forlow rainfall areas and 4 for high rainfall areas, whereas b is 1 for high rainfall areas and 3
for low rainfall areas.
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 100,(2)where HI is horizontal interval (m), VI is vertical interval (m), and S is land slope (%).
Depending on the soil stability, bunds can be 1–1.5 m wide at the base and 0.3–0.5 m
at the top, and 0.5–0.75 m high. Ties (usually 0.2–0.3-m-wide structures that can be placed
about every 10 m along the ditch) are required for level bunds. Because the excavatedmaterial of the embankment may fall back into the ditch, a berm (0.15–0.20 cm wide) is
required at the lower edge of the ditch (Figure 3). A typical ditch could be excavated toabout 1 m wide and 0.5 m deep and have a sediment storage capacity lifespan of about 5
to 10 years. However, backfill through sedimentation over time reduces the storage
capacity, so regular repair is important for sustainable functioning (Taye et al., 2015).
55

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the layout of soil bunds before (left) and after (right) being
reinforced by grass or legumes

Classification and characteristics
According to the WOCAT standard, soil bunds reinforced with grass or legumes iscategorized under cross-slope SWC measures (Table 1). The combination of bunds andgrass can enhance the efficiency of mitigation and prevention of soil erosion by water.
Table 1. Characteristics of soil bunds reinforced with grass or legumes as an SLM technology forcroplands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type of degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Cross-slope measures
Combined (structural and vegetative) measures
Soil erosion by water
Mitigation and prevention

Practical specifications: activities, inputs, and suitable conditions
Establishment of a soil bund reinforced with grass or legumes requires rigorous routine
activities and a wide range of inputs (Tables 2 and 3). In addition, it requires the careful
identification of suitable agroecological and socioeconomic conditions before
implementation (Table 4).

66

Table 2. Activities and their corresponding frequency and timing for establishing and maintaining
soil bunds reinforced with grass or legumes

Activity
Establishment• Planning• Laying out• Bund establishment• Planting grass/legume
Maintenance• Bund maintenance• Enrichment planting• Maintain zero-grazing

Annual frequency

Appropriate timing

Once
Once
Once
Once

Dry season
Dry season
Dry season
Wet season

Depending on damages
Once–

As needed throughout the year
At the start of the rainy season
Throughout the year

Table 3. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities for soil bunds reinforced with grass

Input

Units

Establishment (construction of bunds)• LaborPDsa• 10% for hand tools and surveying
Establishment (reinforcing with forage grass)• Grass purchase (20/bunch)
Bunch• Labor for transportation
PDsb• Labor for planting
PDs
Subtotal
Maintenance for bunds• Labor for maintaining bunds
PDs
Grass management• Grass purchase (20/bunch)
Bunch• Labor for planting grasses
PDs
Subtotal
Total

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

116

105

12,180
1280

75
2
10

105
105
105

7875
210
1050
22,533

6

105

630

1.5
6

105
105

157.5
630
1418
23,951

Remarks (in Table 3): Material costs are based on an average of prices for items ofdifferent types. Total length of bunds is 0.77 km ha–1, calculated on the basis of theaverage of bund densities for different slope and rainfall conditions, as presented in
Annex 2. PDs: person-days. aLabor for bund construction is based on the work norm
documented by Desta et al. (2005) (i.e., 150 PD km–1 of bunds). bTransportation cost
was estimated by assuming a 2-km distance from home. 1 ETB (Ethiopian Birr) =0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020 (considered as the average exchange rate of the year).

7
7

Table 4. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing soil bunds reinforced
with grass or legumes

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Landform• Average annual rainfall• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size
• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land user
• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Class or typeSemi-arid to humid
Mainly plains
750–2000 mm
Mostly gentle (3%–8%) to steep (15%–50%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Very low (1%–2%) to medium (2.1%–4.2%)
500–3000 m a.s.l.
Smallholder
More sustainable for relatively larger landholding size
Manual work and animal traction
Not affected by wealth class
Mostly private
Mostly individual

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1. Identify the biophysical features of the target area (see Annexes 2 and 7 forexamples) Identify agroecological zone and rainfall properties.
 Identify farming system (major crops, livestock grazing pressure/stocking rate, andagricultural practices).
 Identify the soil type and its susceptibility to erosion by water.
 Identify topographic characteristics, such as landform and slope, that determine bundparameters (gradient, spacing, and dimensions).
Step 2. Preparation and scheduling activities
 Identify areas that are suitable for implementing soil bunds reinforced with grass orlegumes.
 Consider the catchment characteristics such as waterways, cut-off drains, and gullies
that affect the layout of bunds.
 Decide on the bund layout, taking soil drainage properties into consideration. Bunds
must be level if the soil has good infiltration capacity, whereas graded bunds areappropriate if the soil has poor infiltration capacity (e.g., clay soil). A gradient of
0.5%–1% can be provided for channels of graded bunds.
 Prepare the necessary materials (clinometer, tape measure, mattock, shovel, poles,
rope, water level or A-frame, pegs, and manuals).
 Calculate the bund spacing and required amount of labor on a per-hectare basis.
 Select the appropriate season and prepare a suitable schedule of activities; the dry
season (January to March) is most suitable for soil bund construction, whereas
summer (late June to August) is most appropriate for planting grass or legumes onbunds.
 Provide practical training for experts, field assistants, and land users (farmers).
 Prepare a detailed activity plan and schedule.
88

Step 3. Layout and bund construction
 Determine the spacing between two bunds on the basis of the slope and rainfall (seeAnnex 2) and then mark lines of bund construction along contours; for example, 12.7
m is recommended as the optimal spacing between two consecutive soil bunds on
croplands with a 9% slope gradient in the midland agroecological zone (Demissie etal., 2022a).
 Decide where to start the work (usually upslope of the target area).
 Make lines for the positions of the ditch, berm, and embankment of each bund(Figure 3).
 Dig and throw the excavated soil downhill to create an embankment 0.5–0.7 m highand 1.0–1.5 m wide at the bottom and 0.3–0.5 m wide at the top (Figure 3).
 Compact the soil embankment to avoid soil movement.
Step 4. Reinforcing bunds with grass or legumes
 At the start of the rainy season, sow or plant suitable and multipurpose grass orlegume species on bunds at a proper spacing to strengthen the embankment andimprove efficiency and sustainability, provided that free grazing is restricted.
 Provide orientation to farmers about the need to do regular monitoring andmaintenance of bunds to repair any damage caused by farming activities and heavy
rainfall and runoff events.
 If feasible, irrigate the grass or legume planting during periods of moisture stress (i.e.,the dry season).
 Once the grass or legume is well established and ready for harvesting, it can beutilized through a cut-and-carry system for different purposes, such as for livestock
feed.
Step 5. Maintaining and upgrading bunds
 Keep maintaining bunds when damage occurs.
 Annual maintenance is needed before the rainy season begins.
 Sediment deposited in the ditch can be used to maintain or raise the bund.
Impacts on key indicators
The efficiency of soil bunds reinforced with grass or legumes can be determined bydifferent indicators, which can include ecological, economic, and sociocultural aspects(Table 5). For example, from an ecological viewpoint, soil bunds reinforced with grass
reduce runoff by 28%–49% and soil loss by 66%–87%, and they improve soil fertility by
50%–220%.

99

Table 5. Impacts of implementing soil bunds reinforced with grass on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland)Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Increase in soil organic matter• Soil fertility improvement a• Flooding control• Siltation reduction• Increase in soil infiltration/recharge
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase• Increase in livestock productivity
Sociocultural benefits• Improve knowledge of SLM• Help strengthen community
institutions• Advance indigenous knowledge of
farmers• Enhance community integration,communication, and collective
work
Benefit-cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+++

++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
+++

++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
+++

++
++
++
++

++
++
++
++

++
++
++
++

+
+

+
+

+
+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+
++
+++
+++

+
++
+++
+++

+
++
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL ML HL
49
87

28
66

31
79

121

220

50

Remarks (in Table 5): Impact scale was based on expert judgement, and impact level
was based on measurements made in three agroecological (lowland, midland, andhighland) sites (Ebabu et al., 2019; 2020). Number of plus signs indicates extent of
positive impacts: +, slightly positive; ++, positive; +++ very positive. aBased on the
average of changes in total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium 3
years after establishment of soil bunds reinforced with grass (Ebabu et al., 2020).
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Although the use of soil bunds reinforced with grass or legumes is a vital SLM practicewith multifaceted advantages, bunds have drawbacks that a practitioner should be wellaware of (Table 6). Of these, loss of productive land and the high cost of construction
are prominent.

10
10Table 6. Drawbacks of implementing soil bunds with grass, and the corresponding solutions

Drawback• High cost of labor forestablishment and maintenance• Loss of cropland owing toconstruction of bunds••

Hinders farming operations
Prone to damage by free grazing

SolutionsImprove culture of collective working

Apply optimum bund spacing, and plant
multipurpose grass/legume and shrub species tocompensate for the loss
Use suitable design and farm tools
Restrict free grazing, use stall-feeding

2.1.2. Teff row sowing
Description

F
T

H

F
T

Width for teff row seederT

60–70 cmW

25 cm

Spacing between rows

Teff (Eragrostis tef) is one of the major staple food cereal crops in the Ethiopian highlands,
where it is utilized in the forms of injera (a pancake-like bread), porridge, soup, andalcoholic beverages. Traditionally, teff is sown by broadcasting seeds following
compaction by using animal and human labor. Row sowing is a newly recognizedtechnique that has been used for many reasons, such as to reduce the rate of seed-use from
25 kg ha–1 to 10–15 kg ha–1, facilitate farm activities (fertilizer and herbicide applications,and weeding), and reduce lodging and associated yield loss. It can be practiced in all teffgrowing areas except on heavy clay soils or Vertisols, where it is difficult to prepare welldefined rows under saturated moisture conditions. Also, the technique may not work wellon stony fields. Seed application is possible by using locally available plastic bottles witha standard or otherwise suitable hole size to drop seeds, or by using a manufactured seeddrill (a teff row seeder), which is easily pulled by one person (Figure 4). In addition to
the benefits mentioned above, row planting has several advantages over broadcasting,including enhancing light interception, increasing the photosynthetic rate and tillering
capacity, reducing lodging, reducing the seed-use rate, conserving soil moisture, andimproving yield performance (Figure 5) (Mihretie et al., 2021a).

W

Figure 4. Simplified illustration of teff row planting: spacing between rows and total widthcovered by a teff row seeder that can be pulled by one person. Diagram redrawn from Gizaw(2014) and Gonite and Reda (2018). Letters represent the different parts of the row seeder: wheel(W), handle (H), and fertilizer (F) and teff (T) containers

1111Figure 5. Difference in the performance of teff between row and broadcast sowing methods at
the germination (a) and maturity (b) stages; Figure from Mihretie et al. (2021a)

Classification and characteristics
According to the WOCAT standard, teff row sowing is categorized under the crop
management SLM group (Table 7). It is one of the agronomic measures implemented to
improve land productivity and reduce runoff, soil erosion, and soil nutrient depletion.
Table 7. Characteristics of teff row sowing as an SLM technology for croplands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type of degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Crop management
Agronomic
Soil chemical degradation (nutrient depletion)
Prevention/mitigation

Practical specifications: activities, inputs, and suitable conditions
Teff row sowing requires various routine activities and inputs (Tables 8 and 9) and carefulassessment of ecological and socioeconomic conditions (Table 10). An understanding of
the soil properties is very important for its suitability and effectiveness.

1212

Table 8. Establishment and maintenance activities and their corresponding annual frequencies andtiming for implementing teff row sowing

Activity
Establishment• Land preparation(plowing/tillage)•

Row seeder

Frequency

Appropriate timing

4 times

1st immediately after harvesting and 2nd fourweeks after the 1st plowing; 3rd and 4th after
onset of rain
During planting (at sufficient soil moisture
content)
During planting (at sufficient soil moisture
content)
At planting, as per recommendationOnce

Row-making andsowing• Apply NPS fertilizer
Maintenance• Weeding

Once

Urea topdressing

Twice

Disease and pest
management• Harvesting• Drying• ThreshingWhenrequired
Once
once
Once

Transporting

Once

•

•

•

•

Once

1st at 15–18 days after planting, 2nd at 35–40
days after sowing, and 3rd as required
1st half topdressing at 15–18 days after
planting and the 2nd at 35–40 days aftersowing, as per recommendation of Bureau of
agriculture (see Annex 7 for example)
At the time of disease and pest occurrences

3 times

At physiological maturity stage
Immediately after harvest
After proper drying in a well-cleaned yard or
by using threshing machines
Immediately after threshing

Table 9. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenance(crop management) activities in implementing teff row sowing

Input

Crop establishment• Labor for plowing/tillage• Improved teff seed
• Labor for planting• NPS fertilizer
Subtotal
Crop management after sowing• Labor for 3 weedings• Urea fertilizer• Labor for harvesting• Laborfor
fertilizer
application• Labor for harvesting• Labor for threshing
Subtotal
Total

Units

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

PDsa
kg
PDsb
kg

68
10
9
80

105
44
105
12

7140
440
945
960
9485

No.
kg
PDs
PDs

33
46
12
1

105
43
105
105

3465
1978
1260
105

PDs

10

105

1050
7858
17,343

Remarks (in Table 9): Only crop-management-related costs are considered. aPDs,
person-days. Total cost is for tilling 4 times; btotal sowing (planting) cost could be 2485
ETB if row seeder machine is used (Gizaw, 2014). 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 03 July
2020 (considered as the average exchange rate of the year).
13
13

Table 10. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing teff row sowing

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size per household• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land user
• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Class/type

Sub-humid to humid
1000–2500 mm
Suitable for teff cultivation (mainly plains)
Mostly gentle (2%–8%) to moderate (8%–15%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Low (1%–2%) to medium (2.1%–4.2%)
500–2000 m a.s.l.
Smallholder
Small (0.5 ha) to large (>2 ha)
Manual work and animal traction
Not affected by wealth class
Mostly private
Mostly individual or private

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1. Land preparation
 Prepare the cropland by using appropriate implements and number of tillage
operations (up to four times, depending on the previous crop and soil conditions).
 During or after the last tillage, apply NPS fertilizer as per the site- or soil-specificrecommendations (see Annex 7 for example).
Step 2. Sowing
 Make rows at a spacing of 20–25 cm along contour lines and sow teff seeds at a rateof 10–15 kg ha–1.
Step 3: Crop management (weeding, fertilizer application, disease and pest
management, and harvest)
 Weed at appropriate frequency and timing.
 At 15–18 days after planting, apply half of the urea fertilizer, depending on the sitespecific recommendation and soil fertility status.
 Apply the second half of the urea fertilizer 35–40 days after sowing.
 Protect from damage by diseases, pests, rodents, and lodging.
 After physiological maturity/ripening, cut the stand, dry properly, and make piles ofappropriate size for threshing.
Impacts on key indicators
The impacts of teff row sowing on ecological, economic, and sociocultural indicators are
summarized in Table 11. For example, it reduces soil loss by 19% and improves crop yieldby 10%–20%, in addition to reducing the seed-use rate by 40% (Mihretie et al., 2022).

14
14

Table 11. Impacts of implementing teff row sowing on ecological and socioeconomic indicators
at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)

Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthening of community
institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenanceImpact scale
ML
HL

LL
+
+
++
+
++
–/+
+

+
+
++
+
++
–/+
+

+
+
++
+
++
–/+
+

++
–/+
++

++
–/+
++

++
–/+
++

+
+

+
+

+
+

++
+
+++
++

++
+
+++
++

++
+
+++
++

Impact level (%)
LL ML HL
19

10

20

Remarks (in Table 11): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made in the three agroecological (lowland,
midland, and highland) sites (Mihretie et al., 2021; 2022). Minus/plus signs indicate
extent of negative/positive impacts: –, slightly negative; –/+, neutral; +, slightly
positive; ++, positive; +++, very positive; na, not applicable. The slightly positive
impact on the cost–benefit ratio for maintenance is due to the high cost of weeding
and related activities.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Table 12 presents drawbacks of teff row sowing from the context of smallholder farmers.
Small seed size, the need for a large amount labor for row making, and high weed
infestation between rows are among the most important drawbacks.
Table 12. Drawbacks of implementing teff row sowing, and corresponding solutions

Drawback• Requires large amount of human labor for

manual planting methods• Improved seeder not available• Difficult to make straight rows and apply

seed uniformly• High level of weed infestation between

rows• Vigorous stalk growth, resulting in poor-

quality straw for livestock feed

Solutions
Develop improved seeder and seeding
techniques
Manual seeding
Skill development through training anddemonstration
Use appropriate weed control methods
Use substitute feed or alternative
feeding mechanisms
15

15

2.1.3. Reduced tillage for teff
Description
Reduced tillage in a teff cultivation system is a form of conservation agriculture applied
to minimize the cost of labor and soil disturbance by reducing the frequency and intensityof tillage operations without compromising yield. Land preparation can be done only
once—before or during planting/sowing—by using oxen-driven power. Reduced tillage
has several advantages over intensive and continuous tillage systems: it improves soil
structure, infiltration rate, and organic matter content, and it reduces soil and nutrient
losses (Ebabu, et al., 2020; Mihretie et al., 2022). It is worth noting, however, that the useof appropriate weed-control strategies is essential to counter the disadvantage of reduced
tillage and row sowing in promoting weed infestation (Figure 6b).

Figure 6. Differences in weed population from teff plots with (a) three tillage operations andbroadcast sowing versus (b) with one tillage operation and row sowing

Classification and characteristics
Reduced tillage is one of the agronomic measures intended to reduce soil disturbance andenhance organic matter content. According to the WOCAT standard, this technology is
categorized under the conservation agriculture SLM group (Table 13).
Table 13. Characteristics of reduced tillage for teff as an SLM technology for croplands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type of degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Conservation agriculture
Agronomic
Physical soil degradation and soil erosion by water
Mitigation, prevention, restoration

Practical specifications: activities, inputs, and suitable conditions
Implementation of reduced tillage involves various routine activities and inputs (Tables
14 and 15) and careful identification of agroecological and socioeconomic conditions(Table 16). Understanding the timing of key activities is very important for its
effectiveness.
16
16

Table 14. Establishment and maintenance activities and their corresponding frequencies andtimings for implementing reduced tillage for teff

Activity
Crop establishment• Protect from interventionof grazing animals• Apply covercrops/residue mulch• Apply herbicides (e.g.,
glyphosate)• Tillage• Seeding (row)• Apply NPS fertilizer
Crop management• Weeding•

Urea topdressing• Disease and pest

management• Harvesting• Drying• Threshing• Transporting• Protect from interventionof grazing animals

Frequency

Appropriate timing

AlwaysDuring the off-crop season

AlwaysDuring the off-crop season

Once

At about 10 days before planting

Once
Once
Once

At the time of sowing
During the rainy season
At sowing

1st at 15–18 days after planting, 2nd at
35–40 days after sowing, and 3rd as
requiredTwice
1st half top-dressing at 15–18 days after
planting; the 2nd at 35–40 days aftersowing, as per the recommendation of
Bureau of agriculture (see Annex 7 forexample)When required At the time of disease and pest
occurrences
Once
At physiological maturity stage
Once
Immediately after harvest
Once
After proper drying in a well-cleaned
yard, or by using threshing machines
Once
Immediately after threshing
AlwaysDuring the off-crop season
3 times

Remark (in table 14): Once the technology is adopted by land users, most of theagronomic activities can be done as maintenance activities, as they are repeated year
after year.
Table 15. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities in implementing reduced tillage for teff

Input

Crop establishment• Herbicide (e.g., glyphosate)• Labor for tillage• Improved teff seed
• Labor for sowing• NPS fertilizer

Subtotal
Crop management• Labor for 3 weedings• Urea fertilizer• Labor for 2 weedings• Labor for harvesting
Subtotal
Total

Units

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB

Total cost
(ETB)

Liters
PDs
kg
PDsa
kg

2
17
10
9
80

280
105
28
105
12

560
1785
280
945
960
4530

PDs
kg
PDs
PDs

33
46
33
12

105
43
105
105

3465
1978
3465
1260
10,168
14,69817

17

Remarks (in Table 15): Only crop-management-related costs are considered.
aSowing cost is for manual row sowing; it otherwise could be only 105 ETB if
broadcast sowing is used or 2485 ETB if a row seeder machine is used (Gizaw, 2014).
1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020 (considered as the average exchange rate of theyear). PDs, person-days.
Table 16. Suitable ecological and socioeconomic conditions for implementing reduced tillage forteff

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Landform• Average annual rainfall• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size
• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land user
• Land ownership• Land-use rightClass/type

Sub-humid to humid
Suitable for teff cultivation (mainly plains)
1000–2500 mm
Mostly gentle (3%–8%) to moderate (8%–15%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Low (1%–2%) to medium (2.1%–4.2%)
1500 – 2000 m a.s.l.
Smallholder
Not affected by landholding size
Manual work, animal traction, and farm tools
Not affected by wealth class
Mostly private
Mostly individual

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Land preparation and sowing Prepare suitable cropland by tilling once at sowing (under the rainfed production
system, teff is usually sown from late July to the first week of August in most partsof Ethiopia).
 Before the rainy season, tillage might be necessary to incorporate crop residues andimprove the addition of soil nutrients from organic matter decomposition andmineralization.
 Immediately after the tillage at sowing, apply NPS fertilizer as per site-specificrecommendations (see Annex 7 for example).
 Space rows at 20–25 cm and sow teff seeds at a rate of 10–15 kg ha–1.
Step 2: Crop management (weeding, disease and pest management, and harvesting) Weed as per recommendation (proper frequency and timing); application ofherbicides might be necessary when weed infestation is expected to be high.
 At 15–18 days after planting, apply half of the urea fertilizer depending on the areaspecific recommendation and soil fertility status. Add the second half at 35–40 days
after sowing as per recommendation.
 Protect from damage by diseases, pests, rodents, and lodging.

18
18

Impacts on key indicators
The impacts of reduced tillage on ecological, economic, and sociocultural indicators are
summarized in Table 17. For example, it reduces runoff by 19%–68% and soil loss by
86%–94%, and it improves soil fertility by 21%–202% (Ebabu et al., 2020).
Table 17. Impacts of implementing reduced tillage for teff on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland)Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Soil fertility improvementa• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthened
community
institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

+++
+++
++
++
+++
++
++

+++
+++
++
++
+
++
++

+++
+++
++
++
+++
++
++

+
+
+++

+
+
+++

+
+
+++

+
+

+
+

+
+

++
++
++
+++

++
++
++
+++

++
++
++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL
67
94

48
87

87

202 21

27

19
86

2

Remarks (in Table 17): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made at three agroecological (lowland,
midland, and highland) sites (Ebabu et al., 2019; 2020; Mihretie et al., 2021a, b, 2022).
The number of plus signs indicates the scale of positive impact: +, slightly positive;++, positive; +++, very positive. aBased on average of changes in total nitrogen,available phosphorus, and available potassium 3 years after the implementation of
reduced tillage (Ebabu et al., 2020).
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Although implementation of reduced tillage for teff substantially reduces runoff and soil
loss and improves soil fertility (Table 17), there are some drawbacks in terms ofwaterlogging and weeding (Table 18). High-level weed infestation is the most important
drawback.

19
19

Table 18. Drawbacks of implementing reduced tillage for teff, and corresponding solutions

Drawback• Land is prone to high-level weed
infestation• Waterlogging may happen on poorly
drained soils• Less incorporation of crop residue
into the soil

Solutions
Apply herbicides before and after sowing or
use other integrated weed-control methods
Apply proper drainage mechanisms
Apply proper residue-incorporation
management practices (e.g., hand
pulverization)

2.1.4. Irrigation for teff production in the dry season
Description
In Ethiopia, teff has been traditionally grown under a rainfed system during the long rainyseason (meher), but the calendar and activities vary by location. For instance, sowing starts
from mid-July and extends to early August, depending on the location, length of thegrowing period for the teff variety, soil type, and timing of onset of the rainy season. Teff
cultivation under rainfed conditions requires several tillage operations, soil compaction,and sowing at saturated or high soil moisture conditions to control weed infestations andfor good establishment. The grain yield of teff under rainfed conditions and traditional
cultivation systems has been reported to be up to 1.8 t ha–1 year–1 (CSA, 2019), whereas agrain yield of up to 2.6 t ha–1 can be obtained under irrigation when the crop is not subject
to any nutrient and water stress (Figure 7).
Teff production under irrigation in the dry season can be practiced by applying an
optimum amount of water and fertilizer for the crop, thus increasing crop productivity andfarmers’ incomes. The most appropriate sowing time for irrigated teff production innorthwestern Ethiopia is from mid-December to mid-January. Irrigation amount andfrequency should be based on the crop evapotranspiration for the entire growing period(299–342 mm) and taking into account the average total seasonal water requirement (319mm) recommended by Hilemicael and Alamirew (2017). The teff cultivar to be selected
for irrigation may vary depending on the soil type and climatic variables across locations.
Classification and characteristics
Teff cultivation under irrigation is an agronomic practice requiring soil and water
management measures to improve land productivity. According to the WOCAT standard,
this technology is categorized under irrigation management and economic efficiency(Table 19).
Table 19. Characteristics of teff irrigation as an SLM technology for croplands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure/s• Type of degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Irrigation management and economic efficiency
Agronomic and management
Soil erosion by water and wind
Mitigation and prevention

20
20

Figure 7. Performance of teff irrigation in northwestern Ethiopia: (a) partial view of teff standunder irrigation at the Dembia site, and variations in grain-yield performance as influenced by(b) seeding rate and (c) nitrogen (N) fertilization rate at the Koga site

Practical specifications: activities, inputs, and suitable conditions
Implementation of irrigation for teff production involves various routine activities andinputs (Tables 20 and 21) and careful analysis of agroecological and socioeconomic
conditions (Table 22). Identifying the best timing for sowing and application of water andfertilizers is very important.
Table 20. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining teff irrigation

Activity
Establishment• Land preparation(tillage)

Annual frequency

Appropriate timing

4 times• Prepare seed andOnce

Starting immediately after
harvesting the rainfed crop (mehercrop); the 4th tillage is done at thetime of sowing
During land preparation

Once
Once

Mid-December to mid-January
At sowing
From sowing to maturity• WeedingOnce a week for 4
monthsTwice• Urea topdressing afterTwicefertilizers• Sowing• Apply NPS fertilizer
Crop management• Irrigating the crop

weeding

1st weeding at 15–18 days after
planting; 2nd at 35–40 days aftersowing
1st half topdressing at 15–18 days
after planting; the 2nd at 35–40 days
after sowing as per recommendationof Bureau of agriculture (see Annex
7 for example)
21

21

Table 20 (continued): crop management
Activity
Annual frequency• Disease and pest
When required
management• HarvestingOnce• Drying• Threshing

Once
Once

Appropriate timing
At the times of disease and pest
occurrences
At physiological maturity stage (inApril)
Immediately after harvest
After proper drying in a wellcleaned yard or using threshingmachines (from April to May)

Table 21. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities for teff irrigation

Input

Crop establishment• Labor for tillage• Improved teff seed
• Labor for sowing• Apply NPS fertilizer
Subtotal
Crop management• Labor for weeding twice• Urea fertilizer• Labor for irrigating• Labor for harvesting• Labor for threshing
Subtotal
Total

Units

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

PDsa
kg
PDsb
kg

68
10
9
100

105
44
105
12

7140
440
945
1200
9725

PDs
kg
PDs
PDs
PDs

33
50
20
12
10

105
43
105
105
105

3465
2150
2100
1260
1050
10,025
19,580Remarks (in Table 21): Only crop-management-related costs are considered. aPDs,
person-days. Total cost is for tilling 4 times; btotal sowing (planting) cost could be2485 ETB if a row seeder machine is used (Gizaw, 2014). 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3
July 2020 (considered as the average exchange rate of the year).
Table 22. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing teff irrigation

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall:• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size per household• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Land ownership• Land-use rights

Class/typeSemi-arid to sub-humid
500–1500 mm
Mainly plains
Mostly flat (0%–3%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Low (1%–2%) to medium (2.1%– 4.2%)
1500–2500 m a.s.l.
Smallholder
Small (0.5 ha) to large (>2 ha)
Manual work, animal traction and farm machineryNot affected by wealth class
Mostly private
Mostly individual2222Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Land preparation
 Prepare land by using appropriate methods and frequency of tillage operations; land
may be tilled up to four times, depending on the soil characteristics.
 Immediately after the last tillage, apply irrigation water up to field capacity (theamount of water held in the soil after drainage of the water contained in
the macropores by gravity action, while the smaller pores are still full of water).
 Apply NPS and urea fertilizers as per site-specific recommendations (see Annex 7 forexample).
Step 2: Sowing
 Sow teff seeds in rows at a spacing of 20–25 cm and at a seeding rate of 10–15 kg ha–
1; 15 kg ha–1 has been shown to be an optimum seeding rate for teff cultivation underirrigation and with suitable rates of N fertilizers (see Figure 7).
Step 3: Crop management (irrigation, weeding, fertilizer application, disease andinsect pest management, and harvesting) Apply irrigation water at 4-day intervals until 20 days after sowing and at 6-day
intervals after 20 days; irrigation might not be needed when unexpected rain eventsoccur.
 Carry out weeding as per appropriate frequency and timing.
 At 15–18 days after planting, apply half of urea fertilizer depending on the areaspecific recommendation and the soil fertility status. The second half should beapplied 35–40 days after sowing as per recommendation.
 Protect from any damage and associated yield loss related to lodging, rodents, andpests.
 Prepare a proper schedule and methods of harvesting and threshing, accounting forconditions (e.g., time of maturity and occurrence of unforeseen rain events). Afterphysiological maturity/ripening, cut the stand and dry properly; make piles ofappropriate size for threshing.
Impacts on key indicators
Teff production under irrigation provides several benefits (Table 23). For instance, it
increases crop yield by 56%–150% compared with rainfed teff cultivation. It also provides
soil cover during the dry period and increases livestock feed.
Table 23. Impacts of implementing teff irrigation on selected ecological and socioeconomic
indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)

Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction

LL
++
++
++
+++
–/+
na
na

Impact scale
ML HL
++
++
++
+++
–/+
na
na

Impact level (%)
LL
ML
HL

++
++
++
+++
–/+
na
na
23

23

Table 21 (continued)
Key indicator
Economic benefits• Crop yield increasea• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthened community institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenanceImpact scale
LL
ML

HL

+++
+++
+++

+++
+++
+++

+++
+++
+++

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+
++
++

+
+
++
++

+
+
++
++

Impact level (%)
LL ML
HL
56–150Remark (in Table 23): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made in the midland agroecological setting(Koga and Dembia sites). The impacts on the benefit–cost ratio are based on costs forestablishment and maintenance and returns from teff straw and grain yields. Minus/plus
signs indicate scale of negative/positive impacts: – slightly negative; –/+ neutral; +slightly positive; ++ positive; +++ very positive; na, not applicable. aCalculation assumes
two teff crops in a year (rainfed + irrigation) and a grain yield of 1.8 t/ha (farmers’ yield)
as a reference/baseline (CSA, 2009).
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Table 24 presents the drawbacks of irrigation for teff from the viewpoint of smallholder
farmers. Lack of access to irrigation facilities is the most important drawback, particularly
in areas where irrigation water sources are limited, and topography is undulating.
Table 24. Drawbacks of implementing teff irrigation, and corresponding solutions

Drawback• High cost of inputs (labor andfertilizers)• Requires high level ofknowledge/skills• Shortage of access to irrigation waterand facilities• May create conflict among farmers• Crop sensitive to damage by

unexpected rain events at maturity• Soil salinity problem may occur

Solutions
Use of improved and cheaper technologies,
such as improved cultivars and appropriate
agronomic practices, can compensate forhigh costs by improving productivity
Train/educate experts and farmers
Develop reliable sources of water andirrigation facilities
Develop bylaws for sharing irrigation
facilities
Establish suitable climate prediction
facilities and early-warning systems
Apply salinity management methods

2.1.5. Teff lodging control
Description
Lodging is defined as the permanent displacement of crop plants from their verticalappearance because of weak stalk and root conditions; it is a major yield constraint of
cereal crops—particularly the gluten-free and panicle-bearing teff (Van Delden, et al.,24
24

2010). Therefore, controlling lodging by increasing the stem strength of cereal crops orusing other mechanisms is crucial to increasing grain yield (Bayable et al., 2021). Usinga semi-dwarf variety is one of the techniques widely used to control or reduce lodging in
teff, although the desired impact to date has been minimal. A case study by Bayable et al.
(2020), however, demonstrated that there is some potential in the use of lodging-resistantteff germplasm collections, which can be exploited under improved management practices(Figure 8).
Mechanical support can also be used as an alternative mechanism for teff lodging
control under appropriate and feasible conditions. Results of rainfed- and field-based
experiments have revealed that the use of mechanical support can increase grain yield ofteff by 6%–36%, depending on the cultivar (Figure 9e). It was also confirmed that grain
yield of teff can be increased by more than double if lodging is controlled and intensive
management practices are applied (Figure 8). The mean grain yield under such intensive
management was estimated at 4.6 t ha–1, which is high as compared with 1.8 t ha–1 underconventional practices, indicating a potential yield gap of 156% (Bayable et al., 2020).

Figure 8.Teff yield gaps due to differences in management practices. Farm yield: average yieldunder rainfed conditions and farmers’ conventional practices (CSA, 2019); AY-Rainfed:
attainable yield under rainfed conditions (lodging not controlled), average yield of six improved
varieties at two locations (at Adet and Bichena sites in northwestern Ethiopia) over 2 years(Bayable et al., 2021); AY-Irrigated: attainable yield under irrigated conditions, maximum yieldobtained at the highest water treatment (Yihun et al., 2013); Pw-yield: water-limited potential
yield under rainfed conditions with lodging controlled by providing mechanical support (Teklu
and Tefera, 2005); PY: potential yield obtained under fully irrigated conditions, high fertilizer
application, and lodging control in a pot experiment at the Adet site (Bayable et al., 2021).

25
25

Figure 9. Differences in physiological features between (a) lodging-susceptible and (b) lodgingresistant teff cultivars, and between stands (c) with and (d) without mechanical support. (e)Variations in grain yield performance among nine teff varieties with and without mechanicalsupport under rainfed and field conditions. The top photos (a and b) are adapted from Bayable
et al. (2020)

Classification and characteristics
Teff lodging control is different from other SLM technologies: it is not directly related to
managing the land, but it is all about managing the crop to reduce yield loss. According
to the WOCAT standard, this technology is categorized under the economic efficiency
SLM group (Table 25).
Table 25. Characteristics of teff lodging control as an SLM technology for croplands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type of degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Improved plant variety and economic efficiency
Agronomic and management
Not applicable
Prevention and mitigation
26
26

Practical specifications
Establishment and maintenance activities and costs, and ecological and socioeconomic
conditions suitable for this technology, are as the same as for row sowing (section 2.1.2),
except for the additional costs of pegs, rope/string, and labor in the case of mechanicalsupport (total cost is about 2800 ETB ha–1 year–1, based on 2020 price levels). Activities
and procedures for implementing lodging control by using a lodging-resistant variety ormechanical support, or both, are described below.
Procedures/steps for implementation
 Identify a lodging-resistant teff variety suitable for the target area and soil condition.
 Apply row sowing (section 2.1.2), because mechanical support will likely be
implemented.
 Monitor the growth performance and check whether or not lodging is expected tooccur.
 If lodging is likely to occur, prepare materials such as thin string or wire (~30,000 m
ha–1) and pegs (~400 ha–1), each about 150 cm long.
 Put the pegs at 5–10-m intervals both along and across rows (Figure 10), by insertingthem 30 cm deep into the ground.
 Stretch out the strings across and along the rows at two heights, considering the larger
and average height classes of the teff plants (Figure 9c).
 At harvesting, remove the strings carefully to avoid shattering and related yield loss;
pegs and strings can be used for the same purpose in the next growing season.

Figure 10. Simplified diagram showing the layout for mechanical support to control lodging in
row-planted teff. The spacing between two strings along and across rows depends on the plantheight and density

Impacts on key indicators
The impacts of teff lodging control on ecological, economic, and sociocultural indicators
are summarized in Table 26. For example, mechanical support increases crop yield by
3%–29% compared with conventional practice [without control measures (Figure 9e)].

27
27

Table 26. Impacts of implementing teff lodging control on selected ecological and socioeconomic
indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)

Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge on SLM• Strengthened community
institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenanceImpact scale
LL
ML

HL

na
na
na
na
na
na
na

na
na
na
na
na
na
na

na
na
na
na
na
na
na

+++
–/+
+++

+++
–/+
+++

+++
–/+
+++

na
na

na
na

na
na

++
+++
+++
+++

++
+++
+++
+++

++
+++
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

78

Remarks (in Table 26): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made for 2 years at the highland
agroecological sites (Adet and Bichena sites). The impacts on short- and long-term
benefit–cost ratios are based on the input costs and yield when using a lodging-resistantteff variety under improved agronomic practices. The minus and plus signs indicate thetype and scale of impacts: –/+ neutral; ++ positive; +++ very positive; na, notapplicable.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Despite the substantial improvement of crop yield through the use of improved cultivars
or mechanical support, there are some drawbacks in the context of smallholder farmers(Table 27). The high cost of inputs and obstruction of movement during harvest are
particularly important drawbacks of lodging control by mechanical support.
Table 27. Drawbacks of implementing teff lodging control, and corresponding solutions
Drawback
Solutions• Lack of knowledge among farmers
to identify suitable variety• Lack of access to improved teff seed
• Poor quality of fodder because ofstrong stem developed to resist
lodging• Labor and cost intensive to establish
mechanical support• Difficult to harvest when many
strings used for mechanical support
are networked

Create awareness by demonstration

Develop methods of accessing improved seed
Use alternative feed source or use in mixture
with other forages
Work as a group work and use cheap materials
such as wooden pegs and fiber ropes
Carefully remove strings immediately before
harvest28
28

2.1.6. Polyacrylamide combined with lime
Description
Polyacrylamide (PAM, Figure 11) is a water-soluble anionic polymer [(CH2=CHCONH2)n]. It has a long molecule of identical atom chains held together by covalentbonds that can bridge soil particles through cations in a soil solution (Seybold, 1994).
PAM is applied to enhance soil aggregate stability and resistance to detachment by rainfall
and surface runoff. Lime (CaCO3) is an ionic soil amendment applied mainly to alter soil
acidity and improve the availability of essential plant nutrients. The combined applicationof PAM and lime has been shown to effectively control soil erosion and improve theproductivity of teff cropland by enhancing soil physical and chemical properties (Kebede
et al., 2020; Mulualem et al., 2021a).
A case study under field conditions (Kebede et al., 2022) demonstrated that applying
PAM alone at 40 kg ha–1 or integrated with other soil amendments reduced the seasonalsoil loss by 13%–53%, with the highest reduction observed with PAM + lime followed by
PAM alone. This implies that integrating PAM with lime can be used as an effective
method to control soil erosion by water, as well as to improve soil fertility.

Figure 11. Illustrations of PAM and its effect on soil properties and erosion control: (a) granular
PAM; (b) microscopic view of soil aggregates without PAM; (c) microscopic view of soil
aggregates with PAM; (d) partial view of teff plot treated with PAM + lime amendment; and (e)partial view of teff plot not treated with PAM + lime amendment

Classification and characteristics
According to the WOCAT standard, combined application of PAM + lime belongs to theintegrated soil fertility management SLM group (Table 28) and is regarded as a soil
amendment measure to control soil erosion by water and improve soil properties.

29
29

Table 28. Characteristics of polyacrylamide combined with lime as an SLM technology forcroplands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type of degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Integrated soil fertility management
Soil management/amendment
Soil erosion by water and soil acidification
Mitigation and prevention

Practical specifications, taking teff as a target crop
Application of PAM + lime requires different activities that need to be accomplishedduring the establishment and maintenance phases (Table 29). These activities are
conducted at specific times during the year and demand different inputs and costs (Table
30). The timing of activities may vary depending on the ecological and socioeconomic
conditions (Table 31).
Table 29. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for applying (establishingand maintaining) polyacrylamide combined with lime

Activity

AnnualAppropriate timing
frequency

Establishment• Land preparation
4 times(tillage)• Lime and PAM purchase Once
• Apply lime
Once
• Apply PAM
Once• Apply NPS fertilizer
Once• Teff row sowing
Once
Maintenance (crop management)• Apply PAM
Once• Urea topdressing
twice

Before and at sowing
Before sowing
At about 30 days before sowing
At about 30 days before sowing
At time of sowing
Mid-July to early August
At time of sowing
1st half topdressing at 15–18 days after
planting; the 2nd at 35–40 days after sowing
as per recommendation (e.g., see Annex 7)

Table 30. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities when applying polyacrylamide combined with lime

Input

Units

Establishment• Labor for land preparation
PDs• Limekg• PAM
kg• Labor for PAM + lime applicationPDs• NPS fertilizerkg• Teff seedkg
• Labor for sowing and NPS
PDs
application
Subtotal
Maintenance (soil and crop management)• Labor
PDs
• PAM
kg
• Urea fertilizer
kg
Subtotal
Total
30

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

24
4000
20
24
80
15
3

105
2
70
105
12
46
105

2520
8000
1400
2520
980
690
315
16,405

106
20
46

105
70
43

11,1301400
1978
14,50830,91330

Remarks (in Table 30): Labor cost is only for the human labor required for land
preparation (tillage) and incorporating PAM + lime at establishment, as well as for teff
cultivation and associated practices (application of PAM and fertilizers, row planting,
and weeding) during maintenance (i.e., the costs for equipment are not included). 1
ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020 (considered as the average exchange rate of theyear). PDs, person-days.
Table 31. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for applying PAM combined withlime

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size per household• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Class/type

Sub-humid to humid
1000 to 2500 mm
Mainly plains
Mostly gentle (2%–8%) to moderate (8%–15%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Low (1%–2%) to medium (2.1%–4.2%)
1500–3000 m a.s.l.
Smallholder
Small (0.5 ha) to large (>2 ha)
Manual work and animal traction
Not applicable
Mostly private
Mostly individual

Procedures/steps for implementation, taking teff as target crop
Step 1: Land preparation and application of PAM and lime Test the pH of the soil to make sure it is suitable for applying lime.
 Prepare PAM and lime during the first tillage/plowing.
 After the second tillage in April to May, apply lime at 4000 kg ha–1 and PAM at 20 kg
ha–1 over the ploughed surface and incorporate them into the soil by hoeing.
Step 2: Application of fertilizer and PAM at sowing During the last tillage, apply 20 kg ha–1 PAM, if necessary, in combination with acompound (NPS) fertilizer as per site-specific recommendation (e.g., see Annex 7).
 After applying PAM and fertilizers, make rows at a 20–25-cm spacing and sow teff
seeds at a rate of 10–15 kg ha–1.
 At 15–18 days after sowing, apply the first half of the urea fertilizer, depending on thearea-specific recommendation and soil fertility status; apply the second half 35–40
days after sowing.
Step 3: Crop management (Weeding, disease and insect pest management, andharvesting) Weed as per the requirement and at appropriate timing.
 Protect the teff crop from damage by diseases, pests, rodents, and lodging.
 After physiological maturity/ripening, cut the stand, dry properly, and then make pilesof appropriate size for threshing.
3131

Impacts on key indicators
The efficiency of PAM combined with lime is determined by changes in different
indicators, which can include ecological, economic, and sociocultural aspects (Table 32).
For example, the use of PAM combined with lime reduces runoff by 26% and soil loss by
49%, and it improves crop yield by 10%–37% depending on the agroecologicalcharacteristics (Kebede et al., 2022; Mulualem et al., 2021a).
Table 32. Impacts of applying polyacrylamide combined with lime on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland)Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction• Increased infiltration rate
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge on SLM• Strengthened community institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

++
+++
++
++
++
++
++
+++

++
+++
+
++
++
++
++
+++

++
+++
+
++
++
++
++
+++

26
49
9
48

++
++
++

++
++
++

++
++
++

+
+

+
+

+
+

++
++
++
++

++
++
++
++

++
++
++
++

10
11

32
22

5

37
28

Remarks (in Table 32): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made at three agroecological (lowland,
midland, and highland) sites (Kebede et al., 2022; Mulualem et al., 2021a). The
impacts on short-and long-term benefit–cost ratios are based on input costs forestablishment and maintenance and the levels of improvements in soil fertility and teffbiomass (straw and grain) yields (Mulualem et al., 2021a). The number of plus signs
indicates the scale of positive impacts: +, slightly positive; ++, positive; +++, very
positive.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Using polyacrylamide combined with lime as an SLM practice has drawbacks (Table 33)
even though it has various advantages in terms of improving soil aggregate stability anddecreasing soil loss. The major drawback is that it is not currently available in the local
market and will require knowledge and labor for application.

32
32

Table 33. Drawbacks of using polyacrylamide combined with lime, and corresponding solutions

Drawback

Solutions
Provide training/demonstrations forexperts and farmers
Provide subsidy/market access for PAM
and encourage importation by investors
Use relatively easy and cheaper toolsthat reduce laborDo advance evaluations of importantsoil parameters, such as soil pH
Provide access to roads or use
alternative options• Requires knowledge/skill for application• Lack of access to PAM• Labor-intensive establishment and crop-

management activities• Effectiveness may be affected by soil

properties• Difficult to transport lime to distantfarmlands

2.1.7. Cover crops
Description
Cover crops (also known as green manures, catch crops, and living mulches) are grown
to provide vegetative cover for soil (Table 34). They are then chopped and either left on
the surface as a mulch or incorporated into the soil by tillage as a green manure (Weil andBrady, 2017). The benefits of using cover crops include reduced soil and water losses,
increased infiltration and soil moisture, accumulation of organic matter and microbial
biomass, reduced nutrient leaching, weed suppression, and improved soil fertility andproductivity (Cercioglu et al., 2018; Daryanto et al., 2018). The methods and timing of
establishing cover crops may vary depending on several factors, including the cover crop
species, soil type, weather conditions, and types of previous and following regular crops.
Generally, cover crops should be grown in early or late off-seasons or during fallow
periods when soil and weather conditions favor good germination and root establishment.
The cover crops presented in this guideline (white lupin, sweet lupin, vetch, and sesbania;
Figure 12) can be established after regular non-row annual crops are harvested, or during
the growing season between rows of both annual and perennial crops.
The results of field experiments (Figure 12) indicated that cover crops reduced runoff
by 8%–11% and soil loss by 34%–46% as compared with control plots (plots with nocover crops), with the highest reduction efficiency by white lupin in both cases (inreducing runoff and soil loss) (Demissie, 2022c, paper in preparation).
Classification and characteristics

The use of cover crops is an important SLM practice to reduce runoff and erosion, as wellas to enhance soil organic matter content and land productivity. According to the WOCAT
standard, this technology is categorized under integrated soil fertility management (Table
34).
Table 34. Characteristics of cover crops as an SLM technology for croplands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type/s of land degradation
addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Improved vegetation cover, integrated soil
fertility management, and economic efficiency
Agronomic and vegetative measures
Soil erosion by water, and physicochemical andbiological soil degradation
Restoration, mitigation, and prevention
33
33

Figure 12. Partial view of cover crops at the stage suitable for incorporating them into the soil;
photos taken at the Guder experimental site in the Abay basin of Ethiopia

Practical specifications
Using cover crops requires rigorous routine activities and a wide range of inputs (Tables
35 and 36). In addition, it requires careful selection of crop species and identification ofsuitable agroecological and socioeconomic conditions (Table 37).
Table 35. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining cover crops

Activity
Establishment• Seed/seedling preparation• Land preparation• Sowing/planting

Annual frequency
Once
Once
Once

• Protection from damage

Always
Maintenance (crop management)• Remove weeds
As required• Harvest and incorporate intoOnce
the soil as green manure

Appropriate timing

Before sowing/planting
At sowing/planting
When moisture levels are goodfollowing harvest of regularcrops, or inter-seeding before
harvestDuring the growing period
At early stage of weed growth
At the stage of good nutrient
content and relatively highdecomposition rate; timing
depends on type of cover crop34
34

Table 36. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities for cover crops

Input

Units

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB

Total cost
(ETB)

PDs
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
PDs

17
50
80
30
25
46
1

105
27
35
45
45
38
105

1785
1350
2800
1350
1125
1656
105
3546

PDs
PDs
PDs

6
17
12

105
105
105

630
1785
1260
3675
7221

Establishment• Labor for land preparation• Purchase white lupin seeds• Purchase sweet lupin seeds• Purchase sesbania seedsa• Purchase vetch seeds

Average of 4 seed types
Labor for sowingb
Subtotalc
Maintenance• Labor harvesting/cutting• Labor for mulching• Labor for incorporation by tillage
Subtotal
Total

Remarks (in Table 36): Costs may vary depending on the type of cover crop and local
conditions. aSeedling transplantation can be used for sesbania instead of direct seeding;blabor cost can be much higher if seedling transplantation is preferred for establishingsesbania; caverage seed cost (1656 ETB) was assumed for calculation of total
establishment cost. 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020 (considered as the averageexchange rate of the year). PDs, person-days.
Table 37. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for planting cover crops

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size per household• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Landholding rights• Land use rights

Class/typeSemi-arid to humid
750 to 3000 mm
Anywhere suitable for crop cultivation
Flat (0%–3%) to very steep (30%–50%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Very low (<1%) to medium (2.1%–4.2%)
500–3000 m a.s.l.
Smallholder
Not affected by landholding size
Manual work and animal traction
Not affected by wealth status
Mostly private
Mostly individual

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Defining purpose and preparation
 Define purpose of establishing cover crops (i.e., for green manuring or mulching).
 Identify and prepare seeds/seedlings of suitable cover crop species on the basis of thedefined purpose, agroecological characteristics, and soil properties.

35

35

 Prepare tools required for sowing/planting and related agronomic activities.
Step 2: Sowing or planting
 Conduct seeding/sowing by using an appropriate method (seed drilling in rows or
surface broadcasting, depending on the type of cover crop); cover crops can be grown
either by using residual moisture after harvesting the main crop or during the main
rainy season.
 For seedlings, transplant either between rows of annual crops or immediately after
harvesting the annual crops.
Step 2: Weeding, harvesting, mulching, and manuring cover crops
 After cover crops are well established, remove undesirable plants that may compete
for resources (water, nutrients, and light).
 If necessary and applicable, harvest part of the cover crop and use it for stall-feeding.
 Once optimum cover has been attained, either chop and leave on the surface as a mulch
or incorporate into the soil by tillage/hoeing (green manuring).
Impacts on key indicators
The efficiency of cover crops can be determined by changes in different indicators, which
can include ecological, economic, and sociocultural aspects (Table 38). For example, theuse of cover crops reduces runoff by up to 37% and soil loss by up to 63%, and it improves
soil fertility by about 37% (Demissie, 2022c, paper in preparation).
Table 38. Impacts of using cover crops on selected ecological and socioeconomic indicators at
three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)

Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Increase in soil organic matter• Soil fertility improvementa• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge on SLM• Strengthened community institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

++
+++
++
+++
+++
+++
na
++

++
+++
++
+++
+++
+++
na
++

++
+++
++
+++
+++
+++
na
++

++
+

++
+

++
+

++
na

++
na

++
na

++
++
+++
+++

++
++
+++
+++

++
++
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL
37
63

10
40

37

36
36

Remarks (in Table 38): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made at the two agroecological sites(lowland and highland, e.g., Demissie, 2022c, paper in preparation). aLevel of impact
on soil fertility was based on the average of changes in available phosphorus levels
after the application of sesbania and sweet lupin. Number of plus signs indicates levelof positive impact: ++, positive; +++, very positive; na, not applicable.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Applying cover crops as an SLM practice has its own drawbacks (Table 39), even though
it has various advantages in terms of improving soil quality. The major drawback is that it
will reduce crop production at the household level if it is implemented as a fallow system,
mainly during the fallow year.
Table 39. Drawbacks of implementing cover crops, and corresponding solutions

Drawback• High cost of improved seeds• High cost of labor for manual works• Low productivity if soil moisture islimited under rainfed conditions• May appear to be a source of conflict orinconvenience among neighboring
farmers• Susceptible to loss/damage from freegrazing animals• Increased weed population for the next
cropping• May result in reduced crop production
when implemented as a fallow system

Solutions
Produce seeds for the purpose
Use tools that can substitute for humanlaborComplement with irrigation water if
available and applicable
Establish harmonized cropping systems
among farms/farmers
Apply zero-grazing and protect byfencing and other methods
Harvest before seed dispersal or use
appropriate weed-control mechanisms
Implement together with (in rows), or
after harvesting of annual crops

2.2. SLM technologies for grazing land/forage development
2.2.1. Developing improved forage: the case of Napier grass Desmodium
mixed cultivation
Description
Forage development consists of the use of agronomic practices of cultivating suitable
forage species to increase the productivity of both land and livestock. It has beenrecognized as an effective strategy to solve feed scarcity and low livestock productivity
in Ethiopia (Walie et al., 2022b). It can be best implemented in areas where stall-feeding(feeding and keeping animals in stalls, Figure 13) is well adopted by smallholder farmers
or livestock farming enterprises. This guideline provides a description of, and insights into,
improved forage development based on results from the combined cultivation of Napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) and Desmodium (Desmodium intortum) on cultivablelands and homesteads by using farmyard manure as a fertilizer.
Napier grass is a perennial tropical C-4 grass, native to Africa, that can reach a heightof 7–8 m and produce large amounts of forage, provided that low temperature andmoisture stress are not limiting factors (Turano et al., 2016). Desmodium is a trailing or3737

climbing perennial legume that forms very dense ground cover under favorable conditions.
Both species are adaptable to a wide range of soils and are tolerant of slightly acidic soil.
Applying farmyard manure, nitrogen fertilizer, and supplemental irrigation can improveforage biomass yield by modifying soil acidity. Planting Desmodium between rows ofNapier grass is the best integration to control weeds, improve soil fertility, and increase
land productivity. Desmodium can also be grown between rows of annual crops such asmaize, or as a cover crop under orchard plantations. A case study in a subtropicalenvironment (Walie et al., 2022a) indicated that combined cultivation of these two forage
species with farmyard manure can yield up to about 40 t ha–1 of dry biomass per year.
According to the daily feed requirement suggested by Bekele et al. (2005), this amount ofbiomass (40 t ha–1) can feed about 3300 dairy cows or 57,140 growing sheep or goats aday. This practice can therefore support the adoption of stall-feeding and zero-grazing on
pasturelands, which can in turn helps to prevent or reduce land degradation due to freegrazing.

Figure 13. Photos showing three key activities to be performed for improved forage
development and feeding: forage cultivation, cut and carry, and stall-feeding. Forage
cultivation/production can be done under rainfed conditions or by using irrigation facilities

38
38

Classification and characteristics
Improved forage development is one of the best SLM technologies to increase land andlivestock productivity. According to the WOCAT standard, this technology is categorizedunder different SLM groups (improved feeding, improved forage management, livestock
management, and improved feed quality, Table 40). This technology can support the
adoption of zero-grazing and rehabilitation of grazing lands.
Table 40. Characteristics of improved forage development as an SLM technology for grassland

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type/s of land degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Improved feeding, improved forage
management and livestock management, andimproved feed quality
Agronomic, zero-grazing, and vegetative
Soil erosion by water and soil degradation
Prevention, mitigation, and restoration

Practical specifications
Developing improved forage requires various activities and inputs (Tables 41 and 42) andcareful selection of forage species on the basis of agroecological conditions (Table 43).
Appropriate implementation of agronomic practices is very important to produce forage
biomass of sufficient quality and quantity.
Table 41. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining improved forage production

Activity

Annualfrequency

Appropriate timing• Fencing• Land preparation• Seed/seedling preparation• Manure preparation• Manure transportation andOnce
2 or 3 times
–
–
Once

Before sowing/planting
Dry season
Dry season
Whenever appropriate
3 weeks before planting• Planting Napier grass

Once• Planting/sowing Desmodium

Once

At the start of the rainyseasonAfter Napier grass isestablishedEstablishment

application

Maintenance• Maintaining fences• Weeding and harrowing• Watering• Applying manure or inorganicOnce
As needed
As needed
As needed

Whenever necessary
Whenever appropriate
Dry season
Whenever needed• Silage-making• Cut, carry, and feeding

As needed
As available

When necessary
Whenever appropriate

fertilizers

39
39

Table 42. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities for improved forage development

Input

Units Quantity

Establishment (fencing)

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

• Carpenter• Daily labor

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs

400
500
20
2
22

32
50
105
175
105

12,80025,000
2100
350
2310

• Napier grass seedlings• Seed of Desmodium• Land preparation• Transport and apply manure• Planting Napier grass• Sowing Desmodium• Seedling transportation

No.
kg
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs

20,000
10
5
16
40
20
10

1
455
105
105
105
105
105

20,000
4550
525
1680
4200
2100
1050
76,665

105
105
105
105
105
105

4200
6300
420
1050
6300
1050
19,32095,985• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)

Establishment (sowing/planting forage)

Subtotal
Maintenance (forage management after sowing/planting)• Weeding and harrowing
PDs
40• Cutting and transportationPDs
60• Maintaining fences
PDs
4• Applying manure
PDs
10• WateringPDs
60• Making silage
PDs
10
Subtotal
Total aRemarks (in Table 42): aThis total cost is for the first implementation year; most of
the costs may not be incurred in later years (after establishment). Establishing andmaintenance of fences may not be required if livestock and destructive humaninterventions are prohibited by other mechanisms; thus, the total establishment cost
could be reduced by 56% (i.e., the total cost could be 53,425 ETB). Seedlings ofNapier grass should be planted in a single root split to reduce cost, but planting in two
splits will increase the chance of survival. Frequency and timing of activities may varyfrom place to place, as influenced by soil and climatic factors. Costs of transportation
were set by assuming a farm distance of up to 2 km from the home. 1 ETB = 0.029
US$ as of 3 July 2020 (considered as the average exchange rate of the year). PDs,
person-days.

40
40

Table 43. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing improved forage
development (the case of Napier grass + Desmodium)

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size per household• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Land ownership• Land-use rights

Class/typeSemi-arid to humid
750–2800 mm
Mostly plains and medium slope hillsides
Flat (0%–3%) to moderate (8%–15%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Medium (2.1%–4.2%) to high (>4.2%)
1500–3000 m a.s.l.
Smallholder
Not affected by landholding size
Manual work and animal traction
Not affected by wealth class
Mostly private
Mostly individual

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Preparation
 Select forage species to suit the site and soil conditions.
 Prepare seeds/seedlings of selected forage species (e.g., about 10 kg ha–1 ofDesmodium seed and about 20,000 seedling splits per hectare of Napier grass).
 Seedlings of forage crops can also be produced at a nursery during the dry season; thisrequires seedbed preparation and sowing considering the optimum growth period from
germination to transplantation.
 Prepare the land by tilling two or three times during the dry season, using human laborand animal traction.
 Apply dry farmyard manure (10–12 t ha–1) by properly mixing it with the soil during
tillage operations; inorganic fertilizers such as NPS (46% phosphorus and 18%
nitrogen) can also be applied later during sowing/planting if farmyard manure is notavailable; urea can be added after the forage grass or legume is established.
Step 2: Transplanting/sowing At the beginning of the rainy season, when the soil moisture content is adequate,transplant Napier grass in rows at a spacing of 1 m between rows and 0.5 m between
plants; under irrigation, the planting time may vary depending on several factors.
 Localized application of inorganic fertilizers may be required at transplanting tofacilitate early establishment on low-fertility soils.
 One month after planting the Napier grass, remove weeds and sow Desmodium
between the rows; Desmodium can also be established from root splits and cuttings.
Step 3: Weeding and protection
 Remove weeds whenever necessary during the growing season; some weed species
may be invasive and may compete for resources (nutrients and moisture).
 Protect against damage by free-moving animals, rodents, pests, and diseases.
 Provide water during the period of moisture stress, or apply moisture-conservation
measures such as mulching.

41

41

Step 4: Harvesting, storing, and feeding Harvest Napier grass when it reaches a height of about 1 m and at an interval of 4–6
weeks thereafter; after the grass is well established, the frequency of harvesting may
depend on the available biomass volume and the need to feed livestock; leave stumps
10–15 cm above the ground when cutting.
 Harvest Desmodium about 4 months after sowing/transplanting (at 50% flowering)
and at an interval of 3 months thereafter; leave stumps not less than 10 cm above theground when cutting.
 Chop and mix Napier grass and Desmodium and feed to animals in a stall; the mixture
can be mixed with other forage types, such as straws of teff, barley, finger millet, rice,and maize stover.
 Desmodium mixed with Napier grass can also be dried and baled as hay and silage,
which can be used as a protein and energy supplement with other forages.
Impacts on key indicators
The impacts of improved forage development on ecological, economic, and sociocultural
indicators are summarized in Table 44. This technology improves fodder production by
20%–54% (Walie et al., 2022a), depending on the agroecological characteristics,
compared with conventional forage production system (natural pasture).
Table 44. Impacts of implementing improved forage development on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland)Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increasea• Animal productivity increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Increased awareness of stallfeeding/zero-grazing• Strengthened community institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
++

++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
++

++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
++

na
+++
++
+++

na
++
++
+++

na
++
++
+++

na
++

na
++

na
++

na

na

na

+
+
+++
+++

+
+
+++
+++

+
+
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

54

24

20

42
42

Remarks (in Table 44): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made at the three agroecological (lowland,
midland, and highland) sites (Walie et al., 2022a, b). aImpact levels were calculated
by taking biomass production from natural pasture as a baseline. The impacts on
benefit–cost ratios are based on estimated returns from biomass yield and the costs
incurred for establishment and maintenance. The numbers of plus signs indicate thelevel of positive impacts: +, slightly positive; ++, positive; +++, very positive; na, notapplicable.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Table 45 presents the drawbacks of implementing improved foraged development in thecontext of smallholder farmers. The high cost of inputs and a requirement for a moderatelevel of skills are among the most important drawbacks.
Table 45. Drawbacks of implementing improved forage development, and corresponding
solutions

Drawback• High cost of labor and inputs• Requires moderate level of skills• Competition for croplands• Prone to theft during critical feed

shortages• No, or insufficient, biomass in dry

season• Not suitable for very high-altitude

areas

Solutions
Use improved and cheaper technologies
Provide training for experts and farmers
Use degraded areas, farmyards, and areas notsuitable for crop production
Establish bylaws and other methods (fence
and gate-lock systems)
Complement rainfed system with irrigation
water
Find alternative forage species

2.2.2. Stall-feeding with improved forage
Description
In Ethiopia and other tropical regions, free grazing is a major cause of soil erosion andsevere land degradation. Furthermore, diets from free grazing have been characterized as
being of poor quality and resulting in low animal productivity and high levels of methane
emission (Mekuriaw et al., 2020). To mitigate this, stall-feeding (indoor-fed animal
production with a cut-and-carry system) is being encouraged. To promote this, there is aneed to develop improved feeds such as nutritionally rich forages or biochemically treatedstraw that can improve animal productivity and dietary energy and nitrogen utilization
with reduced enteric methane emissions.
Although many forage species are adaptable to different agroecosystems, thisguideline provides a description and evidence of stall-feeding by using two forage grass
species (Brachiaria and Napier grass, Figure 14) as an example. Brachiaria and Napiergrass are perennial tropical C-4 grasses, native to Africa, that have great potential for dairy
production (Turano et al., 2016; Adnew et al., 2019). Both species are adaptable to a wide
range of soils and are tolerant of slightly acidic soils (see the details for Napier grass insection 2.2.1). Mekuriyaw et al. (2020) reported that feeding Napier grass and Brachiaria
grass hay as a basal diet to lactating dairy cows significantly improved nutrient intake,digestibility, milk yield, and nitrogen utilization efficiency, and reduced methane
emissions, compared with feeding natural pasture hay.
43

43

Figure 14. Partial view of stall-feeding with Napier grass and Brachiaria forage grass, developedby using improved agronomic practices (applying manure, weeding, and proper spacing). The
double green arrows indicate nutrient cycling (grass to manure and vice versa)

Classification and characteristics
According to the WOCAT standard, stall-feeding technology is categorized under various
SLM groups (Table 46). It involves careful management of both livestock and forage andhelps to mitigate or prevent land degradation due to free grazing. The technology can beapplicable to all types of livestock, provided that there is a balance between the numberof livestock and the available feed or water supply.
Table 46. Characteristics of stall-feeding as an SLM technology for grazing land

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type/s of land degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Improved feeding, zero-grazing, livestock
management, economic efficiency, andmitigation of climate change
Agronomic practices and livestock
management
Soil erosion by water and soil degradation
Prevention and mitigation

Practical specifications
Implementation of stall-feeding requires various activities and inputs (Tables 47 and 48),
as well as a careful analysis of agroecological and socioeconomic conditions (Table 49).
Table 47. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining stall-feeding

Activity
Establishment• Land preparation• Seed/seedling preparation• Manure preparation• Transporting and applying
manure• Planting Brachiaria/Napier grass

Annual frequency Appropriate timing• Fencing of forage production

area• Barn construction• Feeding trough construction

2 or 3 times
–
–
Once

Dry season
Dry season
Whenever appropriate
At last tillage or planting

Once
Once

At the start of the rainyseasonAfter planting

Once
Once

Whenever appropriate
Whenever appropriate
44

44

Table 47 (continued)
Activity
Maintenance• Weeding and harrowing• Watering• Applying manure or fertilizers• Cut-and-carry feed
• Farmyard manure preparation

Annual frequency Appropriate timing
As needed
As needed
As needed
As available
As available

Whenever appropriate
Dry period
Whenever needed
Whenever appropriate
Whenever appropriate

Table 48. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price level) for establishment and maintenanceactivities for stall-feeding

Input

Establishment of forage

Units Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

• Napier grass seedlings• Brachiaria seedlings• Land preparation• Manure transportation and application• Planting of Napier grass• Planting of Brachiaria• Seedling transportation

No.
No.
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs

5000
5000
5
16
40
40
10

1
1
105
105
105
105
105

5000
5000
525
1680
4200
4200
1050

• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)• Carpenter• Daily laborer

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs

400
500
20
2
22

32
50
105
175
105

12,80025,000
2100
350
2310

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs

5
30
4
1
2

32
56
105
175
105

160
1680
420
175
210
64,260

PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs

40
60
4
45
10
60

105
105
105
105
105
105

4200
6300
420
4725
1050
6300
22,99587,255

Establishment of fences

Feeding trough constructiona• Wooden poles• Wooden panels• Nails (different sizes)• Carpenter• Daily laborer
Subtotal
Maintenance (forage management)• Weeding and harrowing• Cutting and transportation• Maintaining fence• Preparing manure• Applying manure• Watering/irrigation
Subtotal
Totala4545

Remarks (in Table 48): aThe total cost is for the first implementation year; most of
the costs may not be incurred for some years after establishment. Fencing may not be
required if livestock and destructive human interventions in forage production areas
are prohibited by other mechanisms; thus, total establishment cost could be reduced
by 66% (i.e., total cost could be 44,695 ETB). Seedlings of Napier grass andBrachiaria grass should be planted in single root splits to reduce the cost of seedlings,
but planting two splits increases the chance of survival. aThe cost of inputs for afeeding trough assumes a trough large enough for use by four cattle. The frequency
and timing of activities may vary from place to place, depending on the soil andclimatic factors. Costs of transportation were set by assuming a farm distance of up to
2 km from home. 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020 (considered as the averageexchange rate of the year). PDs, person-days.
Table 49. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing stall-feeding

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size
• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Class/type

All climate regions suitable for forage production
All rainfall regimes suitable for forage production
Mostly plains/areas suitable forage production
Flat (0%–3%) to moderate (8%–15%)
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Medium (2.1%–4.2%) to high (>4.2%)
The range suitable for forage production
Smallholder
Not affected by landholding size
Manual work and animal traction
Not affected by wealth classes
Mostly private
Mostly individual

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Seed/seedlings and land preparation
 Prepare seed/seedlings of Napier grass and Brachiaria.
 Seedlings of both Napier and Brachiaria grasses can be produced at a nursery site
during the dry season by preparing seedbeds and sowing separately, considering the
optimum growth period from germination to transplanting out into field conditions.
 Forage cultivation land must be prepared by tilling two or three times during the dry
season.
 Apply dry farmyard manure (8–10 t ha–1) and properly mix it with the soil during
tillage operations before planting/sowing.
 Inorganic NPS fertilizers can also be applied at planting/sowing where farmyard
manure is not available or applicable.
Step 2: Planting/sowing At the beginning of the rainy season, when soil moisture content is adequate,
sow/transplant Napier grass in rows at a spacing of 2 m between rows and 1 m between
plants.
46
46

 Localized application of fertilizers may be required at planting to facilitate early
establishment in low-fertility soils.
 One month after planting the Napier grass, remove weeds and sow/transplant
Brachiaria between the rows following the practice of intercropping.
 Both Napier grass and Brachiaria can also be established from root or stem cuttings
at low cost.
Step 3: Weeding and protection
 Remove unwanted weeds whenever necessary during the growing season.
 Protect against damage by destructive agents such as free-moving animals, rodents,
pests, and diseases.
 Provide water during the period of moisture stress or apply moisture conservation
measures such as mulching.
Step 4: Harvesting Harvest Napier and Brachiaria grasses when their height reaches about 1 m and at aninterval of 4–10 weeks thereafter, depending on available biomass and the feeding
demand; leave stumps between 10 and 15 cm above ground when cutting.
 Napier and Brachiaria grasses can also be dried and baled as hay and used as a protein
supplement.
 It is worth noting that Napier grass must be replaced 5 years after its establishment
because its productivity decreases with time.
Step 5: Feeding and trough/barn management
 Chop Napier and Brachiaria grasses and mix with other forage, such as maize or teffstraw.
 Feed to livestock in a feeding trough constructed for the purpose (Figure 14):- The feeding trough can be one- or two-sided, depending on the number of animals
to be fed and the area of the barn.
- A two-sided trough is suitable if it is to be constructed in the middle of a barn andthe barn area is not limited (Figure 14, left), whereas a one-sided trough isconvenient if it is to be attached to the wall of a barn or house and when the barn
area is limited (Figure 14, right).
- The length, width, and height of the trough depend on the number and breed typeof animals to be fed.
 Clean the trough and the barn at a regular time interval or whenever necessary;
frequent cleaning is required during periods of greater feed wastage.
 Prepare farmyard manure from the waste feed and animal dung and use it as an organic
fertilizer; this may require labor to collect the waste feed and store it in a placedesigned for manure preparation.

47
47

Figure 15. Layout and dimensions of two-sided (left) and one-sided (right) feeding troughs for
cattle. Depending on the economic status of the farmers or cooperatives, the barn roof can bemade from locally available materials such as grass mat or from manufactured plastic andcorrugated iron sheets. The length, width, and height are determined by considering the average
size of cattle of different breeds

Impacts on key indicators
The impacts of stall-feeding on ecological, economic, and socio-cultural indicators are
summarized in Table 50. Reduction of soil erosion and improvements in land andlivestock productivity are among the main benefits.
Table 50. Impacts of implementing stall-feeding on selected ecological and socioeconomic
indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)

Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Methane emission reduction• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in soil cover• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction• Reduced loss of indigenous forage
species

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

+++
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
na
na

+++
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
na
na

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

+++
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
na
na

48
48

Table 50 (continued)
Key indicator
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Milk yield increase• Meat yield increase• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase• Reduction of animal disease transfer

Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthened community institutions• Enhanced education of children
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenanceImpact scale
HL ML LL
na
+++
++
+++
+++
+++

na
+++
++
+++
+++
+++

na
+++
++
+++
+++
+++

na
na
++

na
na
++

na
na
++

+
+
+++
+++

+
+
+++
+++

+
+
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
HL
ML LL
71

Remarks (in Table 50): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made in the midland agroecological zone
(Mekuriaw et al., 2020). The number of plus signs indicates the level of positive
impacts: +, slightly positive; ++, positive; +++, very positive; na, not applicable.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Although stall-feeding is perceived to be effective as an SLM practice, there are somedrawbacks constraining its adoption by smallholder famers (Table 51). Lack of access towater and insufficient feed during the dry season are the most important drawbacks.
Table 51. Drawbacks of implementing stall-feeding, and corresponding solutions

Drawback

Solutions
Use locally available and cheaper inputs
Provide training to land users and experts
Complement with irrigation; use
the dry period
alternative feed sources such as crop
residues and agro-industrial byproducts• Lack of access to drinking water in the Develop reliable water sources and use
dry period, particularly when livestock efficient means of transporting water
numbers are large• High cost of labor for transportation
Develop forage in a nearby area such as abackyard system• High cost of inputs• Requires a moderate level of skills• No, or insufficient, feed production in

2.2.3. Exclosure
Description
Exclosure is a practice of excluding the human and animal interference that leads todamage to vegetation cover and deterioration of soil quality properties (Aerts et al., 2009).
From the perspectives of protecting and restoring grazing lands, the objectives of49
49

establishing exclosures are to (1) allow native vegetation to regenerate while providing
fodder and woody biomass, (2) enhance soil organic matter buildup, (3) increase rainwater
infiltration, (4) control soil erosion and related impacts downstream, (5) promote stallfeeding of livestock through use of a cut-and-carry system and help sustain the naturalfunctioning of grassland ecosystems, and (6) increase the seed bank of indigenous forage
species (grasses, legumes, and shrubs). An exclosure can simply be established by fencing,but it must be integrated with other soil and water conservation measures such as moistureconservation trenches and enrichment plantations in areas where fencing alone cannot
bring about a significant reduction in soil erosion and improvements in vegetation cover.
The results of a plot-based experiment indicated that exclosure alone can reducesurface runoff from grazing lands by 14%–46% and soil loss by 23%–64% compared withconventional free-grazing practice (Ebabu et al., 2019). The substantial improvements inorganic matter content and some soil quality parameters observed 3 years after theestablishment of exclosures (Ebabu et al., 2020) suggest that degraded grazing lands canquickly be rehabilitated if they are well protected against destructive human activities.

Figure 16. Noticeable improvement in vegetation cover and diversity observed shortly after an
exclosure was established by fencing around 0.05 ha of cropland (CL, top photos) and grazing
land (GL, bottom photos) at the midland agroecological site (Aba Gerima) in the Abay basin of
Ethiopia. The photos were taken 3 months (August 2015, left) and 15 months (August 2016,
right) after fencing part of the cropland and grazing land that had been under free/frequent andheavy grazing for several decades. Figure from Ebabu et al. (2019). C, Control; SBG, soil bundswith grass; E, exclosure; T, Trenches
5050Classification and characteristics
Grazing exclosure is one of the SLM practices recommended for rehabilitation andrestoration of degraded grasslands. According to the WOCAT standard, this technology is
categorized under vegetative soil and water conservation measures (Table 52).
Table 52. Characteristics of exclosure as an SLM for grazing lands

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type/s of land degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Exclosure and improved vegetation coverLivestock management and vegetative
measures
Soil erosion by water, and physical andbiological soil degradation
Prevention, mitigation, and restoration

Practical specifications
Establishment of an exclosure requires various routine activities and inputs (Tables 53
and 54) and a careful analysis of the agroecological and socioeconomic conditions in thetarget area (Table 55). Understanding the sociocultural setting of the target communities
is also very important for smooth implementation and sustainability.
Table 53. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining an exclosure

Activity
Establishment• Identify target grazing lands• Hold community meetings• Set bylaws for sharing
responsibilities and benefits• Establish fences, if necessary• Enrichment sowing/planting
Maintenance• Repair damage to fences• Weeding• Community’s awarenesscreation• Monitor changes and challenges

Annual frequency

Appropriate timing

Once
Once
Once
Once
As needed

During dry season
During off-season
During community
meetings and gatherings
Before rainy season starts
When appropriate

As needed
As needed
As needed

Whenever appropriate
Whenever appropriate
Whenever appropriate

Regularly

Whenever appropriate

Table 54. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceof exclosure

Input

Establishment• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)• Carpenter• Daily labor

Subtotal

Units

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs

400
500
20
2
22

32
50
105
175
105

12,80025,000
2100
350
2310
42,56051

51

Table 54 (continued)
Input
Maintenance• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)• Carpenter• Daily laborer

Subtotal
TotalaUnits

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs

40
40
2
1
4

32
91
105
175
105

1280
3640
210
175
420
5725
48,285

Remarks (in Table 54): aCost could be zero if fencing were not required (i.e., total
establishment and maintenance costs will be zero if zero-grazing is effectively
adopted by the local community by making use of bylaws and other traditional rules).
Quantities of input items for fence maintenance were determined by assuming 10%of the quantity required for establishment. 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020
(considered as the average exchange rate of the year). PDs, person-days.
Table 55. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing exclosure

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• SlopeClass/type• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude

Applicable to grazing lands in all climatic regions
Not affected by rainfall regime
Applicable for grazing land in all landforms
Flat (0%–3%) to moderate (8%–15%) unless
integrated with cross-slope measures
Moderate (51–80 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Very low (<1%) to medium (2.1%–4.2%)
All altitudes where zero-grazing is to be applied• Farming system• Landholding size
• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Smallholder
Not affected by landholding size
Not affected by type of mechanization
Not affected by wealth status
Private and communal
Individual and communal

Socioeconomic

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Identification and discussion
 Identify grazing lands that need protection by excluding grazing and browsing animals,
as well as regular foot traffic by humans.
 Assess some key characteristics of proposed grazing lands, such as the users, grazing
history, soil type, and vegetation conditions.
 Hold meetings involving members of the surrounding community and other relevant
stakeholders (local administrators and experts).
 Discuss and decide upon methods of establishing exclosures (i.e., by fencing aroundthe target grazing land or using local community bylaws).
Step 2: Setting bylaws and establishing the exclosure5252 Setup bylaws for roles and responsibilities during and after establishment of theexclosure and for forage utilization through a cut-and-share system.
 Explore and make use of best practices of the local community: for example, thenorms/bylaws of traditional local institutions such as idir (an association of people thathave the objective of providing social and economic insurance in the event of death,property damages, and accident) can be used for effective implementation andadoption of exclosures by local communities.
 If fencing is necessary to establish an exclosure, there is a need to prepare materials,
plan activities, and make the fence a few months before the rainy season starts.
Step 3: Monitoring and evaluation
 Monitor situations at a regular time interval and document feedback/lessons for
improvement.
 Whenever harvestable grass biomass is available in the excluded area, it can be cut
and shared among users/members and used for different purposes, such as for stallfeeding of animals, or can be stored and used as a hay.
 Discuss challenges and opportunities for sustaining the practice with relevant
stakeholders.
Impacts on key indicators
The efficiency of an exclosure is determined by changes in different indicators, including
ecological, economic, and sociocultural aspects (Table 56). For example, exclosures
reduce runoff by 14%–46% and soil loss by 23%–64%, and they improve soil fertility by
32%–216% and soil organic carbon by 10%–118% (Ebabu et al., 2020).
Table 56. Impacts of implementing exclosure on selected ecological and socioeconomic indicators
at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL, highland)

Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in plant cover and diversity• Soil organic matter improve• Regeneration of lost forage species• Soil fertility improvementa• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increaseb• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthened community institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

++
++
++
+++
++
+++
++
++
++

++
++
++
+++
+++
+++
++
++
++

++
+++
++
+++
++
+++
++
++
++

na
+++
+

na
+++
+

na
+++
+

++
++

++
++

++
++

+++
+++
+++
+++

+++
+++
+++
+++

+++
+++
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL
14
23

46
42

31
64

10

118 36

216

66

1050

928 1090

32

53
53

Remarks (in Table 56): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements at three agroecological (lowland, midland,
and highland) sites (Ebabu et al., 2019; 2020). The impacts on short- and long-term
benefit–cost ratios are based on the establishment, maintenance, and scale ofimprovements in soil properties and land biomass productivity. aCalculated on thebasis of the average of changes in total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available
potassium 3 years after establishment of the exclosure (Ebabu et al., 2020);b
calculated by using annual biomass production (0.6 t ha–1) from continuously grazed
grassland (Yayneshet et al., 2009) as a baseline. The number of plus signs indicatesthe level of positive impacts: +, slightly positive; ++, positive; +++, very positive; na,
not applicable.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Although exclosure is an effective SLM practice in many respects, it has its somedrawbacks (Table 57), particularly in the case of setting up exclosures on communal
grazing lands. The fencing cost, even when shared, can be very high for poor farmers.
Also, the unfair allocation of grass and other resources often leads to conflict among users.
Table 57. Drawbacks of implementing exclosures, and corresponding solutions

Drawback• High cost of inputs for fencing• Affected by willingness ofcommunity members if grazing landis communal• May result in conflicts of interest
among community members• There may be theft of forage
biomass• Closing one area increases pressure
on neighboring areas

Solutions
Use best alternatives
Undertake participatory discussions andmake decisions involving relevant
stakeholders
Set equitable bylaws for sharing
responsibilities and benefits
Set high monetary and other forms ofpenalties in the bylaws
Introduce and promote improved forage, cutand-carry, and stall-feeding (zero-grazing)

2.3. SLM technologies for degraded hillsides
2.3.1. Exclosure combined with trenches
Description
Implementing exclosures integrated with trenches is the best way to effectively control
soil erosion and bring about improvements in vegetation cover and soil quality on
degraded hillsides. This practice is recommended for areas where both soil erosion bywater and degradation of natural vegetation are concerns and cannot be controlled orreversed simply by establishing an exclosure (section 2.2.3). The main purposes ofintegrating trenches with exclosures are to increase rainwater infiltration, reduce runoff
and soil loss, and support the growth of vegetation planted in the vicinity. Moisture
conservation by trenches can promote the quick recovery of natural vegetation,
particularly in areas with a moisture deficit. Depending on the soil type and slope gradient,conservation trenches can be installed with the following specifications (illustrated in
Figure 17): they should be 2–5 m long and 0.3–0.5 m deep, and they should have a spacingof about 2 m along the contour and an interval of 5–30 m between consecutive rows.
A plot-based experimental study (Ebabu et al., 2019) indicated that exclosures
54
54

combined with staggered trenches reduced soil loss by 64%–94% in degraded bushland,
whereas the soil-loss reduction due to exclosure alone was 35%–72%. As a result,noteworthy improvements in soil fertility were observed compared with those in plots
with no conservation measures (Ebabu et al., 2020).

3–5 m

Slope direction

2m

Figure 17. Schematic diagram representing establishment of an exclosure integrated withtrenches (blue rectangles) on a hillside. Drawings on the deep green background represent the
hypothesized gradual development of vegetation communities (grasses/herbs, shrubs, andtrees) following exclosure and construction of trenches (dimensions and spacings shown);
drawings on the light green background represent the fact that the use of an exclosure may
result in a displacement effect of overgrazing unless zero-grazing or alternative livestock
management/feeding practices are adopted

Classification and characteristics
The use of exclosures with trenches is recommended in areas where surface runoff andsoil loss are concerns. According to the WOCAT standard, this SLM technology is
categorized under vegetative and structural SWC measures (Table 58).
Table 58. Characteristics of exclosures integrated with trenches as an SLM technology for
degraded hillsides

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type/s of land degradation

addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Exclosure, improved vegetation cover, plantation
management, forest management, and grazing land
management
Structural measures and vegetative measures
Soil erosion by water, and physicochemical andbiological soil degradation
Prevention, mitigation, and restoration

55
55

Practical specifications
Establishment of an exclosure with trenches requires various routine activities and inputs(Tables 59 and 60). The technology is applicable in a wide range of agroecologicalsettings and is not affected, or only barely affected, by socioeconomic conditions (Table
61).
Table 59. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining an exclosure integrated with trenches

Activity
Establishment• Hold community meetings• Identify target hillsides• Set community bylaws• Establish exclosure• Fence if necessary• Construct trenches• Enrichment plantation of
forage species
Maintenance• Repair fences• Repair trenches• Monitor and evaluate

Annual frequency

Appropriate timing

As needed
Once
Once
Once
Once
Once
As needed

During farmers’ off-season
During farmers’ off-season
During community meetings
Before rainy season begins
During farmers’ off-season
Before rainy season begins
Whenever appropriate

As needed
As needed
As needed

Whenever appropriate
Whenever appropriate
At grass harvesting

Table 60. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities for exclosures integrated with trenches

Input

Units

Establish exclosure by fencing• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)• Carpenter• Daily labor

Establish trenches (200 trenches ha–1)• Labor for trenching• 10% for hand tools and surveying
Subtotal
Maintenance• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)• Carpenter• Daily labor• Labor for repairing trenches
Subtotal
TotalaQuantity

Unit
cost

Total cost
(ETB)

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs

400
400
20
2
22

32
91
105
175
105

12,80036,400
2100
350
2310

PDs

133

105

13,9651396
69,321

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs
PDs

40
40
2
1
4
28

32
91
105
175
105
105

1280
3640
210
175
420
2940
8665
77,98656
56

Remarks (in Table 60): aTotal cost could be reduced by 76% if fencing were notrequired (i.e., total cost for trench construction and maintenance could be only 18,301
ETB). The cost for trench construction was calculated by assuming a 1-ha area with a
400-m perimeter, with 200 trenches ha–1 on steeply sloped hillsides, and considering
the smallest trench dimensions (3 m long, 10-m spacing between two consecutive
rows, and 2-m spacing along contour). The amount of labor for trench construction isbased on the work norm stated by Desta et al. (2005). 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July
2020 (considered as the average exchange rate of the year). PDs, person-days.
Table 61. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing exclosures
integrated with trenches.

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size
• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Class/type

All climatic regions where hillsides need restoration
All rainfall regimes where hillsides need restoration
Mountain slopes/hillslopes
Steep (15%–30%) to extremely steep (>50%)
Not affected by soil depth
Very low (<1%) to medium (2.1%–4.2%)
All altitudes where hillsides need restoration
Smallholder
Not affected by landholding size
Not affected by level of mechanization
Not affected by wealth status
Private and communal
Individual and communal

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Identification and discussion
 Identify hillsides requiring rehabilitation by implementing exclosures integrated withtrenches.
 Hold meetings involving members of the surrounding community and other relevant
stakeholders (local-level officers and experts).
 Conduct community-based participatory planning to smoothly implement the practice.
Step 2: Setting bylaws and establishing the exclosure Create or update bylaws of sharing responsibilities and benefits among community
members (see also section 2.2.3).
 Discuss and decide on the method of establishing the exclosure (i.e., by fencing
targeted degraded hillsides or by making use of effective traditional practices such as
rules or bylaws for church forest conservation/protection). For instance, in the context
of Ethiopian history, many of the church forests are protected by their religious
stewards and the communities around them.
Step 3: Installation of conservation trenches Calculate the number of trenches to be installed on the basis of the slope and rainfall
conditions (see Annex 5).

57

57

 Prepare the required materials/tools and install the trenches, in a staggered
arrangement, any time during the dry season, taking the following items into account:- When staggered trenches are installed in consecutive rows, the trenches in theupper row and the interspace in the lower row must be directly below each other(Figure 17) so that runoff and sediment from the interspaces of upper rows can betrapped by the trenches in the lower rows.
- The excavated soil material should be thrown downhill of the trenches to create aridge (bund) that is about 0.3 m wide and 0.2 m high, with a spacing (berm) of 0.2
m between the trench and bund.
- The horizontal interval between two consecutive rows should be determined on thebasis of the rainfall intensity, expected runoff, and land slope: rows can be as close
as 5 m on steeper slopes and as far apart as 30 m on gentle slopes (FES, 2008; seealso Annex 5).
Step 3: Monitoring and evaluation
 Regularly supervise the site and document information about challenges andopportunities for sustainability.
 Advise land users on when and how to harvest and share forage biomass.
 Maintain trenches in areas where runoff needs to be conserved in situ.
 Perform enrichment plantation of improved forage species if applicable.

Impacts on key indicators
The impacts of exclosures with trenches on ecological, economic, and sociocultural
indicators are summarized in Table 62. For example, they reduce runoff by 34%–68% andsoil loss by 84%–94%, and they improve soil fertility by 29%–135% and soil organiccarbon matter by 1%–31% (Ebabu et al., 2020).
Table 62. Impacts of implementing exclosures integrated with trenches on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland)Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in plant cover and diversity• Soil organic matter increase• Increased restoration of forage
species• Soil fertility improvementa• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increaseb• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthened community institutions

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

+++
+++
+++
+++
+
+++

+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+++

+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+++

34
86

68
94

34
84

1

31

19

+++
+++
+++

++
+++
+++

+++
+++
+++

90

135 29

na
+++
–/+

na
+++
–/+

na
+++
–/+

833

500 100

++
++

++
++

++
++
58

58

Table 62 (continued)
Key indicator
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

++
+++
+++
+++

++
+++
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

++
+++
+++
+++

Remarks (in Table 62): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made at three agroecological (lowland,
midland, and highland) sites (Ebabu et al., 2019; 2020). aBased on average of changes
in total nitrogen, available phosphorous, and available potassium levels 3 years after
establishment of an exclosure combined with trenches (Ebabu et al., 2020); b impact
level was calculated by using the annual biomass production (0.6 t ha–1) fromcontinuously grazed land (Yayneshet et al., 2009) as a baseline. Plus/minus signs
indicate type and level of impacts: –/+, neutral; +, slightly positive; ++, positive; +++,
very positive; na, not applicable.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Exclosure integrated with trenches is an effective SWC measure that can result in thequick restoration of vegetation cover. However, it has its own drawbacks that a practitioner
should be aware of and take appropriate measures to overcome (Table 63).
Table 63. Drawbacks of implementing exclosures integrated with trenches, and corresponding
solutions

Drawback

SolutionsUse alternatives and proper spacing between
labor for trench installation
trenches• High cost of inputs for fencing, when Make use of locally available fencing
necessary
resources, such as live fencing (spiny
shrubs/bushes), and bylaws• Needs willingness of all community
Awareness creation and engaging of relevant
members and commitment of experts experts and stakeholders• May result in conflict of interest
Set equitable bylaws for sharing
among community members
responsibilities and benefits• May result in high livestock stocking Apply zero-grazing and cut-and-carry systems
rates on untargeted areas• Creates a fear of loss of access to
Ensure sustainable access to ecosystem
resources if benefit-sharing
services and benefits
mechanisms are not equitable• Demands a very large amount of

2.3.2. Assisted vegetation establishment on degraded hillsides
Description
Assisted vegetation establishment refers to the practice of supporting the survival rate andgrowth performance of seedlings on degraded lands. This can be done in two ways: (1) byapplying commercial soil inoculants (beneficial microbes—rhizobial bacteria andmycorrhizal fungi—collected, processed, and packed by companies) as seed coatings ordirectly to the roots of seedlings; and (2) by using the soil microbiome from well-protected
and conserved sites (such as forests) as organic fertilizer inputs for nursery production andseedlings planted on degraded lands (Figure 18). For instance, Wassie et al. (2009)59
59

suggested that soils from well-conserved sites such as the remnant church forests ofEthiopia could serve as potential sources of soil microbiome for the restoration of
degraded lands using native tree species. This guideline provides a description andevidence of vegetation development at a greenhouse and under degraded field conditions
by using soil microbiome from a remnant church forest (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Partial view of Olea europaea seedlings assisted (left) and not assisted (right) bysoil microbes from a church forest. (a) and (b) Growth performance of seedlings undergreenhouse conditions (see Abebe et al., 2020b); (c) and (d) growth performance underdegraded field conditions at the Aba Gerima site

Classification and characteristics
Assisted vegetation establishment can be categorized under diverse WOCAT SLM groupcategories (such as improved vegetation cover, plantation management, or soil fertility
management) that enhance the survival and growth of vegetation and hence facilitate rapid
restoration of degraded lands (Table 64).
Table 64. Characteristics of assisted vegetation establishment as an SLM technology for degradedhillsides

Criterion• SLM group• SLM measure• Type/s of land degradation addressed• Stage/s of intervention

Description
Improved vegetation cover, plantation
management, soil fertility management, andforest management
Vegetative and soil management
Biological soil degradation
Rehabilitation and restoration

6060

Practical specifications
Implementation of assisted vegetation establishment requires the undertaking of a wide
range of activities (Table 65), the preparation of inputs (Table 66), and the identificationof suitable ecological and socioeconomic conditions (Table 67).
Table 65. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining assisted vegetation development on degraded hillsides

Activity
Establishment• Excavate and transport soil
• Prepare seedling pots
• Sow
• Water during nursery period

Annual frequency

Appropriate timing

Dry season
Dry season
Whenever appropriate
Early morning or night• Establish exclosure (optional)• Harden-off and transport• Plant

Once
Once
Once
Twice a week for 4–
6 months
Once
Once
Once

• Water• Cultivate to improve infiltration• Mulch to prevent moisture loss
• Repair damage to fences (optional)• Protect saplings from any damage

As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed
As needed

Early morning or night
Whenever appropriate
Dry season
Whenever appropriate
Whenever appropriate

Maintenance

Before planting
At start of rainy season
At start of rainy season

Table 66. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceactivities for assisted vegetation establishment

Unit cost Total cost
Units Quantity (ETB)
(ETB)

Input
Establishment of fences• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)• Carpenter• Daily laborer

No.
No.
kg
PDs
PDs

400
400
20
2
22

32
91
105
175
105

12,80036,400
2100
350
2310

• Seed• Soil excavation and transportation• Seedling bags (100 pieces/pack)a• Preparation and sowing• Watering• Transportation and planting

kg
PDs
No.
PDs
PDs
PDs

1
20
5
40
20
100

105
105
105
105
105
105

105
2100
525
4200
2100
10,50073,490

PDs
PDs
PDs

100
40
2

105
105
105

10,5004200
210
14,91088,400Establishment of seedlings

Subtotal
Maintenance• Watering• Mulching and cultivation• Repair fence and plant protection
Subtotal
Total

61
61

Remarks (in Table 66): Total establishment cost could be reduced by 73% if fencing
were not required (see also section 2.3.1). aSize of seedling polyethylene tubes could
be variable depending on several factors; for instance, polyethylene tubes should be
sufficiently large to support survival and growth performance if seedlings are to betransplanted on severely degraded soils. 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020
(considered as the average exchange rate of the year). PDs, person-days.
Table 67. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing assisted vegetation
establishment on degraded hillsides

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size
• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Class/type

All climatic regions
All rainfall regimes
Hillsides
Steep (15%–30%) to extremely steep (>50%)
Not affected by soil depth
Very low (<1%)
All altitudes
Smallholder
Not affected by landholding size
Manual work
Not affected by wealth status
Private and communal
Individual and communal

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1: Identification and preparation
 Identify native tree species suitable for target sites of vegetation restoration.
 Identify potential sources/sites of soil inoculants/soil microbiome.
 Prepare materials and schedule activities for excavation and transportation of soil
microbiome from conserved sites, or purchase from commercial sources.
 Import soil microbiome to the nursery site and prepare seedling pots by using
appropriate sizes of polythene bags.
Step 2: Seedling production at the nursery Sow seeds on seedbeds, provide water, and transplant seedlings from seedbeds toprepared pots (or seeds can be sown directly to seedling pots).
 Supply water to seedlings at about 3-day intervals for 3–4 months.
 Protect from damage by diseases, pests, and extreme weather conditions.
 Remove weeds that can compete for valuable resources.
Step 3: Hardening-off and transporting seedlings
 To harden-off seedlings, remove sheds, reduce the frequency of watering, and finally
expose the seedlings to field conditions for about a week before planting.
 Dig out planting holes (as deep as the seedling pots, and two to three times thediameter of the pot) along contour lines, considering the optimum spacing between
plants and rows depending on the type of target plant species; note that planting holes
could be prepared in advance (3–5 weeks before planting) and that topsoil must be62

62

separated from the subsoil at digging.
 At the time of planting, put the seedlings into the holes; backfill the topsoil first,
followed by the subsoil, and gently compact it by hand or using suitable tools; the root
collar must be kept at the surface position or a bit over it, but not below it.
Step 4: Monitoring and nurturing







Check the survival rate and growth performance of seedlings at a regular interval.
Provide water to increase the rates of survival and growth during the dry season.
Cultivate the soil around the seedlings to increase infiltration of rain/irrigation water.
Apply mulch, if applicable, to prevent loss of moisture through evaporation.
Remove weeds that may compete for water and available nutrients.
After conducting a survival count, replant in locations where seedlings are dead or
likely to die.

Impacts on key indicators
If properly implemented, assisted vegetation establishment offers a wide range of benefits(as indicated by positive to very positive impacts on key indicators) in the different
agroecological zones (Table 68).
Table 68. Impacts of implementing assisted seedling development on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland)Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reduction• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in plant cover and diversity• Soil organic matter improve• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Biomass production increase• Farm income increase
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthened community institutions
Benefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenance

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

+++
+++
na
+++
+++
+++
na
na

+++
+++
na
+++
+++
+++
na
na

na
+++
na

na
na
+++ +++
na
na

++
++

++
++

++
++

+
+
+++
+++

+
+
+++
+++

+
+
+++
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML
HL

++
++
na
+++
+++
+++
na
na
40–80

Remarks (in Table 68): Impact scale is rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level is based on the results of a greenhouse experiment (Abebe et al., 2020b).
The number of plus signs indicates the level of positive impacts: +, slightly positive;++, positive; +++, very positive; na, not applicable.
Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
63

63

The implementation of assisted vegetation establishment has some drawbacks (Table 69),
mainly related to the labor and material costs and the degradation of conserved sites suchas church forests when commercial inoculum sources are not available.
Table 69. Drawbacks of implementing assisted vegetation establishment, and corresponding
solutions

Drawback• May cause degradation ofconserved sites (overexploitation)• Requires a huge amount of laborfor transportation from remote
sites• Demands large polyethene tubes

Solutions
Substitute with soils from construction sites orother suitable sources
Establish nursery sites close to source sites, or
use other possible options
Use cheaper and locally available
biodegradable materials

2.4. SLM technology for all land-use types: Acacia decurrens plantations
Description
Acacia decurrens, an Australian species that is commonly known as black wattle or earlygreen wattle, is a perennial fast-growing tree that grows to a height of up to 15 m (Hundeand Gizachew, 2003). This tree species was introduced into the highlands of Ethiopia inthe early 1990s as a short-rotation forestry plant to counter urban firewood shortages.
Although the main purpose of growing A. decurrens is to generate cash income fromcharcoal, and for use as a source of firewood and construction materials, it also improves
soil fertility as a nitrogen-fixing species. It is a member of the Fabaceae family. Plantations
can be established in different ways: through seedling recruitment from nurseries or direct
sowing (seeding) at a site, or through natural seed dispersal agents (water, wind, andanimals). In Ethiopia, suitable growing regions have elevations over 1500 m a.s.l andreceive mean annual rainfall of between 1000 and 2500 mm (see Figure 1); i.e., the plant
grows well in the Moist and Wet Weyna Dega and Dega agroclimatic zones.
According to Webb et al. (1984), A. decurrens cultivation is successful in regions withthe following climatic conditions: mean annual rainfall between 900 and 2000 mm with adry season that is 2–3 months long, uniform summer rainfall regime, mean annual
temperature between 12 and 18 °C, mean maximum temperature of the hottest month
between 16 and 24 °C, and mean minimum temperature of the coldest month between 2
and 10 °C. Ruskin (1983) noted that A. decurrens prefers deep, light to medium, and freedraining soils and that it occurs naturally on moderately fertile soils, including in acidic
and neutral pH soil conditions.

64
64Figure 19. Google Earth images showing coverage of Acacia decurrens plantations (the change
in green cover between 2005 (lower image) and 2020 (upper image)) in the humid highland
agroecological zone (the case of Kasiry and Akusity watersheds in Guder site) of the Abay basin.
The increase in coverage was greater later in the period (2014–2019; Danyo, 2014) as the resultof rapid adoption of these plantations as an agroforestry practiceClassification and characteristics
According to the WOCAT standard, A. decurrens plantation can be categorized under
different SLM groups (agroforestry, plantation management, rotational system, energy
efficiency, economic efficiency, and improved vegetation cover) (Table 70). It provides
multiple benefits, such as improving the incomes of land users, improving soil fertility,
and reducing soil loss.
Table 70. Characteristics of Acacia decurrens plantations as an SLM technology for all land-use
types

Criterion

Description
Agroforestry, rotational systems, improved
vegetation cover, plantation management,
economic efficiency, and energy efficiency• SLM measure
Vegetative• Type/s of land degradation addressed Soil erosion by water, and soil fertility decline• Stage/s of intervention
Prevention, mitigation, and restoration• SLM group65
65

Practical specifications
A number of different activities are needed to establish A. decurrens plantations as an
SLM practice (Table 71). These include fulfilling inputs (Table 72) and identifying
suitable ecological and socioeconomic conditions (Table 73).
Table 71. Activities and their corresponding frequencies and timings for establishing andmaintaining Acacia decurrens plantations

Activity
Establishment• Seed collection• Nursery preparation• Seeding• Watering• Transplanting• Fencing (optional)
Maintenance• Maintaining fences• Weeding• Harvesting• Charcoaling• Transportation

Annual frequency

Appropriate timing

Once
Once
Once
Twice a week for 7–8 months
Once
Once

Whenever appropriate
Dry season or off-season
Dry season or off-season
During nursery period
Summer season
After plantingOnce
As needed
Once
Once
Once

After planting
Whenever appropriate
4–5 years after planting
Dry season
Dry season

Table 72. Inputs and costs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for establishment and maintenanceof an Acacia decurrens plantation

Input

Establishing seedlings• Seed• Polyethylene tubes (100 pieces/pack)• Bed/pot preparation• Seeding• Watering• Planting

Establishing fence (optional)• Wooden fence poles• Wooden fence panels• Nails (131/kg)• Carpenter• Daily labor
Subtotal
Maintenance• Stand cutting• Chopping• Pile-making• Charcoaling and packing• Transportation
Subtotal
TotalaUnits

Quantity

Unit cost(ETB)

Total cost
(ETB)

kg
No.
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs

1
100
10
1
32
8

105
35
105
105
105
105

105
3500
1050
105
3360
840

No.
No.
PDs
PDs

400
500
20
2
22

32
50
105
105
105

12,800
25000
2100
210
2310
51,380

PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs
PDs

30
40
10
10
20

105
105
105
105
105

3150
4200
1050
1050
2100
11,55062,93066
66

Remarks (in Table 72): aTotal establishment cost could be reduced by 83% if fencing
were not required (if free grazing is not a problem or when the target plot is bordered
by a plantation that has a similar timing for establishment, or when crops areintercropped at the early stages of the plantation) (i.e., total cost could be 20,510 ETB).
The amount of labor (PD) for each activity was determined arbitrarily, and theestimated corresponding cost was based on the work norm documented by Desta et al.
(2005). 1 ETB = 0.029 US$ as of 3 July 2020 (considered as the average exchange
rate of the year). PDs, person-days.
Table 73. Ecological and socioeconomic conditions suitable for implementing an Acacia
decurrens plantations

Condition
Ecological• Climate• Average annual rainfall• Landform• Slope• Soil depth• Soil organic matter• Altitude
Socioeconomic• Farming system• Landholding size
• Level of mechanization• Wealth class of land users• Landholding rights• Land-use rights

Class/type

Sub-humid to humid
1000–3000 mm
All landforms that allow plant growth
Flat (0%–3%) to very steep (30%–50%)
Shallow (21–50 cm) to very deep (>120 cm)
Very low (<1%) to high (>4.2%)
1500–3000 m above sea level
Smallholder
Not affected by landholding
Manual work or animal traction
Not affected by wealth status
Private and communal
Individual and communal

Procedures/steps for implementation
Step 1. Seedling production
 Select an appropriate nursery site considering access to water and management.
 Prepare soil, seeds, seedbed, and seedling pots suitable for the purpose.
 Sow seeds directly to seedling pots or transplant seedlings germinated on seedbeds orother medium.
 Supply water twice a week for 7–8 months before planting.
 Harden-off seedlings before planting: stop watering and expose to sun, heat, cold, andwind for about a week until planting in the field.
Step 2. Planting and post-planting activities
 Transport seedlings to the planting site and prepare planting holes/furrows along thecontour lines.
 Put seedlings into a hole or furrow in a straight-up position and at proper spacing
between rows (about 2 m) and plants (about 1.5 m).
 Remove seedling bags if they are not biodegradable.
 Backfill the excavated topsoil, followed by the subsoil, and gently compact it.
 Remove competing weeds and protect against damage by diseases and pests.
 Thin and prune, when necessary, to facilitate maximum wood-volume production.
 If applicable, provide water during dry periods to enhance survival and growth rates,
particularly in areas where soil-water-holding capacity is poor.

67

67

Step 3. Harvesting and charcoal production
 Prepare labor and materials for harvesting and charcoaling activities.
 Harvest the forest stand at the age of 4–5 years and during a dry season.
 Conduct debranching so that the main parts can be used to make charcoal (trunks andthick branches).
 Chop the trunks and large branches into smaller pieces (≤ 1 m) and make a pile (Figure20).
 Cover the pile with twigs followed by soil and wait until it is ready for firing andcharcoaling.
 Make the charcoal by firing (heating the piled wood in minimal oxygen to remove allwater and volatile constituents).
 Process and pack the charcoal in bags appropriate for transportation; any remaining
small particles can be used as biochar.

Figure 20. The four key activities for an Acacia decurrens plantation that produces charcoal:seedling production, plantation, harvesting, and charcoaling. It is worth noting that food or feed
production is also possible during the early stages of the plantation

Impacts on key indicators
The impacts of implementing A. decurrens plantations as an SLM practice are presented
in Table 74. Reduction in soil loss by up to 96% (Ebabu, 2016) and improvement inincome by up to 158% (Nigussie et al., 2020) are the most notable positive impacts.
Table 74. Impacts of implementing an Acacia decurrens plantation on selected ecological andsocioeconomic indicators at three agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; and HL,highland)Key indicator

Ecological benefits• Runoff reductiona• Soil loss reduction• Soil moisture increase• Increase in biodiversityb• Soil organic matter improvement• Soil fertility improvement• Flooding control• Siltation reduction
Economic benefits• Crop yield increase• Fodder production increase• Farm income increase

LL

Impact scale
ML HL

na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na

na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na

++
+++
–/+
–
+++
+++
–/+
–/+

na
na
na

na
na
na

+++
–/+
+++

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

43
96

158
68

68

Table 74 (continued)
Key indicator
Sociocultural benefits• Improved knowledge of SLM• Strengthened community institutions• Improve sense of ownershipBenefit–cost ratio• In short term for establishment• In short term for maintenance• In long term for establishment• In long term for maintenanceImpact scale
LL
ML
na
na
na

na
na
na

HL

Impact level (%)
LL
ML HL

+++
+++
+++
–/+
–/+
+++
+++

Remarks (in Table 74): Impact scale was rated on the basis of expert judgement, andimpact level was based on measurements made at the highland agroecological (Guder)site (Ebabu, 2016; Nigussie et al., 2020). Plus/minus signs indicate type and level ofimpacts: –, slightly negative; –/+, neutral; +, slightly positive; ++, positive; +++, very
positive; na, not applicable. aHigh runoff production can be a concern during the laterstage of a plantation because of the formation of sealed surfaces and poor infiltration(Demissie et al., 2022b, paper in preparation; Figure 21). bThe impact on biodiversity
is negative when the planting density is high and at later stages of the plantation(Figure 21).

Figure 21. Changes in soil protective cover under an Acacia decurrens plantation: dense canopy
and understory vegetation cover at an early stage (left) that can provide forage biomass andprotection against soil erosion by rainfall or overland flow versus a bare and sealed ground surface
at a later stage (right) of the plantation, which can result in high runoff and related impacts
downstream (Ebabu, 2016; Sultan et al., 2018b)

Drawbacks of the technology and ways to overcome them
Although implementation of an A. decurrens plantation is largely beneficial, there aresome drawbacks that the practitioner should be aware of and take appropriate measures toovercome (Table 75). Among these, high susceptibility of the plant to disease/insect
damage and lack of understory vegetation at the later stages of the plantation are the mostimportant drawbacks.

69
69

Table 75. Drawbacks of implementing an Acacia decurrens plantation, and corresponding
solutions

Drawback• Nursery preparation and harvesting

are labor intensive• Requires quarry and transportation ofsoils of inoculum source• No understory vegetation, andSolutionsUse alternatives or improved methods andmaterials/tools
Use easily accessible and sustainableinoculum sources
Use proper spacing and management
practices to allow growth of grasses/shrubs
and water infiltration
Replace manual work with machinery or
prohibit engagement of school children

formation of a sealed ground surface
during later stages (Figure 21)• Affects children’s schooling becauseof their engagement in e.g.,maintenance activities• The existing species is highly affected Apply appropriate disease-control measuresby disease/insect damage
or introduce an improved cultivar

7070

3. Approaches to watershed-level SLM practices
3.1. Community-based participatory gully rehabilitation
3.1.1. Description
Community-based participatory gully rehabilitation is an approach in which members ofa watershed community take on the main roles and responsibilities, with the support fromrelevant stakeholders (e.g., researchers and experts), for various activities (identification,planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation) of gully erosion prevention orcontrol measures. In the Ethiopian highlands, gully formation and development areassociated with high levels of runoff generated from intensively grazed fields, traditional
ploughing practices, and improperly drained excess infiltration water from croplands(Yibeltal et al., 2019).
Several methods have been implemented to control runoff water from various sources
and to enhance gully recovery (Desta and Adugna, 2012). The most widely implemented
measures include (1) retention and infiltration ditches, (2) diversion ditches, (3) stone orwooden check dams, (4) gully reshaping and filling, (5) plantations, and (6) bans on freegrazing through the use of exclosures and stall-feeding. This guideline describes anapproach to improving community participation and ownership for gully rehabilitation. It
is based on evidence from field experiments conducted through collaborative decisionmaking, proactive participation, and discussions with community members and otherstakeholders (e.g., government officials, experts, and researchers). Figure 22 illustrates
the process and key activities of employing a participatory gully rehabilitation approach.

3.1.2. Procedures/steps for implementation: the case of gullies oncommunal grasslands
Step 1: Identification
 Identify areas prone to gully erosion and discuss the issue with community members
and leaders.
 Gather information on areas where gully erosion has occurred and continues to be amajor concern.
 Conduct a field visit involving key stakeholders (researchers, development agents,
local administrators, and farmers); identify existing or potential gullies that require
immediate action (Figure 22).
 Perform a detailed survey to collect baseline information. Table 76 presents a list ofparameters to be documented about five main factors controlling the rate/state of gully
formation and rehabilitation.
 Propose potentially suitable measures, considering size and characteristics of therunoff contributing area (properties of upslope catchment area).
 Identify appropriate structures, such as check dams and diversion ditches.
 Propose suitable gully reshaping and plantation materials such as improved forage
grass/legume or shrub species.

71
71

Figure 22. Schematic flowchart showing inputs and activities for a participatory gully
rehabilitation approach: involving key stakeholders (actors), resources (inputs) to be effectively
used, and ways (participation, collaboration, and sharing) to engage stakeholders in four
steps/activities (identification, planning, implementation, and evaluation) of the whole process

Step 2: Planning







Hold community meetings about key objectives.
Create awareness of gully formation and control measures.
Choose types of measures to be implemented, including in the upper catchment.
Assign roles and responsibilities among members.
Develop benefit-sharing bylaws and modalities.
Plan activities and prepare a suitable schedule.

Step 3: Implementation of measures







Mobilize labor, materials, and tools.
Establish an exclosure through fencing or other methods.
Promote stall-feeding through a cut-and-carry system.
Establish selected measures as per the schedule.
Document inputs used and contributions by members of the community (land users).
Conduct regular monitoring and evaluation, maintain structures, and update bylaws
about benefit sharing and responsibilities.

Step 4: Evaluation of outcomes Evaluate changes in vegetation cover, vegetation type, and soil properties bycomparing gully areas before and after intervention.
72
72

 Collect data on gully characteristics and compare between before and after
intervention.
 Estimate social, economic, and ecological benefits of the interventions.
 Identify key prospects and challenges for improvement and sustainability.
 Document best practices (lessons) for promotion to other areas.
Table 76. Baseline data to be collected about the main factors affecting gully formation andrehabilitation

Main factor
Gully
characteristics

Parameters to be documented
Remarks
1. Location
2. Gully history (age and change over time)
Useful for3. Length
implementation
4. Widthand evaluation
5. Depth
6. Shape
Biophysical
1. Rainfall (amount and intensity)
conditions
2. Soil type
Useful for
3. Vegetation typeplanning and
4. Size of gully erosion affected area
selection of
5. Contributing area and its features (e.g.,
appropriate
number of users, size, SWC density, slope,measuresland use/cover; see Figure 23)
Socioeconomic
1. Number of users/farmers
Useful forand cultural
2. Wealth status of farmers
resource
conditions
3. Household characteristics
mobilization
4. Landholding status
and selection of
5. Religious issues
improved
6. Farming practices
technologies
7. Embedded institutions
Livestock type,
1. Total number of livestock in the area
population, and2. Number of livestock by type
Useful to
grazing intensity
3. Number of livestock per householdpropose4. Type of animal breed
alternatives
5. Grazing frequency and timing
Awareness of local 1. Improved forage development
community about
2. Stall-feeding
improved practices 3. Livestock management
3.1.3. Showcase: Research evidence on the impact of community-based
participatory gully rehabilitation in the midland agroecological site (Aba Gerima)
As shown in Figure 23, sediment transport through the gully channel can be effectively
controlled by installing combined stone and brushwood check dams. Improved vegetation
cover following exclosure can also provide suitable evidence that gully erosion control ispossible through implementing zero-grazing (with a cut-and-carry system) integrated withstructural measures. For instance, farmers harvested and shared the dry biomass of 3000
kg in the first year (11/2021) and 8200 kg in the second year (10/2022) of the experiment.
This encouraged them to continue and adopt the practice at the community and individuallevels.

7373

Figure 23. Effects of community-based participatory gully rehabilitation. Improvements invegetation cover after fencing (exclosure) of 1 ha of grazing land affected by gully erosion, as
well as the sediment-trap efficiency of stone and brushwood combined check dams, can beseen in the “after” photo. A total of 24 farmers who were direct users of the grazing land (6ha) were engaged at different stages (planning, implementation, and evaluation) of therehabilitation experiment. Note: flow direction was to the north; information on the upper
contributing area and flow accumulation/potential gully were extracted from very highresolution (0.5-m) digital elevation model data

3.2. Developing alternative land-use and management scenarios
3.2.1.

Description

Developing alternative land-use and management scenarios is an effective approach toevaluating possible options by exploring the implications of implementing these scenarios
at watershed to basin levels. It involves integrating land-use and management options on
the basis of land capability classification (i.e., the grouping and mapping of land units into
various classes based on inherent limitations for sustainable use; these are associatedmainly with soil attributes, topography, drainage, and climate) and the efficiency of
selected technologies verified through field-plot experiments (Fenta et al., 2022, paper
submitted for publication). The approach provides possible future land-use andmanagement options coupled with their estimated impacts on the natural environment andeconomic return. It facilitates stakeholders’ decision-making when selecting and scalingout suitable land-use and management practices (Figure 24).
74
74

Figure 24. Methodological flowchart for land use-based evaluation and scaling out of bestwatershed management practices

The approach for developing alternative future land use and management scenarios
comprises six complementary steps (see section 3.2.2): (1) land-use-problem
identification and objective setting, (2) identification of best-performing land-use options,(3) formulation of alternative future scenarios and modeling of key indicators, (4) cost–benefit analysis, (5) monitoring and evaluation of alternative future scenarios throughstakeholder workshops, and (6) communication of the alternative future scenarios torelevant stakeholders for institutional and financial support for implementation (Fenta etal., 2022, paper submitted for publication).
3.2.2. Steps to develop and evaluate alternative land-use and management scenarios
Step 1: Problem identification and objective setting Perform baseline surveys followed by extensive field-based experiments to identify
the mainland-use problems in the target watershed.
 Identify the type of farming system and activities that are the main sources of
livelihood.
75
75

 Identify land-use types and coverage that have high levels of soil erosion.
 Characterize the target watershed in terms of land and livestock productivity.
 Identify potential land-use and management practices to reduce soil erosion andimprove land productivity specific to the target watershed.
- In the context of this approach, “land productivity indicates the value of agricultural
products per unit area of land”.
Step 2: Identification of best solutions on the basis of land use
 Evaluate potential land management practices to reduce runoff and soil loss andimprove land productivity.
 Identify the best-performing land-use and management practices to formulate land use
and management scenarios.
Step 3: Formulation of alternative future scenarios and modeling of key indicators
a. Developing alternative future land-use and management scenarios
 Develop land-use options based on the land capability classification (LCC) proposedby the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture (FDRE MoA,
2020).
 Create the proposed LCC map and superimpose it on the existing land-use map tocheck whether or not each land capability unit is suitable for the existing land use.
 When a land unit is suitable for the existing land use, identify and check appropriate
land management practices.
 Once the land-use options are identified, incorporate the best-performing landmanagement options for specific land-uses based on the research results.
b. Modeling key indicators
 Identify main land use problems in the target area, which in this case, are severe soil
erosion and poor land productivity.
 Model the ecosystem services related to erosion reduction and land productivity
improvement compared with the baseline scenarios.
c. Estimation of changes in soil organic carbon stocks
 Study changes in the soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks to assess the impacts of landuse and management alternatives.
 Evaluate changes in the SOC stocks on the basis of a laboratory analysis of soil
samples from different land uses before and after the implementation of management
practices.
 Calculate the total SOC in the top 20 cm of soil for specific land uses at the watershedscale in accordance with the method of Ellert and Bettany (1995).
d. Estimation of changes in runoff and soil loss
 Evaluate the potential impacts of alternative future land-use and management
scenarios on runoff and soil erosion by integrating plot-scale and watershed-scalemeasurements.
 Evaluate the individual and combined impacts of land-use change by using suitable

76

76

models such as the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) (Berihun et al., 2022).
 Propose alternative future land-use and management scenarios on the basis of research
results regarding the impacts on runoff and soil erosion in the target watershed.
 Present the scenarios by using models (e.g., SWAT) and modifying the appropriate
values of parameters to reflect the effects of alternative future scenarios on runoff andsoil erosion.
e. Estimation of changes in land productivity
 Estimate land productivity (ETB ha–1 year–1) for target products (crop and livestock),i.e., analyze the grain and straw yield of food crops from croplands, and biomass yieldof feed resources from all land uses in the watershed.
 Estimate the monetary values (ETB ha–1 year–1) of the feed resources on the basis of
the number of target livestock type.
 Estimate watershed-scale land productivity (ETB ha–1 year–1) on the basis of the areaweighted productivity of all land uses under the baseline and alternative futurescenarios.
Step 4: Cost–benefit analysis
 Translate the monetary units of land productivity into a net present value (NPV),
because investments in future land-use and management scenarios generate their fullpotential only after a number of years have passed.
 Set a decision criterion to compare the economic profitability of the alternative futureland-use and management scenarios on the basis of the NPV values.
 Compute the NPV as the sum of the difference between the present values of thebenefits and associated costs (all discounted net cash flows) over an investment period(Kay et al., 2003; Godsey et al., 2009).
 Compare the financial profitability over a given period.
 Analyze the sensitivity of the cost–benefit analysis of the investment alternatives withrespect to the main indicators of land productivity by varying the price levels of thetarget products.
Step 5: Evaluate alternative future land-use and management scenarios withstakeholders
 Select relevant stakeholders representing local communities, policymakers,
researchers, and development professionals.
 Conduct stakeholder workshops to evaluate the alternatives according to multiple
objectives related to the ecological, economic, and sociocultural benefits.
Step 6: Communicate alternative future land-use and management scenarios tostakeholders to gain institutional and financial support for implementation
 Present the alternative options to all relevant stakeholders (e.g., farmers, experts,
policy makers, researchers).
 Communicate the selected alternatives to stakeholders through workshops,
discussions involving the community, and brochures, and investors.
 Make sure that all stakeholders understand the proposed scenarios and the ultimate
outcome of implementing them (see for example Tables 77 and 78).

77
77

3.2.3. Showcase: Research evidence on the impacts of alternative land-use andmanagement practices at the highland agroecological site (Guder)Taking the Kasiry watershed of Guder in the northwest of Ethiopia as a case study, results
indicated that the proposed alternative land-use and management practices could bringabout substantial reductions or improvements in key ecological and economic indicators(runoff, soil loss, soil organic carbon, land productivity, and profitability). For instance, achange in land use combined with the implementation of best-performing SLM practices
reduced runoff by 71%–95% and soil loss by 75%–96%, and improved soil organic matterby 2%–51%, compared with the baseline condition (Table 77). Improvements in land
productivity and profitability were also evident for the proposed changes in land use andthe implementation of suitable land management practices (Table 78).
Table 77. Estimates of changes in watershed-scale annual runoff, soil loss, and SOC stocks foralternative land-use (LU) and management scenarios (SC-I to SC-V), based on the results of casestudies for the Kasiry watershed in the highland agroecological zone of the Abay basin

Type of change
Change (%)aLU
LU + SLM
LU
LU + SLM
Baseline
719.6
–
–
–
SC-I
548.3
207.6
-23.8
-71.2
SC-II
493.2
115.9
-31.5
-83.9
SC-III
382.3
80.1
-46.9
-88.9
SC-IV
267.5
34.9
-62.8
-95.2
SC-V
318.8
62.3
-55.7
-91.3
Baseline
49.9
–
–
–
SC-I
19.1
12.6
-61.6
-74.9
SC-II
15.2
8.1
-69.5
-83.8
SC-III
7.4
6.0
-85.2
-88.1
SC-IV
3.3
2.0
-93.4
-96.1
SC-V
4.8
2.7
-90.4
-94.6
Baseline
52.9
–
–
–
SC-I
52.9
57.6
0
9
SC-II
59.1
67.5
12
27
SC-III
50.5
53.8
-5
2
SC-IV
62.2
66.8
17
26
SC-V
74.6
80.2
41
51
a
Change (%) = ((A-B) ÷ B)) × 100, where A is the runoff/soil/SOC value from thealternative scenario (SC-I to SC-V) and B is the runoff/soil loss/SOC value from thebaseline (current land use and farmers’ practices); Baseline is current land use and existing
conventional farmers’ practices; SC-I is current land use plus SLM practices; SC-II is No
crop cultivation on steep slopes (>30%) plus SLM practices; SC-III is acacia plantation
on suitable areas plus SLM practices; SC- IV is forage production on suitable areas plus
SLM practices; SC-V is reforestation on degraded bushland and on hilly croplands plus
SLM practices.
Scenario

SOC stock(Mg ha–1)

Soil loss(t ha–1)

Runoff(mm)

Indicator

78
78

Table 78. Cash flows and NPVs (ETB ha–1 year–1, 2020 price levels) for the proposed alternative
future land-use and management scenarios (r = 10%) for a 10-year investment period for theKasiry watershed

Scenario

Gross revenue

Gross cost

Baseline
SC-I
SC-II
SC-III
SC-IV
SC-V

273,369
443,050
424,474
425,500
500,428
406,216

180,417
196,015
215,850
187,910249,245
209,580

Net cashflow
92,953247,035
208,624
237,590
251,183
196,636

Mean annual
net cash flow
9295
24,703
20,862
23,75925,11819,664NPV
54,088145,183
128,609
136,836
151,711
115,779

3.3. Developing an approach to SLM-based livelihood improvement
3.3.1. Description
Promoting inclusive watershed development approaches could largely contribute to thesustainability of SLM program efforts. As a result, an SLM-based livelihood improvement
approach requires buy-in from watershed communities through all of its phases, which isparticularly important in ensuring inclusive approaches to rehabilitating degradedwatersheds. Figure 25 shows a general practical framework for developing an SLM-based
livelihood improvement system and five activity phases (section 3.3.2).

Figure 25. Practical flowchart for developing an SLM-based livelihood improvement system

7979

3.3.2. Phases/steps to developing an inclusive livelihood improvement system
Phase 1: Understanding the local livelihood system of the target population

Livelihood analysis can be done by clearly profiling the “target groups” by detailing theiravailable resources, livelihood activities, capacities and priorities, and constraints andopportunities (e.g., Abeje et al., 2019). The facilitator can start this activity by collecting
baseline information through the combined use of formal (e.g., questionnaires) andinformal (e.g., key informant interviews and focus group discussions) surveys (Figure 26).
To implement this, the facilitator can involve a multidisciplinary team involving
researchers with expertise in livestock, crops, horticulture, economics, extension, andnatural resource management. After the information has been compiled, preliminary
findings should be presented in a stakeholders’ workshop. This type of workshop is
important to get the community’s feedback and validate the findings. This stage enables
the facilitator to understand the local conditions and existing problems and their depths;
identify appropriate target groups (youth, women, and the landless); explore opportunities
on the basis of local contexts; and help build the interest of watershed communities.

Figure 26. Key informant interviews (top photos) and stakeholder meetings (bottom photos) to
identify and engage appropriate targets (youth, women, and the landless)Phase 2: Implementing effective targeting
Effective targeting can be done in two steps: (1) setting beneficiary selection criteria andprocedures to follow on the basis of the local context, and (2) targeting specific beneficiaryhouseholds. Both steps should be implemented with the involvement of the local
community and the district-level watershed development team to understand thesociocultural context and create a sense of ownership (i.e., use a community-based
approach). For effective community engagement, the facilitator can ask district -levelagriculture experts to invite a range of villagers within the watershed to attend stakeholder
80
80meetings. The social composition of the groups (e.g., age, gender, wealth, and social andreligious positions), expertise (e.g., development agents), and local administrative
position (e.g., kebele administrators, watershed development committee members, andcommunity police officers) can be considered when calling for local stakeholder
participation. Meetings should be facilitated by local experts.
Attendees should be encouraged to list targeting criteria for beneficiaries and theircorresponding weights (i.e., their relative importance). A possible list of targeting criteriathat can be used and applied by the community includes: (a) gender composition, (b) age
composition, (c) access to resources, (d) potential to take advantage of any extension
support, and (e) potential to be a model for other individuals. At the meeting, the facilitator
should summarize the objectives of the selection activity but assume only a facilitationrole to the extent possible and refrain from creating unnecessary expectations. The
meeting can be concluded by asking participants to assign an ad hoc committee with up
to five members to come up with list of potential beneficiaries that is based on the set
criteria.
The facilitator should ask this newly formed committee to come up with a preliminary
list of beneficiaries (more than the required minimum number) and assign weighted values
for each on the basis of the criteria set by the community. The facilitator then should begiven the unweighted preliminary list of beneficiaries. (The assigned weighted values
should remain with the committee.) Depending on the manageability of the process, thefacilitator can then plan a door-to-door visit of each listed beneficiary and assign weighted
values for each. The facilitator should then ask local experts to call for a community
meeting to present the findings of both by himself and the committee, solicit feedback,and finalize a list of beneficiaries. This process will help to introduce transparent targeting,reach consensus on a list of beneficiaries, create trust, and minimize any potential risks ofconflict within the community. At this stage, care should be taken to avoid the problem of“elite capture” (i.e., the biased allocation of public resources to benefit only a few
individuals of superior social status, to the detriment of the rest of the population). In
addition, the facilitator can initiate a general discussion of the potential livelihood
opportunities within the watershed.
Phase 3: Evaluating existing situations and prospects for change
Depending on the feasibility, the facilitator can meet with beneficiaries individually or ina group. The facilitator should begin by broadly asking about each beneficiary’s
background and life experiences before getting into specific details. The facilitator canthen proceed with profiling the specific circumstances of beneficiaries and highlighting
available resources and livelihood activities. They can also ascertain their interest in
engaging in various livelihood diversification options, as well as any constraints andopportunities and prospects for change. The facilitator should allow beneficiaries the
chance to reflect on any new insights, ideas, or solutions that may have become evident
during the process and that could inform possible actions.
Phase 4: Supporting and monitoring activities
At this stage, the facilitator should have a short list of specific livelihood options that havebeen suggested by individuals or the group. The facilitator can proceed with establishinga regular discussion platform that will create a space for collaborative learning among thebeneficiaries. Through this platform, it is important to ignite their interest and motivation
so as to enable them to widen their scope of activities, and arranging an experiential visit
is one possible option. In an experiential visit, the facilitator identifies two or three model
81
81

farmers who are engaged in similar activities in the same or neighboring villages. Thesemodel farmers explain their livelihood trajectories, thus potentially inspiring the visiting
farmers. In addition, to enable beneficiaries to observe potential markets, the facilitator
can arrange similar visits to commercial farms (e.g., poultry, dairy, food processors).
After the experiential visits, the facilitator should engage beneficiaries in problem
diagnosis, enable them to suggest possible solutions, and motivate them to put forward
their own solutions. It is important to enable beneficiaries to prioritize and undertake theirown desired actions and develop improved livelihood aspirations. After potential actions(e.g., income-generating activities) have been carefully defined, criteria should beestablished for each activity before final selection. These criteria could include technicalfeasibility, skill requirements, profitability, social acceptability, cost of inputs,
marketability, and self-sufficiency. After setting valid criteria in a participatory manner,the facilitator can call for a meeting of beneficiaries and ask them to assign scores (e.g.,
between 1 (very low) and 5 (very high)) to each of the criteria. Then, the final selection
can be done on the basis of the score attained by each income-generating activity.
If the planned action requires resources, ask the beneficiaries to propose possible
sources. Depending on the situation, the facilitator may need to look for support
mechanisms, but the support should be extended on a cost-sharing basis between
beneficiaries and support providers. The level of cost-sharing can be determined on thebasis of the situation and the resource availability. The cost-sharing scheme must be
established in a written contract that states clear terms for all parties. It is good to prepare
the contract in collaboration with the beneficiaries and have both parties sign the contract.
The facilitator needs to look for additional ways to keep the beneficiaries engaged intheir planned activities. The facilitator should make farmers active partners in the action
research (identification, monitoring, and evaluation activities) to enable them to witness
objectively measurable changes resulting from the activities they have been pursuing. Thiscan be achieved through the following mechanisms:a. Technology promotion: Introduce farmers to innovations (e.g., improved forage
species, improved animal breeds, improved land-management practices, feed
treatment, improved feeding troughs, compost preparation, and crossbreed bull
services; Figure 27).
b. Training (capacity development): Provide farmers with hands-on training on newtechnologies and practices.
c. Implementation: Implement technologies in accordance with appropriate procedures
and technical standards.
d. Monitoring and evaluation: Set up continuous monitoring mechanisms and tools(e.g., for evaluating weights, yields, biomass) and provide feedback, both individuallyand during discussion platforms.
e. Experience-sharing and motivation: As part of experiential learning, beneficiaries
should physically evaluate each other’s activities and exchange feedback; they could
be motivated by introducing “awards” for good performers. The type of incentive does
not have to necessarily be something of high value.
f. Provide access to markets: Link activities with markets.
g. Scaling-out: Encourage beneficiaries to disseminate technologies and practices totheir fellow non-beneficiary farmers. Organizing field days for stakeholders within
and outside the watershed can enable them to disseminate their experiences withimproved technologies and practices.
h. Farmers’ business organizations: Encourage beneficiaries to establish organizations(e.g., saving groups, users’ associations, cooperatives)
82
82

83

Figure 27. SLM-centered dairy farming developed by involving key components for income-generating (IG) activities

83Phase 5: Evaluation and designing sustainability strategies
Facilitators need to proactively evaluate activities at different stages and enable thebeneficiaries to make collaborative decisions. From the early stages, the facilitators needto think about “sustainability” issues to ensure continuity of outcomes. One possibility
could be to enable the beneficiaries establish an institution—for example, a savings andcredit group (Figure 28). Beneficiaries can decide by themselves on the modalities of thisgroup and its management. Here, the facilitator should only identify gaps and extend
support through capacity-development activities (e.g., record keeping, writing minutes
and contracts, financial management). This type of group can play a critical role bypromoting a culture of saving, bringing access to financial services, and teaching financial
skills in rural areas. The facilitator can use this type of platform to engage farmers incontinuous learning.

Figure 28. Bimonthly meetings among members to collect monthly savings and share lessons
and challenges

3.3.3. Showcase: Evidence of improvement in the livelihoods of beneficiaries engaged
in income-generating activities
Two income-generating activities were implemented and monitored with financial support
from the SATREPS-Ethiopia Project: dairy farming, which involved 24 selected
beneficiaries (women and young people) at the midland agroecological site (Aba Gerima
watershed); and poultry farming, which involved 12 selected beneficiaries (women/youth)at the highland agroecological site (Guder). The estimated changes in annual income areshown in Figure 29. The incomes of the beneficiaries who implemented dairy farming
were improved by 39.6% compared with the baseline (Nigussie, 2021c, paper in
preparation). Similarly, poultry farming improved the livelihood of women and youth by
37.6% (Nigussie, 2021c, paper in preparation). The results imply that engaging andsupporting less-advantaged people in the community (e.g., landless people, women, andyoung people) can bring about positive outcomes and support ongoing integrated
watershed development programs. For example, improved forage development based ondairy farming has been scaled out because of improved forage production by farmers who
have implemented it at the farmyard and small-plot levels (Figure 29).

84
84

Figure 29. Changes in household income after implementing income-generating activities:
dairy farming at Aba Gerima (midland) and poultry farming at Guder (highland) (Nigussie,
2021c)

3.4. Facilitating farmers’ voluntary adoption of SLM technologies
3.4.1. Description
Currently, various SLM technologies and approaches have been developed in Ethiopia
under many projects or programs by using existing guidelines and manuals. However,there have been few occasions where farmers have voluntarily wanted to adopt SLM
technologies by themselves. Usually, the farmers prefer external support. With this reality
in mind, the project recognizes that self-implementation of SLM is one of the possible
keys to improving sustainability. Therefore, there is a need to devise a way to enhanceself-motivation. Such an approach was developed by the project to catalyze thewillingness of farmers to adopt improved SLM practices on their farmlands. Under thisapproach, the project formulated a group exercise tool and used it in several trials. It is
expected that the tool (a pocket-sized handbook: “A Guide to Starting Profitable andSustainable Land Management”) will help farmers to (1) understand that SLM methods
will bring long-term benefits and improve their livelihoods, so that they will want to try
these methods, (2) choose the appropriate SLM activities on the basis of their status andcapacity, and (3) make realistic action plans to lower costs and increase benefits.
Aims
The main aim of this approach (and the tool) is to increase the willingness of farmers to
adopt SLM practices on the basis of the following three concepts: simplification,monetization, and scientific evidence.
Simplification: The simplification concept means that anybody can follow the approachand take the initiative in planning SLM very easily. For farmers autonomously starting85
85

SLM activities, the contents and steps of the tool should be extremely easy to follow. Thisis especially important when those who do not have much knowledge and experience with
SLM want to take new actions. After the developmental agents (DAs, extension workers
or critical actors in the agricultural sector of Ethiopia) and farmers efficiently select only
the necessary activities out of the vast selection on offer, the tool (the guidebook) also
introduces other extension materials (guidelines and other materials) as a reference forfarmers to have options to access more detailed information on SLM technologies.
Furthermore, the simplification of the tool is aimed at extending its use to different
districts or kebeles to have more impacts over a wider area and with greater cost efficiency.
Monetization: This concept states that planning based on economic value increases
farmers’ willingness to start SLM activities. When people realize they can gain monetary
benefits, they are more willing to take on an activity without external support. For example,
in some areas where A. decurrens plantations have proliferated in recent years, farmers
who have seen neighboring farmers’ profitability increase by producing and selling woodor charcoal have also adopted this practice. However, this type of dissemination is limited
to a few visible practices, and it is also limited to those who have easy access to
information. Therefore, it is important for farmers to see wider SLM practices and theirpros and cons, including the long-term benefits, for sustainable productivity. They alsoneed to gather realistic information on input costs and output sales for their plans. Inside
the tool, cost–benefit information is explored through self-exercises by farmers to try tovisualize the profitability of SLM technologies. The tool also emphasizes that the benefits
are for the farmers’ children, grandchildren, and future generations.
Scientific evidence: Scientific evidence lowers uncertainty, thereby encouraging farmers
to invest in long-term activities. Many farmers are reluctant to use their own money orlabor for SLM activities if the benefits or effectiveness are unclear and the desired effects
will occur in the long term. If farmers are presented with scientifically proven SLM
options, their willingness to take up SLM practices could increase. The tool provides
information that is based on the research results of the SATREPS-Ethiopia Project,including the effectiveness of selected SLM technologies. There are, however, trade-offs
between the goals of presenting scientific evidence and simplification. Therefore, research
results must be demonstrated clearly and in easy-to-understand terms.
The tool is also referred to by JICA as the “Smallholder Horticulture Empowerment andPromotion (SHEP) Approach.” This has been expanded by JICA from its original use in
Kenya to Ethiopia and other African countries as one of the pillars of “Agricultural
Cooperation in Africa.” The SHEP approach has succeeded in increasing farmers’ incomeson the basis of two basic concepts: promoting farming as a business and empowering andmotivating farmer/s. The approach is also supported by the academic theories of markets
with asymmetric information and self-determination theory. (Please refer to the following
link for more information on this topic:
https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/thematic_issues/agricultural/shep/shep_now_09.html).

By incorporating the abovementioned three concepts, the project carefully configured
the order and structure of the contents of the tool, with reference to both SHEP’s approachand existing theories—particularly those related to nourishing farmers’ autonomy.
Whereas SHEP targeted horticulture, this SLM approach focuses on the management ofland and its natural resources, emphasizing the importance of long-term benefits andimproved livelihoods.
8686

3.4.2. Features of the tool (a guide to starting profitable and sustainable
land management by farmers)
PurposeTo enhance farmers’ desire to plan and implement SLM-related activities that can improvetheir livelihoods without external financial or material support.
Contents
The guide contains a cover page with a “problem-solution sheet,’’ an introduction, three
key activities (understanding the present status, exploring for improvement, and action
planning), and three tips and references (see Figure 30).

Figure 30. Schematic showing how to implement the SLM exercise tool: cycle of activities andrequired inputs (knowledge and tools)

Target users (beneficiaries)
The approach is for farmers or groups of farmers who want to voluntarily adopt new SLM
technologies without any external financing or other materials. This approach focuses
mainly on the residential community (small village [mender]) level. It is important to go
through the planning process of organizing water users’ associations or cooperatives at thewatershed or sub-watershed levels across multiple working or development groups,
because they have already been promoted by other existing community-based programs.
Harmonizing with these programs or the ordinary NRM (natural resources management)
extension system adds value as part of the voluntary adoption concept.
Expected outcomes and impacts
Through this package, farmers are expected to build the capacity to make appropriate
action plans considering their current situation and the pros and cons of various SLM
methodologies and new crop cultivars. A simplified and streamlined package can easily
be distributed in digital or paper form, not only to farmers but also to DAs as an extension
tool; this should have an immediate impact at wider scales. Figure 31 shows the verticalflow of information for and from the extension of the SLM exercise tool.
87
87

Figure 31. Upward and downward flows of information in the course of distributing the SLM
exercise tool (i.e., the flows of inputs and feedback from farmers to higher officials and viceversa)

3.4.3. Procedures/steps of exercises in the tool
Step 1: Understanding present status
 Land-mapping (exercise 1): Draw a rough map of the surrounding land area of theparticipants and indicate the major problems related to SLM for the purpose ofvisualizing the current status of different land-use types (Figure 32).
 Cost–benefit analysis (exercise 2): Describe each element of production, including thename, area size, yield, sales, cost, and income, on the format sheet to help gain anunderstanding of the costs and benefits of the latest harvested products (crops, trees,
and livestock products), and to realize the different levels of profitability among
different products and different farmers.
 Market survey (exercise 3): Nominate two to four members (considering genderbalance) from the group who will research market information by using the survey
format sheet to better understand the price and demand trends of different products
among buyers in the market or other places.
Step 2: Exploring improvement
 Study of potential SLM options: Understand the existing land-degradation risks andthe importance of SLM technologies, and study the potential options among them.
 Selection of SLM options: On the basis of the study of potential SLM options, discussand select practical SLM options and actions corresponding to the major issues
identified on the land map.
88
88

Figure 32. Three key activities involved in exercises in the SLM toolset: introduction of the
purpose, land mapping, and market survey for cost benefit analysis from farmers to higher
officials and vice versa)

Step 3: Preassessment and action planning Feedback of market survey results: Obtain the market survey results from surveyors.
 Activity selection: Select activities for products (e.g., crops, livestock, trees) in thenext season on the basis of the information in steps 1 and 2 and additional factors suchas expected costs and sales of products, potential risks, and opportunities.
 Group activity: On the survey format sheet, fill out information on how to obtain input
materials and expected benefits. This will help prepare for the next steps (action
planning and implementation).
 Action planning: Nominate a subgroup leader and participants for each selected
production type or SLM option, and prepare the necessary work schedule, including
meetings, training sessions, and other necessary work.
Step 4: Implementation
 During implementation of selected activities, DAs will help farmers by providing
technical support, referring to existing guidelines or manuals. (Reference documents
are recommended in the presentation materials.)
 DAs will also provide printouts of the needed parts from the guidelines or manuals
and will train farmers if necessary.
Step 5: Data survey after implementation
 To capture and evaluate the results from farmers, DAs may conduct a cost–benefit
analysis involving selected farmers.
 DAs may also conduct interviews of target farmers about their perceptions andexpectations about the SLM activities they are implementing, so that they can learn
about any behavioral changes (positive or negative).

8989

4. Challenges and solutions in adopting SLM technologies andapproaches
In Sub-Saharan countries such as Ethiopia, the implementation and sustainability ofpromising SLM technologies and approaches have been facing several challenges (FAO,
2008). For instance, major challenges in the achievement of food security are related to(1) an insufficient policy environment to boost SLM and unsuccessful scaling-up of
project and community efforts; (2) a lack of capacity at the institutional, community, andstakeholder levels; (3) insufficient partnership and alliance across institutions and sectors
to boost investments in land and water management; and (4) a lack of clearly defined roles
and responsibilities among different institutions and sectors involved in theimplementation of SLM interventions. Table 79 presents some of the most important
challenges and corresponding possible solutions for the implementation of SLM practices(technologies and approaches) in Ethiopia.
Table 79. Existing challenges for adopting SLM practices, and proposed solutions

Existing challenge
Insecurity of rural land-use andtenure systems
Lack of uptake of new technologies
and approaches and failure ofprevious attempts and interventions

Diversity in agroecological andsociocultural settings and farming
systems across landscapes,
requiring different types/designs of
SLM technologies and approaches
Lack of integration among policy,
research, and development

Proposed solutions• Ensuring land ownership and sustainableland-use rights for rural communities throughland certification.
• Learn lessons from previous interventions(failures and successes).
• Develop improved management practices andenhance their adoption by creating awarenessthrough training and field demonstrations.
• Develop flexible extension strategies thatfacilitate access to the inputs and services(demonstrations, help from appropriate
experts, finance, and credit) needed for
effective adoption of SLM technologies andapproaches at the grassroots level.
• Develop alternative land-use andmanagement options relevant and specific tolocal conditions.
• Establish an appropriate planning platform

and a system for integrating or bridging
research and developmental works to achieveeffective resource management.
• Develop a national- or regional-level
framework aimed at bridging the science–
policy–development divide by integrating
coevolving local and scientific knowledge
and including multiple stakeholder
perspectives in the development anddissemination of SLM practices.
• Establish a forum that considers policy,
research, and the development aspects of
SLM.
90
90

Table 79 (continued)
Existing challenge
Duplication of efforts and lack ofproper exit strategies for SLM
projects

Lack of attention by local
stakeholders (officials andcommunities) to supporting thesustainability of best SLM practices

Lack of suitable bylaws at thewatershed or community level andlack of community ownership ofbylawsTraditional farming activities
causing destruction of structural
SLM measures• Proposed solutions• Properly evaluate the goals and outcomes ofprevious and ongoing SLM projects
involving relevant stakeholders.
• Set proper intervention and exit strategies for
SLM projects. Project interventions in a
specific geographical area should be based ona multi-disciplinary and stakeholder
evaluation of common goals and possible
areas of collaboration with existing projects.
• Before intervention, current environmental
and socioeconomic conditions must be
assessed and documented for successfulplanning and implementation of suitable
SLM-related activities.
• Termination of SLM projects should always
be based on best exit strategies that canensure the project results will continue tobenefit targeted beneficiaries.
• The exit strategy of a given project must be
considered during the planning,
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation
processes.
• Link the implementation of SLM practices
with social and religious institutions. The
principles and implementation of promising
SLM practices should be supported bycommunity bylaws through which members
are governed and dedicated to shared
responsibilities (e.g., idir: an association ofpeople with the objective of providing socialand economic insurance in the event of death,property damages, and accident).
• Develop new or update existing bylaws thattake the local contexts into account, andensure that the members of the target
community are aware of the principles andcontents of the documents.
• Create awareness and build consensus amongcommunity members on the significance of
SLM.
• Use appropriate design of structural measuresand develop suitable farm implements.
• Provide training to land users.

91
91

Table 79 (continued)
Existing challenge
Prevalence of free grazing

Increasing demand for arable land
due to population growth

Financial constraints for rural
households. SLM practices require
labor and financial resources.
Consequently, they have not been
easily implemented by individual
farmers. Most SLM interventions
are funded (financially andmaterially) from foreign sources.
Mobilization-based SLM
implementation
Lack of pre- and post-harvest
mechanization technologies

Proposed solutions• Develop improved livestock production

systems. For instance, a ban on free grazing
can support farmers to keep small numbers oflivestock suitable to apply stall-feeding.
• Replace cropping practices (e.g., teff
cultivation) requiring animal traction withother appropriate alternatives to reduce thenumbers of livestock and hence the pressure
on grazing lands.
• Rear high-yielding livestock breeds.
Introduce productive forage species.
• Develop and implement technologies that can
substantially improve the productivity ofexisting croplands. For instance, making useof high-yielding crop cultivars and best-fit
agronomic practices can support adequate
and sustainable food production. This can, inturn, reduce the conversion of vegetated lands
to croplands.
• Promote the development of agroforestry
practices that provide diverse products suchas fruits, crops, forage, timber, and nontimber products.
• Support farmers to engage in additional
income-generating activities such as bee
keeping, poultry farming, dairy, and other offfarm activities. Develop irrigation facilities toincrease crop production.
• Develop mechanisms to provide financial
support and other rewards for farmers
implementing improved SLM practices.
• Encourage community collective efforts toincrease financial effectiveness.
• Provide access to credit (short- and longterm). Encourage farmers to use available
financing mechanisms while using theselected technologies.
• Emphasize regular extension approaches in
implementing SLM.
• Develop appropriate pre- and post-harvest
mechanization technologies.

92
92

Bibliography
Abebe, G., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Takeshi, T., Wondie, M., Adgo, E., Masunaga,T., Tsubo, M., Ebabu, K., Berihun, M.L., Tassew, A., 2020a. Effects of land use
and topographic position on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks indifferent agro-ecosystems of the Upper Blue Nile Basin. Sustainability, 12(6),2425.
Abebe, G., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Taniguchi, T., Wondie, M., Adgo, E.,
Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., Ebabu, K., Mamedov, A., Meshesha, D. T., 2020b. Effectof Soil Microbiome from Church Forest in the Northwest Ethiopian Highlands on
the Growth of Olea europaea and Albizia gummifera Seedlings under Glasshouse
Conditions. Sustainability, 12(12), 4976.
Abeje M.,T., Tsunekawa, A., Adgo, E., Haregeweyn, N., Nigussie, Z., Ayalew, Z., Elias,A., Molla, D., Berihun, D., 2019. Exploring drivers of livelihood diversificationand its effect on adoption of sustainable land management practices in the Upper
Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Sustainability, 11(10), 2991.
Adimassu, Z., Mekonnen, K., Yirga, C., Kessler, A., 2014. Effect of soil bunds on runoff,soil and nutrient losses, and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land
Degrad. Dev. 25, 554–564.
Adimassu, Z., Langan, S., Johnston, R., 2016. Understanding determinants of farmers’
investments in sustainable land management practices in Ethiopia: Review andsynthesis. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 18(4),1005–1023.
Adnew, W., Tsegay, B. A., Tassew, A., Asmare, B., 2019. Effect of Altitudes andHarvesting Stages on Agronomic Responses and Chemical Composition ofBrachiaria grass Cultivars in Northwestern Ethiopia. Scientific Papers: Animal
Science & Biotechnologies/Lucrari Stiintifice: Zootehnie si Biotehnologii, 52(2).
Aerts, R., Nyssen, J., Haile, M., 2009. On the difference between “exclosures” and“enclosures” in ecology and the environment. J. Arid Environ., 73(8), 762–763.
Alemu, G.T., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Nigussie, Z., Tsubo, M., Elias, A., Ayalew,
Z., Berihun, D., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D.T., Molla, D., 2021. Smallholder farmers’
willingness to pay for sustainable land management practices in the Upper Blue
Nile basin, Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23(4), 5640–5665.
Amare, T., Zegeye, A.D., Yitaferu, B., Steenhuis, T.S., Hurni, H., Zeleke, G., 2014.
Combined effect of soil bund with biological soil and water conservation measuresin the northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 14, 192–199.
Bayable, M., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Ishii, T., Alemayehu, G., Tsubo, M., Adgo,
E., Tassew, A., Tsuji, W., Asaregew, F., Masunaga, T., 2020. Biomechanicalproperties and agro-morphological traits for improved lodging resistance in
Ethiopian teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trottor) accessions. Agronomy, 10(7), 1012.
Bayable, M., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Alemayehu, G., Tsuji, W., Tsubo, M., Adgo,
E., Tassew, A., Ishii, T., Asargew F., Masunaga, T., 2021. Yield Potential andVariability of Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) Germplasms under Intensive andConventional Management Conditions. Agronomy, 11(2), 220.
Bekele, T. A., Sjohom, H., Bekalo, I., Mariam, S. W., Fentaw, B., Temesgen, M., 2005.
Managing land. a practical guidebook for development agents in Ethiopia.
Berihun, M.L., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Meshesha, D.T., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M.,
Masunaga, T., Fenta, A.A., Sultan, D., Yibeltal, M., 2019a. Exploring land use/landcover changes, drivers and their implications in contrasting agro-ecologicalenvironments of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 87, 104052.
93
93

Berihun, M.L., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Meshesha, D.T., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M.,
Masunaga, T., Fenta, A.A., Sultan, D., Yibeltal, M., Ebabu, K., 2019b.
Hydrological responses to land use/land cover change and climate variability incontrasting agroecological environments of the upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia.
Sci. Total Environ. 689, 347–365.
Berihun, M.L., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Dile, Y.T., Tsubo, M., Fenta, A.A.,
Meshesha, D.T., Ebabu, K., Sultan, D., Srinivasan, R., 2020. Evaluating runoff andsediment responses to soil and water conservation practices by employing
alternative modeling approaches. Sci.Total Environ. 747,141118.
Berihun, M. L., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Fenta, A. A., 2021. Changes
in ecosystem service values strongly influenced by human activities in contrasting
agro-ecological environments. Ecol. Process. 10(1), 1–18.
Berihun, M.L., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Fenta, A. A., Ebabu, K.,
Sultan, D., Dile, Y. T., 2022. Reduced runoff and sediment loss under alternative
land capability-based land use and management options in a sub-humid watershedof Ethiopia. J.Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 40, 100998.
BoA, 2022. A crop development and protection package prepared by the Amhara National
Regional Government Agriculture Office for areas with sufficient moisture.
Cercioglu, M., Anderson, S.H., Udawatta, R.P., Haruna, S.I., 2018. Effects of cover cropand biofuel crop management on computed tomography-measured poreparameters. Geoderma, 319, pp.80–88.
CSA, 2019. Agricultural sample survey: Report on area and production of major crops.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Daryanto, S., Fu, B., Wang, L., Jacinthe, P.A., Zhao, W., 2018. Quantitative synthesis on
the ecosystem services of cover crops. Earth-Sci. Rev. 185, 357–373.
Danyo, S., 2014. Ethiopia-Sustainable Land Management Project-II: P133133Implementation Status Results Report: Sequence 01 (No. ISR13812, pp. 1–0). The
World Bank.
Dehn, M., 1995. An evaluation of soil conservation techniques in the EcuadorianAndes. Mt. Res. Dev. 175–182.
Demissie, S., Meshesha, D.T., Adgo, E., Haregeweyn N., Tsunekawa, A., Muluken Ayana,M., Mulualem, T., Wubet, T., 2022a. Optimum soil bund spacing: Cost–benefit
analysis in a midland agro-ecological region of Ethiopia. Available at SSRN
4039710.
Demissie, S., Meshesha, D.T., Adgo, E., Haregeweyn N., Tsunekawa, A., Mulualem, T.,
Fekadu, G., Ebabu, K., 2022b. Increased runoff and decreased soil loss paradoxes
under Acacia decurrens plantation in the highland agro-ecology of Ethiopia.
Demissie, S., 2022c. Effects of cover crops on runoff, soil erosion, and soil moisturedynamics in the sub-tropical highland agro-ecology, Ethiopia.
Desta, L., Carucci, V., Wendem-Ageňehu, A., Abebe, Y. (eds). 2005. Community Based
Participatory Watershed Development: A Guideline. Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Desta, L., Adugna, B., 2012. A field guide on gully prevention and control. Nile Basin
Initiative Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Program (ENSAP), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 67.
Ebabu, K., 2016. Effects of Land Management Practices on Soil and Nutrient Losses: A
Case Study in Paired Watersheds of Guder, in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
Tottori University, Japan (MSc Thesis).
Ebabu, K., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D.T., Aklog, D.,9494

Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., Sultan, D., Fenta, A.A., 2019. Effects of land use andsustainable land management practices on runoff and soil loss in the Upper Blue
Nile basin. Ethiopia. Sci. Total Environ. 648, 1462–1475.
Ebabu, K., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D. T., Aklog, D.,
Masunaga,T., Tsubo, M., Sultan, D., Fenta, A.A., Yibeltal, M., 2020. Exploring
the variability of soil properties as influenced by land use and management
practices: A case study in the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Soil Till. Res. 200(2020) 1040614.
Ellert, B.H., Bettany, J.R., 1995. Calculation of organic matter and nutrients stored in soils
under contrasting management regimes. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75(4), 529–538.
FAO, 2008. Challenges for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) for Food Security in
Africa. 25th Regional Conference for Africa, Nirobi, Kenya.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Agriculture (FDRE MoA), 2020.
Integrated local level participatory land use planning (ILLPLUP) manual. Rural
land administration and use directorate (RLAUD), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
FES, 2008. A Source Book for Soil and Water Conservation Measures (fes.org.in/sourcebook/SWC%20Source%20Book_final.pdf, axsseded on 12 May 20202).
Fenta, A.A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Borrelli, P., Panagos,
P., Vanmaercke,M., Broeckx, J., Yasuda, H., Kawai, T., Kurosaki, Y., 2020. Landsusceptibility to water and wind erosion risks in the East Africa region. Sci. Total
Environ. 703,135016.
Fenta, A.A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Yasuda, H., Shimizu, K., Kawai,T., Ebabu, K., Berihun, M.L., Sultan, D., Belay A.S., 2021a. Cropland expansion
outweighs the monetary effect of declining natural vegetation on ecosystemservices in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecosyst. Serv. 45,101154
Fenta, A. A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Yasuda, H., Kawai, T., Ebabu,
K., Berihun, M.L., Belay A.S., Sultan, D., 2021b. Agroecology-based soil erosion
assessment for better conservation planning in Ethiopian river
basins. Environ.Res. 195, 110786.
Fenta, A. A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Yasuda, H., Kawai, T., Berihun,
M.L., Ebabu, K., Sultan, D., Mekuriaw, S., 2022. A novel integrated framework
for improving watershed management planning. Paper submitted for publication.
Gizaw D. G., 2014. Teff row planting [Ethiopia], Indexed in WOCAT database of SLM
technologies.
Godsey, L.D., Mercer, D.E., Grala, R.K., Grado, S.C., Alavalapati, J.R., 2009.
Agroforestry economics and policy. In: Garrett, H.E. (Ed.), North American
Agroforestry: an Integrated Science and Practice, 2nd ed. American Society ofAgronomy Inc, Madison, WI, 315–337.
Gonite, T., Reda, H., 2018. Design and Prototyping of Teff (ጤፍ) Row Planter andFertilizer Applier. International Journal of Mechanical, 91–97.
Haregeweyn, N., Tsunekawa, A., Poesen, J., Tsubo, M., Meshesha, D.T., Fenta, A.A.,
Nyssen, J. and Adgo, E., 2017. Comprehensive assessment of soil erosion risk forbetter land use planning in river basins: Case study of the Upper Blue Nile
River. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 95–108.
Haregeweyn N. Tsunekawa, A., Tsubo, M., Fenta, A. A., Ebabu, K., Vanmaercke, M., ...
Poesen, J., 2022a. Progress and challenges in sustainable land management
initiatives: A global review, Sci. Total Environ. 160027.
Herweg, K., Ludi, E. 1999. The performance of selected soil and water conservation
measures—case studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena, 36(1), 99–114.
95
95

Hilemicael, K., Alamirew, T., 2017. Water productivity of Teff under semi-arid climates.
J. Environ. Earth Sci. 7(5).
Hunde, T., Gizachew, B., 2003. Growth and form variations among seed sources of Acacia
Decurrens willd. planted at Holetta, Central Ethiopia. Eth. J. Nat. Resour.
Hurni, H., Berhe, W.A., Chadhokar, P., Daniel, D., Gete, Z., Grunder, M., Kassaye, G.,2016. Soil and Water Conservation in Ethiopia: Guidelines for Development
Agents. Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), Bern Open Publishing(BOP), Bern, Switzerland, pp. 1–50.
Kay R.D., Edwards W.M., Duffy P.A. 2003. Farm management, 5th edn. McGraw Hill
Science/Engineering, New York.
Kebede, B., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Mamedov, A.I., Tsubo, M., Fenta, A.A.,
Meshesha, D.T., Masunaga, T., Adgo, E., Abebe, G., Berihun, M.L., 2020.
Effectiveness of polyacrylamide in reducing runoff and soil loss under consecutive
rainfall storms. Sustainability 2020 (12), 1597.
Kebede, B., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Ebabu, K., Meshesha, D.T., Tsubo,M., Masunaga, T. and Fenta, A.A., 2021. Determining C-and P-factors of RUSLE
for different land uses and management practices across agro-ecologies: casestudies from the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Phys. Geogr., 42(2), 160–182.
Kebede, B., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Mulualem, T., Mamedov, A. I.,
Meshesha, D.T., Adgo, E., Fenta, A. A., Ebabu, K., Masunaga, T., 2022. Effect of
Polyacrylamide integrated with other soil amendments on runoff and soil loss: casestudy from Northwest Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 10 (3) 487–496.
Mekuriaw, S., Tsunekawa, A., Ichinohe, T., Tegegne, F., Haregeweyn, N., Kobayashi, N.,
Tassew, T., Mekuriaw, Y., Walie, M., Tsubo, M., Okuro, T., Meshesha, D.T.,
Meseret, M., Sam, L., Fievez, V., 2020. Effect of Feeding Improved Grass Haysand Eragrostis tef Straw Silage on Milk Yield, Nitrogen Utilization, and Methane
Emission of Lactating Fogera Dairy Cows in Ethiopia. Animals, 10(6), 1021.
Mihretie, F. A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Masunaga, T.,
Meshesha, D.T. Tsuji, W. Ebabu, K., Tassew, A., 2021a. Tillage and sowing
options for enhancing productivity and profitability of teff in a sub-tropicalhighland environment. Field Crops Res. 263, 108050.
Mihretie, F.A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Masunaga, T.,
Meshesha, D.T., Ebabu, K., Bayable, M., 2021b. Agro-Economic Evaluation of
Alternative Crop Management Options for Teff Production in Midland AgroEcology, Ethiopia. Agriculture, 11(4), 298.
Mihretie F.A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Ebabu, K.,
Masunaga, T., Kebede, B., Meshesha, D.T., Tsuji, W., Bayable, M., Berihun, M.
L., 2022. Tillage and Crop Management Impacts on Soil Loss and Crop Yields inNorthwestern Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 10(1), 75–85.
Mulualem, T., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D.T., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M.,
Kebede, B., Mamedov, A.I., Masunaga, T., Berihun, M.L., 2021a. Examining the
Impact of Polyacrylamide and Other Soil Amendments on Soil Fertility and Crop
Yield in Contrasting Agroecological Environments. J.Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 21(3),1817–1830.
Mulualem, T., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D.T., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M.,
Ebabu, K., Kebede, B., Berihun, M.L., Walie, M. and Mekuriaw, S., 2021b.
Exploring the variability of soil nutrient outflows as influenced by land use andmanagement practices in contrasting agro-ecological environments. Sci. Total
Environ. 786, 147450.
96
96

Nigussie, Z., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Cochrane, L., Floquet, A., Abele,
S., 2018. Applying Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework tosoil and water conservation activities in north-western Ethiopia. Land use
policy, 71, 1–10.
Nigussie, Z., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Ayalew, Z., Abele, S.,
2020. Economic and financial sustainability of an Acacia decurrens-based
Taungya system for farmers in the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Land Use
Policy, 90, 104331.
Nigussie, Z., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Adgo, E., Ayalew, Z., Abele, S.,
2021a. The impacts of Acacia decurrens plantations on livelihoods in rural
Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 100, 104928.
Nigussie, Z., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Adgo, E., Ayalew, Z., Abele, S.,
2021b. Small-Scale Woodlot Growers’ Interest in Participating in Bioenergy
Market In Rural Ethiopia. Environ. Manage. 68(4), 553–565.
Nigussie, Z., 2021c. Effects of engaging poor framers in livelihood improvement activities
in enhancing household welfare.
Ruskin FR, 1983. Firewood crops. Shrub and tree species for energy production. Volume
2. 1983, vii + 92 pp.; 36 pl. BOSTID Report No. 40.Washington DC, USA:
National Academy Press. 6 pp. ref.
Seybold, C. A. 1994. Polyacrylamide review: Soil conditioning and environmental fate.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 25(11 and 12): 2171–2185.
Sultan, D., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Meshesha, D.T.,
Masunaga, T., Aklog, D., Fenta, A.A. and Ebabu, K., 2018a. Efficiency of soil andwater conservation practices in different agro-ecological environments in theUpper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia. J. Arid Land, 10(2), 249-263.
Sultan, D., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo, M., Meshesha, D.T.,
Masunaga, T., Aklog, D., Fenta, A.A., Ebabu, K., 2018b. Impact of soil and water
conservation interventions on watershed runoff response in a tropical humid
highland of Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 61(5), 860–874.
Taddese, G., 2001. Land degradation: a challenge to Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 27 (6),815–824.
Teklu, Y., Tefera, H. 2005. Genetic improvement in grain yield potential and associatedagronomic traits of tef (Eragrostis tef). Euphytica, 141, 247–254.
Tripathi, R.P., H.P Singh. 2007. Soil erosion and conservation. New age international
publication, New Delhi, India.
Taye, G., Poesen, J., Vanmaercke, M., van Wesemael, B., Martens, L., Teka, D., Nyssen,J., Deckers, J., Vanacker, V., Haregeweyn, N., 2015. Evolution of the effectivenessof stone bunds and trenches in reducing runoff and soil loss in the semi-arid
Ethiopian highlands. Z. Geomorphol. 59(4), 477–493.
Turano, B., Tiwari, U. P., Jha, R., 2016. Growth and nutritional evaluation of napier grasshybrids as forage for ruminants. Trop. Grassl.s-Forrajes Trop. 4(3), 168–178.
Van Delden, S. H., Vos, J., Ennos, A. R., Stomph, T. J., 2010. Analysing lodging of thepanicle bearing cereal teff (Eragrostis tef). New Phytol. 186(3), 696–707.
Walie, M., Tegegne, F., Mekuriaw, Y., Tsunekawa, A., Kobayashi, N., Ichinohe, T.,
Haregeweyn, N., Tassew, A., Mekuriaw, S., Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., 2022a.
Nutritional Value and In Vitro Volatile Fatty Acid Production of Forage Grasses
Cultivated Using Farmyard Manure and Desmodium intortum Intercropping in theUpper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Adv. Agric.
Walie, M., Tegegne, F., Mekuriaw, Y., Tsunekawa, A., Kobayashi, N., Ichinohe, T.,
97
97

Haregeweyn, N., Tassew, A., Mekuriaw, S., Masunaga, T., Okuro, T., 2022b.
Effects of farmyard manure and Desmodium intercropping on forage grass growth,yield, and soil properties in different agro-ecologies of Upper Blue Nile basin,
Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 8(1), 2082041.
Wassie, A., Sterck, F. J., Teketay, D., Bongers, F., 2009. Tree regeneration in church forestsof Ethiopia: effects of microsites and management. Biotropica, 41(1), 110–119.
Webb D.B., Wood P.J., Smith J.P., Henman G.S., 1984. A guide to species selection fortropical and sub-tropical plantations. Tropical Forestry Papers, No. 15. Oxford,
UK: Commonwealth Forestry Institute, University of Oxford.
Weil, R.R., Brady, N.C., 2017. The nature and properties of soils. 15th edition, ISBN 9780-13-325448-8: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Yayneshet, T., Eik, L. O., Moe, S. R., 2009. The effects of exclosures in restoring degradedsemi-arid vegetation in communal grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. J. Arid
Environ. 73 (4–5), 542–549.
Yibeltal, M., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D.T., Masunaga, T.,
Tsubo, M., Billi, P., Ebabu, K., Fenta, A.A., Berihun, M.L., 2019. Morphologicalcharacteristics and topographic thresholds of gullies in different agro-ecologicalenvironments. Geomorphology, 341,15–27.
Yihun, Y. M., Haile, A. M., Schultz, B., Teklu, E., 2013. Crop Water Productivity of
Irrigated Teff in a Water Stressed Region. Water Resour. Manag. 27, 3115–3125.

98
98

99

Soil bunds + grass
PAM + lime
Reduced tillage
Row planting
Irrigation for teffproduction
Teff lodging control
Cover crops
Exclosure
Improved forage (N+D)
Exclosure + trenches
Stall-feeding
Assisted v. establishment
Acacia plantation

1
2
3
4
5

CL
CL
GL, DH
CL, GLDH, GL
CL, GLDH
CL, GL, DH

CL
CL
CL
CL
CL

CL
DH
CL
BH
GL

GL

Suitable land-use type
Most
Less
suitablesuitable

na
na
+++
+++
+++
++
+++
++

+++
++
na
+++
na
++
na
+++

na
na
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++

Improved
livelihood
CL GL DH
++
++
na
++
na
na
++
na
na
++
++
++
+++ nana
na +++ na
na
na
++
na
na
+++ na–/+ –/++++ +++ +++ +++++ na–/+ –/+++na+++++++ nana
na+++ +++ +++ +++Impact on key indicators
Soil
Improved landconservation
productivity
CL GL DH CL GL DH+++ +++ na ++++ na+++ na
na ++
na
na
++
na
na ++
na
na
na
na
na
++
na
na
+++ nana +++ na
na

na
na
na
na
na
++
na
na +++ nana++ ++na ++++++ +++ ++ +++ +++na +++ +++ na +++++ +++ ++++ +++nana
nana +++–/+ –/+ –/+ ++++Moisture
conservation
CL GL DH
++ ++
na
++
na
na
++
na
na
++
na
na
na
na
na

CL: cropland; GL: Grassland; N+D: Napier grass + Desmodium; DH: degraded hillsides; Acacia: Acacia decurrens; assisted v.: vegetation;–: negative; +: slightly positive; ++: positive; +++: very positive; -/+: neutral; na: not applicable.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Type of SLM technology

No.

Annex 1. Summary of selected SLM technologies, their importance by land-use type, and impacts on key indicators
based on expert judgment

Annexes100

Note: The information provided in this table can be used as a general guide for planning at larger scales. In certain circumstances, however,calculating the spacing by using empirical formulas may result in either an under- or overestimation of the number of bunds. For instance,
the use of closer bund spacing may result in the loss of productive land, higher input costs, and hinder agricultural operations, whereas wider
spacing can result in lower effectiveness in reducing runoff and soil loss. A rule of thumb combined with expert or farmer judgment could be
used for reasonable spacing and effective design of bunds, while at the same time generally following the practical standards.

Features of soil bunds are shown for different slopes of cropland in areas with low (>900 mm) and high (≥ 900 mm) average annual rainfall.
Vertical and horizontal intervals (VI and HI, respectively) are calculated on the basis of the following empirical equations (FES, 2008): VI =0.3(S/(a+b)) and HI = VI/S×100, where S is land slope (%), and a and b are constants.
Slope (%)
Low-rainfall areas (a = 2, b = 3)
High-rainfall areas (a = 4, b = 1)
VI
HI
Densitya
Labor
LOSb
VI
HI
Density
Labor
LOSb
(m)
(m)
(km ha–1)(PDsc)(%)(m)(m)(km ha–1)
(PD)
(%)
5
1.65
33.0
0.30
45
8
0.68
13.5
0.74
111
20
10
2.40
24.0
0.42
63
11
1.05
10.5
0.95
143
26
15
3.15
21.0
0.48
71
13
1.43
9.5
1.05
158
28
20
3.90
19.5
0.51
77
14
1.80
9.0
1.11
167
30
25
4.65
18.6
0.54
81
15
2.18
8.7
1.15
172
31
30
5.40
18.0
0.56
83
15
2.55
8.5
1.18
176
32
35
6.15
17.6
0.57
85
15
2.93
8.4
1.20
179
32
a
The density represents the total length of bunds constructed in a unit area; the number of bunds in a given area can be calculated by dividing
the total length of bunds in an area by the horizontal interval (HI) between two successive bunds. bLOS: land occupied by structures. This
represents the fraction of the land area that is out of crop production (i.e., occupied by bunds, berms, and ditches) (Adimassu et al, 2014;
Ebabu et al, 2019); it is based on maximum values of dimensions (i.e., bund width =1.5 m, ditch width =1 m, berm = 0.2 m).
c
PD: Person-day, the work of 1 person in 1 day (150 PDs per km of bunds; Desta et al., 2005).

Annex 2. Slope-and rainfall-based calculation of spacing and density of soil bunds in 1 ha of landAnnex 3. Effects of reinforcing soil bunds with grass: cases studies atthree sites
Effectiveness of soil bunds alone and reinforced with grass in reducing seasonal runoff
and soil loss from croplands in the three agroecological zones of the Abay basin of
Ethiopia. The percentage reduction values are the average values observed during two
rainy seasons (2015 and 2016; see the photos and descriptions below (Ebabu et al., 2019).
Agroecological Slope Soil texturezone (site)(%)

Number
RunoffSoil-lossof bunds in reduction (%) reduction (%)
30 m
SBA SBGa SBA SBG*
Highland5
Clay loam
3
42
33
78
80
(Guder)15
Clay loam
4
27
26
67
77
Midland5
Clay loam
3
30
34
61
65
(Aba Gerima)
15
Sandy loam
4
20
22
60
66
Lowland
5
Clay
3
51
55
86
87
(Dibatie)
15
Clay
4
35
43
63
86
SBA: soil bunds alone; SBG: soil bunds stabilized with different grass species.
a
The species used to stabilize soil bunds were Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum),elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides),respectively, at the Guder, Aba Gerima, and Dibatie sites.

Soil bunds stabilized with elephant grass
constructed on cropland with a groundslope of 5%; photo taken on 18 August
2015. Seasonal runoff was reduced by
31% and soil loss by 56%. The plots
were planted with finger millet (Eleusine
coracana).

A photo of the same bunds taken 1 year
later, on 21 August 2016. Seasonal runoff
was reduced by 46% and soil loss by
73%. The plots were planted with teff
(Eragrostis tef).

101
101

Annex 4. Effects of bund spacing: case study at two sites
Effects of spacing on the performance of soil bunds in reducing runoff and soil loss fromcroplands at two sites (Aba Gerima and Dibatie) representing two agroecological zones(midland and lowland, respectively) in the Abay basin, Ethiopia (see also Annex 3).
Spacing(HI, m)5
8
13
27

No. of Density
bunds(km ha–1)
in 30 m
4
3
2
1

1.30
1.00
0.70
0.30

LOS
(%)
35
27
19
8

Runoff reduction(%)
Aba Gerima Dibatie
58
44
32
12

53
40
25
8

Soil-loss reduction(%)
Aba Gerima Dibatie
79
66
33
13

84
68
51
23

LOS: Land occupied by structures, representing the fraction of the land area occupied by
the bunds and ditches per hectare; a detailed description is given in Annex 2. The relative
runoff and soil loss reduction values are the ratios of actual values from plots with bunds
to the actual values obtained from the plot where no bunds were implemented (controlplot) (Ebabui et al., 2019; Demissie et al., 2022a).

102
102

103

The number represents the total number of trenches to be constructed per hectare by assuming a total of 20 trenches in one row (each tranche
is 3 m long with an interspace of 2 m).
b
PD: Person-day, the work of 1 person in 1 day (2 PDs for 3 trenches; Desta et al., 2005).
Note: The information provided in this table can be used for general planning. In certain circumstances, however, calculating the spacing byusing empirical formulas may result in either an under- or overestimation of the number of trenches in an area. For instance, the use of closer
spacing may result in higher labor costs, whereas wider spacing can cause lower effectiveness in reducing runoff and soil loss. A rule of thumbcombined with expert or farmer judgment could be used for reasonable spacing and design of trenches, while at the same time generally
following technical standards.

aFeatures of trenches for different slope and rainfall infiltration conditions are shown; vertical interval (VI) and horizontal interval (HI) arecalculated on the basis of empirical equations (FES, 2008): VI = 0.3(S/(a+b)) and HI = VI/S×100, where S is land slope (%), and a and b are
constants.
Slope (%)
Soils with good infiltration (a = 3, b = 2)
Soils with poor infiltration (a = 4, b = 2)
VI
HI
Rows
Densitya Labor
VI
HI
Rows
Densitya
Labor
b
–1
–1
(m)
(m) (no. ha )(m)(m)(PDb )(no. ha–1) (PDs )(no. ha )(no. ha–1)
5
1.1
22.0
4
80
53
1.0
19.5
5
100
66
10
1.6
16.0
6
120
80
1.4
13.5
7
140
93
15
2.1
14.0
7
140
93
1.7
11.5
8
160
106
20
2.6
13.0
7
140
93
2.1
10.5
9
180
120
25
3.1
12.4
8
160
106
2.5
9.9
10
200
133
30
3.6
12.0
8
160
106
2.9
9.5
10
200
133
35
4.1
11.7
8
160
106
3.2
9.2
10
200
133
40
4.6
11.5
8
160
106
3.6
9.0
11
220
146
45
5.1
11.3
8
160
106
4.0
8.8
11
220
146
50
5.6
11.2
9
180
120
4.4
8.7
11
220
146

Annex 5. Slope-and infiltration capacity-based calculation of spacing and number of trenches in 1 ha of landAnnex 6. Comprehensive evaluation matrix used for documenting SLM
technologies
The necessary inputs (technical details and scientific evidence contained in this guideline)
were acquired from researchers who investigated SLM technologies under the SATREPSEthiopia Project using this matrix Table.
I. Topics to describe the technology
1. Name of technology
1.1. Short description (definition)
1.2. Detailed description (purpose, establishment,
and environment)
1.3. Photos (illustrative photo/s of the technology)
1.4. Location (country, region, andspecific location)
1.5. Date of implementation
1.6. Method of introduction of technology

Details☐ Project ☐ Land users☐ Research ☐ Others
2. Classification of the technology: Check box/es suitable for the technology
2.1. Suitable land-use type/s☐ Cropland ☐ Forest/woodland☐ Grassland ☐ Degraded land
☐ Wetlands ☐ Mixed
2.2.Water supply☐ Irrigation ☐ Rainfed
2.3. SLM group to which the SLM technology☐ Agroforestry
belongs (choose all that apply)☐ Cross-slope measures☐ Exclosure☐ Water harvesting☐ Surface water management☐ Ground water management☐ Irrigation management☐ Integrated soil fertility
management☐ Minimum soil disturbance☐ Improved plant variety☐ Improved animal breeds☐ Improved feeding☐ Rotational systems☐ Grassland management☐ Livestock management☐ Crop–livestock management☐ Improved vegetation cover☐ Plantation management☐ Forest management☐ Home gardens☐ Economic efficiency☐ Energy efficiency☐ Other (mention)
2.4. SLM measures comprising the technology☐ Agronomic ☐ Structural☐ Vegetative ☐ Management
2.5. Types of land degradation addressed by the☐ Soil erosion by watertechnology☐ Soil erosion by wind
☐ Chemical soil degradation
104
104

☐ Biological soil degradation☐ Physical soil degradation☐ Water degradation☐ Other (mention)☐ Prevent land degradation☐ Reduce land degradation☐ Restore land degradation☐ Improve production☐ Ecosystem conservation☐ Adaptation to climate change☐ Create beneficial social impact☐ Improve economic benefits☐ Improve biodiversity☐ Mitigate climate change
impacts☐ Protect downstream areas☐ Other (…)

Annex 6 (2.5. continued)

2.6. Specific goal/s of the technology

3. Technical specifications
3.1. Technical drawing and details of the technology(if applicable, provide a drawing withinformation about the function, materials, andapplication of the technology)
3.2. Establishment activities (list activities andtiming (season))
3.3. Inputs and costs needed for establishment(estimated cost of labor and inputs per unit ofmeasurement, such as area, length, etc.)
3.4. Maintenance and recurring activities (list
activities and timing/frequency)
3.5. Inputs and costs for maintenance and recurring
activities (provide estimated costs of labor andinput per year)
3.6. Main factors affecting the costs (list factors
determining costs of implementing andmaintaining)
4. Natural and human environments: Check box/es suitable for the technology
4.1. Climate
Average annual rainfall (mm):☐ < 250☐ 1501–2000☐ 251–500☐ 2001–3000☐ 501–750☐ 3001– 4000
☐ 751–1000 ☐ > 4000
☐ 1001–1500
Agro-climatic zone:☐ Hyper-arid ☐ Sub-humid☐ Arid☐ Humid☐ Semi-arid
4.2.Topographic features
Slope range (%):
☐ Flat (0–3)☐ Gentle (3–8)☐ Moderate (8–15)☐ Steep (15–30)☐ Very steep (30–50)☐ Extremely steep (> 50)

105
105

Annex 6 (4.2 continued)

Landforms:☐ Plains☐ Hillslopes☐ Ridges☐ Foot slopes☐ Mountain slopes☐ Valley floors
Altitudinal zone (elevation, ma.s.l):☐ 0–100☐ 2001–2500☐ 101–500☐ 2501–3000☐ 501–1000☐ 3001– 4000
☐ 1001–1500☐ > 4000☐ 1501–2000
Depth class (average depth incm):☐ Very shallow (0–20)☐ Shallow (21–50)☐ Moderately deep (51–80)☐ Deep (81– 120)
☐ Very deep (> 120)
Textural class of topsoil:☐ Clay☐ Clay loam
☐ Silt☐ Silt loam
☐ Loam☐ Silt clay loam
☐ Sandy loam ☐ Sand clay
loam
☐ Sand☐ Sandy clay
☐ Loamy sand ☐ Silt clay
Topsoil organic matter level (%):☐ Very low (<1)☐ Medium (2.1– 4.2)
☐ Low (1–2)☐ High (> 4.2)
Farming/production system:☐ Subsistence ☐ Commercial ☐Mixed
Wealth class:☐ Poor☐ Medium☐ RichLevel of mechanization:☐ Manual work
☐ Animal traction☐ Machinery
Farm category/landholding in ha:☐ Landless / < 0.20
☐ Marginal /0.21– 0.50
☐ Small /0.51–1.00☐ Medium /1.01–2.00☐ Large />2.00
Ownership: ☐ State ☐ Private
Use right: ☐ Open access☐ Private

Topographic features

4.3. Soil characteristics

4.4.Characteristics of land users

4.5. Land ownership and use rights

106
106

Ecological indicators

Sociocultural
indicators

Economic
indicators

II. Impacts on key indicators (Annex 6 continued): Provide an appropriate impact scaleby using signs (– –, negative; –, slightly negative; –/+, neutral; +, slightly positive; ++,positive; +++, very positive; na, not applicable) and quantitative relative impact levels(%) observed at different agroecological sites (LL, lowland; ML, midland; HL,
highland).
Key indicators
Impact scale
Impact level (%) Remarks
LL ML HL LL ML HL
Crop production
Fodder production
Fodder quality
Milk yield
Meat yield
Wood production
Non-wood forest
products
Employment creation
Farm income
Labor reduction
Cost–benefit ratio (shortterm returns)
Benefit-cost ratio (longterm returns)
Food security
Community institutions
National institutions
Awareness of landdegradation and SLM
Sense of ownership
Gender empowerment
Runoff reduction
Sheet and rill erosion
reduction
Wind erosion reduction
Gully erosion reduction
Flooding control
Siltation reduction
Base flow increase
Soil moisture increase
Soil protective cover
increase
Soil bulk density
reduction107
107

Ecological indicators

Annex 6 (continued)
Key indicator
Soil fertility
improvement
Biodiversity
improvement
Microclimate change
Climate change
mitigation
Climate change
adaptation

Impact scale
LL ML HL

Impact level (%)
LL ML HL

Remarks108
108

III. Main advantages, drawbacks, and factors in adoption of the technology (Annex 6
continued):
Advantages (opportunities andDrawbacks of the technology
strengths): check box/es or write in the(weaknesses and risks): check box/es orparentheses for others
write in the parentheses for others☐ Decreased runoff☐ Loss of cultivated land
☐ Decreased soil erosion☐ Loss of grassland☐ Increased soil moisture☐ Low productivity☐ Improved soil organic matter☐ Labor intensive☐ Improved soil fertility☐ Lack of multiple benefits☐ Enhanced vegetation growth☐ Sensitivity to damage☐ Increased fodder availability☐ Causing damage downstream☐ Increased land productivity☐ Hindrance to farm operations☐ Improved farm income☐ High cost of establishment☐ Reduced downstream impacts☐ High cost of maintenance☐ Mitigated climate change☐ Short-term effect/benefit☐ Other mention)☐ Other (mention)
Main factors affecting adoption of the technology: check box/es or write in theparentheses for others
Factors (constraints)
Ways to overcome them (solutions)☐ High cost of inputs and materials☐ Provide alternatives☐ Lack of awareness☐ Training and education☐ Insecure land tenure system☐ Amend policy and land-use rights☐ Technical difficulties☐ Demonstrate through research☐ Lack of accesses to market☐ Provide market access for inputs and☐ Social insecurity
products☐ Lack of integration among stakeholders☐ Improve community institutions☐ Less attention for evaluating impacts☐ Engage relevant stakeholders andcompared to conventional practices
institutions☐ Lack of participation☐ Monitor and evaluate for outcomes☐ Diversity of interest on communal lands ☐ Improve participation of users☐ Other (mention)☐ Harmonize community interests☐ Other (mention)

109
109

Annex 7. Recommended rates of urea–NPS fertilizer application in areas
with sufficient moisture in the Abay basin of Ethiopia (BoA, 2022)
Testing site (district)
Recommended rate of urea–NPS (kg ha–1)
Soil type
Adet
75–150Red soil (Nitisol)
Bichena
75–150Debre Tabor75–150Finote Selam
75–150Estie
36–130Achefer
50–100Dembecha
10–87
Bure
10–87
Gozamen
79–130Dangila
10–87
Dejen
100–160
Adet
125–150
Bichena
125–150Debre Tabor
125–150
Black soil
Finote Selam
125–150(Vertisol)
Hulet Ej Enesie
123–130
Awabel87–140Denbia87–96
Gonder Zuria
100–100
Jama
100–110Delgi
100–110
NPS: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sulfur.

110
110

Annex 8: Reviewers and resource persons
Ten reviewers listed below carefully reviewed the document and suggested corrections andimprovements. They also incorporated additional texts during the review. Taking in toaccount the multidisciplinary nature of the document, the reviewers were diverse inprofession/expertise.
Lakew Desta, Soil and water conservation specialist, Biybone Consulting Engineers andArchitects P.L.C., Ethiopia
Habtamu Assaye, Natural resources management expert, College of Agriculture andEnvironmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University (BDU), Ethiopia
Bayu Abera, Agronomist, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Ethiopia
Asresu Yitayew, Socioeconomic expert, Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute(ARARI), Ethiopia
Abebe Dessie, Socioeconomic expert, Amhara Bureau of Agricultur (BoA), Ethiopia
Bimrew Asmare, Animal nutrition expert, College of Agriculture and Environmental
Sciences Bair Dar University (BDU), Ethiopia
Fentie Bishaw, Livestock development expert, Amhara Bureau of Agriculture (BoA),
Ethiopia
Elias Belay, Agronomist, Amhara Bureau of Agricultural (BoA), Ethiopia
Tadesse Birhanu, Watershed management expert, Amhara Bureau of Agriculture (BoA),
Ethiopia
Arega Alemu, Watershed management expert, Amhara Bureau of Agriculture (BoA),
Ethiopia
As resource persons, the flowing six experts were consulted at different stages ofdeveloping this guideline and provided their valuable comments that helped improve thedocument.
Tena Alamirew, Deputy Director of Water and Land Resource Centre (WLRC), Addis
Ababa University, Ethiopia
Tefera Tadesse, Deputy Director of Natural Resources Management, Ministry ofAgriculture (MoA), Ethiopia
Aweke Mulualem, Senior Adviser to the State Minister of Natural Resources Management,
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Ethiopia
Yosef Assefa, Senior Expert, Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Ethiopia
Abenet Mengistu, Soil and water conservation expert at Ministry of Agriculture (MoA),
Ethiopia
Habtamu Hailu, Coordinator of National Sustainable Land Management Programme(SLMP), Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Ethiopia

111111