Sustainable Land Management (SLM): Guidelines and Policy
Brief Based on Five-Years Research Results of the SATREPS(Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable
Development)-Ethiopia Project:“Development of Next-generation Sustainable Land Management(SLM) Framework to Combat Desertification”
Jointly funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) andthe Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)Collaborating Institutes
Ethiopia: Bahir Dar University, Amhara Region Agricultural ResearchInstitute, Water and Land Resource Center and Ministry of Agriculture andNatural Resources
Japan: Tottori University, Shimane University, and the University of Tokyo

Compiled by:
Kindiye Ebabu1,2, Nigussie Haregeweyn1, and Derege Tsegaye Meshesha2

1

Tottori University, Japan

2

Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia
December 2021
1

Sustainable Land Management (SLM): Guidelines and Policy Brief Based on
Five-Years Research Results of the SATREPS-Ethiopia Project:“Development of Next-generation Sustainable Land Management (SLM)
Framework to Combat Desertification”

Income generating activities(Dairy and Poultry farming)

Improved crop-livestock management practices(Row planting, Improved forage, Exclosure…)

Bunds, Trenches,
Exclousre ...

Executive Summary
In Ethiopia, inappropriate land use and management practices
such as intensive tillage, under/over utilization of agricultural
inputs, indiscriminate cutting of natural vegetation andplantations, and overgrazing of grasslands/rangelands have beenreported as the main causes for land/soil degradation andmalfunctioning of ecosystems. Thus, the need to develop andimplement sustainable land use and management practices isincreasingly recognized as an important tool for securing thelong-term ecosystem services and livelihoods while maintaining
and restoring the proper functioning of essential resources (soil,
water, biodiversity, and others).
Scaling out sustainable land management (SLM) requires aninterplay of four general principles: targeted policies andinstitutions, a sustainable land and participatory framework,
stakeholder involvement and partnerships at all levels, and an
integration of natural resource utilization at the ecosystem scale.
The SLM indicators included in this brief are directly or
indirectly related to the targets of seven of the UN’s Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs): (1) land formalization and security(SDG 1/Target 4), (2) secured land rights and accessibility (SDG
2/Target 3), (3) empowerment of women through property
ownership, financial service, and technology (SDG 5/Target 5),(4) resource efficiency and sustainable land uses (SDG 11/Target
3), (5) land adaptation against climate change impacts (SDG
13/Targets 1 and 3), (6) afforestation, land conservation, andland degradation neutrality (SDG 15/Targets 1, 2, and 3), and (7)land administration and property rights (SDG 16/Target 3).
Participatory monitoring and evaluation of SLM strategies andtools is, therefore, critically essential to ensuring broader
adoption of the most effective SLM technologies and approaches.
This guideline and policy brief is intended to offer a
description of research-based approaches and evidence that can
support policy makers and experts in designing andimplementing SLM technologies, as well as tools for practicalevaluation of integrated watershed management practices. To
this end, multidisciplinary research has been carried out for five
years (2017–2021) in different agro-ecological zones of theUpper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia, involving key stakeholders
from relevant institutions from Japan and Ethiopia. The
guideline and policy brief also offers key policy
recommendations to achieve improved adoption of SLM througheffective use and management of financial and human resources.

Decrease runoff by 12 to 72%
Decrease soil loss by 66 to 95%

Increase land productivity by 36 to 104%
Increase soil carbon stock by 62 to 120%

Increase household income by 38 to 40%

Improved adoption of SLM
technologies and approaches

2

2005) and after (January 2016) implementation of SWC in
Kecha watershed (Berihun et al. 2020). Vegetation cover waspoor and soil was highly vulnerable to erosion by water before
SWC. Ecosystem functions were healthier after treatment with
SWC measures such as terracing and exclosures. AGRL:
cultivated land; FRST: forest land; PAST: grazing land; RNGB:
khat cultivation; RNGE: bushland.

1. Overviews
1.1. Land mismanagement and degradation
Land is the area that supports various natural resources andthe vast majority of human activities. It provides essentialconditions for improved environmental management, including
source/sink functions for carbon, recycling of nutrients,
amelioration and filtering of pollutants, and transmission andpurification of water as part of the hydrologic cycle(http://www.ciesin.org/lw-kmn/slm/slm.html).
Inthe
Anthropocene, however, human-driven pressures and improper
land use practices are imposing adverse impacts and have caused
a decline in the ecosystem services of landscapes worldwide,
particularly in developing countries, like Ethiopia, where a larger
proportion of the population is essentially dependent on land
resources (Barbier and Falco, 2021). Rapid population increase,severe soil loss, low vegetative cover, and unsuitable crop andlivestock production systems have been reported as the major
cases of land degradation in Ethiopia (Taddesse, 2001).

The necessity of SLM has been recognized for centuries. It
has been described as a tool for harmonizing the complimentary
goals of providing environmental, economic, and social
opportunities for the benefit of present and future generations,while maintaining and enhancing the quality and function of land
resources (soil and water) (Smyth and Dumanski, 1993). SLM
combines technologies, approaches, policies, and activities
aimed at integrating socioeconomic principles withenvironmental concerns, considering the five pillars ofsustainability: productivity, stability/resilience, protection,
viability, and acceptability/equity. These five pillars are thus thebasic principles of SLM, and participatory research is required
to develop, evaluate, and implement improved technologies andapproaches in relation to sustainable development goals(Abouelhamd et al., 2020).

1.2. Definition and necessity of SLM

1.3. Purpose of this guideline and policy brief

Sustainable land management (SLM) is defined as aknowledge-based procedure promoting the adoption of land use
systems through appropriate management practices that enable
the maximization of economic and social benefits from the land
while maintaining or enhancing the ecological support functionsof its resources (FAO, 2009). Also, as defined by de Vente et al.
(2017), SLM refers to the integrated management of soil, water,and biodiversity to adequately maintain and improve ecosystem
functions and services for present and future generations. There
are three stages of interventions for SLM (Liniger et al., 2019):
prevention (avoiding), reduction (reducing), and restoration(reversing) of land degradation. Figure 1 shows an example
where the natural vegetation has been restored following theimplementation of soil and water conservation (SWC) practices
in a watershed that represents the dry sub-humid environmentsof Ethiopia.

This guideline and policy brief is aimed at providing thetheoretical and practical bases as well as evidence for supporting
SLM, with a focus on three specific objectives:
reducing/preventing soil erosion, improving land productivity,and increasing income of rural households based on findings
from comprehensive analyses of effective watershedmanagement practices. For the past five years, monitoring andevaluation of potential SLM technologies and approaches has
been conducted at the plot and watershed scales targeting threedifferent land use types (cropland, grazing land, and degradedhillsides) in the Upper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia. Best SLM
technologies and approaches were then selected through aparticipatory review of the results for dissemination at larger
scales following the process indicated in Figure 2 below.
Reports (38) of case studies presenting the evidence/findings
discussed in this document are given in the bibliography list.

Figure 2. A framework adopted for developing, evaluating, anddisseminating SLM technologies and approaches.

Figure 1. Contrasts in land use and land cover before March
3

2. Principles and evidence of SLM
2.1. Reduced soil erosion and degradation
Significant reduction in soil erosion and possible on-site andoff-site impacts can be achieved by using improved soil andwater conservation measures such as establishing bunds
reinforced with grass in combination with the application oforganic and inorganic soil amendments (e.g., polyacrylamide[PAM], lime, biochar, etc.) for croplands, and establishingexclosures and trenches for grazing and degraded hillsides. Casestudies have proven the substantial effectiveness of such land
management technologies in reducing soil loss due to soil
erosion by water at the plot scale in different agro-ecologicalzones of the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia (Table 1 and Fig.
3). It is worth mentioning that the use of PAM may need to becertified by the concerned ministry with regard to theenvironmental impact before its dissemination.
Table 1. Efficiency of different SLM technologies in reducing
soil loss (Ebabu, et al., 2019; Kebede et al., 2021).
Land use
type
CL

SLM
Soil loss reduction (%)
type
LowlandMidlandHighland
SB
75
61
72
SB + G
87
66
79
PAM
ND
45
ND
L
ND
27
ND
PAM + L ND
49
ND
GL
E
38
57
71
E+T
86
78
77
DH
E
55
72
39
E+T
86
94
84
CL, Cropland; GL, grazing land; DH, degraded hillside; SB, soilbunds; G, grass; PAM, polyacrylamide, L, lime; E, exclosure; T,
trench. ND: no data.

Figure 3. Effectiveness of improved SLM technologies in
reducing soil loss from croplands: (A) soil bunds reinforced withvetiver grass in the lowland agro-ecological zone (photo byProfessor Atsushi Tsunekaw), and (B) polyacrylamide (PAM) inthe midland agro-ecological zone (photo by Dr. Birhanu Kebede).
SWAT (Soil & Water Assessment Tool) model results revealed
that soil erosion at the watershed scale can be reduced by 66%
to 95% if croplands are treated with the best performing SLM
practices, such as reduced tillage, soil bunds reinforced withgrass, and soil amendments (e.g., PAM + lime), and if noncroplands are treated with exclosures combined with trenches.
Also, these model-based results have policy implications, that is,that land-capability-based implementation of land use andmanagement practices is pivotal to achieve reduced soil erosion
and land degradation in complex watersheds.

Table 2. Increase in SOC due to use of combined SLM
technologies (Ebabu et al., 2020).
Land
SLM
Soil SOC stock (Mg/ha)*use type type
Lowland Midland Highland
CL
Control
34.5
15.6
58.9
SB + G
70.5
54.5
66.0
Increase (%) 104
249
12
GL
Control
59.4
29.7
50.2
E+T
66.3
65.3
62.4
Increase (%) 12
120
24
DH
Control
67.8
32.1
47.4
E+T
71.5
68.2
57.7
Increase (%) 5112
22*Based on analysis before (control) and 3 years after establishing
SLM technologies (SB + G and E + T). See Table 1 for definitionof terms. SOC: soil organic carbon.

Biophysical SLM technologies have also been proven to
maintain or improve key soil quality indicator parameters, suchas soil organic carbon (SOC), regardless of land use type andclimatic regions (Table 2). This supports the fact that naturebased land use and management practices are effective inenhancing SOC stock and can improve soil health and fertility
through improving water and nutrient retention and availability
to plants, thereby helping to improve resilience and the
production potential of soils in different land use systems (e.g.,
grazing lands, croplands, and terraced hillsides). Researchfindings further indicated that the desired positive responses toimplementation of SLM technologies are dependent on land use
type and other local conditions (e.g., rainfall amount and land
use characteristics). For example, the impact of implementing

4

Table 4. Increase in milk yield of dairy cows fed with treated teffstraw, Napier grass hay, and Brachiaria hybrid grass haycompared to that of cows fed with natural pasture hay (Mekuriaw
et al., 2020).
Feed type
Milk yield Increase(kg/day)(%)
Natural pasture hay (control)
1.77
0Treated teff straw
2.34
32
Napier grass hay
2.71
53
Brachiaria hybrid grass hay
3.34
89

integrated SLM practices on increasing SOC was greater in the
midland agro-ecological site in which rainfall and grazing
intensity, and the associated soil erosion and degradation, havelong been more prevalent. Hence, the careful identification andprioritization of locations based on vulnerability or resilience tosoil degradation is important for targeted and effective
intervention when conducting SLM.
2.2. Increased land productivity
Higher yields are often perceived as opportunities for policy
makers and land managers to encourage farmers to adopt SLM
practices and approaches. However, lack of knowledge,
inefficient land use and management practices, andinappropriate implementation of promising SLM technologies
are still challenges to improving and sustaining productivity ofvarious land use types. Results from plot experiments andfarmers’ demonstration activities proved that land productivity
can be increased by 67% to more than 100% when the best SLM
technologies are properly implemented and monitored (Table 3).
It is also clear that the productivity of dairy cows can be
improved when they are fed improved forage (Table 4). Thus,
policy instruments and actions should enhance efforts ofwatershed development through empowering rural communities
to adopt best performing SLM practices.

2.3. Improved farmers’ livelihood

LowlandMidlandAnnual household income ('000 Birr)

Table 3. Effects of different SLM types on land productivity(Ebabu et al., 2019, Bayable et., 2021; Mihrite et al, 2021a;
Mulualem et al., 2021a, Walie et al., 2021b).
LU
SLM
Effect on biomass (grain/grass)Typeyield (t/ha) in three agroecological zonesa
HighlandCL, under Teff (target crop)

Control
ND
5.8
ND
PAM + L
ND
7.4
ND
Increase (%)
28
Control
ND
0.9
ND
RT + RP
ND
1.5
ND
Increase (%)
67
Control
ND
ND
1.8
Lodging
ND
ND
3.2
controlled
Increase (%)
78
Controlb
0.6
0.6
0.6
E+T
5.8
9.0
5.2
Increase (%)
867
1400
767
Control (natural)
4.4
ND
Desho + FYM + ND
8.4
ND
Desmodium
Increase (%)
ND
91
ND
Controlb
0.6
0.6
0.6
E+T
5.6
3.6
1.2
Increase (%)
833
500
100
aBased on results of plot-level experiments and farmer fielddemonstrations; bsource: Yayneshet et al. (2009). PAM,
polyacrylamide; L, lime; RT, reduced tillage; RP, row planting;E, exclosure; T, trench; FYM, farmyard manure; ND, no data.

50
40

0

37.6

39.6

20

30

40

20

60

10

80

0

Change in household income (%)

Promoting inclusive watershed development approaches
could make a large contribution to the sustainability of program
efforts. Improving the economic bases of less advantaged
sections of the community (e.g., landless people, women, andyoung people) represents an essential precondition to improving
on current gains and ensuring future positive outcomes fromongoing watershed development programs. This requires
introducing economic incentives for disadvantaged groups toengage them in different income-generating activities (IGAs),such as vegetable and fruit production, livestock fattening, dairy
farming, and poultry farming. To this end, two IGAs were
implemented and monitored: dairy farming, involving 24
selected women/youth, at the midland agro-ecological site (AbaGerima), and poultry farming, involving 12 selected
women/youth, at the highland agro-ecological site (Guder). The
estimated changes in annual income are apparent in Figure 4.

100
Aba Gerima
Baseline

Guder
After

Change (%)

GL

Figure 4. Change in household income after implementing
income-generating activities: dairy farming at Aba Gerima(midland) and poultry farming at Guder (highland) (Nigussie etal., 2021c).
2.4. Incentivizing value-adding activities for land
rehabilitationDH

The agroforestry system presents opportunities for small-scale
farmers through providing sustainable income and creating
incentives for the adoption of tree-based solutions as win-win
alternatives for land restoration. For example, Acacia decurrens
plantation systems offer various economic and non-economic
benefits. These include improved crop yields through nitrogen
fixation, increased organic matter and reduced soil erosion,
significant cash income generation (Table 5), and employment
opportunities.
5Charcoal is the key traditional bioenergy product derived fromacacia stems. Additionally, woody biomass residues (twigs,
branches) could represent a significant resource with a highenergy potential to serve as a feedstock for producing improved
bioenergy products. This activity could bring new and upgradedbioenergy products (e.g., briquettes, pellets) to the bioenergy
market while simultaneously opening new avenues of income
generation and employment opportunities.

Stakeholder workshops are imperative for proper evaluationand dissemination of SLM technologies, approaches, and tools
at broader scales. To support the SLM principles and evidence
contained in this brief guideline, a series of workshops have beenorganized involving stakeholders at different levels andinstitutions. The outcomes from the workshops include:• Participatory planning and evaluation of policy tools for SLM.
• Promotion of efforts and plans for SLM within the context ofnationwide principles and goals.
• Integration of activities into local to national level strategies.
• Improved collaborations for SLM at local, regional, andnational levels.
• Improved approval and dissemination of best SLM practices.

Table 5. Undiscounted cash flows and NPVs for three different
investment alternatives for cultivated land (Nigussie et al.,2020).
Production
system
Acacia + teff

NPV
97,884

Net cashflow
188,154

Mean net
cash flow
37,631

Teff only
Acacia only

59,54386,207

67,917
174,896

13,583
34,979Training-of-trainers (TOT) is a key strategy to build acapacity for scaling-up SLM through the main actors (extension
workers and farmers). It involves detailed training of relevant
experts on practical specifications of proposed SLM
technologies or approaches followed by piloting at farmers’ field
conditions as per the user’s manuals (guidebooks) developed forthe purpose. TOT and farmers’ demonstration can help tomaximize utilization of experts and immediate land users for
effective and consistent implementation of promising SLM
technologies and approaches at various local contexts.

All values are ETB per ha. NPV = net present value.
3. Strategies of evaluating and disseminating SLM
technologies and approaches
3.1. Stakeholder engagement and capacity building

Innovative approaches for enhancing farmers’ awarenessand self-help capacity should be considered as a bottom-up
approach to increase their willingness to adapt SLM practices.
The fact is that many smallholders are still not aware of, or don’tcare for or don’t prioritize, land protection activities, eventhough numerous SLM technologies/approaches have beendeveloped for more than 40 years. Using the bottom-up approach
could be an efficient way to bring about spontaneous desired
behavioral changes in smallholders that can be adopted at larger
scales. It should also be noted that such an approach must be
developed by considering the social and economic conditions
across areas.

Stakeholder engagement, from the viewpoint of SLM, is ameans of involving individuals or groups in decisions andactivities for developing and adopting best land use andmanagement practices. Identifying relevant stakeholders andinvolving them at various stages (monitoring, evaluation,verification, and documentation) is critically important tosupport decision-making towards large-scale and enhanced
implementation of SLM technologies and approaches. The
cocreation of integrated and transferable practices is aparticipatory multistakeholder process to select, test, and adopt
practices with farmers. Once the technology is tested at researchsites and farmers’ fields through the collaboration of farmers andresearch groups, relevant stakeholders should have a forum toshare their opinions because there are many, often competing,options for SLM. Each option must be assessed and sometimes
negotiated prior to implementation or referred for further testingand verification.

3.2. Develop innovation platforms
In the context of SLM, developing an innovation platform(IP) is all about establishing an operational system that helps
bring together stakeholders (key actors from various sectors,
including farmers, researchers, extension workers, service
providers, and policy makers) to deal with shared challenges.
The system involves a network of institutions or individuals
engaged in contributing new technologies, approaches, andknowledge derived from SLM studies; the system is enabled bycollaboration and exchange of knowledge among diverse actors(Tukahirwa et al., 2013). For the purpose of this guideline, IP is
considered to operate at four levels (Figure 5): farmers’ researchgroup (FRG), local (district), regional, and national. Figure 6
illustrates the methodological framework that describes
activities to facilitate decision-making for appraisal and scalingout of SLM activities through IPs. The framework can be applied
by projects or programs at different levels of intervention for
SLM and helps to effectively engage stakeholders at various
stages (from identification to approval of best SLM practices).

Stakeholders relevant to evaluating and proving SLM
technologies and approaches must be determined in accordancewith their importance for collaboration in achieving common
goals. In the process of evaluating and implementing SLM,
stakeholders that need to be involved are (1) land users, (2)agricultural advisors (experts), (3) researchers, (4) government
authorities, and (5) decision makers at all levels (Schwilch et al.,2012). For example, decision makers at regional agricultural
offices and research institutes play a central role in determining
and approving SLM principles and actions; experts at the districtlevel (developmental agents and extension workers) are key
actors to facilitate the implementation of SLM technologies andapproaches by farmers (the immediate land users).
6National IP

National IP

Regional IP

Regional IP

Local IP

Local IPattributes, topography, drainage, and climate) and efficiency of
selected technologies verified through field plot experiments.
Such an approach provides possible future land use andmanagement options coupled with their estimated impacts on thenatural environment and their economic return. The approachfacilitates stakeholders’ decision-making when selecting andscaling out suitable land use and management practices
implementation.

Local IPThe practicality of alternative land use and management scenario
development for improved evaluation and adaption of integrated
watershed management was demonstrated in a case study
sponsored by the SATREPS-Ethiopia project by spatiallymodeling the impact of five proposed land use and management
scenarios on changes in selected indicators (soil erosion, soil
carbon stock, and land productivity) at the watershed scale in theUpper Blue Nile basin of Ethiopia (Table 6). Results suggest that
forage development in suitable areas and implementation of
SLM practices in the watershed were the best options to control
soil erosion and increase SOC stock and land productivity (SCIVin Table 6, with an overall change of 104%).

FRGs

Figure 5. Schematic diagram illustrating operational innovation
platforms (IPs) and flow of information across different levels in
the processes of implementing, evaluating, and disseminating
SLM technologies and approaches.

Table 6. Estimates and changes in watershed-scale annual soil
loss, SOC stock, and land productivity for alternative land use(LU) and management scenarios (SCI–V), based on results of acase study for a watershed in the midland agro-ecological zone
(Fenta, 2021c).
Change (%)
LU +
LU
LU +
SLM
SLM
Baseline 101.4
–
SCI
101.4
34.1
0
-66.4
SCII
68.4
19.5
-32.5
-80.8
SCIII
27.2
11.2
-73.2
-88.9
SCIV
17.6
4.8
-82.6
-95.2
SCV
18.7
10.4
-81.5
-89.6
Baseline 33.3
–
–
–
SCI
33.3
54.1
0
62
SCII
43.5
62.8
30
88
SCIII
49.7
60.5
49
82
SCIV
41.1
62.4
41
87
SCV
58.4
73.3
75
120
Baseline 28,079
–
–
–
SCI
27,636 44,851
-2
60
SCII
22,111 39,270
-21
40
SCIII
44,803 54,780
60
95
SCIV
26,617 57,278
-5
104
SCV
21,421 38,114-23
36
Baseline, existing conventional/farmers' practices; SCI, current
land use + SLM practices; SCII, no crop cultivation on steep
slopes (>30%) + SLM practices; SCIII, plantation on suitableareas + SML practices; SCIV, forage development on suitableareas + SLM practices; SV, reforestation of communal lands andhilly croplands + SLM practices.

Productivity(Birr/ha)

SOC stock(Mg/ha)Soil loss(t/ha)

Indicator

Figure 6. An integrated methodological framework for land usebased evaluation and scaling out of SLM practices to watershedmanagement.
3.3. Develop alternative land use and management scenarios
Developing alternative land use and management scenarios isan effective approach for evaluating possible options by
exploring the implications of implementing different land use
and management practices at watershed to regional levels. This
process involves integrating land use and management options
based on land capability classification (i.e., the grouping andmapping of land units into various classes based on inherent
limitations for sustainable use; it is mainly associated with soil
7

ScenarioTypes
LU

SLM practices should be thoroughly supported or associatedwith social, cultural, and religious institutions/activities
through which the local community is governed by a set ofbylaws and dedicated to shared responsibilities.

4. Policy recommendations for improved adoption of SLM• Need for a transdisciplinary framework: It is essential todevelop a national or regional level framework aimed at
bridging the science–policy–development divide byintegrating coevolving local and scientific knowledge andincluding multiple stakeholder perspectives in thedevelopment and dissemination of SLM practices.

• Conduct ex-post evaluation: Ex-post evaluations are
generally conducted for three years after project completion,with an emphasis on the effectiveness and sustainability of the
project. This evaluation aims at deriving lessons learned andrecommendations to improve the project as well as to help
plan and implement more effective and efficient projects.

• Improve farmers’ awareness and support: Development of
improved strategies that facilitate awareness of smallholder
farmers and access to inputs/services (demonstrations,assistance from appropriate experts, finance, and credit) isneeded for effective adoption of SLM technologies andapproaches at the grassroots level.

• Harmonization of SLM monitoring and assessment tools
in a database: A central database on implemented SLM
practices by various stakeholders, including those developedby researchers, is necessary for upscaling suitable SLM
technologies and approaches, particularly when considering
variations in socioeconomic and environmental settings
within and across regions.

• Need to develop alternative SLM options: Offering
alternative land use and management options (pro-ecological,
pro-economic, or a combination of the two) is essential forsuitable implementation of SLM technologies and approaches,
considering differences in biophysical and social settings at
watershed to basin and regional scales.

Acknowledgments
This work is the result five years field-based research
conducted in contrasting environments of the Upper Blue
Nile basin of Ethiopia under the framework of the
SATREPS-Ethiopia Project. The project, “Developmentof Next-generation Sustainable Land Management (SLM)
Framework to Combat Desertification” was jointly fundedby the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
and the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)being supported by the Japanese Government. Tottori
University, Shimane University and University of Tokyo
from Japan and Bahir Dar University, Amhara
Agricultural Region Research Institute (ARARI), Water
and Land Resource Center (WLRC) and Ministry ofAgriculture and Natural Resources from Ethiopia havecollaborated in this project.

• Getting accessible findings into the hands of policy makers
in understandable language: Engagement between
researchers and policy makers from the early phases of policy
design can certainly help overcome communication barriers.
There is a strong need to take specific measures to help withissues of translation. Research results need to becommunicated in plain, simple, and straightforward local aswell as international languages.
• Need for participatory and integrated implementation of
SLM technologies and approaches: In addition to
implementing SLM through community campaigns for a
specific period or for the purpose of obtaining scientificevidence, an evidence-based policy is required that addresses
the needs for the efficient and suitable functioning of activities(e.g., monitoring and evaluation, service provision, etc.) toachieve sustainability.

Bibliography• Improved market linkage and access: In addition toproviding credit and extension services, improving thelinkage and access to reliable markets for inputs and products
can play an important role in enhancing the adoption andsustainability of promising land use and management
practices by individuals and groups.

Abebe, G., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Takeshi, T., Wondie,
M., Adgo, E., Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., Ebabu, K., Berihun,
M.L., Tassew, A., 2020. 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. and Meshesha, D.T., 2020. Effect of Soil
Microbiome from Church Forest in the Northwest Ethiopian
Highlands on the Growth of Olea europaea and Albizia
gummifera
Seedlings
underGlasshouse
Conditions. Sustainability, 12(12), 4976.
Abouelhamd, I., 2020. Analytical study of the relation between
the Sustainable land management indicators (SLM) and theSustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
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• Proper intervention and exit strategies for SLM projects:
SLM project interventions in a certain geographical area
should be based on a multistakeholder evaluation of common
goals and possible areas of collaboration with existing
projects. Prior to intervention, current environmental andsocioeconomic conditions must be assessed and documented
to help successfully plan and implement suitable activities.
The termination of SLM projects should always be based onbest exit strategies that can ensure the project results willremain to benefit targeted beneficiaries after the project iscompleted. Thus, the exit strategy of a given project must be
considered during the planning, implementation, monitoring,and evaluation processes.
• Associate SLM implementation with social and religious
institutions: The principles and implementation of promising8

in the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 23(4), 5640–5665.
Assefa W., 2020. Value chain analysis of Acacia decurrens based charcoal: The Case of Fagita-Lekoma District, NorthWestern Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Bahir Dar University,
Ethiopia.
Barbier, E. B., Di Falco, S., 2021. Rural populations, landdegradation, and living standards in developing
countries. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 15(1), 115–133.
Bayable, M., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Ishii, T.,
Alemayehu, G., Tsubo, M., Adgo, E., Tassew, A., Tsuji, W.,
Asaregew, F., Masunaga, T., 2020. Biomechanical properties
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.,
Asaregew, F., Masunaga, T., 2021. Yield Potential andVariability of Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter)
Germplasms under Intensive and Conventional Management
Conditions. Agronomy, 11(2), 220.
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/land cover changes,
drivers and their implications in contrasting agro-ecologicalenvironments of Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 87, 104052.
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 toland 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 and sediment
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 agroecological environments. Ecol. Process. 10(1), 1–18.
de Vente J, Bautista S, Orr B: Preface: optimizing science impact
for effective implementation of sustainable land
management. J. Environ. Manage. 2017, 195:1–3.
Ebabu, K., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Meshesha,
D.T., Aklog, D., Masunaga, T., Tsubo, M., Sultan, D., Fenta,
A.A., Yibeltal, M., 2019. Effects of land use and sustainable
land management practices on runoff and soil loss in theUpper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,
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, 104614.
Ebabu, K., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Adgo,
E., Fenta, A.A., Meshesha, D.T., Berihun M.L., Sultan, D.,
Vanmaercke, M., Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Langendoen, E.J.,
Poesen, j., 2021. Global analysis of cover management andsupport practice factors that control soil erosion andconservation. Paper accepted in Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.
FAO, 2009. Country Support Tool for Scaling-up Sustainable
Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Field Application
TerrAfrica Partnership, TM Design Inc.
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 themonetary 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., 2021c. A novel integrated framework to evaluate
impacts of alternative land use and management scenarios on
ecosystem services. Paper in preparation.
Kebede, B., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Mamedov, A.I.,
Tsubo, M., Fenta, A.A., Meshesha, D.T., Masunaga, T., Adgo,
E., Abebe, G. and Berihun, M.L., 2020. Effectiveness ofpolyacrylamide in reducing runoff and soil loss underconsecutive rainfall storms. Sustainability, 12(4), 1597.
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., 2021. Effect of
Polyacrylamide integrated with other soil amendments on
runoff and soil loss: case study from Northwest Ethiopia.
Paper accepted in Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.
Haregeweyn N. 2021a. Progress and challenges in sustainable
land management initiatives: A global review, Paper in
preparation.
Haregeweyn, N., 2021b. A transdisciplinary approach to bridge
the sustainable land management science–policy–
development potential gaps: A global review, Paper in
preparation.
Liniger, H., Harari, N., van Lynden, G., Fleiner, R., de Leeuw, J.,
Bai, Z., Critchley, W., 2019. Achieving land degradation
neutrality: The role of SLM knowledge in evidence-based
decision-making. Environ. Sci. Policy, 94, 123–134.
Mekuriaw, S., Tsunekawa, A., Ichinohe, T., Tegegne, F.,
Haregeweyn, N., Nobuyuki, K., Tassew, A., Mekuriaw, Y.,
Walie, M., Tsubo, M., Okuro, T., 2019. Mitigating the antinutritional effect of polyphenols on in vitro digestibility andfermentation characteristics of browse species in northwestern Ethiopia. Tropical animal health and production,
pp.1–12.
Mekuriaw, S., Tsunekawa, A., Ichinohe, T., Tegegne, F.,
Haregeweyn, N., Kobayashi, N., Tassew, A., Mekuriaw, Y.,
Walie, M., Tsubo, M., Okuro, T., 2020. Effect of Feeding
Improved Grass Hays and 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.,
9

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., Ebabu, K., Masunaga, T., Kebede, B., Meshesha, D.T.,
Tsuji, W., Bayable, M., Berihun, M. L., 2021b. Tillage andcrop management impacts on soil loss and crop yields innorthwestern Ethiopia. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.2021.
Mihretie, F.A., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E., Tsubo,M., Masunaga, T., Meshesha, D.T., Ebabu, K., Bayable, M.,
2021c. Agro-Economic Evaluation of Alternative CropManagement Options for Teff Production in Midland AgroEcology, Ethiopia. Agriculture, 11(4), 298.
Mulualem, T., Adgo, E., Meshesha, D.T., Tsunekawa, A.,
Haregeweyn, N., Tsubo, M., Kebede, B., Mamedov, A.I.,
Masunaga, T. and 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. 1–14.
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 thevariability of soil nutrient outflows as influenced by land use
and management practices in contrasting agro-ecologicalenvironments. Sci. Total Environ. 786, 147450.
Mossie, M., Gerezgiher, A., Ayalew, Z., Nigussie, Z., 2021.
Welfare effects of small-scale farmers' participation in apple
and mango value chains in Ethiopia. Agrekon, 1–17.
Nigussie, Z., Tsunekawa, A., Haregeweyn, N., Adgo, E.,
Cochrane, L., Floquet, A., Abele, S., 2018. Applying
Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development framework
to soil 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. and 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 inlivelihood improvement activities in enhancing household
welfare: Paper in preparation.
Schwilch, G., Bachmann, F., de Graaff, J., 2012. Decision
support for selecting SLM technologies with stakeholders.
Appl. Geogr. 34, 86–98.
Smyth, A.J. and Dumanski, J. 1993. FESLM: An internationalframework for evaluating sustainable land management. A
discussion paper. World Soil Resources Report 73. Food &Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 74 pp.
Taddese, G., 2001. Land degradation: a challenge to
Ethiopia. Environ. Manage. 27(6), 815–824.
Teshager Abeje, M., Tsunekawa, A., Adgo, E., Haregeweyn, N.,
Nigussie, Z., Ayalew, Z., Elias, A., Molla, D., Berihun, D.,
2019. Exploring drivers of livelihood diversification and its

effect on adoption of sustainable land management practices
in
the
Upper
Blue
Nile
Basin,
Ethiopia. Sustainability, 11(10), 2991.
Tukahirwa J, M.B., Tenywa M., Kakuru W., Kamugisha R.,
Nampala, M.P., 2013. Establishing Functional Innovation
Platforms for Scaling Sustainable Land Management.
Handbook for Facilitators. ICRAF Publications Series.
Walie, M., Tegegne F., Mekuriaw, Y., Atsushi Tsunekawa, A.,
Kobayashi, N., Ichinohe, T., Haregeweyn, N., Tassew, T.,
Mekuriaw,S., Masunaga T., Okuro, T., Tsubo, M., Derege
Tsegaye Meshesha, D.T., Adgo, E., Mulualem, T., 2021a.
Biomass yield and nutritional value of Grazing land as
influenced by farmyard manure and enrichment plantation
with forage grasses in North Western, Ethiopia. Paper underreview in Trop. Grassl.
Walie, M., Tegegne, F., Mekuriawa, Y., Tsunekawac, A.,
Kobayashic, N., Ichinohed, T., Haregeweyne, T., Tassew, A.,
Masunaga, T., Okuro, T., Tsubo, M., Mekuriaw, S.,
Meshesha, D.T., Adgo, E., 2021b. Effects of farmyard
manure and desmodium intercropping on growth and yieldof forage grasses in contrasting two agro-ecologies of theUpper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Paper under review Afr. J.
Range Forage Sci.
Yayneshet, T., Eik, L. O., Moe, S. R., 2009. The effects of
exclosures in restoring degraded semi-arid vegetation incommunal grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. J. Arid
Environ. 73 (4–5), 542–549.

10Annexes
Annex 1: Seven of the 17 UN SDGs with one or more targets that are directly or indirectly related to aims of the SATREPS–
Ethiopia Project: “Development of a Next-Generation Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Framework to
Combat Desertification in Ethiopia”.

Annex 2: Photos of selected SLM technologies evaluated by the SATREPS–Ethiopia project: (A) row planting and (B)lodging control for teff cultivation; (C) exclosure + check dams for gully rehabilitation in communal grasslands;
and (D) microbial assisted seedling development for degraded lands.

A

B

With mechanical support

Without mechanical support

C

D

After

BeforeAssisted

11

Not assisted

Annex 3: List of proposed SLM technologies and their importance by land use type and impacts on key indicators; details are available in the user’s manuals (in progress).
No.

Type of SLM technologies

Suitable land use type
Most
suitableLesssuitable

CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
GL, DH
GL, DH
GL, CLDH, GLGL

Impact level on key indicators
Soil
Improve landconservation
productivity

Moisture
conservation

GL
++
na
na
++
na
na
na
-/+
+++
+++
-/+

DH
na
na
na
++
na
na
na
-/+
+++
++
-/+

12
Assisted seedling establishment
DH
GL
na
na
na
na
na
na
+++
+++
+++
na
na
13
Acacia decurrens plantation
All
+
+
+
++
++
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
CL: cropland; GL: grazing land; DH: degraded hillsides; -: negative; +: slightly positive; ++: positive; +++: very positive; -/+: neutral; na: not applicable.

na
+++

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Soil bunds + grass
PAM + lime
Reduced tillage for teffRow planting for teff
Irrigation for winter teff
Teff lodging control
Cover crops
Exclosure
Stall-feeding
Improved forage development
Exclosure + trenches

CL
CL
DH
CL

CL
++
++
++
++
na
na
++
na
++
+++
na

GL
++
na
na
na
na
na
na
++
+++
+++
+++

DH
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
++
+++
++
+++

CL
+++
+++
++
na
na
na
+++
na
++
+++
na

GL
+++
na
na
na
na
na
na
+++
+++
+++
+++

DH
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
+++
+++
++
+++

CL
++
++
++
++
+++
++
++
na
++
+++
na

GL
++
na
na
na
na
na
na
+++
+++
+++
+++

Improve livelihood

DH
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
+++
+++
+++
+++

CL
++
++
++
++
+++
++
++
na
++
+++
na

Annex 4: List of proposed SLM approaches and their suitability by land use type and main objectives; details are available in the user’s manuals (in progress).
No.

1
2
3

Type of SLM approaches

Community-based participatory gully rehabilitation
Developing alternative future land use and management scenarios
Developing income3.1. Dairy farming
generating activities
3.2. Poultry farming

4
Facilitating SLM adoption by local farmers
CL: cropland; GL: grazing land; DH: degraded hillsides; na: not applicable.

Suitable land
use type
CL, GL, DH
CL, GL, DH
CL, GL, DH

Moisture
conservationnaHomestead
CL, GL, DH

na


12

SLM objectives to be addressed
Soil
Improve landconservation
productivity





na
na





Improve
livelihood