Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the
Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
A Case Study from Ethiopia
By Betru Nedessa, Jawad Ali, and Ingrid Nyborg
May 2005
DCG Report No. 38
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the
Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
A Case Study from Ethiopia
An enclosed area in the foreground. Tigray, Ethiopia
Betru Nedessa
Jawad Ali
Ingrid Nyborg
DCG Report No. 38
May 2005
The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) is an NGO-driven forum for exchange of practical
experiences and knowledge on food security and natural resource management in the drylands of
Africa. DCG facilitates this exchange of experiences between NGOs and research and policymaking institutions. The DCG activities, which are carried out by DCG members in Ethiopia,
Eritrea, Mali and Sudan, aim to contribute to improved food security of vulnerable households and
sustainable natural resource management in the drylands of Africa.
The founding DCG members consist of ADRA Norway, CARE Norway, Norwegian Church Aid,
Norwegian People's Aid, The Strømme Foundation and The Development Fund. The secretariat of
DCG is located at the Environmental House (Miljøhuset G9) in Oslo and acts as a facilitating and
implementing body for the DCG. The DCG’s activities are funded by NORAD (the Norwegian
Agency for Development Cooperation).
Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the DCG
secretariat. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are entirely
those of the author(s) and cannot be attributed directly to the Drylands Coordination Group.
©Nedessa, B., Ali, J., Nyborg, I., Drylands Coordination Group Report No. 38 (05, 2005)
Drylands Coordination Group c/o Miljøhuset G9
Grensen 9b
N-0159 Oslo
Norway
Tel.: +47 23 10 94 90
Fax: +47 23 10 94 94
Internet: http://www.drylands-group.org
ISSN: 1503-0601
Photo credits: T.A. Benjaminsen, Gry Synnevåg, and Poul Wisborg.
Cover design: Spekter Reklamebyrå as, Ås.
Printed at: Mail Boxes ETC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .........................................................................................v
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
2. An overview of land degradation and the efforts to contain the problem..............................2
2.1. Global overview ..............................................................................................................2
2.2. The magnitude of land degradation in Ethiopia ..............................................................2
2.3. Efforts to contain the problem of land degradation.........................................................3
2.4. Area Enclosures – What are the issues?..........................................................................3
2.4.1. What are Area Enclosures? ......................................................................................4
2.4.2. Purpose of AEs: Conservation vs. Economic Considerations..................................4
2.4.3. Community participation..........................................................................................7
2.4.4. Gender issues............................................................................................................8
2.4.5. Land Tenure Issues...................................................................................................8
2.4.6. Private vs. communal/state land tenure..................................................................10
2.4.7. Importance of local institutions..............................................................................11
3. The Study .............................................................................................................................12
3.1. Justification of the study ...............................................................................................12
3.2. Objectives of the study..................................................................................................12
3.3. Limitations of the study.................................................................................................12
3.4. The study areas..............................................................................................................12
3.5. Survey methodologies and data collection....................................................................14
4. Results and discussion..........................................................................................................15
4.1. Extent and Diversity of Area Enclosures ......................................................................15
4.2. Shortage of food, fodder, firewood and timber in the study areas ................................17
4.3. Protection of the Area Enclosures .................................................................................19
4.4. Individual versus communal versus government-communal management ..................20
4.5. Impact of market opportunities .....................................................................................21
4.6. Community participation and empowerment ................................................................22
4.7. Access to and distribution of benefits ...........................................................................22
4.8. Ownership and access to trees.......................................................................................23
4.9. Process of Formulations of bylaws, follow up and monitoring ....................................24
4.10. Land use policy, ownership right and access to land ..................................................24
4.11. Actors and Institutional arrangements.........................................................................25
4.12. Role of NGOs and linkages.........................................................................................26
4.13. Women’s participation and benefits from the Area Enclosures..................................27
4.14. Grazing pressure..........................................................................................................27
4.15. Technological interventions ........................................................................................28
4.16. Rate of recovery & ecological impacts .......................................................................28
4.17. Community attitudes towards conservation activities.................................................30
5. DCG: Roles, Functions and Recommendations ...................................................................32
6. Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................34
6.1. Data on Area Enclosures ...............................................................................................34
6.2. Community interest and benefits from Area Enclosures ..............................................34
6.3. Protection of AEs ..........................................................................................................34
6.4. Management systems ....................................................................................................35
6.5. Participation ..................................................................................................................35
6.6. Gender issues.................................................................................................................36
6.7. Membership to the AEs.................................................................................................36
6.8. Grazing management.....................................................................................................36
6.9. Management of wildlife population ..............................................................................37
iii
6.10. Choice of tree species..................................................................................................37
6.11. Management Plans ......................................................................................................37
6.12. Institutional and policy issues .....................................................................................38
6.13. Linkages and coordination ..........................................................................................38
6.14. Staff training................................................................................................................39
6.15. Expansion of AEs? ......................................................................................................39
6.16. Further Studies ............................................................................................................39
7. References ............................................................................................................................40
8. Appendices ...........................................................................................................................44
Appendix 1. Remarks at the workshop held in Mekele, 17-18 February 2004....................44
Appendix 2. List of officials who participated in discussions during the study .................47
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Map of Ethiopia showing the study areas ………………………………………….13
Table 1: Selected sample woredas/sites and agro climatic zones of the sites by Regions .......13
Table 2: Comparison of: total land with land enclosed, land degraded with total land ...........16
Table 3: Sources of food, fodder, firewood and timber in the study area................................18
Table 4: Recovery, percentage of ground cover and ecological impacts.................................29
Table 5: Factors affecting the rate of recovery and productivity of area enclosures by Regions
..........................................................................................................................................30
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AE
BoA
BoANR
DCG
EFAP
EHRS
ERAD
ETB
ETH
FAO
LNRAA
LLPPA
M.A.S.L
MERET
MoA
NGO
NORAD
Noragric
PA
PRA
REST
SNNPR
SWC
TLU
UNCCD
UNDP
WAT
WFP
WRI
Area Enclosure
Bureau of Agriculture
Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Drylands Coordination Group
Ethiopian Forest Action Program
Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study
Department for Environment and Agricultural Development, REST
Ethiopian Birr
Ethiopia
Food and Agricultural Organization
Land Use and Natural Resources Administration Authority
Local Level Participatory Planning Approach
Meter Above Sea Level
Management of Environmental Resources to Enable Transition
to Sustainable Livelihoods
Ministry of Agriculture
Non Governmental Organization
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
Center for International Environment and Development Studies
Peasant Association
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Relief Society of Tigray
Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region
Soil and Water Conservation
Tropical Livestock Unit
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
United Nations Development Program
Women Association of Tigray
World Food Program
World Resource Institute
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to all the community members who were interviewed for this study in Tigray,
Amhara, Oromya and Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR) in
Ethiopia for their cooperation and for providing valuable information. We are thankful to the
field staff of Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources (BoANR) and Relief Society of
Tigray (REST) in Tigray, Bureau of Agriculture (BoA) in Amhara, BoANR in Southern
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR) and Land Use and Natural Resources
Administration Authority (LNRAA) in Oromya for coordinating, supporting and providing
important information which has been extremely useful in understanding both the
administrative and social setting in the study areas.
We would like to express special gratitude to Ms. Solveig Raaheim Grønsdal, Acting
Coordinator of the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) at the Centre for International
Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Mr.
Dawit Kebede, Program Coordinator Norwegian Church Aid and Mr. Dagnew Menan Head
of Department for Environment and Agricultural Development (ERAD) at REST for
providing generous support and cooperation in planning and organizing the study and the
workshop.
Mr. Tsehaye Gebreselassie, REST and Mr. Yirgaalem Nega, BoANR have provided great
support and cooperation during the fieldwork in Tigray. Their work experience and
knowledge about Tigray added useful information and insight to this study. Their cooperation,
support and contribution to this study are highly acknowledged.
We are highly thankful to Mr. Poul Wisborg, Research Fellow, Noragric, Ms. Grete
Benjaminsen, the DCG Coordinator, Noragric, Dr. Gufu Oba, Associate Professor, Noragric,
Mr. Hussein Jemma, Assistant Professor at the Addis Ababa University, currently Research
Fellow at Noragric, Ms. Solveig Raaheim Grønsdal and Ms. Lauren Naville, Information
Officer DCG for their valuable comments and suggestions on this study.
This study was initiated by the DCG Ethiopia and was financed by the Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation (NORAD). We are grateful to DCG and NORAD for their
administrative and financial support.
vi
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
1. INTRODUCTION
Land degradation is a severe problem across sub-Saharan Africa, and Ethiopia is among the
most affected countries. Land degradation in Ethiopia is especially severe in the highlands
where the average soil loss from farmland is estimated to be 100 tons/hectare/year (Hagos,
2003; FAO, 1986). To stop further land degradation, the government of Ethiopia has initiated
a number of projects including soil and water conservation works and the establishment of
Area Enclosures (AEs) with the financial assistance of international donors, mainly the World
Food Program (Betru, 2003).
Establishment of AEs has been an important strategy for the rehabilitation of degraded
hillsides. This practice has become very common, especially in the highlands, due to the
impressive improvement of productivity and reduction in soil erosion in the areas enclosed in
the early 1980s (WFP/MoA, 2002). In the Tigray region alone, a total of 262,000-hectares
have been enclosed so far. This is in addition to the degraded lands with some remnants of
forest species and state forest lands that have been enclosed by the government (unpublished
data of the regional states in Ethiopia).
In spite of the impressive results of the ecological rehabilitation and improvements of
productivity, many communities have had a bad experience with AEs in the past due to
uncertainty and the lack of clarity of land tenure and public land use policy in the country.
Due to these uncertainties, the communities did not have decision making power in the
management and utilization of the resources. In addition, they could not use grass and wood
produced in the AEs. This adversely affected the sense of ownership and community
commitment for effective protection and sustainable management of the resources. This
problem is still not adequately addressed and the communities are uncertain about the future
of land tenure and land use policy. This has restricted them in making decisions that are
important for the sustainability of the AEs and resources within. In an attempt to remedy this
situation, the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) commissioned this study to develop
guidelines to support the government in developing management plans with a clear land
tenure and land use policy for the sustainable management of AEs.
The field work for this study was carried out in 4 Regional States: Tigray, Amhara, Oromya
and Southern Nations and Nationalities and Peoples Region. This document consists of the
results and recommendations of the study. An earlier draft of this document has been refined
and improved based on the feedback from the workshop organized on 17-18 February 2004 in
Mekele, Tigray Region. The participants of the workshop were drawn from the DCG
members, government and NGOs’ representatives. The opening and closing remarks of the
workshop are attached as appendices.
1
Drylands Coordination Group
2. AN OVERVIEW OF LAND DEGRADATION AND THE EFFORTS TO
CONTAIN THE PROBLEM
2.1. GLOBAL OVERVIEW
Land degradation refers to how one or more of the land resources have changed for the worse
(Stocking and Murnaghan, 2001). As a result, land loses its productive capacity for present
and future use (UNFPA and POPIN, 1995, de-Queiroz, 1993). Land degradation results from
an intricate nexus of social, economic, cultural, political and biophysical forces operating
across a broad spectrum of time and spatial scale, and often involves competing perceptions
on what are considered to be positive and negative changes in the environment (ibid). The
relationship between these factors and management of resources has been a major subject of
the development debate in recent decades (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987).
It is estimated that during 1945 to 1990, 17% of the total vegetated land in the world had been
degraded (Oldeman, Van Engelen and Pulles, 1990 and WRI, 1992). These studies show that
the main causes of land degradation are deforestation (37%), overgrazing (35%), agricultural
activities (28%) and industrialization (1%). The highest trends in land degradation have been
reported from Asia and Africa where deforestation, overgrazing and agriculture activities
appear to be the main causes of land degradation. For example, in Africa, 49% of the land is
degraded by overgrazing, 24% by agriculture expansion, and 14% by deforestation while in
Asia 40% of land degradation is due to deforestation, 27% to agriculture expansion, and 26%
to overgrazing (Oldeman, Van Engelen and Pulles, 1990 and WRI, 1992). Land degradation
poses a serious problem to the livelihoods of the rural population in developing countries and
is considered as a source of poverty (Dasgupta and Maler, 1991).
In recent years, because of the perceived global ecological and socio-economic crises, and the
apparent dependency of many of the world’s poor on common pool resources, the
management of particularly these resources in Asia and Africa has gained importance
(Bromley and Coernea, 1989; Singh, 1994). As a result of the apparent failure of the
government in managing common pool resources, greater involvement of non-governmental
and community based organizations has been suggested (World Bank, 1997). Therefore,
governmental policies are being adjusted to facilitate co-management of common pool
resources by involving communities and non-governmental organizations (Nagothu, 2000;
Wisborg et. al, 2000). The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
also recommends urgent and increased support to marginal rural areas such as the drylands of
Africa focusing on sustained natural resource management, increased food security, and
poverty alleviation. Affected countries, including Ethiopia, are currently implementing the
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (Mossige et. al, 2001).
2.2. THE MAGNITUDE OF LAND DEGRADATION IN ETHIOPIA
Land degradation, especially in the highlands, has been identified as the most serious
environmental problem in Ethiopia (Hagos and Holden, 2002, Aune et. al., 2001). In 1986, it
was estimated that as much as half of the highlands (ca. 270 000 km2) were significantly
eroded (FAO, 1986). Deforestation, overgrazing, inappropriate agricultural practices such as
over-cultivation, fertilization, and nutrient depletion are reported to be the major humancaused factors of land degradation (UNFPA and POPIN, 1995). The rate of deforestation of
high forests, for example, has been estimated to range from 150,000 to 200,000 hectares per
2
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
year (EFAP, 1994). Likewise, overgrazing is considered as a major cause of land degradation
in Ethiopia, particularly in the highlands. The issue of overgrazing, however, is not a
straightforward one. It is clear that in many areas of the highlands vegetation loss is severe,
and that this degraded land no longer has the capacity to support large animal populations.
Exactly how much soil loss is a result of grazing, and how many animals the highlands can
support both now and in the future, however, are issues under both scientific and political
debate. The natural and institutional environments across the highlands are variable, as is the
extent to which grazing activities interact with agriculture and forests. Combined with
climatic variability, it is difficult to generalize as to which processes actually led to
overgrazing and the resulting land degradation, and how this might be remedied in the short
and long term.
2.3. EFFORTS TO CONTAIN THE PROBLEM OF LAND DEGRADATION
Efforts to contain the problem of land degradation have been made at several levels. Two of
the main activities have been soil and water conservation works and the establishment of Area
Enclosures (AEs). The implementation of the soil and water conservation activities on a large
scale started in the mid 1970s with the help of the World Food Program (WFP) through food
for work projects. In 1980, WFP’s relatively small-scale, fragmented projects were
consolidated under one support program called "Rehabilitation of forest, grazing and
agricultural lands (ETH-2488)”. The beginning of the ETH-2488 project marked the
beginning of large-scale soil and water conservation and land rehabilitation programs in the
country (Betru, 2003). After some years of operation, this program was criticized as being
entirely top-down with more emphasis on the technical solution to the problem of land
degradation. Techniques were applied without taking into account the diversity of the
farming systems and agro-ecological conditions in the country. The selection of sites and the
choice of conservation measures were made by soil conservation technicians without
community consent. This led to the consideration of changing or modifying the large-scale
watershed management approach to community based approach. This was first started with
an exercise known as minimum planning which eventually gave birth to the current local level
participatory planning approach (LLPPA) used in planning natural resource management
including the AEs.
Another important set of activities has been the establishment of AEs. The inception of AEs
dates back to the early 1980s, which coincides with the beginning of large-scale land
rehabilitation and soil and water conservation programs in Ethiopia. The establishment of
AEs has been one of the strategies for rehabilitating the degraded hillsides within the
catchments delineated for the rehabilitation and soil and water conservation programs. The
remainder of this report will deal specifically with these enclosures.
2.4. AREA ENCLOSURES – WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?
In this chapter we present issues related to AEs and lessons learnt so far, mainly from the
current literature. We feel that such a presentation provides an important background for
understanding our findings, conclusions and recommendations in the subsequent chapters.
The issues included in this section are also in themselves important to consider in the
development of management plans locally and for the formulation of policies and guidelines
both nationally and regionally.
3
Drylands Coordination Group
2.4.1. What are Area Enclosures?
Area Enclosures (AEs) in the Ethiopian context can be defined as the degraded land that has
been excluded from human and livestock interference for rehabilitation. In principal, human
and animal interference is restricted in the AEs to encourage natural regeneration. In practice,
however, cattle are allowed to free graze in several of the AEs. Cutting grass and collection of
fuel wood from dead trees and bee keeping is also allowed. In some areas, soil and water
conservation activities are also being undertaken.
2.4.2. Purpose of AEs: Conservation vs. Economic Considerations
The AEs and community woodlots were established by the government primarily for
ecological regeneration and biodiversity conservation. The concept of economic benefits was
seldom explicitly addressed in the early years of their establishment, although there was an
implicit acknowledgement that after many years of regeneration, the areas might be opened
up to controlled use. According to BoANR (Forester, 2000), the objectives of area enclosures
are to:
• Halt and reverse land degradation
• Check the adverse effect of run-off
• Create natural resources highly demanded by livestock, human beings and the land
• Improve the micro-climate of respective places and thereby maintain environmental
stability in the region
• Create habitat for wildlife
• Conserve the diminishing biological resources, mainly forest trees, shrubs, herbs and
grasses.
At the outset of these programs it was assumed that these mainly ecological objectives could
best be achieved by the total exclusion of animals and people from the AEs for longer periods
of time. According to a limited number of ecological studies conducted in a few of the AEs,
this assumption seems to hold, in that biomass inside these areas has increased, as has the
number of species in certain areas studied (NORAGRIC, 1999; Birhane, 2002; Asefa
et.al.,2003). Particularly the increase in biomass is apparent, as in many of the areas
degradation was so severe that before intervention vegetation was nearly absent. The obvious
increase in biomass has convinced both communities and the government about the great
potential of the AEs to restore vegetation in areas of extreme degradation.
Nevertheless, there are still a number of ecological issues in relation to AEs which have
surfaced in the literature in recent years. These may have important implications as to the
ways in which AEs in Ethiopia should be managed ecologically in the future. One key issue
is the nature of the interaction between animals and plants both within and outside the AEs. In
recent years, an increasing number of studies conducted in the drylands of Africa have found
that conventional range management models1 are not necessarily applicable to the conditions
of the drylands (i.e. excluding grazers) (Scoones 1995). Conventional rangeland management
models, sometimes termed equilibrium models, rely heavily on the concept of carrying
capacity. Carrying capacity refers to the maximum livestock or wildlife population that a
habitat or ecosystem can support on a sustainable basis, and is most often expressed in terms
of number of livestock units per unit area (e.g. km2). This concept was originally developed
to manage temperate livestock production systems where plants and animals are considered to
be more or less in a state of equilibrium or balance, where the number of livestock is
1
In this report, the term ‘rangelands’ refers to all grazing land, irrespective of its formal land use classification.
This means that it refers to any land area where animals are grazed, either by farmers or pastoralists.
4
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
determined by the availability of forage and the availability of forage is determined by the
number of livestock. Such deterministic models seem to be applicable where climate, plant
growth and reproduction are stable and reliable.
Although developed for temperate production systems, the above model has nevertheless
formed the basis of most of the rangeland management planning and policy in the dry tropics
as well. This is despite the fact that environments in the drylands are seldom stable; recent reanalysis of climatic data confirms for example an increase in interannual variability of rain
between 1961-1990 which induces an equally variable plant production (Hulme, 1992, quoted
in Nissen et. al., 2004). Instead, a non-equilibrium model has emerged, where external
factors, such as climate, rather than livestock numbers, tend to determine vegetation
composition and cover. For example, unavailability of forage in bad years may depress
livestock populations to the point where the impact of grazing on vegetation is minimal
(Sullivan & Rohde, 2002 quoted in Benjaminsen et. al., 2004). Under such conditions,
livestock herders have developed flexible management systems, where movement and herd
fluctuations are key in what might be termed opportunistic management. For example, when
conditions become poor in one area, maybe due to lack of rain, the animals are moved to
other areas where conditions are better, leaving the poor area for some time to regenerate
before returning. Herd composition is also an important aspect of these systems. Livestock
herders often have a mix of livestock types in order to make the most efficient use of grasses,
shrubs and trees. In this model, there is thus no direct connection between number of
livestock and vegetation cover, as climate, for example, is a major driver of the system.
Which model one uses will have implications as to how one views the causes and remedies of
land degradation, and ultimately, on policy design. In the conventional model, land
degradation from overgrazing is a simple matter of overstocking, and there is a belief that it is
possible to determine an optimal carrying capacity for a specific area, reduce the livestock
number to match this, and this will result in a new equilibrium. In the non-equilibrium model,
however, land degradation and overgrazing must involve a different type of analysis, taking
into consideration scale and temporal aspects, as well as external factors such as climate.
Determining an optimal number of animals for a particular area using this model is thus more
complex, as changing conditions will modify the ability of an area to support livestock
populations. For example, one area in a good year might be able to support 10 livestock,
while in the same area, in a bad year, even 2 animals would be too many. Under such a
scenario, if carrying capacity is determined in the good year, if the next year is poor there is
then a danger of serious degradation. Likewise, if the carrying capacity were set during a bad
year, the area would be underutilized in a good year. While ecologically this second scenario
may not be a problem, politically and socially it is serious if livestock keepers whose
livelihoods are highly dependent on their animals had been required to reduce their herds to a
fixed low number. Thus, the use of the concepts of carrying capacity and overstocking in
unstable, fluctuating systems has been found to be of limited use in developing sustainable
range management policy. A different type of analysis is required, one which takes into
consideration the changing conditions of the drylands.
From the literature, we see that there are several issues arising which are important to
consider when analyzing AE management, and re-designing livestock and range management
policy for non-equilibrium systems:
5
Drylands Coordination Group
The importance of considering scale
While it is clear that huge areas of the highlands are degraded, there are certainly local
variations in the degree of degradation, so the choice of scale becomes central (Oba. et. al.,
2003). Also, in extensive systems where livestock grazing involves movements over large
areas, restricting animals from portions of these areas will have consequences for the grazing
system as a whole. To understand the consequences of the establishment of AEs to members
of communities and the environment as a whole, one must then not only consider what is
happening within the AE, but outside as well. It may be that the AE is improving biomass
production in that area, but has resulted in increased grazing pressure on areas outside. This
would differ in each context, depending on, for example, the size and productivity of the AE,
whether or not it was used for grazing before enclosure, and the importance of animals in the
community’s livelihood system.
Understanding the link between animals, grazing and biodiversity
It has often been assumed that animal grazing, and particularly goat grazing, has an inherently
negative effect on biodiversity, which again has strengthened the desire to keep animals
completely out of AEs (Oba., 1998, Oba. et. al., 2000a). New evidence, however, suggests
that biodiversity, in terms of number of species, can actually be higher in grazed areas outside
of AEs than within. Studies have shown that in arid zones, long-term exclusion of grazing
may actually result in a decline of species richness (Oba. 1992; Oba et. al., 2001). Also,
grazing only one kind of livestock in an area will have an impact on which vegetation species
will be dominant; heavy grazing by cattle of grasses and the exclusion of goats, for example,
might result in bush encroachment and further reductions of grasses (Oba. et. al., 2000).
Indeed, in one AE study in Tigray, it was shown that protection for more than three years did
not improve the diversity of herbaceous species (Asefa. et. al., 2003). Since only oxen are
being grazed in over half of the AEs in Ethiopia, the effects of this single-species controlled
grazing on biodiversity is an important issue to examine, not only in terms of ecological
impact, but in terms of the specific management challenges adjustments in this system would
involve. A better strategy may be some form of controlled grazing of multiple-species
livestock, which could serve to control certain species and promote others, a practice common
in pastoral systems throughout the drylands of Africa (Mapinduzi et. al., 2003, Oba, 1992;
Oba. et. al., 2000).
Moving from conservation to economic benefits
As stated above, the motivations behind the establishment of AEs were mainly regeneration
and biodiversity conservation. It became clear however, that economic returns became
relevant sooner than what was expected by policymakers. Some of the areas which were
enclosed were less severely degraded than others at the outset, while others with
comparatively good soil conditions regenerated more quickly than expected, both resulting in
the possibility of harvesting benefits earlier than anticipated. At that point in time, however,
there were as yet no institutional mechanisms to deal with the management of these benefits.
Also, some of the AEs include as well the establishment of woodlots, specifically designed
for managed extraction. According to recent studies, increased expectations of the community
about economic benefits from these areas will present a major management challenge in terms
of technical inputs and institutional arrangements for utilization and distribution of benefits
(Gebremedhin et. al., 2000; Wisborg et al., 2000).
The incorporation of economic benefits, including an increasing focus on the marketing of
resources, presents a number of new challenges to the management of the AEs. One is
whether or not community members will choose to cooperate in the management of the areas.
6
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
Better access to markets increases the value of resources, and might thus encourage people to
work together to protect this investment. It may also, however, undermine an individual’s
incentives to cooperate if he or she chooses to steal the resources to sell in the market
illegally. Likewise, if access to markets also offers other opportunities for income generation,
the opportunity cost of labor could increase, and community members might be less interested
in participating in collective conservation and maintenance activities in the AEs. Thus, the
impact of market access on collective action can vary, and can only be determined empirically
(Gebremedhin et. al., 2000). Furthermore, collective action may be easier to obtain and likely
to be more effective when cooperation of a smaller number of people is attempted. Thus, it
has been suggested that collective action might be more effective for village-managed
woodlots than for tabia2-managed woodlots. In addition, promotion of woodlots by external
organizations appears in some cases to displace local collective action in protecting the
woodlot and contribute to lower tree survival. Where villagers pay the guard, benefits are
greater and problems of managing the woodlots are less compared to where external
organizations are involved in payments, usually at tabia level (ibid).
Moving beyond economic benefits
The importance of economic benefits, however, is only one of several newer focuses in more
recent discussions on the purposes and goals of area enclosures. How area enclosures might
contribute more actively to promote wider goals such as rural development, livelihood
security, local participation and empowerment are becoming much more in focus on both a
practical and policy level. This report is an example of how one might address some of these
issues in light of our experiences in selected AEs in Ethiopia.
2.4.3. Community participation
As will be discussed in subsequent sections, the establishment of AEs in Ethiopia has been
extensive, and the economic and ecological significance considerable. However, despite the
overall desire on the part of the government and NGOs to address the development needs of
the rural people, these efforts mainly focused on the physical aspects and protection of natural
resources. The activities were mainly planned and implemented using a top-down approach
without any form of community participation during the Derg regime3 (Dessalegn 1994). In
fact, the communities had a rather negative experience with the AEs, where they were
actively excluded from participating from the time of the Derg regime. Thus, in spite of the
impressive results of ecological rehabilitation and improvements in productivity, communities
were denied the use of benefits such as grass or wood produced in the AEs. The communities
did not have any power of decision on the management and utilization of the resources. This
adversely affected the sense of ownership and the community's commitment for effective
protection and sustainable management of the resources. Despite attempts to include
communities in decision-making in more recent efforts, there is still evidence that the earlier
experiences with government control, and the ambiguity of current government policy, has an
affect both on the way communities are allowed to and are willing to participate. It is also
clear that different stakeholders have different views on exactly what is meant by community
participation, something which results again in ambiguity on what exactly the role of the
community is in the establishment and management of the AEs. Questions arising include:
Does community participation involve the participation in individual and collective labor
activities, the definition of rules and regulations, and/or decision-making on the distribution of
2
Tabia is an administrative area made up of a small number of Kushits. A Kushit is a collection of households
which share common resources and can be considered a community, equivalent to a village.
3
The Derg regime ruled in Ethiopia from 1977 to 1991 and was responsible for introducing land reforms,
changing land tenure from private to public ownership.
7
Drylands Coordination Group
benefits? How is participation measured? Who is participating in which activities and
decisions at which times, all the beneficiaries, or elected/appointed representatives? Is
participation gendered, or based on, for example, how many animals one owns, or the labor
availability in the household?
2.4.4. Gender issues
Although boundaries and user groups seem to be relatively clear to local people in relation to
the AEs, this is not always the case, and this has not in itself guaranteed equitable distribution
of benefits (Wisborg et. al., 2000). For example, patriarchal cultures and low representation of
women raise questions about the gender balance of all aspects of management of common
property resources. A case study on gender issues in the Wag Environmental Rehabilitation
Program in Ethiopia conducted by Larsen and Rye (1999) suggests that in order to involve
women in development initiatives, gender awareness is needed in the conceptualization and
planning stage. This is particularly important in the case of gender-segregated and patriarchic
societies where men often have the sole power of decision-making, especially in institutions
beyond the household. In such situations a household consisting of a married couple is
considered as the norm, and the ideal working unit, while a female-headed household faces
many limitations given the gendered division of labor in the society. Female-headed
households, which in Tigray for example comprises ca. 30% of the households, face problems
with regard to livelihood security due to the fact that women are not supposed to perform
certain crucial tasks necessary for farming such as clearing of land, ploughing and sowing. In
most situations the women have to rent out their land in return to be paid with 50% or 25% of
the crop yield. That is one reason why female-headed households are still dependent on food
aid. Larsen and Rye (ibid.) further noted that in agricultural improvement activities women
from female-headed households could theoretically have joined but they did not in practice
because there is no precedent for women’s participation in the allocation of previously unused
bush land for cultivation. Also, women as a group are largely excluded from most decisionmaking processes, both within and beyond the household, despite their important roles in
agricultural and resource management activities. The implications of gendered roles,
responsibilities and decision-making power in the management of AEs, and the gendered
impact of AEs on labor and livelihood security need to be specifically investigated.
2.4.5. Land Tenure Issues
The country’s land tenure policies will have an impact on the management of AEs in some
way. Exactly how different forms of land tenure affect people’s decision making when it
comes to their management of AEs, however, is not always clear. Should ownership of AEs,
for example, be communal or private, or a mix of both? What effect would this have on their
management? Is this different in different contexts? How should management activities be
organized on communal vs. private land areas? What challenges do current land tenure
policies pose to the management of AEs, and how might policies be adjusted to achieve better
management? A brief account of the past and present land tenure policies are given here in
order to be able to discuss how these issues are relevant in the management of AEs in the
study areas.
The land reform introduced in 1975 and the land redistribution in 1996/97 in the Amhara
National Regional State had a mixed impact on land tenure security in Ethiopia. Whereas the
reforms created tenure security for some, others felt that their land was not secure. Before the
land reform in 1975, the northern parts of Ethiopia, including Amhara and Tigray, had
communal ownership of land, while a combination of state and private ownership existed in
the south. The land ownership in the north was called ‘rist’ where individual members of a
8
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
particular community who could claim a common property of their ancestors had the right to
use the land (Imperial Ethiopian Government, 1969 quoted in Hussein, 2001). However, no
person was entitled to sell this land (Bezuwork, 1992) because the land was ultimately
common property of the village community. The individual users, however, had socially
recognized use-rights over their holdings. In this system, it is sometimes argued that there was
no tenure insecurity or fear of being evicted. The reason given for this is that customary laws
require that rist be honored if proof of kinship can be established (Cohan and Weintraub,
1975). However, the exact nature of customary power relations is an area which needs careful
attention to ensure that issues such as exclusion are addressed.
In contrast, private and government tenure, along with church-owned land, existed in the
south at the time of the land reform of 1975 (Cohan and Weintraub, 1975). These forms of
land tenure were introduced to the region in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, replacing the
predominantly traditional communal land tenure system. These newer forms of tenure
represented a dominant-subordinate relationship between the privileged landlords, originating
mainly from other areas of the country, and the disadvantaged majority of the indigenous
people. This interaction generated a situation whereby the elite owned vast tracts of arable
land (Hussein, 2001).
In 1975, the land reform replaced the private land tenure system prevalent in the south with
public ownership. Farmers were given only use-rights, not private ownership. The majority of
the peasants, especially in the south, welcomed the reforms. However, the subsequent
formation of Agricultural Producers Cooperatives created disparities between members and
non-members through their differential treatment in land allocation. This led to tenure
insecurity for the majority of the farmers who did not agree to be members of the
cooperatives. Recognizing the weaknesses of the cooperative system, the government
eventually allowed the farmers to dissolve the cooperatives. The new government in 1991
endorsed the public tenure introduced by the previous government and incorporated it into the
constitution in 1995. Anyone who is given rural land for agriculture purposes has the right of
possession, rent, and inheritance to family members; however the constitution bans the sale or
exchange of land (FDRE, 1995). Though the present government by and large retained the
land reform introduced by the previous government, land was again redistributed in the
Amhara region. This, in addition to the past reforms, created uncertainty among farmers in
some areas further creating insecurity and thus a disincentive for farmers to invest in land
(Yirgremew, 2001). However, in areas where farmers were given certificates showing their
farm holdings, the farmers are more confident that their lands are secure (Yared, 1993 quoted
in Hussain, 2001). Such farmers believe that there will be no further land redistribution. In
such cases, productivity has increased and farmers are investing in land.
Changes in land tenure policy have also had changing implications for women’s land rights in
Ethiopia. Prior to 1975, women’s rights to land were generally defined through patriarchal
customary law, and very limited. The land reform of the socialist regime between 1975 and
1991 had little effect on women’s land rights, as the constitution at that time rather
‘emphasized the role of men as the guardians of the means of production, basically land’
(Mwagiru, 1998). The 1995 Constitution, however, represented a significant shift in policy,
guaranteeing the rights of all Ethiopians, including women, to agricultural and common land,
both through inheritance and redistribution following, for example, their return as refugees
following the war (ibid). In practice, however, there is still widespread use of customary laws
which constrain women’s access to land resources, and the traditional gender biases in the
allocation of land remain. The general lack of women in government decision-making
9
Drylands Coordination Group
positions is considered a hindrance in designing institutional mechanisms which can ensure
the legal rights of women to land (DFID n.d.).
2.4.6. Private vs. communal/state land tenure
At present there is a debate on whether to continue with the present public/state ownership or
to privatize land to individuals. Those who argue for the continuation of the present system
fear that if land is privatized, it will lead to social stratification and resurgence of tenancy
institutions that would be discriminatory especially towards the poor (Hussein, 2001; Fekadu,
1997). Proponents of public ownership argue that there was no tenure security before 1975,
especially in the southern provinces where government policy encouraged private ownership
and land sales. Moreover, during that period land grabbing and peasant eviction were
widespread. Supporters of private ownership (Dessalegn, 1994), on the other hand, argue that
public ownership of land and government interventions failed to provide tenure security;
therefore, land should be privatized. They further maintain that privatization will restore
confidence, which was shattered due to the introduction of state ownership and socialist
agrarian policies under the Derg regime before 1991.
A number of studies from sub-Saharan African countries reveal mixed results regarding the
pattern of relationship between tenure systems and land and agriculture improvements. MigotAdholla et al., (1993) found that while in one study area in Kenya there were significant land
improvements as a result of more individualized land rights, this was not the case in other
areas. This indicates that tenure security is important, however, privatization alone does not
guarantee improvement in land and agricultural production. Another study from Uganda
(Roth et. al., 1993) also suggests that greater security of property in land alone is not a
determining factor in encouraging peasant investment and agricultural growth. Other
important factors to consider are access to agricultural inputs (e.g. fertilizers and improved
seeds) and presence of roads to transport agricultural inputs and outputs.
In Ethiopia, the association between land tenure and peasant incentives for investment is even
more obscure. This is because there is no adequate empirical and comprehensive research
supporting the claim that a private tenure system is more advantageous than the existing
public ownership in motivating the peasants to improve their land through investment
(Hussein, 2001). It is argued that the majority of the farmers will be exposed to possible
negative effects associated with privatization and land sales (Hussein, 2001). There is some
empirical evidence showing that poor peasants in different parts of the country are informally
selling their possessions, although such a practice is illegal. In Ethiopia informal land markets
widely operate irrespective of the official policy (Dejene, 2001 quoted in Hussein, 2001). In
some parts of the country, poor farmers have sold their entire holdings and have become
agricultural laborers for those individuals who have purchased their plots (Demissie, 2000
quoted in Hussein, 2001). Therefore, care must be taken in any endeavor to alter the tenure
system in favor of private land ownership.
Despite the ban on sales of land by individuals, conversion of land from communal to
individual land units is being practiced at a community level. Low survival rates and poor
tree establishment in community woodlots has encouraged the distribution of degraded
communal lands for private tree plantations (Gebremedhin et. al., 2000). Therefore, the
community divided communal land into smaller plots to individuals for tree planting. This
initiative was later accepted at the regional level and distribution of communal land for
private tree plantation is now occurring in several woredas of the region. However, the subdivision of enclosures is by many seen as a threat to achieving common goals (Birhane,
10
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
2002). By dividing the plots, there is no guarantee that individuals will follow any common
goals when it comes to the conservation of, for example, biodiversity on a larger scale.
From the examples above, we can see that discussions of the relationship between land tenure
policy, tenure security, and investments in resource management continue to be inconclusive.
The issue of land tenure in recent years has often focused on the apparent dichotomy between
private and publicly-owned land, and the assumption that private land ownership is
synonymous with better tenure security and thus increased investments in land improvements.
This has infiltrated discussions of AEs as well, questioning the effectiveness of communal
management of AEs, and promoting the division of these areas into private plots. Historical
and contemporary evidence from Ethiopia, however, suggests that while this is an important
perspective to include in an analysis, perhaps an even more interesting analysis lies in
examining more closely the currently ambiguous or fuzzy relationship between public and
communal ownership and management. What do we really mean by public and communal
ownership and management? Where are the ‘boundaries’ between different community and
government institutions? Can communal forms of ownership and management provide
adequate tenure security and promote effective collective management of resources? Under
what economic, social and political conditions might this occur? What can we learn from the
different regions’ experiences with communal management?
2.4.7. Importance of local institutions
Enforceable serit laws (community laws) are seen as crucial for the success of conservation
efforts in Ethiopia. However, the present serit laws do not match with the demands of
changing realities as a result of the establishment of AEs (Wisborg et. al., 2000). In most
cases serit laws are not efficient and only seen as a penalizing tool against offenders (Birhane,
2002). In addition to efficient serit laws, conservation and development initiatives need an
institutional framework that promotes co-ordination (Yifter and Haile, 2002). This
institutional framework must be able to sort out the roles and responsibilities of all of the
stakeholders involved in the AEs, defining in particular the relationship between the
community and the government. Absence of an appropriate institutional framework gives rise
to (inter-institutional) rivalries thus making implementation and integration at local level
difficult. Also, the composition of local institutions is an important aspect to consider. Maledominated, elite-based local power structures may make it difficult to adjust institutions to
promote more participation of women and other excluded community members in decisionmaking on AEs. Therefore, capacity building of local institutions is crucial for integration and
effective implementation of strategies developed for resource management (Yifter and Haile,
2002).
11
Drylands Coordination Group
3. THE STUDY
3.1. JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY
The joint efforts made by the communities, government, donor agencies and the nongovernment organizations in soil and water conservation and rehabilitation of degraded lands
brought about substantial improvement in the degraded lands in Ethiopia. Among the
rehabilitation works that have shown impressive changes in terms of restoration and
improvement of productivity and reduction in soil erosion has been the establishment of AEs.
However, these achievements are subject to serious threats due to lack of clarity on policy
issues regarding land tenure and use, distribution of benefits and community empowerment.
This study was commissioned by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) to address these
issues.
3.2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
•
•
•
To assess the current management systems of Areas Enclosures in different regional
states.
To identify the factors affecting management of the Area Enclosures.
To develop strategies and guidelines for the sustainable management and utilization of
the Area Enclosures.
3.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This study makes recommendations only on those aspects which are clearly supported by the
data collected for this study. We discuss, however, many other issues which are relevant in
gaining an understanding of AEs, but do not necessarily lead to specific recommendations.
Also, the recommendations do not comprise a management plan. Management plans should
be based on local social and ecological conditions in each area, and not be generalized across
the country or the regions due to the contextual diversity. This diversity makes it extremely
challenging to develop management plans and policies which are relevant to all of the
individual AEs. Thus, the emphasis in this study is less on developing specific
recommendations to follow generally, and more on developing general recommendations
which help in designing specific actions. We hope that this study will contribute to this
process.
3.4. THE STUDY AREAS
A total of nine woredas (districts) were selected in four Regional States (Fig 1). In each
selected woreda at least one sample site was identified for in-depth study and data collection.
These sites (catchments) were geographically well spread out in the country representing the
geographical profiles of the country. However, most of the study areas are concentrated in the
mid and high altitude areas and therefore do not represent all the agro climatic zones in
Ethiopia where the environmental conditions and agricultural systems are markedly different.
Selection of most of the study sites from mid and high altitude was done purposefully because
most of the AE are situated in these zones. The selected woredas and sites in each region are
given in Table 1.
12
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
N
Ahferom
Tseadaemba
Tigray
Bug-na
Enderta
Kalu
AM HARA
Tullo
A.A
Lem u
Adama
OROMIA
Alaba
SNNPR
Figure 1: Map of Ethiopia showing the study areas
Table 1: Selected sample woredas/sites and agro climatic zones of the sites by Regions
Region
Woreda
Site/PA
Agro climatic
Zone
Tigray
Ahferom
Enda Lashen
Dry Dega
Tsadeamba
Guemsa Agamat
Enderta
Amhara
Oromya
SNNP
Area of
the site
(hectare)
Beneficiary
households
60
100
Dry Dega
155
150
Dedeba
Dry Weine Dega
100
600
Bugna
Debre Loza
Dry Weine Dega
25
80
Kalu
Addis Mender
Dry Weine Dega
12
48
Adama
Goro Wagilo
Dry Weine Dega
80
300
Tullo
Oda Negaya
Dry Weine Dega
94
1900
Lemo
Haise
Moist Weine Dega
100
600
Alaba
Assore
Dry Weine Dega
170
360
Key: PA=Peasant Association
Source: Woreda administration and local communities
13
Drylands Coordination Group
3.5. SURVEY METHODOLOGIES AND DATA COLLECTION
For this study an attempt has been made to include contrasting sites in terms of success stories
and failures in order to capture the factors contributing to the success and failure of the AEs.
The study has been carried out in those AEs which were enclosed five or more years ago. This
is because management factors such as sustainability, economic viability and ecological
stability or failures are assumed to be influenced by the duration of AEs. The study has been
as detailed and explicit as possible in order to obtain sufficient information on the biophysical
and socio-economic situations. Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques including semistructured questionnaires, focus group discussions, historical profiles, transect walks etc. were
used for primary data collection. Literature on AEs and land tenure in Ethiopia was consulted
for secondary data collection and to avoid repetition of earlier studies.
The team first met with the woreda officials and experts in each woreda to gain insight into
each of the woredas. At the community level, meetings were held with development agents
and the community representatives. Discussions were also carried out with various focus
groups to obtain more detailed information. Focus groups included the Peasant Association
leadership, poor and rich households and female-headed households.
In addition, discussions were carried out with the DCG members and other relevant
stakeholders including Mekele University, Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Development, Relief Society of Tigray and Women Association of Tigray, regional officials
and experts of rural land and Natural Resources Administration Authority (for Oromya only).
14
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings of the filed study and discusses them in light of the issues
presented in the literature review in chapter 2.
4.1. EXTENT AND DIVERSITY OF AREA ENCLOSURES
Knowing the extent to which AEs have been established in each woreda and how this relates
to other categories of land use can be an important tool in land use planning, and the
evaluation of rural development activities. Reliable data on land use, and the number and total
land area of AEs in each of the woredas, however, was in many cases difficult to compile.
Documentation of AEs seemed to be better in the areas where certain NGOs were active, but
it is clear that there is a lot of potential for improving this documentation. Table 2 provides
some basic data on land area and use in the woredas included in this study, giving an
indication of where AEs fit into the broader land management picture.
As we see in table 2, there are great variations between the woredas when it comes to the
amount of degraded area, population density, density of animals, how much area has been
enclosed, and how much area is left for, for example grazing, outside the AEs. We also see
that several of the assumptions we often make about land degradation are put to question by
the empirical data from these areas (also see section 2.4.2). For example, if we examine the
relationship between human population, livestock densities and land degradation, we see that
Ahferom, the area with the highest land degradation (47%), has one of the lowest population
densities, and a relatively low number of animals per unit area. Alaba, on the other hand, has
three times the population density of Ahferom (302), and three times the number of animals
per land unit, but only 18% degradation. From this data, it is thus difficult to conclude that
degradation is directly caused by high population and animal density. We also see that there
are differences as to the amount of total grazing area which has been enclosed up to the
present, ranging from 2% in Kalu, to as high as 47% in Tsadeamba. This gives, for example,
an indication of the extent to which the AEs are affecting the availability of grazing land.
15
Drylands Coordination Group
Cultivated land (ha)
Pasture land (ha)
Grazing land (ha) (A)
Forest/bush land (ha) (B)
Total potential grazing area
(A+B)
Area enclosed (ha)
% area enclosed out of total
available grazing area
Total Degraded land (ha(%))
Livestock per unit area
S
Total land area (ha)
O
Land holding per HH (ha)
A
Population density (No/km
T
Ahferom
118
0.6
133979
7.3
63,417
(47)
23434
15134
2225
15821
18046
5637
31
Tsadeamba
128
0.6
102381
6.5
25,158
(25)
19609
3240
9742
23124
32866
15416
47
Enderta
86
1
128416
2.9
34,160
(27)
33887
3857
20046
43000
63046
12562
10
Bugna
100
0.7
200596
n.a.
70,482
(35)
49480
n.a.
70482
105414
175896
n.a.
n.a.
Kalu
200
0.8
113008
22.7
5370 (5)
37974
2094
1659
66356
68015
1617
2
Adama
150
0.5
96827
Na
125.000
(25)
40303
49005
4497
3022
7519
n.a.
n.a.
Tullo
318
1
45670
4.5
12,653
(28)
22847
197
12534
4325
16859
n.a.
n.a.
Lemo
290
1
103000
12
20,989
(20)
61800
16475
8240
5573
13813
4514
33
Alaba
302
1
65194
20.8
11,713
(18)
45097
n.a.
4317
4592
8909
n.a.
n.a.
Woreda
Region
Table 2: Comparison of: total land with land enclosed, land degraded with total land
Key: T- Tigray, A- Amhara, O- Oromya, S- SNNP, n.a.- data not available
Source: Unpublished data of regions4
In further examining the sites included in this study, it became clear that the AEs are diverse
in several ways, both in terms of their ecological conditions, and their socio-economic,
political, and historical contexts. For example, the causes of land degradation in the areas may
differ, as do the potential for regeneration, successful management, and impact on livelihood
security. Thus, although certain aspects may seem to be similar when considered in isolation,
such as ownership form, or number of animals in the area, when combined with other aspects
they can give a totally different picture, making generalization both difficult and probably not
so useful. This diversity makes it extremely challenging to develop management plans and
policy which are relevant to all of the individual AEs. It becomes important to identify
broader, cross-cutting issues, as well as to develop the ability to analyze the wide range of
4
While the land use categories presented in the table were provided by the regional BoANR offices, it was not
clear from their records exactly which types of land are included in each category. We have nevertheless made
some assumptions to be able to begin to analyze this data; however, our results remain at this point preliminary.
16
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
different factors in each case and develop a management plan which is relevant for that
particular AE.
In this study, we have identified a variety of characteristics describing the AEs which we find
to be important to consider for the discussions in the following sections. We have found that
the AEs can differ in terms of their ownership and management
(private/communal/government), their size, their percent of total area, their proximity to
markets, the number of beneficiaries per unit area, the number of years they have been in
existence, the value of the benefits, the degree of degradation at the start of the enclosure,
other options for grazing, alternative livelihoods and their political context (i.e. north versus
south). Rather than trying to generalize on each of these aspects, we will in the following
sections try to analyze how they interact in different contexts, and identify how this will help
us to better understand how we can deal with complexity in AE management.
4.2. SHORTAGE OF FOOD, FODDER, FIREWOOD AND TIMBER IN THE STUDY
AREAS
In all the case study areas there is a severe shortage of food, fodder, firewood and timber. The
annual food produced by the farmers is enough only for 4 to 7 months consumption. This is
illustrated also in table 3, where we see that the households in all of the study areas were
dependent on food aid. The government, through the food for work program, provides the rest
of consumption needs. For example, the farmers in Ahferom woreda produce only 40%
(including 10% from off farm sources) of the annual food consumption while the government
provides 60%. Similarly, there is an acute shortage of livestock fodder and the farmers rely on
crop residue (25-75%) for feeding their livestock. Shortage of food and fodder has many
implications for the management of the AEs. The acute shortage of livestock fodder could
make the protection and management of the emerging grasses in the AEs more challenging, in
that more people will be compelled to harvest fodder from the AEs whether this is ‘officially’
allowed or not. Likewise, the shortage of firewood forces the community uses dung as fuel,
which otherwise could have been used as fertilizer; 15 to 75% of the fuel requirement in the
study areas is, for example, met from animal dung.
In addition, the unavailability of firewood increases the dependence of the community on
government-managed timber forests. For example, protection of the government owned
forests situated in Enderta Woreda has been a problem for the government because the people
living in the area harvest trees illegally and sell them in Mekele town. The government has
over the years increased forest guards to protect the forest, but to no avail. Socio-economic
conditions of the area are such that the people have less alternative opportunities and are thus
compelled to sell wood from the government owned forest (see next section). For example,
despite the fact that educational facilities are better in Enderta compared to any other woreda
in Tigray because of Mekele town, the literacy rate is lowest here. Enderta is one of the first
woredas where the food for work program was initiated because it is one of the poorest areas.
These factors indicate that it is important to see the AEs in relation to people’s broader
livelihood strategies. When the majority of the population works for a minimum level of
payment (i.e. food for work) some people could see the sale of wood as a better source to
increase their cash earnings.
17
Drylands Coordination Group
Table 3: Sources of food, fodder, firewood and timber in the study area
Region
Tigray
Woreda/PA
Ahferom/
Lashen
Enda
Tsadamba/
Guemsa Agamat
Enderta/ Dedeba
Amhara
Bugna/
Loza
Kalu/
Mender
Oromya
Debre
Addis
Adama/Wagilo
Food
1. Own farm- 30
Fodder
1. Crop residue-75
Fuel
1.Animal dung-35
Timber
1.Private w/lot-100
2. Food Aid-60
2. Grazing land-0
2. Private w/lot-65
2.Purchase
3. Off farm-10
3. Hay-25
3. Field twigs-0
3. Natural veget.
1. Own farm- 50
1. Crop residue-65
1.Animal dung-70
1.Private w/lot-90
2. Food Aid-40
2. Grazing land-35
2. Private w/lot-20
2.Purchase-
3. Off farm-10
3. Hay-0
3. Natural veget-10
3. Natural vege-10
1. Own farm- 50
1. Crop residue-42
1.Animal dung-75
1.Private w/lot-
2. Food Aid-50
2. Grazing land-42
2. Private w/lot-0
2.Purchase-
3. Off farm-15
3. Hay-16
3. Natural veget-25
3. Natural veget-100
1. Own farm- 35
1. Crop residue-35
1.Animal dung-40
1.Private w/lot
2. Food Aid-50
2. Grazing land-50
2. Private w/lot-0
2.Purchase-
3. Off farm-15
3. Hay-15
3. Natural veget-60
3. Natural veget-100
1. Own farm- 40
1. Crop residue-35
1.Animal dung-25
1. Private w/lot.
2. Food Aid-45
2. Grazing land-25
2. Private w/lot-0
2.Purchase
3. Off farm-15
3. Weeds &green leaves-40
3. S/M stalk-75
3. Natural veget.
1. Own farm- 50
1. Crop residue-60
1.Animal dung-30
1.Private w/lot-
2. Food Aid-25
2. Grazing land-25
2. Private w/lot-0
2. Purchase -100
3. Off farm-25
3. Weeds& thinnings-15
3. S/M stalk-20
3. Natural veget-
4. Field twigs-50
Tullo/
Negaya
Oda
1. Own farm- 65
1. Crop residue-65
1.Animal dung-15
1.Private w/lot-90
2. Food Aid-35
2. Grazing land-0
2. Private w/lot-20
2.Purchase -10
3. Off farm-0
3. Weeds &
3. S/M stalk-50
3. Natural veget-
1. Own farm- 60
1. Crop residue-40
1.Maize stalk-10
1.Private w/lot-50
2. Food Aid-25
2. Grazing/hay-20
2. Private w/lot-65
2.Maize stalk-25
3. Off farm-15
3. Weeds-25
3. Com. woodl't-10
3.Natural veget-25
1. Own farm- 65
4. Ensete parts-15
1. Crop residue-25
4. Natural veget-15
1.Animal dung-15
1.Private w/lot-90
2. Food Aid-35
2. Grazing land-75
2. S/M stalk-35
2.Purchase -10
3. Off farm-0
3. Weeds-0
3. Field twigs-50
3.Natural veget-0
thinnings-35
SNNP
Lemo/ Haise
Alaba/ Assore
Key: FYM=farm yard manure; S = Sorghum; M=Maize
Source: Meeting and discussion with local community members
18
4. FYM-15
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
4.3. PROTECTION OF THE AREA ENCLOSURES
Except in Kalu, in the rest of the case study areas the AEs are protected against theft and
grazing by hired guards. In Kalu the community members take turns to protect the AE except
during high agricultural activity period when guards are hired for two months. In spite of the
similarity of the mode of protection, the level of protection greatly varies from place to place.
In those areas where the hiring of guards is chosen for protection, ensuring they receive their
due payments is crucial for the successful protection of the AEs. There have been problems
with payments to the guards in several areas. The guards are either paid by the communities
or by the government, but it is rather the way the payments are made that matters in each case
rather than who is making them. The community pays in Kalu Woreda of the Amhara Region,
Adama Woreda of the Oromya Region and Lemo/Alaba Woredas of the SNNPR. Here the
guards are paid regularly hence the protection seems good. The community is also paying for
the guards in Bugna Woreda of the Amhara Region and in Tsadeamba Woreda of Tigray.
Here the guards are not getting regular payments, and they work part-time. Therefore, the
incidences of theft are very high. For example, the government stopped paying the guards in
the Abygereb enclosure situated in Guemsa Agamat in Tsadeamba in 1999. After that the
community was expected to pay. However, since then the guard has not been paid regularly.
As a result, the guard did not allow those who did not pay to harvest grass. Some community
members complained that they did not get any grass for the last four years; therefore they did
not pay. This issue has not been solved to date. Some community members believe that there
is no system in place at tabia level to solve such issues. The case of Abygerb indicates that
there is no monitoring system in place or follow up to see whether the payment system is
working or not. The members are divided as to whose interests they support. One group
supports the guard, while the other supports the Kushit activists responsible for linkages
between the community and the government and NGOs, resulting in confusion over how the
AE should be managed and protected. It is mainly because of mismanagement that some
people argue for putting the AE under individual management.
In Dedeba PA, Enderta Woreda, the government appointed two guards in 1995. After some
time the government stopped payments to the guards assuming that the community will pay,
but the community did not. Animals were let free in the area for two weeks after which the
government intervened and appointed a guard. The cases of Dedeba and Abygereb raise many
questions. For example, why did the government discontinue payments when there was no
other protection system in place? Why did the community take over? Was it a unilateral
decision by the government? Contrary to the situation described above, the community in
Dedeba is managing another enclosure established by them. The community is paying the
guard from their own resources and it appears that there are no problems with protection.
From this it could be concluded that the community will continue to depend on the support
given by the government and the NGOs for the enclosures that were established with
government directives unless the institutional set-up of responsibilities and decision-making
changes. It is also important to note that either the influential people or people nominated by
them have been appointed as guards. Given the extreme poverty that prevails in the country,
especially in the rural areas, there could have been competition to get the jobs of the guards.
Influential people in the community would have managed to either influence who was hired,
or get the jobs themselves. In such a situation the community cannot sack the influential
guards.
19
Drylands Coordination Group
Though protection is comparatively good where the government pays the guards, it is not
sustainable because the government could not continue it in the long run. The government
mainly depends on donors for payments, mainly through the food for work program, and there
is uncertainty about how long the donors will continue their support. Therefore, the
sustainability of the AE can only be guaranteed if the community takes responsibility for
protection. Communities have two alternatives: 1) the shareholders take turns so that each
member guards the AE for a specified period; 2) the community pays the guards instead of the
government. It appears that communities would likely reject the second alternative for three
reasons. Firstly, the basic purpose of AE was conservation and the idea came from the
government, therefore the communities take it for granted that the government has to pay for
protection. Secondly, the dependency syndrome; the government paid the guards since the
creation of the AE, therefore the communities have become dependent on the government and
are not willing to pay. Thirdly, and most importantly is that the communities cannot afford to
pay for protection. Most of the people depend on donor-funded food for work program for
survival. The government also pays the guards through this donor-funded scheme, but this
system is not sustainable. After the donors withdraw, there will be no payments unless the
government takes the burden. This appears unlikely to happen given the establishment of
innumerable AEs, throughout the country, which involves huge sums of money if cash
payments are to be made in the absence of the food for work program. Given the social and
economic problems involved with protection through guards, it appears that protection of AEs
by taking turns by the community members as in the case of Kalu is the only possible
alternative at present. This system does not include cash payments and thus, the communities
can protect the AEs without any external financial assistance. Our own experience from other
parts of the world also shows that in areas with poor economies and free grazing traditions,
communal arrangements are more sustainable than protection through hired guards.
4.4. INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COMMUNAL VERSUS GOVERNMENT-COMMUNAL
MANAGEMENT
In Guemesa PA, Tsadeamba Woreda some members of the AE argued for the fragmentation
of AEs into individual plots as is being practiced in Kalu. They felt that there were problems
in communal management of the AEs, especially with regard to protection and the
distribution of benefits. Others members, however, fear that fragmentation of AEs is risky
especially in the absence of legislation and guidelines from the government. It could, for
example, result in the informal conversion of common property into private property and
those who are influential would appropriate the land, as has been the case in some areas of
Ethiopia (see Hussain 2002, and the discussion in section 2.4.5). Such a process might result
in the disappearance of communal grazing lands. Secondly, once the land is divided it would
be difficult to ensure that land is used for the purpose for which it was originally enclosed by
the government i.e. for conservation of natural vegetation and control of soil erosion. Instead
people could, for example, use their piece of land for cultivation of crops. Individual
management also needs more labor input compared to communal management, in that each
household would have to be responsible for protecting their plots. Providing additional labor
would be difficult for labor deficient households (especially for female-headed households).
Many of them at present are not able to cultivate their farmland due to unavailability of labor
and oxen. In addition, before they were enclosed the areas concerned were under free grazing
for centuries; it would be difficult to control free grazing if communal arrangements for
management are not in place. Nevertheless, even those who support communal management
sometimes argue for some of the management to take place on an individual plot level. They
suggest that people can be allocated plots for harvesting, but not permanently, and that this
20
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
could be reallocated every few years so they do not become permanent. This may be easier to
manage in terms of grass; however, trees, which involve several years of management before
harvest then pose other challenges. Mixing communal and individual management is one of
the issues we found to be under active debate, particularly at the village level.
The individual versus community management issues has other sides as well. Another reason
for some villagers supporting the idea of individual management is the perceived failure of
some communal developmental projects. Construction of communal water ponds in Abygerb,
for example, has apparently failed, while water ponds owned by individuals are considered
successful. The government and the NGOs through the food for work program support many
of the community development projects including the AEs and water ponds. Therefore, the
failure or success of one initiative will impact how other similar initiatives are viewed by the
community. In this case, the villagers have the view that communal management is not
effective. In the same area, however, there is a communal AE which is considered by the
people to be very effective. This AE was established not by the government, but by the
community itself. Thus, we begin to see a distinction not only between private and communal,
but between communal and government management. While the government may not directly
manage the AEs in a community, a closer look at communal management at different sites
reveals different degrees of government involvement in decision making and management.
For example, in the communal sites the villagers consider as failed, the government had a
stronger hand in how it was being run. This does not necessarily mean that government
management is always negative, but that there exists different management mixes, which
would have different impacts in different contexts. Thus, communal management takes many
forms, and cannot necessarily be generalized as a single alternative to be compared with
private. It is important to examine the context and exactly where and how decisions are made
in each case, and define the optimal mix of management thereafter.
4.5. IMPACT OF MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
The market opportunities for the resources produced in the AEs (especially firewood) and the
availability of off farm income opportunities have negatively influenced the sustainability of
the AEs in several of the study areas. The market demand has increased the incidences of
illegal harvesting of firewood from the AE in Enderta Woreda of the Tigray and Bugna
Woreda of Amhara. Those who have no other sources of income depend on the sale of wood
for cash income, mainly through selling illegally harvested wood from the government-owned
forest. In the case of Bugna, the farmers living close to Lalibela town have a very good
market outlet for firewood. In Enderta Woreda, there is a forest managed by the government
close to Mekele town out of which many people make a living by selling wood in Mekele
town.
Some people also find off-farm jobs in Mekele and Lalibela towns. The off-farm income
opportunities and the market demand for firewood have reduced opportunities of communal
management of natural resources in general and in the AEs in particular. For example, the
impact of demand for firewood in the market and off-farm income opportunities seem to have
negatively impacted the management of AEs in Enderta where the communities seem less
interested in AE management. There could also be positive impacts of off-farm employment
and market opportunities on the management of AEs, depending on the context of the area,
for example relief of pressure on AE resources. However, these issues need further
investigation in each case before reaching any firm conclusions.
21
Drylands Coordination Group
4.6. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT
In all the case study areas, the communities were informed about the establishment,
objectives, and expected benefits from AEs. At that time the community was however not
convinced about the advocated benefits from AEs. The majority of the people were skeptical
of government decisions mainly because of the past history of land nationalization.
Nevertheless, the government and the NGOs were convinced that the establishment of AEs
was the only solution to stop further land degradation and to promote reclamation; therefore,
the community was asked to establish AEs. Initially the process of the establishment of AEs
was less participatory. All members were consulted, but in a manner that all had to agree. The
AEs were established in a hurry without detailed discussions on how to protect them and how
to distribute the benefits among beneficiary households. Since the communities were skeptical
of the enclosure, in most cases they enclosed areas which were not important for them (their
most degraded lands).
While the level of community participation in establishment and management of AEs varied
from place to place, it has been limited especially in the decision-making process in all of the
areas. What was considered as community participation was limited to the attendance of the
community members at the meetings to decide on the establishment of AEs. They were not
given clear responsibility to make decisions on issues pertaining to ownership and protection,
access, management and utilization practices, and future development directions.
In most of the case study areas it has been found that the community does not know the
amount of money generated from AEs through the sale of firewood and for what purpose it is
going to be used except in Kalu. Even in Kalu, the community decision making power on
management practices is limited as they are not permitted to reduce the encroachment of
bushy vegetation that is already affecting the grass production, which is an important
perceived benefit from the AEs. Similarly, the community was not clear about what benefits
they will get from the trees/bushes grown in the AEs.
4.7. ACCESS TO AND DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS
In addition to the amount of benefits and mode of ownership, who and how the resources are
accessed is another important aspect to be considered for the sustainability of the AEs. We
found that there is inconsistency in the mode of ownership and access to the resources in the
different case study areas. The inconsistencies are attributed to lack of clarity in land use
policy. The ownership right varies from private management to communal management.
Among our study sites, private ownership is noted only in Kalu Woreda where the plots are
managed by individual households. In other areas where communal management is practiced,
the PA/Kushit controls the AEs. There, the individual households can either access grass
harvesting directly or it is harvested communally. In communal harvesting grass is distributed
to households either after harvesting or sale. The income generated from the sale is deposited
in the PA account for community development works. The majority often do not know the
amount of money generated and for what purpose it is used.
We have also found that in Endalashen PA, the new sirit laws are such that some members of
the community are excluded from the benefits of AEs. Although this was the only area among
our study sites where this type of exclusion was evident, it is important to be aware of it so
that such practice can be avoided elsewhere while formulating new sirit laws. There are no
clear guidelines and policies for monitoring the emergence of new sirit laws. In Endalashen,
22
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
the new sirit laws entitle only those households who keep cattle to access grass. Even then, all
households having cattle do not get an equal share; rather those with a larger herd get a bigger
share. This approach systematically marginalizes the poor in favor of the better off. For the
establishment of AE all the members, whether rich or poor, owning animals or not, provide
equal labor input for soil and water conservation works (for example, planting, digging pits
and terracing). All get support from the food for work program for their labor. But all do not
get equal benefits from AE. The poor are denied benefits while the rich get triple benefits
including food for work and an increased share of production from AEs as a result of the
decreased number of shareholders due to exclusion. The assumption for formulating such
Sirit rules is that those who only owned small animals or had no animals at all were not
benefiting from the AE before enclosing. This argument is not valid for two reasons. Firstly,
people having no animals can be different at different times. It is not necessary that those who
currently have no cattle ever had cattle before. And secondly, the AE are established on
communal grazing grounds where every household had grazing rights. In addition, all the
members, including labor-deficient households, contribute to the regeneration of the AE;
therefore, all should receive equal benefits.
It is important to note that AE is a new concept for many communities. It involves changing
the old and formulating new sirit rules (see also discussion in sections 2.4.3, 2.4.4 and 2.4.7
on this issue). At present the majority of the people receive food support from the government
through the food for work program. Complaints against the new exploitative sirit rules are
impossible for the poor since the influential community members that dominate the
formulation of sirit rules are also in-charge of food distribution at the community village. The
whole system is donation-based rather than rights-based. In such a situation it is inevitable
that people, though not happy with the new sirit rules, still cooperate with the authorities for
food support. In Endalashan, many people are not happy with the way grass and firewood is
being distributed among beneficiary households. For example, instead of dividing the
firewood collected from the AE among individual households, it has been auctioned to
generate income for communal development works. All community members are supposed to
contribute to community development projects either through cash or labor. Collection of
cash contribution from individual households has been difficult in the past; therefore raising
funds through selling wood was the only alternative. Even if this argument may seem valid to
community leaders, it is important to develop a consensus on such issues. Since some people
have been excluded from benefiting from grass harvests, sale of wood without consensus
could create more distrust.
In those areas where cultivable land is scarce, the products from communally managed lands
(some of which are now under AEs) are vital for the livelihoods of the people. Those who
remain excluded for a longer period for not owning animals could permanently loose their
share of common land even if they buy animals at a later stage. That could mean that common
property land is under the process of conversion into private property. How much land will
be covered under AEs is also an important issue. The more the land is enclosed (an
increasing trend at present, see Table 2), the more the poor will loose if discriminatory sirit
laws persist. This will also leave less land for open grazing for those who only keep sheep and
goats.
4.8. OWNERSHIP AND ACCESS TO TREES
The ownership and access to trees is also an area of full ambiguity. The community does not
know whether the trees belong to them or to the government. They are not sure whether the
23
Drylands Coordination Group
trees can be harvested for use or not. Because of this uncertainty and lack of management
plans the expansion of woody vegetation could not be controlled. This is seriously affecting
the productivity of grass, which is relatively more important for the communities compared to
other products (e.g. firewood and timber) from the AEs. In Tigray, the government and NGOs
enforce rules that focus on conservation of tree vegetation and the members of the AEs are
only allowed to harvest dry wood. This restriction can affect the sustainable management of
AEs in different ways. Firstly, the AEs were established in areas which were severely
degraded and had hardly any vegetation cover before enclosure. The people regenerated the
areas with the technical and financial assistance of the government. Therefore, the members
of the AEs believe that it is their right to harvest and utilize the tree. Secondly, the denial of
tree harvest and pruning and thinning operations affects the production of grass. If the
expansion of bushy vegetation continues and the annual grass harvests cease, it is very likely
that the community will lose its interest in conservation activities.
4.9. PROCESS OF FORMULATIONS OF BYLAWS, FOLLOW UP AND
MONITORING
We received some indications from the areas studied that after the establishment of AEs, the
communities got only limited support from the government and NGOs in the process of
formulation and implementation of bylaws. Lack of follow up, monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms on the protection and formulation of bylaws is another factor that has affected
the sustainable management of AEs. For instance, in most of the woredas the communities
have developed their own bylaws for management and utilization (grasses and firewood), as
well as for controlling the illegal harvesting. These bylaws are generally effectively used for
controlling illegal damage to the resources in AEs where the grass harvests from the AEs are
encouraging. While in other AEs where the grass harvests have been comparatively less, the
bylaws are not effectively implemented. In such cases the communities are not fully
motivated for protection of the AEs. Therefore, the social courts5 are also reluctant to take
action against the offenders because the social court members or Peasant Association (PA)
executive committee from the community do not want to confront the offenders without the
support of the community for fear of retaliation. Moreover, as noted above the bylaws
formulated by the PA in Endalashen allowing cattle owners to benefits are entirely different
from other study woredas. This kind of oversight looks minor, but the consequences could be
far-reaching and harmful if not rectified in time. At present there is no system in place to
monitor the distribution of benefits and evolution of new sirit laws. This situation creates a
particular challenge to the management of AEs. While community participation in decisionmaking is necessary, some kind of monitoring and control functions are necessary at higher
levels to deal with issues that local communities may not be able to handle on their own. Such
issues could include very unequal local power structures, as well as ethnic and gender
discrimination. Exactly which functions should be found at each level, and how much
flexibility there should be in the development of, for example, bylaws, must be discussed and
clarified with the participation of all stakeholders.
4.10. LAND USE POLICY, OWNERSHIP RIGHT AND ACCESS TO LAND
According to the national land tenure policy, land is public property that cannot be sold or
exchanged (Hussein, 2001). Any individual whose age is eighteen and above and whose
livelihood is dependent on farming, has the right to use the rural land. The users also have the
5
Customary courts at the tabia level.
24
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
right to bequeath the land to their descendents or relatives, and have the right to lease land to
others for certain periods of time. There is no national land use policy that clearly states
which land should be used for what purpose (see 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 for details on land tenure
issues). Most of the Regional Governments (except SNNPR) have issued land use policies in
line with the national land tenure policy. However, there are slight differences among the
regional land use policies. Among the regions that have issued a land use policy are Amhara,
Tigray and Oromya. While the land use policy in Amhara indicates the way the public lands
can be managed and used, the land use policy in Oromya does not specify such details.
However, the Amhara land use policy does not provide details on the ownership right and
access to the public lands. It states that details would be worked out based on community
interest and specific local conditions; hence, the mode of ownership and access to the
communal land may vary depending on the local conditions. Similarly, the size of the land to
be divided among individual households could vary depending on the size of available land
for distribution but should not be less than 0.125 ha.
In Tigray a detailed guideline has been prepared for the development and management of the
hillsides based on the regional land use policy (Forester, 2002). The guideline authorizes the
community to design and implement rules and regulations (bylaws). According to the
guideline, the members of the PA will own the hillside developed by the PA and the resources
within would be communally owned and used. The hillsides that do not belong to the PA
and/or not developed by the PA can be divided among individual households for private use.
The guideline gives power to the community to prepare criteria for the selection of the users,
allocation procedures, and the size per user. The guideline also empowers the community to
decide the size of land to be allocated per household based on the local conditions. The
guideline indicates that the users have the right to use grasses/trees planted by them. The use
and management of the natural trees is not clear in the guidelines.
In general the regional policies are vague and do not elaborate on AEs. Some of the Regions
(e.g. SNNPR) did not have a clear policy for the development and management of the natural
resources; leave alone for the AEs. The Amhara and Oromya Regional polices also do not
specify anything on the management and utilization of the resources from AEs. The Tigray
Region developed a guideline on the management and administration of degraded hillsides
that does not sufficiently guide on the management and utilization of the resources from the
AEs. The guideline also rules out the use of natural trees and protects wildlife in area
enclosures. The lack of clear policies creates uncertainly at several levels, and can result in
conflicting practice, even within the same woreda.
4.11. ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The power of administering and managing the AEs at regional and woreda level is vested
with the Bureau of Agriculture, which is differently named in different regions. The bureau is
responsible for formulating policies, rules and regulations, development strategies and
guidelines for the management and administration of the natural resources including the AEs.
The Bureau is also responsible for designing packages/technical interventions. The same body
is responsible for capacity building, monitoring, and evaluation of the activities implemented
for the improvement and regeneration of the AEs, technical backstopping, monitoring, and
evaluation. However, despite the fact that AEs are a large part of the natural resource
management activities in BoANR, there is neither a separate structure to deal with the AEs
nor are responsibilities assigned to anyone within BoANR specifically for the management of
AEs. In addition, the staff at the field level is not specifically trained in the management of
25
Drylands Coordination Group
AEs. While they are technically qualified and highly motivated, they lack the competence to
deal with the complex social issues involved in the management of AEs. This results in an
emphasis on technical management and conservation, rather than local, sustainable use.
At the community level, the community under the auspices of the PA is responsible for
planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation activities with the technical support
from woreda experts and development agents. The community also formulates bylaws
sometimes with the assistance of the relevant woreda government. Social courts are
appointed by the community at the PA level to hear cases arising at the PA level and to take
necessary legal actions. The PA implements the allocation of the AEs to the community. The
PA also supervises and monitors the implementation of the development interventions and
management and utilization of the resources from the AEs. We have found, however, that
since the establishment of AEs is a new activity, there are problems in the formation of the
bylaws. The community and the PAs need support in dealing with this challenge (see sections
4.6 and 4.7 for related discussion).
The government and conservation/development NGOs are providing incentives including
food for work and payments for the protection of AEs. They influence how AEs are managed
and how the benefits are distributed. Therefore, the government and NGO staff both at policy
and implementation level should be aware how sirit rules are formulated, and how benefits
from AEs are distributed. Is the staff that is working locally with the communities aware of
serious issues like exclusion? Do they have the capacity to understand complexities that
involve property rights, equity, and gender? Such issues need to be taken up at policy level.
Both the staff working in the field and the officials at the BoANRD regional office suggested
staff training to improve on technical, social and gender issues.
4.12. ROLE OF NGOS AND LINKAGES
The NGOs and bilateral and multilateral donor agencies are playing an essential role in
supporting the development and management of the AEs. The NGOs such as REST of Tigray
and ORDA of Amhara are playing an important role in the development and management of
all natural resources including the AEs. Their role in awareness raising and capacity building
at regional and grassroots levels is very important. The World Food Program is playing an
important role in the development and management of AEs through its support to the Food
For Work/MERET project in all the study areas.
However, there is a serious gap of linkages and partnership between the government
institutions and NGOs. In principle, the woreda level agriculture office is responsible for
coordinating activities initiated by the government and NGOs at grassroots level. But this
cannot be realized because some NGOs bypass the woreda office and directly approach the
community after making agreements with the regional governments. This has created
unfortunate discrepancies in the payments made by different organizations. For example,
REST and BoANR pay 45 kg grain worth 60 Ethiopan Birr (ETB) per month to the guards
while some other NGOs pay 120 (ETB) in the same woreda. Inconsistencies also occur in
payments made by the different members of the Drylands Coordination Group, which is
something the members would not be aware of when discussing AEs at a higher policy level.
The experience from Enderta Woreda shows that the inconsistency in the rate of payments
often pushes communities to abandon one site in favor of another supported by a different
26
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
donor organization. Such inconsistencies could have been avoided through improved linkages
and coordination.
4.13. WOMEN’S
ENCLOSURES
PARTICIPATION
AND
BENEFITS
FROM
THE
AREA
The Ethiopian policy on land use and ownership gives equal rights to both men and women
(Mwagiru 1998, see also section 2.4.5). Their rights in decision making are equally
recognized. However, because of cultural and religious reasons their participation in decisionmaking forums, especially in public forums, has been limited (Wisborg et. al., 2000; Larsen
and Rye, 1999). For instance, regarding representation in meetings where decisions are made
for the management of AEs, only one person represents a household, which is usually a male.
Women participate in such meetings only when a female heads the household. However, even
then, their representation is usually less and passive for cultural and religious reasons.
Women’s representation in meetings is much higher in Tigray because of the high number of
female-headed households (>30%) compared to the other regions. Women’s participation in
developmental works such as construction of soil and water conservation structures, nursery
and afforestation activities is fairly high; around 50% in Tigray and 30-40% in other regions.
Women are getting incentives through participating in the above-mentioned activities;
however, in some cases they are systematically excluded from the benefits as has been noted
earlier.
Women are responsible for the collection of fuelwood, livestock feed, and water from long
distances where these materials are scarce. AEs generate these materials. Women could
collect these products from the AEs instead of walking long distances saving them time and
labor. In many of AEs springs have been revitalized thanks to rehabilitation works and the
water table has also risen, increasing opportunities for the construction of hand-dug wells.
In most of the study areas the community favors communal management of AEs over
individual (private) management. This is due to the fact that the development of degraded
lands requires intensive labor for rehabilitation and protection that may not be affordable by
individual households, and in particular female-headed households, which often lack labor.
Likewise, individuals do not want to spend much of their time protecting the plot against
livestock and human encroachment. Thus, the majority favors communal management for
protection and soil and conservation activities but may be including some form of individual
plots, particularly for harvesting of grasses.
4.14. GRAZING PRESSURE
Pastoral development policies in Africa have been based on assumptions that livestock
management systems are environmentally destructive (Perrier 1995)), especially for the
development of natural vegetation (the link between animal grazing and biodiversity has been
discussed in 2.4.2). Exclusion of livestock from the AEs is therefore being practiced at
present to regenerate degraded areas and to replace free grazing by cut and carry system.
People, however, are not used to a cut and carry system because of the free grazing tradition.
The establishment of AEs thus represents an attempt to change the traditional livestock
management system. Such a change can have significant consequences for how households
organize their labor and other resources. For example, a switch from free grazing to a cut and
carry system could have an effect on gender roles and relations in terms of workload and
labor allocation for the feeding and caring of animals. How people respond to these changes
27
Drylands Coordination Group
will depend on how much the people benefit from the AEs. Transition from free grazing to a
cut and carry system will be feasible only if people see any benefit from AEs in terms of their
broader livelihood strategies.
Likewise, it is important to examine the entire grazing system in order to better understand the
implications of enclosing an increasing amount of land which may have previously been used
for grazing. From Table 2 we see that in Tsadeamba, for example, already 47% of the total
grazing land has been enclosed, and this is expected to only increase in the future based on
current policy trends. To what degree the cut and carry system can manage to cover animal
feed requirements in the long run is a question which needs to be addressed in each area.
Community members, the men and women who are dependent on animals for a large part of
their livelihood security, need to be able to thoroughly discuss the implications of such a
change for their production systems before any permanent policy changes are implemented.
4.15. TECHNOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS
In most of the AEs soil and conservation structures, particularly terraces and contour trenches,
have been constructed. In addition, indigenous and exotic tree species have been introduced.
But in some woredas only exotic or only indigenous tree species dominate the area. For
example, in Tullo only indigenous species while in Tsadamba Eucalyptus has been planted
which does not seem to be effective for restoring the environmental balance. There is no well
defined management plan for deciding on the type of tree species to be planted, the proportion
between grass and trees, thinning or pruning to minimize dominant species and to remove
weedy vegetation that suppresses the productivity of desirable species.
4.16. RATE OF RECOVERY & ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The baseline data for the productivity of the areas currently under AEs is not available.
According to the local respondents the productivity of the AEs has increased considerably
compared to the time of the establishment of the AEs. However, there is great variability in
the rate of recovery and percentages of ground cover of the AEs (Table 4). The rate of
recovery refers to the capacity of the land to regenerate and sustain vegetation production.
The vegetation in the AEs most useful to the communities are mainly the herbaceous and
woody plants, specifically grass, tree and shrub species. The capacity of the degraded lands to
produce this vegetation greatly varies from area to area. We assume that this variation is
attributed to the variability in the level of damage sustained by the degraded lands and
environmental factors especially the amount and distribution of annual rainfall and the soil
conditions. In areas where the land is completely degraded and turned to barren/rock
outcrops, the level of recovery has been very slow and the biomass production either from
planted species or naturally regenerating species is found to be very low. On the other hand,
in areas where the land had some soil terrace at the time of the establishment of the AEs, the
level of natural regeneration is better. Moreover, the type of technical interventions (e.g.
terraces and species introduced) also determines the rate of recovery, composition of the
species, and total amount of biomass production. The productivity of dry matter yield per 10
ha varied from 0.4 ton in Dedeba of Enderta Woreda to 18 ton in Haise of Lemo Woreda.
28
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
Table 4: Recovery, percentage of ground cover and ecological impacts
Region
Tigray
Amhara
Oromya
SNNP
Woreda/ PA
Recovery
Area
enclosed
(ha)
Percentage
of ground
cover
Ecological impacts
Impact perceived
by the
respondents
Erosion & flood
highly
reduced,
down stream yield
increased & spring
revived
Erosion & flood
highly
reduced,
down stream yield
increased
&
ground water table
increased
Erosion and flood
reduced and yield
increased
Erosion & flood
reduced
Level of
impact
Ahferom/Enda
Lashen
Fast
15
95
Tsadeamba/Guemsa
Agamat
Slow
10
60
Enderta/ Dedeba
Slow
15
75
Bugna/Debre loza
Fast
10
90
Kalu/Addis Mender
Fast
20
90
Erosion & flood
highly reduced
Very high
Adama/Goro Wagilo
Fast
10
70
Very high
Tullo/Oda Negaya
Fast
NA
NA
Erosion and flood
reduced and yield
increased
Erosion & flood
reduced
Lemo/Haise
Fast
5
60
Erosion
reduced
High
& flood
Very high
High
Medium
Low
High
Source: Estimated by community representatives
The remnants of the former vegetation, mainly trees and shrub species, are the dominant
vegetation re-colonizing the niche after the establishment of the AEs. The re-colonization by
former vegetation in some AEs along with the establishment of massive Eucalyptus
plantations in other AEs has suppressed the productivity of the grasses. Lack of appropriate
interventions has also affected the expected overall productivity from the AEs. The major
factors affecting the rate of recovery and productivity of the AEs are illustrated in Table 5.
With the increase in vegetation cover in the AEs, the wildlife populations (e.g. porcupine and
fox) have also increased. While the increase in wildlife populations is seen as an
improvement, some villages see them as a threat both to crops and domestic animals. For
example, crop damage by porcupines and increased attacks by foxes on small domestic
animals have been reported. The people suggested that some mechanism to contain the
number of wild animals should be developed. Since management plans for the AEs have not
been developed, no instructions exist on what to do with the increasing populations of
wildlife.
29
Drylands Coordination Group
Table 5: Factors affecting the rate of recovery and productivity of area enclosures by Regions
Region
Woreda/ PA
Tigray
Ahferom/
Lashen
Amhara
Oromya
SNNP
Rate of
recovery
Factors affecting
rate of recovery
Factors affecting productivity
Fast
Poor
conditions
(slightly)
soil
The
natural
shrub/tree
species
vigorously expanding are threatening
the productivity of the grasses.
Tsadeamba/Guemsa
Agamat
Slow
Poor moisture and
soil conditions
The eucalyptus species is suppressing
growth of grasses and tree species
desired by beneficiary households.
Enderta/ Dedeba
Slow
Poor
moisture
conditions
The natural shrubs and weeds are
expanding and suppressing the planted
trees and grass species. Over sowing
can improve grass production.
Bugna/ Debre loza
Fast
Poor
conditions
(slightly)
soil
The
natural
trees/shrubs
are
aggressively
expanding
seriously
affecting grass productivity.
Kalu/Addis Mender
Fast
Poor
conditions
(slightly)
soil
The planted species and some natural
vegetation began expanding and the
grass yield started declining.
Adama/Goro
Wagilo
Fast
Moisture and soil
conditions
(slightly)
Tullo/Oda Negaya
Fast
Poor
conditions
(slightly)
soil
There is a trend of expansion by the
natural shrubs and planted species,
which can seriously affect the grass
yield.
The area is devoted to indigenous tree
species and this would adversely affect
community’s immediate benefit.
Lemo/ Haise
Ana
belessa
slow
Poor
conditions
soil
Ana Belessa is not giving immediate
benefits due to the dominance of the
site by Eucalyptus and weedy species.
Alaba/ Assore
Slow
Poor
conditions
massive
outcrops
soil
and
rock
This site is badly damaged and requires
special intervention and management
practices to promote the productivity
and sustainability of the resources.
Enda
Source: Estimated by community representatives
4.17. COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARDS CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES
The soil and water conservation activities on the farmlands and the rehabilitation of degraded
hillsides are practiced in most of the case study areas except in Enderta Woreda of the Tigray
Region where land rehabilitation does not seem to be the top priority for the beneficiary
households. It appears that most of the households in all other study areas are aware of the
possible advantages of conservation and rehabilitation works, as they know that they cannot
survive without regenerating their natural resources. For example, before the initiation of soil
and conservation activities the communities living in Ahferom wanted to migrate elsewhere
because their land was so degraded that it no longer supported their livelihoods. However, the
land rehabilitation as a result of soil and water conservation activities both on farmlands and
degraded communal hillsides encouraged them to stay on their farms. The conservation
activities have substantially reduced the frequency of crop failures and have significantly
increased crop yields per unit area. The realization of the communities of the benefits of soil
30
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
and conservation activities and the establishment of AEs is demonstrated by the fact that the
communities have established more AEs in addition to those established with the financial
assistance of the government and NGOs.
The interest of the communities for the sustainable management of AEs, however, greatly
varies among the study areas. Where the amount of grass harvest is considerably high, the
community interest is good and vise versa. While community interest in the management of
AEs in Kalu, Adama and Haise of Lemo is very high the level of interest in Bugna, Tsade
Emba & Enderta woredas is very low. In the former three woredas the amount of annual
grass harvest is very high while in the later woredas it is very low. Conclusively, the amount
of benefits that the communities receive from the AEs considerably impacts the management
of AEs.
31
Drylands Coordination Group
5. DCG: ROLES, FUNCTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) is a cooperation forum of six Norwegian NGOs
involved in development cooperation in dryland areas. The DCG cooperates with African
organizations in four countries (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mali and Sudan). DCG promotes the quality
assurance of development projects dealing with food security and environmental
rehabilitation in its areas of operation. One of the objectives of DCG is to contribute to
realizing national obligations related to the United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification. In order to achieve its objectives, DCG has established national DCG
networks in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mali, and Sudan. The role of the national networks is to
improve in-country communication and strengthen coordination with other relevant
organizations in the south. It also constitutes a platform for mutual sharing of practical
experience between NGOs and government organizations such as research and policy making
institutions. The national DCG in –Ethiopia-Sudan was organized in 2000. In 2004, DCG
Sudan became an independent member. DCG Ethiopia’s vision is to achieve improved food
security of vulnerable households in drought prone and marginal areas of Ethiopia.
The Relief Society of Tigray (REST) and the Women’s Association of Tigray (WAT),
members of DCG, could play a greater role in supporting both the government and local
institutions in formulating regulations for the management of AE. Both WAT and REST work
at grass roots level and have staff in almost every woreda. Therefore, they can generate useful
information for organizing DCG’s future activities aiming at institutional capacity building
that ensures equitable distribution of benefits from the AEs. We suggest that WAT, for
example, with their extensive experience working with women in the communities, link with
other DCG members and act as a resource particularly on issues related to gender and
resource management. REST, for example, has a historic commitment for the community
based sustainable management especially in the establishment of AEs in Tigray. However,
REST has faced problems in achieving gender balance in staff recruitment. Except in very
few places, REST does not have female staff in the field, which limits their ability to include
women’s issues in resource management activities. One reason given for not having more
female staff in REST is the low literacy rate among the females in Tigray. One way to address
this in the long-run is to encourage Mekele University to increase its current efforts to educate
women at higher degree levels. In the short run, it could be advisable to hire less-educated
female staff, which nevertheless with training can play a role in including women in
development and decision-making processes.
We note that both the staff of REST and the Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(BoANR) is committed to community based sustainable natural resource management.
However, there is a need to improve both technical and social capabilities of the staff. The
officials of the BoANR also recognize the training needs for their staff and have contacted
various donors for financial and technical support. Staff training aimed at creating awareness
is an urgent need to enable them to ponder on issues pertaining to gender, exclusion, and
distribution of benefits from the AEs. DCG’s aims include competence building and
institutional strengthening at local and regional levels. Therefore, the role of DCG includes
monitoring of institutional capabilities that ensure equitable distributions of benefits from the
AE. Greater support for the capacity building of BoANR as well as REST and WAT staff will
improve woreda level and field level coordination of government institutions and NGOs.
Such coordination is very crucial especially to improve upon the existing system of payments
for protection of AE.
32
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
At DCG level, there are a few ways in which its functioning might be improved. Currently,
communication between the members does not seem to be optimal. While the objective of
DCG is clearly stated and understood, the ways in which the organizations communicate and
collaborate are not specified. This includes the channels of communication both between the
members, and between the members and BoANR. It would be useful for the DCG and
BoANR to discuss more specifically how cooperation and collaboration can be improved in
the future.
33
Drylands Coordination Group
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations offer only a brief account of the ideas
developed in chapter 2 and 4. We suggest that the reader returns to the relevant sections of the
report to better understand the arguments supporting the recommendations.
6.1. DATA ON AREA ENCLOSURES
Reliable data on land use, the number and total land area under AEs were difficult to compile.
From available data it appears that there are great variations between the woredas when it
comes to the amount of degraded area, population density, density of animals, how much area
has been enclosed, and how much area is left for grazing outside the AEs. We suggest that
reliable data on AEs should be compiled by the government at woreda, regional and
national levels in order to allow for improved land use planning. This data would be from
various sources, including NGOs active in working with AEs. This should include, for
example, information on the number and size of AEs in each woreda, number of
beneficiaries, area remaining outside of the AEs and its land use (i.e. pasture, forest etc),
institutional set-up, outside support (i.e. NGO, government), bylaws, number of livestock etc.
Some of this data already exists; however, some would be new in some areas.
6.2. COMMUNITY INTEREST AND BENEFITS FROM AREA ENCLOSURES
The interest of the communities for the sustainable management of AEs greatly varies among
the study areas. Where the amount of grass harvest is considerably high, the community
interest is good and vice versa. It is therefore recommended that in order to improve
community interest in managing AEs, serious attention should be given to ensure that
particularly short-term benefits, such as grass production, are received by the members
of the communities.
There is a severe shortage of timber and firewood in most of the areas. This is a problem, as
people might decide to harvest illegally from the AEs. Since it is uncertain to what extent
the AEs will produce enough firewood to fulfill local demands, we suggest that farm
forestry should be promoted. This should reduce the pressure on AEs for firewood and give
more space for grasses, which are a priority for the communities at present.
6.3. PROTECTION OF AES
The management of AEs should not be seen in isolation from the broader livelihood strategies
of the local people. In some areas where the government has stopped paying the guards
assuming that the communities would pay, the guards are not paid regularly and illegal
harvesting incidences have increased. There is no monitoring system in place or follow up to
see whether the payment system is working or not. Understanding the implications of
continuing or discontinuing food for work is also important, since food aid has until now been
the driving force in supporting protection and soil and water conservation activities within the
AEs. If food aid were discontinued, for example, how would the government and the
communities cope? Before this happens, the government should develop alternative ways
to motivate people to continue with soil conservation activities. One way is to give the
community more responsibility and influence in designing strategies for the protection of the
AEs. We have found two modes of protection in the study areas: through the hiring and
34
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
payment of guards, and alternatively through a turn system where each household is
responsible for taking a turn guarding the AEs. Because of the large sums involved in paying
guards for the innumerable AEs being formed, protection through payments, particularly by
the government, is not feasible. Also, we see that in most communities, payment by poorer
villagers is very difficult. Instead, we see that households taking turns guarding the AEs is a
viable alternative to payments. This involves a maximum of one day’s labor from each
household per month. We recommend that the government initiates a process of dialogue
with the communities to explore the possibility of a community-managed, turn-taking
guarding system.
6.4. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
In the study area there are several types of management systems for AEs ranging from
‘government-communal-individual’ to ‘government-communal’. Because of the problems
with the government-communal management system in some areas, some community
members suggested fragmentation of AEs into individual plots. We recognize that
fragmentation of AEs could be risky especially in the absence of legislation and guidelines.
Influential community members would appropriate more land. Management of individual
plots also requires additional labor, which is difficult for labor deficient households such as
female-headed households. In addition, controlling grazing would be difficult for individual
households if communal arrangements do not exist. Considering these factors, we suggest that
‘government-communal’ management be retained where this system is practiced. We also
recognize though that for some communities, a ‘government-communal-individual’
management system might be preferred. In fact, we encourage each community to consider
the pros and cons of the different management systems and choose a mix which is most
appropriate for their situation. In any case, the government should be involved in
clarifying and monitoring access and use rights. With changing scenarios because of the
increasing number of AEs the community needs to adjust the sirit laws. If there is no
monitoring system in this process, there is a danger of powerful local interests designing a
system for their own benefit, and to the exclusion of others. To avoid this, one way might be
to issue certificates of access and use to give some security to individual people. The
government must, however, be extremely careful that this process is carried out properly, as
there is also a danger of misuse and inequitable distribution of certificates, which would then
have the opposite effect on peoples’ access and confidence.
6.5. PARTICIPATION
Community participation in the past has been limited to consultation with community
members where all had to agree, because the conservation element has been very strong in the
establishment of the AEs. For example, the government has emphasized the establishment of
trees in the AEs, whereas the communities prefer a greater proportion of grasses for fodder. In
some of the AEs, the trees have dominated over grasses, reducing the grass production, but
the communities especially the women and poor have not been consulted on how this might
be remedied. Community participation has mainly been limited to the involvement of
activists. A better approach would be to see participation in terms of local governance and
decision-making. We recommend that both policymakers and the staff working directly
with the communities reconsider how they define the term participation. This can be
done by taking a critical look at how and at what points the entire community should be
involved in decision making, in addition to the activists.
35
Drylands Coordination Group
6.6. GENDER ISSUES
Women’s participation in decision-making in AEs has been limited mainly due to cultural and
social factors. Female-headed households are particularly vulnerable to lack of labor
resources, which is an important issue in the management of AEs, for example in protection,
soil and water activities, and harvesting. While it is women’s basic right to be included in all
decision making, it is particularly important to ensure they are active decision makers in the
management of AEs in light of their high level of labor input. Therefore, we recommend
choosing modes of ownership and management which take into consideration the
situation of female-headed, labor-poor households. This implies that there is a need to
consider how vulnerable households, which may not be able to participate fully in all
activities, might be supported by local communities and government to ensure they are not
excluded from being rights-holders and receiving benefits from the AEs.
6.7. MEMBERSHIP TO THE AES
The criteria for being a member of an AE is not always clear. Are all the households in the
village members of the AE, or are some excluded? What happens when young families break
away from their parents’ household – are they members? Likewise, are all the villages in an
area that were using the area before enclosure considered members? Should they be included?
Do they have other AEs, or are they excluded completely? Through what process was it
decided who would be included in each AE? How is the issue of AE beneficiaries linked with
food for work benefits? We recommend that the central and regional government take up
these issues, as they may be sensitive issues which are difficult to address at the local
level.
6.8. GRAZING MANAGEMENT
Several of the assumptions often made about land degradation are put to question by the
empirical data from these areas. For example, if we examine the relationship between
population, animal densities, and land degradation we see that in Ahferom, the area with the
highest land degradation (47%) has one of the lowest population densities, and a relatively
low number of animals per unit area. Alaba, on the other hand, has three times the population
density of Ahferom (302), and three times the number of animals per land unit, but only 18%
degradation. It is clear, that from this data it is difficult to find a causal relationship between
these factors, and it is likely that other factors, such as climate and altitude, are important.
We also see that there are differences as to the amount of total grazing area which has been
enclosed up to the present, ranging from 13.4% in Lemo, to as high as 35.2% in Tsadeamba.
This gives, for example, an indication of the extent to which the AEs are affecting the
availability of grazing land. At the same time policy makers and some rangeland experts
argue for shifting livestock keeping from free grazing to stall feeding. This represents a major
change in the management system, which has implications on livestock farming in general
and in particularly for gender roles and labor requirements. The shift is argued on the basis of
the general assumption that free grazing is the main cause of land degradation. Our data,
however, does not support this generalization. Any action to rehabilitate such lands without the
community’s consent and without leaving enough land for free grazing, will adversely affect the
success of the AEs. We suggest that rather than basing a shift from free grazing to stall
feeding on generalizations and equilibrium models, that a comprehensive study of the
grazing system as a whole be conducted to explore the relationship between animals,
free grazing, stalls feeding and AEs. In the meantime we recommend that people be allowed
36
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
to continue as far a possible with their traditional grazing system, and that they are thoroughly
consulted before decisions are made on such a central component of their livelihoods.
Only cattle are being grazed in some of the AEs while other animals, especially goats, are
restricted. The assumption behind allowing only oxen and not goats is that goats damage
woody vegetation and thus reduce biodiversity. However, recent studies have shown that in
arid zones, long-term exclusion of grazing may actually result in a decline of species richness.
In addition, heavy grazing of cattle on grasses and the exclusion of goats might result in bush
encroachment and reduction of grasses. A better strategy may be some form of controlled
grazing of multiple-species livestock. We suggest that this issue be further investigated
instead of basing grazing management on a general strategy of single species grazing.
6.9. MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE POPULATION
With the increase in vegetation cover in the AEs, the wildlife populations have also increased.
While the increase in wildlife populations is seen as an improvement by the government and
NGOs, some villagers see them as a threat both for crops and domestic animals. We
therefore recommend that the management of wildlife is included in the design of policy
and management plans.
6.10. CHOICE OF TREE SPECIES
We suggest that the choice of tree species to be planted in the AEs be made by the
communities in consultation with the woreda technical staff. The type of tree species to be
planted in the AEs will depend on the ecological condition of the areas where AEs have been
established and the needs of the communities. We have found that in some areas Eucalyptus has
been planted on a large scale, while in other areas bushes have dominated the vegetation in the
AEs. Mono-plantation is not technically sound for the rehabilitation of degraded lands because it
may not guarantee effective control of soil erosion. Trees in pure plantations do not allow the
formation of under-story/multi-story canopy structures and hence expose the ground to soil
erosion. Therefore, to ensure effective control of soil erosion a mixture of tree species, which
can form a multistory canopy, should be established. A mixed plantation can also address
more comprehensively the community needs of fuel and construction wood, fodder, medicine,
food, etc. Besides, different tree or shrub species are not equally affected by adverse
environmental factors including drought, disease and pests, and hence a mixed plantation avoids
the risk of total failure (loss).
6.11. MANAGEMENT PLANS
Optimization of the productivity of the AEs is one of the strategies for attracting beneficiary
households for sustainable management of AEs. Therefore, it is essential to have a clear and
comprehensive development plan and management strategy that allows
periodical/regular review of the management practices and the technological
interventions that allow adjustments of the ratio of grass to bush/forest as per the
beneficiaries’ preference. This should allow control of weedy vegetation in favor of
increasing the productivity of desirable species. We suggest that for the development of
individual AE management plans, existing plans and guidelines developed by, for
example, the Development Fund Norway/REST (REST, 2003) and GTZ/BoANR
(Forester, 2002), be consulted. These plans give particular attention to the ecological
aspects of AEs.
37
Drylands Coordination Group
6.12. INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY ISSUES
Although the government has clearly stated that all land is public property and cannot be sold
or exchanged, land tenure issues remain ambiguous. There are no clear guidelines from the
central government on, for example, how land should be allocated and managed. This is also
the case for AEs. Institutional development is a key issue in the management of AEs, and
cannot be handled by individual staff, or a single organization on their own. This issue should
be centrally focused, establishing rights of land users and institutions to sustain them. The
central government should start a process of consultations/workshops with the regional
governments, NGOs and the communities to collectively identify the areas of ambiguity
in those land tenure and other policies relevant for AEs. The DCG, for example, could
play a role in facilitating the government in organizing such a workshop(s). Perhaps on
the part of the government the policies seem clear. In practice, however, other stakeholders
may have experienced difficulties interpreting these policies in the field. The outcome of
these consultations/workshops should be a more clearly stated national and regional
policy particularly relevant to the AEs, which makes clear which aspects are applicable
for all parties, and which are left to the regional and community levels to interpret
according to the local situations when they are designing their bylaws. This would also
provide an opportunity for the government, together with communities, to redefine the
purpose of AEs, based on broader development goals rather than mainly conservationist
goals which have dominated the policies and management of the AEs thus far. These
policies should be circulated and readily available to all stakeholders, particularly at
woreda and PA levels. However, we emphasize that while there should be flexibility in the
interpretation of policy at the regional and community levels, the policies should nonetheless
be very clear, in order to avoid special interests taking advantage of this flexibility and any
resulting ambiguity, such as through the misappropriation of land, grabbing of AE benefits
and exclusion. Therefore, there should be some monitoring and control at woreda and
regional levels to prohibit the creation of unjust bylaws and to ensure equity.
6.13. LINKAGES AND COORDINATION
The government and NGOs are playing an essential role in management of the AEs.
However, there is a serious gap of linkages and partnership between the government
institutions and among the NGOs. Because of lack of coordination, inconsistencies occur for
example, on rate of payment for protection of the AEs even in the same woreda. The
government should within its existing structure assign clear responsibility for followingup on the management of AEs. One of its responsibilities should be to coordinate the
many different efforts being made by different actors in designing guidelines and
policies for AEs. This will make it easier for the government to keep a focused approach to
AEs and not be overly influenced by ad-hoc efforts by many actors. However, this should not
limit the enthusiastic and committed efforts of the different actors, but rather create an
environment where efforts and ideas are shared and seen in relation to each other. Different
actors, such as NGOs, play a vital role in the development of AEs, however, their role in
relation to the government and the community should be clarified, such that they play a
supporting role and are not creating a situation of dominance, dependency or competition.
Therefore, there should be an active forum, established with the assistance of DCG,
where NGOs, the government, and communities coordinate their activities, share their
experiences, and discuss their concerns and forms of collaboration.
38
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
6.14. STAFF TRAINING
We found that the staff of the government and NGOs show a high degree of commitment for
the rehabilitation of degraded lands. Nevertheless, they lack the appropriate policy guidance,
training and ongoing support to deal with the emerging issue especially those concerning sirit
rules, use rights, distribution benefits, exclusion and gender issues. We found, for example,
that they were not able to recognize that being beneficiary members does not necessarily
mean that all beneficiaries get equal rights to benefits. We therefore recommend that the
DCG arranges field-based training/workshops for government and NGO staff to
improve their awareness and competence in social and equity issues. Such training would
ideally be built into a process of consultation where all stakeholders are involved.
6.15. EXPANSION OF AES?
Based on the ecological successes in most of the AEs, there is a general enthusiasm on the
part of the government and NGOs, and even some local communities to further increase the
number and size of AEs. In light of all of the issues which have emerged in these early years
of AE management, however, some caution should be shown in how new AEs should be
established and managed. Since there are basically no other examples worldwide to learn
from, we do not know what the consequences of enclosing such large areas in the future will
be. How would such far-reaching changes in grazing systems, for example, affect livestock
keepers, which comprise the majority of the population of Ethiopia? We strongly
recommend, therefore, that the issues which have emerged from this study, particularly
those involving institutional responsibility, ownership, access to and distribution of
benefits, protection and management of AEs and impact on livestock management, be
solved before further extension of AEs on a large scale.
6.16. FURTHER STUDIES
Based on the findings from this study, we recommend that the following studies be
conducted:
• A comprehensive study of the grazing system as a whole to explore the relationship
between animals, free grazing, stall feeding and AEs. This study would look
particularly at the impact of changes in the grazing system on people’s livelihoods.
The study would need to consider a larger scale than individual AEs to capture the
effect of AEs on the existing, extensive grazing system. It should also examine the
implications of the proposed introduction of intensive, stall-feeding systems as a
consequence of the expansion of AEs on rural livelihoods, household division of
labor, and women’s work load.
• An in-depth study on access to and distribution of resources generated from the
AEs. This would require particular attention to how people become members or
beneficiaries of the AEs, whether all the members or beneficiaries get equal benefits,
and the criteria for the distribution of AE benefits. In addition, a close examination of
the basis for the development of sirit laws is necessary, to be able to assess the issue of
exclusion of vulnerable community member, such as the poor, especially female
headed households.
• A study on the impact of controlled grazing in the AEs on the regeneration of
vegetation, and the implications for the distribution of benefits. This study would
consider which and in what ways livestock might be grazed in the AEs, and what
impact this grazing would have on the diversity and composition of vegetation.
39
Drylands Coordination Group
7. REFERENCES
Asefa, D. T.; Oba, G.; Weladji, R. B. and Colman, J. E. (2003). An assessment of restoration
of biodiversity in degraded High Mountain grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. Land
degradation and development 14: 25-38.
Aune, J. B.; Bussa, M. T.; Asfaw, F. G. and Ayele, A. A. (2001). The ox ploughing systems
in Ethiopia: Can it be sustained? Outlook on Agriculture 30: 275-280.
Benjaminsen, T.A. (1998). Beyond “degradation”. Essays on people, land and resources in
Mali. [PhD dissertation]. Department of Geography and International Development Studies,
Roskilde University.
Benjaminsen, T.A.; Rhode, R.; Sjaastad, E.; Wisborg, P. and Lebert, T. (2004). Land
Reforms, Range Ecology, and Carrying Capacities in Namaqualand, South Africa. Draft.
Betru, N. (2003) Soil and Water Conservation Program in the Amhara National Regional
State. In: A. Tillahun (ed). Natural Resources Degradation and Environmental Concerns in
the Amhara National Regional State: Impact on Food Security. Proceedings of the Natural
Resources Management Conference, July 24-26,2002, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Bezuwork, Z. (1992). “The Problem of Tenancy and Tenancy Bills, with Particular Reference
to Arsi” [Masters Thesis]. Addis Ababa University.
Birhane, E. (2002). Actual and Potential Contributions of Enclosures to Enhance Biodiversity
in Drylands of Eastern Tigray, With Particular Emphasis on Woody Plants. [MSc. Thesis].
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. London, Methuen.
Bromley, D.W. and Cernea, M. M. (1989). The management of common property natural
resources. Some conceptual and operational fallacies, World Bank Discussion Papers. World
Bank, Washington D.C.
Cohan, J. M. and Weintruab, D. (1975). Land and Peasants in Imperial Ethiopia: the Social
Background to a Revolution. Gorcum and Company. B.V. Netherlands.
Dasgupta, P. and Maler, K. G. (1994). Poverty, Institutions and the environmental resource
base, World Bank Environment paper 9. World Bank. Washington D.C.
De Queiroz, J. S. (1993). Range degradation in Botswana: Myth or reality. Pastoral
Development Network 35b.
Dessalegn, R. (1994). Land Policy in Ethiopia at the Crossroads. Working papers on
Ethiopian Development No. 8. University of Trondheim.
EFAP (Ethiopian Forest Action Programme) (1994). Ethiopian Forest Action Programme
Final report. Ministry of Natural Resources, EFAP secretariat, Addis Ababa.
40
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
FAO (1986). Highlands Reclamation Study. Ethiopia. Final Report, Volumes 1 and 2. Food
and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
FDRE. (1995). Proclamation of Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia;
Proclamation No.1/1995. Government of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
Fekadu, B. (1997). The Issue of Property Ownership in General and of Land Sales in
Particular, Tobia Bulletin. Vol. 5. No. 4.
Forester, H. (2002). Guidelines for the Development of Management Plans for Area Closures
in Tigray. Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Tigray, Ethiopia.
Gebremedhin, B.; Pender, J. and Tesfaye, G. (2000). Community natural resource
management: the case of woodlots in northern Ethiopia. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 60.
Enviornment and Production Technology Division (EPTD). International Food Policy
Research institute. Washington D.C.
Hagos, F. (2003). Tenure security, resource poverty, risk aversion, public programs and
household plot level conservation investment in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. In:
Poverty, Institutions, Peasant Behavior and Conservation Investment in northern Ethiopia.
[PhD Thesis]. Agriculture University of Norway. Ås. Norway.
Hagos, F. and Holden, S. (2002). Incentives for Conservation on Tigray, Ethiopia: Findings
from a Household Survey. Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agriculture
University of Norway, unpublished.
Hulme, M. (1992). Rainfall changes in Africa: 1931-1960 to 19611990. International Journal
of Climatology. Vol. 12. 685-699.
Hussein, J. (2001). “The Debate over Rural Land Policy Options in Ethiopia: Review of the
Post-1991 Contending views”. Ethiopian Journal of Development Research, Vol. 23, 35-84.
Larsen, K. and Rye, S. (1999). A case study on gender issues in Wag Environmental
Rehabilitation Programme, Ethiopia. Centre for International Studies and Environment
(Noragric), Agriculture University of Norway.
Mapinduzi, L. et. al. (2003). Use of indigenous ecological knowledge of the Maasai
pastoralists for assessing rangeland biodiversity in Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology. Vol.
41, 329-336.
Migot, A. et. el. (1993). “Security of Tenure and Land Productivity in Kenya”. In: John, W.
et. al, (eds.). Searching for Land Tenure Security in Africa. Iowa: Kendal/Hunt Publishing
company. 1-13.
Mossige, A.; Berkele, Y.; and Maiga, S. (2001). Participation of Civil Society in the National
Action Programs of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of
an Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali. Centre for International Environment and Development
Studies (Noragric). Agricultural University of Norway.
Mwagiru, M. (1998). Women’s Land and Property Rights in Situations of Conflict and
Reconstruction. http://www.undp.org/unifem/public/landrights
41
Drylands Coordination Group
Nogothu, U. S. (2000). Decentralized Natural Resource Management: From State to Comanagement in India. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43 (1), 123-138.
NORAGRIC (Center for International Environment and Development Studies). (1999). A
comparative study of common pool resource management with respect to forest and natural
regeneration in Ethiopia and India. Final report. NORAGRIC, Agriculture university of
Norway.
NORAGRIC (Center for International Environment and Development Studies). (2001). A
comparative study of common pool resource management with respect to forest and natural
regeneration in Ethiopia and India. Final report. NORAGRIC, Agriculture university of
Norway
Oba, G. (1992). Effects of Controlled Grazing on a Degraded Dwarf Shrub, Annual Grass
Semi desert Vegetation Type of North-western Kenya. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation.
Vol. 3, 199-213.
Oba, G. (1998). Effects of excluding goat herbivory on Acacia tortilis woodland around
pastoralist settlement in northwest Kenya. Acta Oecologica. Vol. 19, 395-404.
Oba, G. et al. (2000a).The Role of Small Ruminants in Arid Zone Environments: A Review
of Research Perspectives. Annual of Arid Zone. Vol. 39, 305-332.
Oba, G. et al. (2000b). Bush cover and range condition assessments in relation to landscape
and grazing in southern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology. Vol. 15, 535-546.
Oba, G. et al. (2001). Relationships between biomass and plant species richness in arid- zone
grazing lands. Journal of Applied. Vol. 38, 836-845.
Oba, G. et al. 2003. An Assessment of Restoration of Biodiversity in Degraded High
Mountain Grazing Lands in Northern Ethiopia. Land Degradation and development. Vol. 38,
836-845.
Oldeman, L. R. et. al. (1990). The extent of human induced soil degradation. In: Oldeman, L.
R. et. al. (1990). World map of the status of human induced soil erosion: An explanatory note.
2nd ed. International Soil Reference and Information Center. Wageningen, Netherlands.
Perrier, G. (1995). ‘New directions in range management planning in Africa’, in: I. Scoones
(ed.) Living with Uncertainty. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
REST (Relief Society of Tigray). (2003). Management Plan for Area Enclosures of Tigray:
Gratseleme. REST. Tigray, Ethiopia.
Roth, et al. (1993). “Land tenure Security and Agricultural Performance in Africa: Overview
of Research methodology”. In: John, W. et al. (eds.). Searching for Land Tenure Security in
Africa. Iowa: Kendal/Hunt. 15-39.
Scoones, I. (1995). ‘New directions in pastoral development in Africa’, in: I. Scoones (ed.)
Living with Uncertainty. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
42
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
Singh, K. (1994). Managing Common Pool Resources. Principles and Case Studies. Oxford
University Press, Delhi.
Stocking, A. M. and Murnaghan, N. (2001). Handbook for the field assessment of land
degradation. Earthscan. London.
Sullivan, S & R.F.Rhode. (2002). On non equilibrium in arid and semi arid grazing systems.
Journal of Biogeography.Vol. 29, 1-26.
Toulmin, C. and Quan, (2000). Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa.
London:IIED
UNFPA
and
POPIN
(1995).
Population
http://www.undp.org\popin\faol\land\land.html
and
Land
Degradation.
White, R. (1992). Livestock Development and Pastoral Production on Comunal Rangelands in
Botswana. Commonwealth Secretariat, London.
Wisborg, P. et. al. (2000). Rehabilitation of CPRs through re-crafting of village institutions: a
comparative study from Ethiopia and India. Paper presented at the eighth biennial conference
of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington,
Indiana. May 31-June 4, 2000. Centre for International Environment and Development
Studies (Noragric), Agriculture University of Norway.
Wisborg, et. al. (1999). A comparative study of common pool resource management with
respect to forest and natural regeneration in Ethiopia and India. Centre for International
Environment and Development Studies (Noragric). Agriculture University of Norway.
Wisborg, et. al. (2001). A comparative study of common pool resource management with
respect to forest and natural regeneration in Ethiopia and India. Centre for International
Environment and development Studies (Noragric). Agriculture University of Norway.
World Bank (1997). World Development Report: The State in a Changing World. OUP,
Oxford.
World Food Program/Ministry of Agriculture (WFP/MoA) (2002). Impact assessment of the
ETH-2488/MERET Project (Interim Report). Ministry of Agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
World Resource Institute (WRI) (1992). World Resources 1992-1993. Oxford University
Press, New York, USA.
Yifter, F. and Haile, M. (2002). Characterising Land Resources Problems using Perceptions
of Local Planners: A Conceptual Framework to Improve Local Level Planning. In: B.
Gebremedhin; J. Pender; S. Ehui; M. Haile (eds.). Policies for sustainable land management
in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. EPTD Workshop Summary Paper No.14.
Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD), International Food Policy
Research Institute. Washington D.C.
Yigremew A. (2001), Some Queries about the Debate on Land Tenure in Ethiopia. In Mulat
D. and Tassew W. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on the Ethiopian
Economy. Ethiopian Economic Association. November.
43
Drylands Coordination Group
8. APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. REMARKS AT THE WORKSHOP HELD IN MEKELE, 17-18
FEBRUARY 2004
Dear participants,
Opening remarks
by
Ato Dawit Kebede,
Programme Coordinator (NCA)
On behalf of DCG Ethiopia-Sudan and myself, I would like to welcome you all to Mekele to
participate in this important workshop on management of enclosure areas. The workshop
builds up on the study and recommendations made by consultants on how to improve and
manage as well as utilize closed areas wisely. You all know that the problem of land
degradation in Ethiopia is a serious issue. Declining yields on degraded slopes combined with
the subsistence agricultural system and recurrent drought make the Ethiopian population
extremely vulnerable to shortage of food which eventually leads to chronic food insecurity.
Natural resource management has been one of the strategic directions for the Ethiopian
government for the last decades to alleviate the food insecurity and will remain as a focus area
even in the future. In this regard, thousands of hectares of degraded areas were closed from
the intervention of humans and livestock, thousands of km of terraces and check dams were
constructed and millions of tree and fruit seedlings were raised and planted. However, the
ownership, management, as well as development in systematic manner and utilization strategy
of enclosure areas have been an issue for many years. Recently, I have seen here in Tigray
that REST and Mekele University are conducting experiments on how to improve closed
areas by cutting and pruning branches of bushes and acacia trees. They are also sowing
various species of grass to enrich the enclosed areas. Portioning of closed areas to youth and
farmers is another aspect or practice done here to be shared during this workshop.
The Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), which is a forum of NGOs funded by the
Norwegian Government for exchanging experiences among NGOs and their partners, was
established in 2001. Since its establishment a number of studies and workshops on different
topics have been conducted. DCG took as one of its tasks in 2003 to carry out a study on the
strategy of enclosure area management, development, and utilization. We have here two
consultants/ resource persons who conducted the study in four regions and they will present
their findings as well recommendations in this regard. Both of them are well-experienced and
knowledgeable professionals in the field of natural resource management.
Moreover, on behalf of DCG/Ethiopia-Sudan, I would like to thank Mr. Jawad Ali and Mr.
Betru Nedessa for their willingness to avail their expertise contribution in conducting the
study. Hence, you are expected to fully participate in the workshop by sharing your
experiences and knowledge to enrich the study made by the consultants. It is also good to
envision how to bring the results into practical reality.
I would like to take up this opportunity on behalf of DCG Ethiopia, Sudan and myself to
thank DCG Norway, and NORAD for initiating and providing financial and technical support
44
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
to DCG Ethiopia-Sudan to undertake this very important study. I also would like to thank
REST for hosting the study and organizing the workshop here in Mekele.
With this, I now declare the workshop officially open. I wish you all an exciting and
productive workshop and a nice stay in Mekele.
I thank you.
45
Drylands Coordination Group
Closing remarks
by
Ato Dagnew Menan
Head, ERAD (REST)
Dear workshop participants!
I am very happy to be with you at this moment and say some closing remarks on what has
been said in the two-day workshop session.
The topic you have been discussing for the last two days has been an important issue in the
management of natural resources specifically in Tigray, Oromya and southern Nations,
Nationalities, and peoples regions and should serve as an insight to other regions of Ethiopia
doing the same practices.
Dear participants,
As you all already know, land degradation due to continuous cultivation, overgrazing and
severe interference for fulfillment of desperate needs has resulted in difficult challenges for
our country in general and for the rural people in particular. Various efforts have been taken
by the government, NGOs, and the farming community to solve the recurrently experienced
challenging problems. Some of the combating measures taken to date are:
Construction of variable soil and water conservation measures,
Planting of hundreds of millions of seedlings of trees and shrubs to alleviate the
shortage of wood for fire, construction, and farm implements, and
Closing of hundreds of thousands of hectares of degraded land for rehabilitation and
further creating a place for sources of material benefits such as grass by cut and carry
practices and other materials. As you all realize it, it is crucial to discuss the issues of
policy, and regulations utilization.
I feel confident that the outcome of the study of this workshop will help us improve our
approaches and strategies in resource management particularity in the area enclosures. It is
therefore important for all of us to think about how to improve our management practices
after we all are back to our work place.
At this point, I would like to thank the consultants who conducted the study, DCG, and
NORAD for financial support. I am very much aware that a number of studies and workshops
were conducted through DCG to build our capacity, and I hope this type of service will
continue in the future too. I also would like to thank the secretariat of DCG-Ethiopia and staff
of REST who have organized and worked to make this workshop practical. I also would like
to thank all workshop participants who have come from far place (Oromia, southern Region
as well as Tigray) for valuable experience sharing and inputs you have put in the workshop.
With this, I now declare the workshop is officially closed and I wish for all of you safe return
to your work places.
Thank you.
46
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
APPENDIX 2. LIST OF OFFICIALS WHO PARTICIPATED IN DISCUSSIONS
DURING THE STUDY
Regional Level ----- Tigray
Name
1. Ato Dagnew Menan
2. Ato Tsehaye Gebreselassie
1. Ato Belete Tafere
2. Ato Yirgalem Nega
3. Ato W/gebreal W/Haworia
1. Ato Yayneshet Tesfay
1. Ato Kiros Hagos
2. Ato Zerabruk G/Michael
Organization
REST
BoANR
Mekele University
WAT
Woreda
Woreda Level ------ Tigray
Organization
Name
Rural Dev. Office
1. Ato Desta Taffere
2. Ato Mohammed Alkadir
Position
Economic Dev.
Sector
Coordinator
"
3. Ato Abera G/Meskel
SWC Expert
"
4. W/ro Seare Tajebe
Livestock Expert
BoA
5. Ato Elias G/Yohanes
Forestry Expert
"
"
6. Ato Desta G/Selasie
7. Ato Haile Tilahun
SWC Expert
N.R Team Leader
"
Tabia
8. Ato Yemane G/Meskel
9. Ato Kinfe Ensus
Head, Woreda (Agri)
Chairman
BoA
"
1. Ato G/Michael
2. Ato Meles G/Yohanes
N.R. Team Leader
F. Inspector
"
"
3. W/ro Brikiti Lemlem
4.Ato Feseha Tseyon Tesfay
Forage, Dev. Expert
F. Dev. Expert
"
"
"
5. Ato Mekonnen Tesfaye
6. Ato Desta Hagos
7. Ato G/Medhin Z/Abracas
Animal Prod. Expert
Planning Expert
Agronomist
REST
Ahferom
Saesie-TsaedaAmba
Enderta
Position
A/Head of ERAD
Head, Division NRM
Deputy Head, BOANR
Team leader Afro forestry
Team leader of watershed mg't
Lecturer & DCG Member
Executive Secretary
Project Officer
Woreda Office of 1. Ato Kahsai G/Mariam
A&NR
Head, Woreda Agric.
"
"
"
Team Leader
Forestry Expert
Forestry Inspector
2. Ato Yakob Afefaine
3. Ato Memhur Ibraim
4. Ato Yibrah Kidane
47
Drylands Coordination Group
Regional Level ---- Amhara
Organization
BoA
Name
1. Ato Koyachew Muliye
Position
Project Coordinator (MERET)
Woreda Level ---- Amhara
Woreda
Bugna
Organization
Woreda Agri.
Position
1. Ato Chernet Demeke
Office Head
2. Ato Abate Zewdie
3. Ato Zelalem Wubet
N.R.Desk, Head
Forestory Expert
Woreda Rural Dev't
4. Ato Tedla
Head, Rural Dev't
Woreda Agri
1. Ato Kebede Yimam
Head
Woreda Agri.
2. Ato Mesfin Legesse
Natural Res.Desk Head
Rural Dev't
3. Ato Mesfin Reda
Head
"
"
Kalu
Name
"
"
"
"
Regional Level ----- Oromia
Region
Organization
Name
Rural Land & Nat.Res. Ad. Authority Ato Tesfaye Bekele
Woreda
Adama
Tulo
Position
Head, SWCD
Woreda Level ----- Oromia
Organization
Name
Woreda Rural Dev. Office 1. Ato Digafe
Megerssa
Woreda Agri.
2. Ato Lemma Abebe
SWC Expert
Rural Land N.R
1. Ato Teyar Bayisa
Head
2. Ato Abebe Tufa
Team Leader (R.L.A)
3. Ato Zerihun
P/Aweke
Team Leader (N.R.)
"
"
"
"
"
"
Head
Position
Regional Level ---- SNNPRA
Region
Organization
SNNPRS Assi. Nat. Res.
Name
Ato Erkeno Wessero
48
Position
Project
Coordinator
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
Woreda Level ----- SNNPRA
Woreda
Organization
Name
Position
Alaba
Lemo
Sp.Ass.Nat.Res.
Woreda Rural Dev.
1. Ato Abiot Kebede
1. Ato Lire Abiyo
"
Woreda Agr.&NR.
2. Dr. Mengesha G/yesus Office, Head
"
"
"
"
Woreda Coordinator
Office, Head,
3. Ato Berhanu Tafesse
Agro forestry expert
SWC & FD agr. Team
Leader
Team
Leader
&
Coordinator
FFW/Project Coordinator
& Horticulture Expert
"
Woreda Ag. NR
4. Ato Tiruneh Chaka
"
Woreda Ar.NR
5. Ato Desalegn Jilgam
"
Woreda Agri.office
6. Ato Yonas Sulamo
49
Drylands Coordination Group
List of Publications
Reports:
1 A.
Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 1998: “Etude des indicateurs de la sécurité alimentaire dans deux
sites de la zone d’intervention de l’AEN-Mali: Bambara Maodé et Ndaki (Gourma Malien)”, Groupe
de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
1 B.
Synnevåg, G. and Halassy, S. 1998: “Food Security Indicators in Two Sites of Norwegian
Church Aid’s Intervention Zone in Mali: Bambara Maoudé and N’Daki (Malian Gourma)”, Drylands
Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
2 A.
Aune, J.B. and Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM), Case
studies of two projects in Mali: CARE Macina programme and PIDEB”, Drylands Coordination
Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
2 B.
Aune, J.B. et Doumbia, M.D. 1998: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux (GINV), Etude
de Cas de deux projets au Mali: Programme de CARE Macina et PIDEB”, Groupe de Coordination
des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
3 A.
Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. and Hassan, M. 1999: “Synthesis report and
Four Case Studies on Gender Issues and Development of an Improved Focus on Women in Natural
Resource Management and Agricultural Projects”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway.
3 B.
Berge, G., Larsen, K., Rye, S., Dembele, S.M. et Hassan, M. 1999:“Rapport de synthèse et
quatre études de cas sur Les Questions de Genre et Développement d’une Approche Améliorée
concernant les Femmes et les Projets d’Agriculture et de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles”, Groupe
de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
4 A. Sydness, M. et Ba, B. 1999: “Processus de decentralisation, développement
institutionnel et reorganisation des ONG financées par la Norvège au Mali”, Groupe de
Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
4 B.
Sydness, M. and Ba, B. 1999: “Decentralisation Process, Institution Development and Phasing
out of the Norwegian Involvement in Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural
University of Norway.
5.
Waktola, A. and Michael, D.G. 1999: “Institutional Development and Phasing Out of the
Norwegian Involvement, the Case of Awash Conservation and Development Project, Ethiopia”,
Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
6.
Waktola, A. 1999: “Exploratory Study of Two Regions in Ethiopia: Identification of Target
Areas and partners for Intervention”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural
University of Norway.
7.
Mossige, A. 2000: “Workshop on Gender and Rural Development – Training Manual”,
Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
50
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
8.
Synnevåg, G. et Halassy, S. 2000: ”Sécurité Sémenciére: Etude de la gestion et de
l’approvisionnement en semences dans deux villages du cercle de Ké-Macina au Mali: Kélle et
Tangana”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
9.
Abesha, D., Waktola, A, Aune, J.B. 2000: ”Agricutural Extension in the Drylands of
Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
10.
Sydness, M., Doumbia, S. et Diakité K. 2000: ”Atelier sur la désentralisation au Mali”,
Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
11.
N’Dior, P. A. et Traore, N. 2000: ”Etude sur les programmes d’espargne et de credit au
Mali”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
12.
Lode, K. and G. Kassa. 2001: ”Proceedings from a Workshop on Conflict Resolution
Organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG), November 8-10, 2000 Nazareth, Ethiopia”,
Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
13.
Shiferaw, B. and A. Wolday, 2001: “Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision
Framework of the Micro-Finance Industry in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway.
14 A. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Intergrated Plant Nutrition Management
(IPNM): Practical Testing of Technologies with Farmers Groups”, Drylands Coordination Group and
Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
14 B. Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2001: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végetaux
(GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans”, Groupe de Coordination des
Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
15.
Larsen, K. and M. Hassan, 2001: “Perceptions of Knowledge and Coping Strategies in
Nomadic Communities – The case of the Hawawir in Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group
and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
16 A. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “Participation of Civil Society in the national
Action Programs of the United Nation’s Convention to Combat Desertification: Synthesis of an
Assessment in Ethiopia and Mali”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural
University of Norway.
16 B. Mossige, A., Berkele, Y. & Maiga, S., 2001: “La Participation de la Societe Civile aux
Programme d’Actions Nationaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la
Desertification”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of
Norway.
17.
Kebebew, F., D. Tsegaye and G. Synnevåg., 2001: “Traditional Coping Strategies of the Afar
and Borana Pastoralists in Response to Drought”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway.
18.
Shanmugaratnam, N., D. Mamer and M. R. Kenyi, 2002: “From Emergency Relief to Local
Development and Civil Society Building: Experiences from the Norwegian Peoples’ Aid’s
Interventions in Southern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University
of Norway.
51
Drylands Coordination Group
19.
Mitiku, H. and S. N. Merga, 2002: Workshop on the Experience of Water Harvesting in the
Drylands of Ethiopia: Principles and practices”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway.
20.
Tesfai, M., V. Dawod and K. Abreha, 2002: Management of Salt-affected Soils in the NCEW
« Shemshemia » Irrigation Scheme in the Upper Gash Valley of Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination
Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
21.
Doumbia, M. D., A. Berthé and J. B. Aune, 2002: “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végetaux
(GINV): Tests Pratiques de Technologies avec des Groupes de Paysans- Rapport de la Campagne
2001”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
22.
Haidara, Y., Dembele, M. et Bacha, A. “Formation sur la lutte contre la desertificationatelier
organisé par groupe de coordination des zones arides (gcoza) du 07 au 10 octobre 2002 a gossi
(Mali)”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
23.
Aune, J. B. 2003. “Desertification control, rural development and reduced CO2 emissions
through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol - an impasse or a way forward?”
Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
24.
Larsen, K. and Hassan, M. 2003. “Sedentarisation of Nomadic People: The Case of
the Hawawir in Um Jawasir, Northern Sudan”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway.
25.
Cissé, I. et Keita, M.S. 2003. ”Etude d’impacts socio-économique et environnemental des
plaines aménagées pour riziculture au Mali.” Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway.
26.
Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. ”Indicators to Promote Civil Society’s (NGOs and CBOs)
Participation in the implementation of Ethiopia’s National and Regional Action Programs of the
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. A guideline Document”, Drylands
Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
26B. Berkele, Y. and Mossige, A. 2003. ”Indicateurs visant à promouvoir la participation de la
société civile (ONG et OCB) à la mise en oeuvre en Ethiopie des Programmes d’action national et
régionaux de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la desertification”. Drylands
Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
27.
Assefa, F., Dawd, M. and Abesha, A. D. 2003. “Implementation Aspects of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM): Policy and Extension Gap in Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination Group and
Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
28.
Haile, A., Selassie, D.G., Zereyacob, B. and Abraham, B. 2003, “On-Farm Storage Studies in
Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
29.
Doumbia, M.D., Berthé, A., Aune, J.B. 2003, “Gestion Intégrée de Nutriments Végétaux
(GINV): Tests Pratiques et Vulgarisation de Technologies”, Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides
et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
30.
Mossige, A. and M. Macina 2004, “Indicateurs visant à promouvoir et suivre la participation
de la Société Civile (ONG et OCB) dans la mise en œuvre des Programmes d’Action National,
Régional et Communal de la Convention des Nations Unies sur la lutte contre la désertification”,
Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides et Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
52
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
31.
Tesfay, Y. and Tafere, K. 2004. “Indigenous Rangeland resources and Conflict Management
by the North Afar Pastoral Groups in Ethiopia. A Pastoral Forum Organized by the Drylands
Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, June 27-28, 2003, Mekelle, Ethiopia”, Drylands Coordination
Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
32.
Kebede, D. and Retta, S. 2004. “Gender, HIV/AIDS and Food Security, Linkage and
Integration into Development Interventions”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway.
33.
Kidane, A., Araia, W., Ghebremichael, Z, and Gobezay, G. 2004. “Survey on striga and crop
husbandry practices in relation to striga management and control of sorghum (Sorghum bicholor) in
the Goluge sub zone: Lessons to be learned and creating awareness”, Drylands Coordination Group
and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
34.
Kibreab, G., Berhane, T., and Ghezae, E. 2004. “A Study to Determine the Extent and Use of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Development Projects – A Case Study from
Eritrea”, Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
35.
Meehan, F. 2004. “Female Headed Household in Tigray, Ethiopia. A Study Review”.
Drylands Coordination Group and Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway.
36.
Doumbia, M. Berthe, A., Aune, J. B. 2005. “Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Mali.
Summary Report 1998-2004”. Drylands Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.
37.
Kaya, B., Traoré, C. O., Aune, J.B. 2005. “Etude d’identification des prototypes d’EcoFermes
au Mali. Rapport diagnostic et plan d’action pour 2005“. Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides,
Maison de l’Environnement G9, Norvège.
38.
Nedessa, B., Ali, J., Nyborg, I. 2005. ”Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for
the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management. A Case Study from Ethiopia”. Drylands
Coordination Group, Miljøhuset G9, Norway.
Proceedings:
1.
Seminar on the Formation of DCG Ethiopia-Sudan. Proceedings from a Seminar organised by
the Drylands Coordination Group in Nazareth, Ethiopia, April 10-12, 2000. DCG/Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
2.
Seminar on the Formation of DCG Eritrea. Proceedings from a Seminar Hosted by the
National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) in Asmara, Eritrea, March 26th-28th, 2001.
DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
3.
Amha, W. 2001. Revisiting the Regulatory and Supervision Framework of the Microfinance
Industry in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a Seminar Organised by the Relief Society of Tigray (REST),
on behalf of the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia and Sudan, In Mekelle, August 25, 2001.
DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
4.
Mossige, A. and Berkele, Y. 2001. Civil Society’s Participation in the National Action
Program to Combat Desrtification and Mitigate the Effects of Dought in Ethiopia. Proceedings from a
Workshop organised by the Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) in Ethiopia, Debre Zeit, September
13-14, 2001. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
53
Drylands Coordination Group
5.
Maiga, S. et Mossige, A. 2001. Participation de la Societe Civile dans la Mies en Euvre
Programme d’action pour la Convention Sur la Desertification (CCD) au Mali. L’atelier Organise par
le Groupe Coordination sur les Zones Arides (GCOZA) Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 5 et 6
novembre 2001. GCOZA/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
6.
Do conventions need civil society? A critical review of the role of civil society in the
implementation of international conventions. Proceeding from a Seminar Arranged by the Drylands
Coordination Group and Forum for Development and Environment (ForUM) in Oslo, January 15th,
2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
7.
Berkele, Y. 2002. Workshop on training of trainers in UNCCD/NAP implementation in
Ethiopia. Proceedings from a workshop arranged by the Drylands Coordination Group in Ethiopia,
Nazareth, June 10-15, 2002, DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
8.
Sustainable livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists in Eritrea. Proceedings from a workshop
organised by DCG Eritrea in National Confederation of Eritrean Workers Conference Hall, Asmara,
November 28 –29, 2002. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University Of Norway, Ås.
9.
DCG networking seminar 2002, 15th-22nd November 2002, Khartoum, Sudan. DCG/Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
10.
Soumana, D. 2003. Atelier d’information, d’exchange et de réflexion sur l’élargissement du
Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA) au Mali, Au Centre Aoua Keita, Bamako, Les 18
et 19 février 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
11.
Ati, H. A.and Nimir A. A. H. 2004. Training Course On The Role Of Local Institutions In
Regulating Resource Use and Conflict Management, Um Jawaseer, June 2003. DCG/Noragric,
Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
12.
Berkele, Y. and Ayalew, B. 2004. Training of Trainers in Implementation of UNCCD/NAP in
Ethiopia. Third Round, 10-14 Nov. 2003. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
13.
Macina, M. 2004. Atelier National et Campagne d’Information et de Sensibilisation sur la
CCD. Un Atelier Organisé par la Coordination des Associations et ONG Féminines au Mali (CAFO)
en partenariat avec le Groupe de Coordination des Zones Arides (GCoZA). Les 29-30 novembre 2004
à Bamako, Mali. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
14.
Musnad, H.A. and Nasr N. K. 2004. Experience Sharing Tour and Workshop on Shelterbelts
and Fuel Wood Substitutes in Sudan. DCG/Noragric, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
15.
Gakou, M. 2005. Atelier d’information et de formation des ONG membres de GCoZA sur le
montage des projets/ synergie entre les conventions de la génération de Rio et de la convention de
Ramsar. Le 28 décembre 2004, à Bamako, Mali. GCoZA, Oslo.
54
Exploring Ecological and Socio-Economic Issues for the Improvement of Area Enclosure Management
Drylands Coordination Group Addresses in Norway:
Secretariat of the Drylands Coordination Group
Grensen 9b, 0159 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 23 10 94 90, Fax: + 47 23 10 94 94
e-mail : [email protected]
ADRA Norge
Akersgata 74, 0180 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 11 20 80, Fax: +47 22 20 53 27
e-mail: [email protected]
CARE Norge
Universitetsgt. 12, 0164 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 20 39 30, Fax: +47 22 20 39 36
e-mail: [email protected]
Development Fund
Grensen 9b, 0159 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 23 10 96 00, Fax: .+47 23 10 96 01
e-mail: [email protected]
Norwegian Church Aid
P.O. Box 4544 Torshov, 0404 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 22 22 99, Fax: + 47 22 22 24 20
e-mail: [email protected]
Norwegian People’s Aid
P.O. Box 8844 Youngstorget, 0028 Oslo, Norway
Tel: + 47 22 03 77 00, Fax: + 47 22 17 70 82
e-mail: [email protected]
Noragric, Department for International Environment and Development Studies
University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway
Tel: +47 64 94 99 50, Fax: +47 64 94 07 60
e-mail: [email protected]
55