Adoption of Rainwater Management Strategies in the Highlands of Ethiopia

Rainwater Management Strategies

Strategy
Multipurpose Trees Orchards River Diversion Gully Rehabilitation Hand-dug wells Ponds Area Enclosure Terraces

Number of Households Adopting

Percentage of Households Adopting

18 12 10 8 7 2 2 **

51% 34% 29% 23% 20% 6% 6%

Terraces/Bunds
5-year national plan to control soil erosion Forced labor - Fines: 30 birr Mixed reviews on usefulness Combination with multipurpose trees Alternative methods of controlling erosion Often used as a reason for non-adoption of other technologies

Multipurpose Trees

Definition Climate change and the Green Economy Strategy

Benefits: timber, fodder during dry season, soil erosion, decoration, wind protection

Orchards
Mango trees produce 50-500 birr without fertilizer, 500 birr with fertilizer Farmers include sugar cane, coffee, avocados, bananas, lemons, in addition to the fruits on the card Non-adoption
Too high in elevation, Dont know where to get seeds Producing seedlings requires irrigation

Seedlings

River Diversion
Used to grow high value vegetables: (potatoes, tomatoes, onions, peppers), as well as sugar cane, maize Earns 1,000-2,000 birr per year Takes various amounts of time depending on the technique Brought from migrants from the east Non-adoption
Not close to river

Gully Rehabilitation
Brought from migrants from the east Forced labor in some cases Different types Non-adoption
Not conceived as a problem Labor intensive Cost of fertilizer
Filling with soil, branches or leaves Hammering eucalyptus poles into the ground and surrounding with stones Planting eucalyptus or other trees inside

Wells
Household use, not irrigation Non-adoption
Cost Groundwater too deep People/livestock falling in Other source of water

Ponds
Non-adoption
Farmers perceive the soil as too sandy to hold water Plastic and concrete are too expensive and in some cases not available Animals fall in and contaminate the water or rip the plastic

Area Enclosure
Least known Used in combination with special grasses Benefits: fattening animals Non-adoption
Fencing is not necessary because farmers simply tell their neighbors not to graze on this land Land is too scarce not to be plowed

2 people who have adopted: female farmers with older children

Gender
Female-headed households are more likely to adopt technologies under certain circumstances 4 levels of femaleheaded households

Formal Institutions
Credit Agencies
The poorest members of the community do not have access to credit Assets: cattle, tinroof house, land? Only available for specific purposes

Formal Institutions
Education
Farmers rhetoric on adoption is heavily influenced by education Taught about most of the RWM strategies in geography class Not culturally appropriate for a son to teach his father

Formal Institutions
Extension Agents
Training does not always result in adoption
Corruption Affiliation with government/politics

Trainings are usually not distributed equally

Farmer-to-farmer training

Land Tenure
People do not perceive a threat their land as being taken away, thus the certificates have not made much of a difference
This happens to some people
Extremely marginalized: land taxes and letting land fallow Large landholders, especially in Fogera

Land Tenure
Sharecropping
Some landowners plant tress themselves on border land or other land that cannot be cultivated Competition between farmers Suggesting that a landowner use a RWM strategy may get them fired