THE CASE FOR COMMUNITY-BASED INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT APPROACH

ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF THE REINFORCING CYCLE OF DECLINING CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTIVITY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEGRADATION, HIGH POPULATION GROWTH, AND VULNERABILITY AMONG VAST NUMBERS OF RESOURCE-POOR FARMERS IS A CRUCIAL CHALLENGE FACING ETHIOPIA (FIGURE 1). AS DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS SECTIONS, THE CURRENT “INTENSIFIED PACKAGE APPROACH” HAS OVERPLAYED THE PRODUCTION ASPECT, WITH INADEQUATE ATTENTION TO ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES. Maize production has increased while prices have plummeted and many of the resource-poor farmers cannot afford to invest in this package. Moreover, maize is not a staple food and not linked to the milling enterprises in small towns or cities like teff and wheat and is highly limited in generating livelihoods outside farming. Realizing the serious limitation of the package approach in addressing the re-enforcing cycle “ poverty, food insecurity and natural resource degradation trap” (Figure 1), this paper has put forward the concept of a community-based integrated natural resources management, to be tested and eventually implemented under the existing Extension programme.

The integrated natural resources management approach makes a systematic effort to improve soil and land productivity; agroforestry development and other rural energy sources; low-cost rainwater harvesting; livestock improvement (including better crop and livestock integration); and expand the livelihood base in the non-farm sector using the comparative advantage of local areas. This approach does not have any package but rather a broad umbrella under which extension research- farmers and community organizations will, in a participatory way, identify and develop the most appropriate components that would effectively contribute to arrest the “poverty, food insecurity and natural resource degradation trap” discussed throughout the paper (Figure 1). Through the interaction and linkages of key sub-sectors and components, this approach strives to bring an upward spiral by increasing crop and livestock productivity, reduce risk aversion, improving natural resources, generating income and alternative livelihood and lowering the demand for large families in rural areas.

In the Ethiopian context, the integrated natural resources management endeavour to bring a more effective sectoral integration in land, water, forestry and livestock at the community level. Past approaches have been piecemeal and top-down in addressing the issue of soil degradation, livestock feed and shortage of pasture land, fuelwood crisis, lack of rainwater harvesting and management, lack of community-based organization and limited opportunity for an alternative livelihood outside agriculture. The integrated natural resources management approach will take into account these factors systematically in a holistic manner at the community level and bring an upward spiral to avert the natural resources degradation and poverty trap indicated in Figure 1.

In the mixed farming system, the integration of crops and livestock is a main vehicle for intensification and diversification of the production system. Similarly, the fuelwood crisis faced by many rural households cannot be separated from the land, water and ecosystem management as well as from the effort to improve crop and livestock productivity. As noted earlier, rainwater harvesting has contributed to diversification and income generation activities (including women) through vegetable gardening, fruit cultivation and livestock fattening, which has increased access to food during the dry seasons when farmers, women, and children are most vulnerable. Thus, putting these components together in an integrated manner under a new extension system at community level, will be an important step in broadening the scope of the current extension programme.

At the centre of the community-based approach is a self-help group of men and women where the community is the centralized unit that integrates the various sectors and services and promotes development and conservation activities in a decentralized way among farming communities. It aims to empower farmers and communities by putting them at the centre of all decision-making processes and should be guided by the principle self-reliance and sustainability. They can be an important means in mediating macropolicies on local situations, reducing “risk aversion” behaviour among farmers, facilitating training and human development (including rural women), encouraging the incorporation of indigenous knowledge and practices into technical packages and generating demand among farmers to adopt innovative practices and inputs.

As part of its new extension approach the Government plans to establish Farmer Training Centres (FTC) to serve as focal points for extension and training. In each community (kebele) there will be a specialist in crop production, livestock and natural resources development. It is not clear what the natural resources development component will include. It would seem highly appropriate if the community-based integrated natural resources management approach with all or some of the key elements discussed above (depending on local conditions) is pilot tested as part of the FTC natural resources development component. This is also in line with one of the recommendations of the November 2002 Rural Development Workshop 37 which suggested that the extension programme introduces an integrated natural resources management approach consisting at least of soil management, small-scale water harvesting and forest conservation and development (as integral component) at the farm and community level.

BROADENING AND REFORMING THE INTENSIFIED PACKAGE APPROACH

Stabilizing yields, arresting the degradation of the natural resources base and reducing vulnerability to famine should also be at the centre of the extension effort since most of the smallholders live in marginal and drought-prone areas. Risk aversion is a major constraint in adoption of innovations requiring some investments among many smallholders. In order to overcome this, stability in yields would be as important as increasing yields. Thus, in designing extension messages, the community-based natural resources management approach stresses that research-extension experts should work closely with farmers and local organizations and make a concerted effort to respond to the various agro-ecological zones, local resource endowment and farmers’ capacity to invest in affordable soil, water and forest management techniques and livestock improvement. It also provides flexibility to introduce high value crops and cereals (depending on farmers’ choice rather than uniformly promoting maize) in suitable agro-ecological zones. It will also integrate environmental sustainability issues as well as indigenous knowledge and practices and crop and plant diversity at community level.

BROADENING SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION APPROACH

Closely connected to the need for a flexible extension programme is the urgent need to broaden the concept of soil and water conservation. As pointed our earlier, there is an implicit recognition by the MoA to this effect as reflected in its Five-Year Plan. Soil and water conservation should be seen as an integral part of soil fertility management, good agronomic practices, rainwater harvesting, increasing fodder, vegetative cover and fuelwood products in the village and community level. In this respect, the development of manuals at the Federal level clearly underlying this new approach in natural resources management, particularly in drought-prone areas, is urgently needed. This can be further elaborated and adjusted at Regional level. The 1986 soil and water conservation guidelines (which covered only a few of the major AEZs and focused on traditional approach) need to be updated urgently. It is understood the copy of these guidelines no longer exist in many areas. It would be most timely and appropriate for the MoA at the Federal level to produce new guidelines that would take into account an integrated and community-based approach discussed in the paper and consistent with Regional and local level priorities.

RESETTLEMENT RECONSIDERED

The major reason given for resettlement since the 1970s, irrespective of the change in Government, is the environmental deterioration in the drought-prone areas, which cannot support farming activities. To be sure, there is the eminent threat to natural resources degradation beyond its production capacity in many of the densely populated and famine affected areas, particularly in Amhare and Tigraye and in some parts of the SNNP regions. However, all preliminary evidence suggests resettlement within the Amhare and Tigraye regions misses the intended objective. There is a justifiable case on the part of the Government to create the necessary conditions such as building infrastructure and eradicating diseases in the high potential areas of Oromia and SNPP to facilitate resettlement across regions, without directly being involved in a bureaucratic and heavy-handed way. However, the current ethnically based administrative regions severely limit resettlement from the drought-prone Amhare and Tigraye regions to the southwestern part of the country (in the Oromia region) that are sparsely populated and with high potential agricultural land. Furthermore, preliminary study puts serious doubt about the Government claim on the presence of abundant unoccupied land suitable for cultivation even in the Oromia and SNNP regions. This further weakens the Government claim that resettlement is the cheapest option in reducing natural resource degradation and attaining food self-sufficiency.

At the core of any resettlement programme is the need to undertake a more rigorous account of environmental, economic and social factors as well as alternative and promising land use potentials. Any resettlement plan should also simultaneously consider other economically profitable and sustainable landuse options. For example, as pointed out earlier, some of the sites identified for resettlement in the Amhare and Tigraye regions (Humera area) are well suited for commercial agriculture and incense and gum production while some of the sites identified in the Oromia and SNNP regions are more suited for forest and wood products and biodiversity. Optimizing these alternative land use potential would have been appropriate in terms of broad-based and sustainable development that could effectively contribute food security and poverty reduction objectives. However, the current resettlement policy is narrowly focused in moving around subsistence farmers (who are often dependent on food aid) to continue the same type of production in virgin lands thus presenting an ominous danger of recreating the catastrophic environmental conditions that has necessitated such measures in the first place.

Resettlement has always been driven by political consideration at a time when the country is facing a major drought and famine crisis. However, it is possible that resettlement can be facilitated even in normal years through various alternative livelihood strategies outside smallholder farming, without the label and stigma attached to it as resettlement scheme. This would require a shift in approach in seeing resettlement as an ongoing activity while the governments role will be creating the supportive policy environment to facilitate it rather than as emergency response mechanism directed by the Government. Thus, it would be highly appropriate if the Government encourages open discussions on this matter and undertakes a systematic study to assess the environmental impact of resettlement as well as other options before fully launching its resettlement programme.

In summary, pursuing food security objectives without protecting the natural resources base will be unattainable among the majority of small-scale farmers in Ethiopia. The community-based integrated natural resources management approach makes a systematic effort to enhance sectoral linkages for improved soil, water, forest, and crop and livestock management at the community level. It aims to bring positive synergy among these components and arrest the “poverty, food insecurity and natural resources degradation trap”, which affects a vast number of resource-poor farmers in Ethiopia. Thus, the current supply-driven extension approach, which is heavily dependent on intensive use of inputs and improved seed should be re-oriented and re-focused to address this challenge. The community based integrated natural resources management approach (as discussed in this paper) provides a more flexible, viable and sustainable option to increase productivity, to broaden the livelihood base and to reduce the vulnerability of small-scale farmers who operate under high risk conditions.

Table 5. National Target for Various Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) Measures in Rain Deficit Areas (2000-2004)

* Source: Natural Resources Management and Regulatory Department, MoA 2000.The document is written in Amharic

Table 6. Five-Year Plan for Various SWC Measures in Rain Deficit Areas by Region (2000-2004)

Table 7. Five-Year Plan for Ridge and Furrow in Poor Deficit Areas by Region

Table 8. Five-Year Plan for Contour Ploughing Rain Deficit Areas by Region

Table 9. Cost of Government Financial Contribution for various Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) Measures in Rain Deficit Areas (2000-2004)

* Cost to be covered totally by the Community
** 25 percent of cost to be covered by the community; 75 percent by the Government
*** 10 percent of cost to be covered by community; 90 percent by the Government

Table 10. Cost of Government Financial Contribution from various SWC Measures in Rain Deficit Areas by Region (2000-2004) - Ethiopian Birr in millions