Assessing Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Campaign-Based Watershed Management: Experiences from Boset District, Ethiopia

Abstract

This study assessed farmers' perceptions of the outcomes of the Campaign-Based Watershed Management (CBWM) program in Ethiopia, and how this influences their willingness to participate in the program. Key informant interviews, a household survey, and the Google Earth Engine were used to collect and analyze the relevant data. Results show that farmers' perceived outcomes of the CBWM program hardly motivated them to participate in the program. Particularly, farmers were not motivated by the physical effects of the program, because of the limited direct benefits to individual households, and destruction of previously developed micro-watersheds by frequent runoff and human and animal disturbances. Similarly, farmers were not motivated by the economic effects of the program, because of the limitations/absence of benefit-sharing mechanisms and resultant conflicts among farmers. The only motivating outcome of the program concerned its effect on personal capacities, which was particularly appreciated in localities that were vulnerable to erosion. The results of the study suggest the need to (1) better integrate actions at watershed level to come to effective water runoff control, (2) enhance the participation of all local actors to come to more effective area closure initiatives with transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms, and (3) give much more emphasis to capacity building as a cross-cutting component in the program. Hence, in order to enhance the willingness of farmers to genuinely participate in the CBWM, the program should adopt a more participatory and integrated approach.

Participatory agent-based modelling for sustainable watershed management in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

“…One possible reason for this is failure of previous micro-watershed (communal lands) management, which discouraged farmers in participating in the program. The other reason may be that farmers who live both in Bofa town and rural neighborhoods are generally less motivated to participate in the program, since they focus on their non-farm activities in the town (Assefa et al, 2018a). Similarly, although farmers obtained skills and started constructing SWC structures on their farmlands in Sara-Areda, these did not motivate them to participate in the program because they generally cultivate relatively flat plots that are less exposed to erosion problems.…”

“…One possible reason for this was the absence or weakness of micro-watershed associations to manage treated micro-watersheds. According to Assefa et al (2018a), micro-watersheds have been handed over to associations that were not real target groups in Ararso-Bero and Sara-Areda. This explicitly excludes non-members from any short-term economic benefits, demotivates these non-members to participate in the program, and contributes to unequal access to resources.…”

“…The CBWM program has three key activities or phases: (1) selecting one or more microwatersheds to be developed, (2) constructing SWC structures and planting tree seedlings in the selected micro-watersheds through campaign works, and (3) enclosing and handing over the micro-watersheds that are located on communal land and private farmland to associations and individual owners respectively so that they protect or maintain conservation measures (Assefa et al, 2018b). These activities are implemented with the involvement of extension workers, Kebele administrators, leaders of development teams (also sometimes leaders of micro-watershed associations), and the farmers; each having their own roles and responsibilities.…”

“…In terms of farmers' labor contribution and area of land covered with SWC structures, the CBWM program has been regarded successful (Haregeweyn et al, 2015). However, the program has a number of limitations, including a top-down planning approach (Snyder et al, 2014;Nigussie et al, 2018;Assefa et al, 2018a), low awareness and willingness of farmers to participate in the program (Abi et al, 2019;Assefa et al, 2018a), poor commitment of local government actors (Assefa et al, 2018a), emphasizing the construction of SWC structures rather than paying attention to rural livelihoods (Wolka, 2014;Assefa et al, 2018a), and poor maintenance of the SWC structures (Snyder et al, 2014;ORAB, 2014;Wolancho, 2015).…”

“…This study therefore developed a RPG based on empirical studies conducted on the CBWM program (Assefa et al, 2018a;Assefa et al, 2018b) and subsequent pilot sessions in the Boset District. The game requires farmers to choose between advancing their individual interests (income) and collective interests (participate in the program).…”