Local knowledge training using the AKT5 software and ......Local knowledge training using the AKT5 software and methodology, funded by the ACIAR Trees for Food Security project: Initial

Local knowledge training using the AKT5 software and

methodology, funded by the ACIAR Trees for Food Security

project: Initial findings from a two week research study in

Ejersa Joro Kebele in Oromiya Region, central Ethiopia

G. Lamond, M. Cronin, E. Alemu, M. Ataa-Asantewaa, S. Dawit, D. Debele, G. Gebremedin,

A. Heinze, A. Kuria, M. Mukangago, G. Ngenzi, M. Schmidt and J.-C. Twagiramungu

April 2013

Bangor University/ICRAF

i

Summary ICRAF and Bangor University jointly organized a training course in Adama for stakeholders from

different parts of Ethiopia, MSc students from Bangor University, ICRAF staff from Nairobi HQ and

partner institutes in Rwanda under the ACIAR Trees for Food Security project.

The course took place over a two week period, involving practical exercises in the field and

theoretical/methodological training in local knowledge acquisition of farmers and extension agents

in one of the proposed research sites for the Trees for Food Security project, Ejersa Joro Kebele, East

Showa Zone of Ethiopia. Participants learnt how to use the Agro-ecological Knowledge Toolkit (AKT5)

software to create individual knowledge bases using the interviews they carried out in small groups

of two or three in the field. Participatory exercises were combined with semi-structured interviews

and focus group discussions, including resource mapping, historical timelines, and seasonal

calendars. Class based activities included landscape characterization and stakeholder analysis,

learning how to process interviews and represent knowledge using the AKT5 software. Topics

covered during interviews were: soil types in the area, spatial arrangement of trees in the landscape

and on farms, temporal aspects of tree management, seasonal fodder availability and cropping

practices. Farmers were able to talk about 27 trees in the area, their niches and the products and

services they provide. At the end of the training course, a feedback session was held with the

interviewed farmers and extension agents to clarify and discuss the findings and participants were

awarded with course completion certificates.

ii

Contents

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ I

CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... II

PLATES ............................................................................................................................................................III

FIGURES ..........................................................................................................................................................III

TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................III

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE TRAINING USING THE AKT5 SOFTWARE AND METHODOLOGY, FUNDED BY THE ACIAR

TREES FOR FOOD SECURITY PROJECT: INITIAL FINDINGS FROM A TWO WEEK RESEARCH STUDY IN EJERSA

JORO KEBELE IN OROMIYA REGION, CENTRAL ETHIOPIA ................................................................................. 1

SCOPING TRIP: CONTEXT OF FIELD SITE......................................................................................................................... 3

Interviews with development agents ............................................................................................................. 3

Focus group discussions with farmers ............................................................................................................ 6

Discussions in class after scoping day .......................................................................................................... 11

SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM ON-FARM INTERVIEWS AND FEEDBACK SESSION ................................................................... 14

Tree utilities according to farmers ............................................................................................................... 14

Positioning of trees in farming landscape .................................................................................................... 17

Feedback session (validation and clarification) ........................................................................................... 20

CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW FOCUS ............................................................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX 2: PHOTOGRAPHS FROM TRAINING COURSE.................................................................................................. 24

APPENDIX 3. SEASONAL CALENDAR. .......................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX 4. COURSE EVALUATION NOTES TAKEN AT THE END OF THE TRAINING. ............................................................... 27

iii

Plates PLATE 1. PARKLAND SYSTEM WITH TREES SCATTERED ACROSS CROP FIELDS AND LIVESTOCK FREE GRAZING IN EJERSA JORO KEBELE.. ... 3

PLATE 2. LIVESTOCK DUNG, KNOWN LOCALLY AS 'KUBET', PREPARED TO USE AS HOUSEHOLD FUEL.. ............................................. 4

PLATE 3. MALE FGD WITH RESOURCE MAPPING.. .............................................................................................................. 6

PLATE 4. FEMALE FGD WITH RESOURCE MAPPING. ............................................................................................................ 9

PLATE 5. FIRST GROUP PRESENTING THEIR SITE CHARACTERIZATION BACK TO THE CLASS.. ......................................................... 12

PLATE 6. SECOND GROUP PRESENTING THEIR SITE CHARACTERIZATION BACK TO THE CLASS.. ..................................................... 13

PLATE 7. DISCUSSING THE TREES MENTIONED DURING INTERVIEWS WITH ALL THE FARMERS DURING A FEEDBACK SESSION.. ............ 20

PLATE 8. FEEDBACK TO THE FARMERS INTERVIEWED IN EJERSA JORO KEBELE.. ....................................................................... 24

PLATE 9. THE WHOLE GROUP AFTER THE FEEDBACK SESSION HELD ON THE LAST DAY OF TRAINING.. ............................................ 24

PLATE 10. COURSE PARTICIPANTS WITH THEIR AKT5 COURSE COMPLETION CERTIFICATES.. ...................................................... 25

Figures FIGURE 1. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITES IN EAST SHEWA ZONE, WITH THE TRAINING LOCATION OF LUME WOREDA SHOWN (MIYUKI ET

AL., 2013) ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

FIGURE 2. RESOURCE MAP DRAWN BY MALE FGD GROUP IN EJERSA JORO KEBELE, FEBRUARY 2013. .......................................... 8

FIGURE 3. RESOURCE MAP DRAWN BY FEMALE FGD GROUP IN EJERSA JORO KEBELE, FEBRUARY 2013. ..................................... 10

FIGURE 4. FARM LAYOUT DIAGRAM FOR ONE OF THE FARMS VISITED. DRAWN BY GIRMAY GEBREMEDIN, FEBRUARY 2013. ........... 14

Tables TABLE 1. SITE CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION PRESENTED BY FIRST GROUP. ...................................................................... 12

TABLE 2. SITE CHARACTERIZATION INFORMATION PRESENTED BY SECOND GROUP. .................................................................. 13

TABLE 3. TREES AND THEIR UTILITIES ACCORDING TO FARMERS DURING ON-FARM INTERVIEWS AND THE FEEDBACK SESSION. .......... 15

TABLE 4. TABLE OF TREES MENTIONED BY FARMERS DURING INTERVIEWS AND THEIR POSITION IN THE LANDSCAPE. ....................... 18

1

Local knowledge training using the AKT5 software and methodology, funded

by the ACIAR Trees for Food Security project: Initial findings from a two week

research study in Ejersa Joro Kebele in Oromiya Region, central Ethiopia

During the period 4th-15th February 2013, researchers from partner institutes of the recently

launched ACIAR Trees for Food Security project1 were trained in using the AKT5 (Agro-ecological

Knowledge Toolkit) software and methodology. The training was conducted by staff from Bangor

University and ICRAF-Nairobi HQ using a mixture of class-based lectures and practical exercises in

Adama and at the field site of Ejersa Joro Kebele, Lume Woreda, in a semi-arid area of Oromiya

Region (one of five sites selected by the project in the area (Figure 1)).

Figure 1. Location of project sites in East Shewa zone, with the training location of Lume Woreda shown (Miyuki et al.,

2013)

The focus was on trees present on farms, where they were positioned, and how these trees were

being managed and utilised throughout the year, drivers influencing incorporation of trees on farms

and how this could potentially affect household food security. The team of eleven course

participants was split into four groups and were given specific topics to cover during interviews with

farmers; this enabled us to quickly gain an understanding of the farming systems in practice and the

dynamics throughout the year.

During the first day of training, participants were introduced to the theory behind AKT5 as well as

previous and current projects that have followed the methodology and used the software. Plans

were made for the scoping trip the following day and it was decided that a morning spent with local

development agents (DAs) and then an afternoon of focus group discussions (FGDs) with farmers

would be most useful for setting the context before conducting on-farm interviews later in the week.

Two DAs availed themselves to show us around an area of the kebele in the morning and in the

1 Improving sustainable productivity in farming systems and enhanced livelihoods through adoption of

evergreen agriculture in eastern Africa (http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/project/aciar)

2

afternoon six male and four female farmers came to meet us and were separated into two groups to

do resource mapping and historical timeline exercises.

The day after the scoping, a class based exercise was to characterize the research site in terms of

livelihoods (on-farm and off-farm income), natural resource availability across the kebele (e.g.

cropland, woodland, grazing land, soil types, water), and stakeholders (institutional stakeholders as

well as within the household according to divisions in labour). By doing this exercise, it was easier to

identify potential strata for future research and what information would need to be collected for a

more detailed site characterization.

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a total of eight farmers towards the end of the first

week and repeat interviews were held with all of them in the beginning of the second week of

training; this offered the opportunity to develop the knowledge elicited in the first interviews and

allowed for clarification of certain points that had been identified in class. Participatory visual

research methods were carried out with the farmers wherever it was felt that it would add value and

better represent the knowledge than just note-taking. Course participants were encouraged to

continuously evaluate the knowledge they had gathered so they would be prepared for the next

round of questioning and could explore in more detail areas that had not been well covered yet.

A feedback session was conducted with all the farmers and DAs on the last day of the training; this

gave the team an opportunity to discuss their findings with the farmers, validate and add to the

knowledge they had gathered from individual interviews.

Initial findings from the training course are presented below, showing the contextual information

gained from the first day of scoping, the knowledge gathered during on-farm individual interviews,

and necessary clarification and validation during the feedback session. The training followed the

AKT5 methodology as closely as possible in the two-week period – including the ‘scoping’, ‘definition

of domain’ and ‘compilation’ stages (visit the website for more information on the methodology:

akt.bangor.ac.uk). After conducting a more detailed study, we would then be in a position to test the

representativeness of the knowledge collected by carrying out a further ‘generalisation’ stage in

which a wider sample of the population would be included, but this was not feasible within the time-

frame of the training course.

3

Scoping trip: Context of field site

Interviews with development agents

The scoping trip started in the morning with two DAs, with backgrounds in plant and animal

sciences, showing the team around the field site, Ejersa Joro Kebele, and gave a broad overview of

the local environmental conditions and farming context (Plate 1).

The kebele was said to be made up of 311 households, with a total population of 4027 (making an

average of almost 13 people per household), over an area of 1454 ha. Average land holding size was

2 ha, with just a few large commercial farms of 10-40 ha in size. Land certification by the

government enables farmers to inherit land and lease it but sale is not possible; the Ethiopian

Government officially owns all land and can claim it back when and where they see fit. Most people

in the kebele were not living on their farmland but rather in villages and their land could be far from

the homestead; this was due to villagization policies implemented by the government during the

1980s.

Plate 1. Parkland system with trees scattered across crop fields and livestock free grazing in Ejersa Joro Kebele. Photograph taken by Alan Heinze, February 2013.

The area was classified as lowland and semi-arid agroecology at 1500-1800 m.a.s.l., with a short

rainy season lasting from mid-June to early September. Rain-fed agriculture was the dominant

means of subsistence and major crops were teff, wheat, barley, maize, lentils, chickpea and haricot

beans. There was small-scale irrigation for maize and vegetable crops grown along the Mojo River

(tomatoes, onions, cabbages and chilli peppers). Vegetables and chickpea were said to be sold

4

mostly on the markets, whilst maize and teff were both for selling on the market and household

consumption. Crop residues were widely being used as fodder.

The DAs said that most smallholders cultivate at least four crops separately on their land, rotating

plots of grains and pulses to keep the land fertile. Improved varieties and fertilisers are provided by

co-operatives and the Farmer Training Centre run by the DAs, but farmers with large farms have

much more capacity for purchasing improved seeds and fertiliser than the smallholders.

Mechanisation is also limited to the larger farms than can afford it.

Besides crop cultivation, livestock husbandry was common, with fattening an important income

generating activity. Most animals were local breeds but some improved varieties had been

introduced. Livestock manure was a vital resource, used mostly as fuel after mixing with crop

residues and forming into discs – known locally as ‘kubet’ (Plate 2). It was said to be particularly

important during the rainy season when wood becomes too damp to use as fuel.

Plate 2. Livestock dung, known locally as 'kubet', prepared to use as household fuel. Photograph taken by Genevieve Lamond, February 2013.

Farmers tended to have a range of livestock type and number depending on their household needs

and financial constraints, but the main animals present in the area and their uses - besides manure

for fuel – were given as:

Oxen: ploughing

Cows: milk and meat

Sheep: meat

Horses: transportation

Donkeys: transportation

Camels: transportation

Goats: meat

Poultry: eggs and meat

5

It was stated that after crops have been harvested livestock are free to graze on the land until the

next planting season. There were controls on free grazing during the rainy season when crops are

growing and livestock are fed on straw from previous harvests during this time.

Three main soil types mentioned by the DAs were:

Sandy

Sandy loam (‘gonbera’)

Vertisol (‘bisike’/‘koticha’) - appearing near the river where irrigation was practised

Roles within the majority of households according to age and gender were given as:

Children make trenches, collect water, take livestock to graze, gather manure from fields for

fuel, help with threshing after harvest

Men carry out harvesting (of crops and trees) and ploughing

Women cultivate vegetables and carry out weeding, hoeing, harvesting, and threshing. They

prepare local alcohol known as ‘tela’ from fermented grains and this brings in cash income.

Labour was said to be hired from the local area to help out on farms where necessary. Off-farm

activities contributing to household income were petty trade and working on the big strawberry and

flower farms in the area.

Although it was stated that Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata used to dominate the area, the evidence

of this was very little and naturally regenerative acacia species had taken over the landscape. The

DAs mentioned that farmers do not tend to plant trees on cultivated land but instead maintain the

ones that already exist on the fields (e.g. Acacia tortililis and Faidherbia albida, amongst others).

Because trees were being maintained on fields, farmers were said to cut wide roots to ease the

route of their ploughs during land preparation. Farmers managed natural regeneration of trees by

limiting browsing livestock during their initial stages of establishment, but it was said that when

there are a high number of regenerated seedlings on farms they uproot them. This may not just be

because of how they would interfere with crop cultivation, but also because cutting indigenous trees

needs special permission, which could cause problems later on.

Acacia species were recognised as increasing productivity by restoring soil fertility and it was said

that Faidherbia albida drops its leaves when the rains come. Maize was grown where there were

many Faidherbia albida retained as this land was considered more fertile, whereas teff was grown

on less fertile land with fewer Faidherbia albida (note: It was unclear whether the land was more

fertile as a result of the trees or whether there were more trees retained on fertile land because there

was less threat of competition for soil nutrients with intercrops). Many trees in the area were heavily

pollarded (both for the wood and to reduce shade) and so most do not reach fruiting stage. The

pollarded branches were used for fencing, fodder, and firewood. When the branches used as fencing

had dried up, they were used as firewood.

Besides scattered acacias and F. albida across the fields, it was noted that there were planted

eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in woodlots and in small patches around homesteads (in

accessible areas where harvesting could be done easily), as well as euphorbia used as fencing around

homesteads which, in its initial growth, was protected by thorny acacia branches.

6

Focus group discussions with farmers

In the afternoon of the scoping day, the team was split into two groups to conduct focus group

discussions with a group of six male farmers and a group of four female farmers. We were interested

in seeing whether there would be any differences between the male and female groups, and made

the judgement that the women would have a greater chance to be heard in their own group.

Both groups were asked to draw resource maps and then give us a brief historical timeline so that

we could be better understand how they derive their livelihoods and to gain an insight into

important events experienced over the past 20-50 years that had influenced their livelihoods.

Guidelines for conducting both exercises were taken from the “Climate Vulnerability and Capacity

Analysis Handbook” by CARE International (2009).

Resource mapping exercise

The male farmers started drawing as soon as they were given the pens and paper after introductions

and first of all drew the boundaries of their kebele from the road we were next to down to the Mojo

River (Plate 3 and Figure 2). They described the different land use types (mainly settlement areas,

farmland, woodland and woodlots) and where they were located in the landscape. Within farmland,

there were three different categories identified as irrigated land, rainfed agriculture, and grazing

land. The forest area was recognised as common property for both grazing livestock and for

harvesting forest products. Community infrastructure was drawn on the map, including schools,

clinics, a mosque, and a farmers’ training centre. The map also included sources of water, essential

for any livelihood.

Plate 3. Male FGD with resource mapping. Photograph taken by Genevieve Lamond, February 2013.

7

Whilst drawing all of the above on paper, the men explained how they utilise these resources and

how their livelihoods are based on crop and livestock production. They told us that an average

household has 2 ha of land. The major crops grown are teff, wheat, barley, beans and maize; which

are grown on separate plots and are often rotated. Rainfed agriculture is most common but when it

is the dry season they use the Mojo River for irrigation purposes, mostly for vegetable crops such as

tomatoes and onions. They noted that due to population pressures, the river dries up faster than it

used to – sometimes by January – and this became noticeable since the year of 1996 Ethiopian

calendar (2004 in the Gregorian calendar).

According to the farmers, the woodland area is made up of grasses with scattered trees and is

demarcated for grazing and common use, with approximately 70% of the community actively using

it. There are some controls at certain times of the year to restrict livestock that would threaten

natural regeneration, particularly goats. It was noted that the woodland used to be made up of Olea

spp. but is now dominated by acacias due to environmental changes. They pointed out that the

community relies on the woodland as a source of wood for fuel and construction, as well as grass for

thatching their roofs.

During the dry season, livestock were said to graze freely on farmland, which damages any newly

regenerating tree seedlings. Regarding trees, the farmers said that they leave them on their fields to

maintain them and 99% are F. albida. They talked of how they cultivate the land for longer periods

of time than before (with shorter fallows) due to increases in the population, but trees help them to

continue getting good yields. They also use cow dung for applying to the fields alongside fertilisers

on advice from DAs, but the major use of the dung is fuel which is most valued during the rainy

season. Since the 1950s (Ethiopian calendar), the use of fertilisers was said to have become

popularised in the area.

According to the farmers, livestock production is very important to them as a source of income

throughout the year and provides them with a vital safety net when crops fail or an urgent

household need arises.

In terms of off-farm employment, the farmers stated that the local commercial farms producing

flowers and strawberries were a great source of cash income.

8

Figure 2. Resource map drawn by male FGD group in Ejersa Joro Kebele, February 2013. Key: Irr = irrigated land, flag = schools, crescent moon = mosque, green plants = trees scattered on fields and around homesteads, buildings = settlement areas, FL = farmlands, trees in left hand corner = woodland common grazing area, wavy line at bottom = river at the boundary of the kebele, WP = water point, CL = clinic, EFTC = farmers’ training centre, V = village.

The female farmers began the discussion by introducing themselves and their main roles in the

household and on their farms. The main on-farm activities they said they participate in are weeding,

harvesting and threshing; they also mentioned they are involved in fattening of livestock by feeding

them a prepared mixture of teff straw and fermented plant residue, either from the farm or cooking

oil bought from factories. They stated that sometimes hiring external labour is necessary for helping

with the animals and managing the crops, particularly in the case of female-headed households. Two

of the women in the group were household heads because their husbands had passed away, whilst

the other two had husbands to take that role; this enabled us to get an insight into some of the

different roles that women may take depending on their position within the household. Children

were also said to help around the farm, especially during the rainy season when school is closed.

The women told us that they commonly bake bread and prepare an alcoholic drink made from maize

during the dry season to sell on the market, bringing in much needed cash income to the household.

Although it used to be that men had full control of the money, the women said that they now also

have a say in these matters, for instance by earning their own income or being involved in decisions

involving money. The bigger expenses were related to the schooling, clothing and feeding of their

children; other expenses were related to general household and farm maintenance.

9

Plate 4. Female FGD with resource mapping. Photograph taken by Martha Cronin, February 2013.

Leading on from the discussions, a resource mapping exercise was started with the facilitators

drawing the map (Plate 4 and Figure 3), whilst the women instructed them where to place each

feature as they were not comfortable taking the pens. They were given beans to mark out where

things appeared in the landscape before they were drawn with permanent marker pens. The first

step was identifying a landmark (the main road) and then drawing two schools in the kebele which

were 10 minutes and 20 minutes walking distance from the road. A river was drawn to delimit one

of the boundaries of the kebele, next to a communal grazing woodland area. There were markets in

both directions of the road, Koka 5 km and Mojo 10 km away. The women said that they go there

weekly to sell their agricultural products and to buy household supplies.

There was said to be a flower farm in the kebele and two more nearby. The women present in the

FGD did not work there but said that other women in the community do and it provides them with a

valuable source of cash income.

When discussing where the river was and other water sources, we were told that they fetch water

every day (up to 100 litres) and use donkeys to carry the water containers (25 litres each). Children

were observed to also help with fetching water. Donkeys were said to be taken to graze by herders

and return in the evening to the homestead.

For wood, they use branches from trees on their own fields as they cannot fell whole trees without

special permission. They either sell this wood or use it for fuel and other uses within the household.

Another source of fuel was said to be ‘kubet’ (mentioned previously) which is collected by children

from the fields.

10

Figure 3. Resource map drawn by female FGD group in Ejersa Joro Kebele, February 2013. Key: Circles = schools, rectangles with lines = fields, FTC = farmers’ training centre, DASA with yellow flower = flower farm, blue wavy line = gully, adjoined blue boxes = water point.

Historical timeline exercise (dates are according to the Ethiopian calendar which is eight years

behind the Gregorian calendar)

The female farmers referred to their previously drawn resource map during the historical timeline

exercise and gave an insight into significant events over the past 20 years that had affected the

community’s natural resource base. They began by mentioning the different sources of water in the

past up until the present. More than 20 years ago, water was collected from a crater lake far away,

and then a well was built but the pump broke about two years ago. They now have another well

which connects to a water storage tank (shown in Figure 3). Besides this well, they also rely on a well

and pump at the flower farm; this costs them 25 cents per 25 litre container.

In terms of land dynamics, they stated that there used to be more livestock but the available grazing

land has decreased significantly as the human population has increased and lands assigned to

cultivation have increased, but farms have become smaller as part of this change. Despite expansion

of agriculture, field productivity was said to have decreased and this was attributed partly to

irregular rain patterns (i.e. shorter and more intense) and less annual rainfall. There was a drought

eight years ago and climate variability has led to shortages of food. A coping strategy has been to

rely increasingly more on off-farm employment, such as the flower farm and factory jobs.

After being asked about soil degradation in the area, the women identified a long water-eroded gully

crossing the landscape (shown in Figure 3). Since 2012, soil conservation practices have been

promoted by the government, with community members assigned tasks throughout the year to

combat further land degradation.

Due to illegal logging in the late 1980s, the communal woodland has lost most of its trees (but is,

nevertheless, still referred to as ‘woodland’ by the community).

11

The change in government in 1991 was given as an important milestone because it gave women

more land rights and the government became more active in community development works,

including extension services, health centres, schools, and water provisioning.

The male farmers tracked back to fifty years ago since a few of them could recall events that had

happened during those times. According to them, major events that had heavily impacted the

community had mostly been droughts which they thought were getting more severe as years went

by.

1953 – Drought called ‘chankote’ which resulted in severe human and livestock mortality

1977, 1980 and 1995 – Droughts which resulted in livestock mortality and government intervention

meant that fewer human lives were lost in the drought of 1995

In the last year, they noted that it had rained only for one and a half months which indicated to

them that drought events were increasing. They had no answers as to why this might be happening

but continue to pray and sacrifice livestock in the hopes that it will bring rain during the drought

periods.

Other historical events besides drought included a devastating outbreak of malaria in the 1950s, the

1966 fall of the emperor Haile Selassie, and the 1977 villagization policy which, in their view, led to a

great loss of trees in the area.

According to them, their lives have overall been improved by government changes but they still lack

sufficient water resources; in terms of clean drinking water and water for farming. They said that the

sandy soils on their farms drain too easily and, therefore, does not hold the water for long after the

rainy season.

Discussions in class after scoping day

After the first day in the field, the morning was spent discussing what had been found, what topics

to focus on during on-farm interviews, and what would be useful to explore in more detail in an

extended study. Each group attempted a characterization of the research site from what they had

gathered from the DAs and FGDS with farmers the previous day, and then presented back to the rest

of the class.

We looked at land use types and the different management practices associated with them, income

sources, age and gender roles, soil types, and stakeholders that influence and/or are impacted by

natural resource management policies and practices in Ejersa Joro Kebele. Below are pictures of

each group presenting their results to the class and tables showing what was pulled together from

the scoping day as a starting point for site characterization (Plates 5 and 6, Tables 1 and 2).

12

Plate 5. First group presenting their site characterization back to the class. Photograph taken by Genevieve Lamond, February 2013.

Table 1. Site characterization information presented by first group.

Tree cover

Stakeholders

Land use types Management associated with land use types

Tree cover is less where teff is grown and more where maize is grown

Diversity and abundance of trees affected by altitude and soil type??

More tree cover in areas that are unsuitable for cultivation (e.g. due to topography)??

Farmers - Small scale - Large scale

Office of Agriculture - DAs

NGOs

Investors

Cooperatives

Peasant association administration

Farmland - Irrigated (vegetables and fruit, some maize) - Rainfed (cereals and pulses)

Woodlots

Grazing land - Rainy season grazing - Dry season grazing

Woodland

Settlement areas

Farmland - Ploughing, weeding, fertiliser application, pest management, collecting straw and hay making, compost making, mulching, pollarding of trees

Grazing land - Controlled grazing during rainy season, free grazing on farmland during dry season

Woodland - Controlled grazing

Settlements

Situated along the road to be closer to facilities

Policies influencing settlement (villagization)

13

Plate 6. Second group presenting their site characterization back to the class. Photograph taken by Genevieve Lamond, February 2013.

Table 2. Site characterization information presented by second group.

Land use types

Management associated with land use types and roles of men, women and children

Income sources

Cultivated fields - Irrigated (tomato, onion, cabbage, maize) - Rainfed (teff, wheat, maize, barley, lentil, haricot bean, chickpea, with livestock grazing and parkland trees – F.albida and Acacia spp.)

Woodlots (eucalyptus for firewood and timber)

Woodland (used for grazing and collecting dead wood)

Settlement areas - Teff straw storage, cattle feeding, ‘kubet’ production, dead fences from acacia branches, live fences from euphorbia - Homestead (trees used for shade and fencing) - Farmer Training Centre (FTC) - Well and storage tank - Schools - Flower farm

- Irrigated: ploughing (men), other activities (women) - Rainfed: ploughing (men), planting (women and children), weeding (everyone), harvesting (men and women), transport (men and children), dung collection (children), herding livestock (children), pollarding (men), firewood collection (women) - Woodlots: planting (everyone), felling timber (men), collecting firewood (women) - Woodland: herding livestock (children), collecting dead wood (women) - Settlement areas: threshing (everyone), construction of storage facilities (men), dead fences (men) - Homestead: childcare, cooking, cleaning, milking (women and children), feeding livestock (men and women), house construction (men), water collection (women and children with help of donkeys) - FTC participation (mostly men)

Selling products from farm - Livestock - Vegetable crops - Haricot beans - Timber

Off-farm employment - Flower farm - Factories

Soil types

Sandy

Sandy/loam

Vertisol

14

Summary of results from on-farm interviews and feedback session

The class was split into four groups and each group interviewed one male and one female farmer at

their homestead or on their farmland. They all conducted interviews in the first week of training and

then second interviews with the same farmers in the second week of training. The importance of

conducting second interviews cannot be overstated; it offers a much more detailed look into the

knowledge held by farmers and is often more relaxed than the first interview because introductions

and other formalities have already taken place.

Farmers were aged between 35-60 and land size ranged from 1.25-10 ha of land with different plots

spread out over an area, some owned and some rented (Figure 4). Oxen, cows, donkeys, sheep,

goats and chickens were commonly owned livestock.

Figure 4. Farm layout diagram for one of the farms visited. Drawn by Girmay Gebremedin, February 2013.

The interviews broadly focused on tree utilities, tree management, the positioning of trees in the

farming landscape, and seasonal fodder availability and palatability. Due to the importance of

livestock in the local farming systems, fodder was deemed an important topic to cover and explore

in more detail than some of the other tree utilities.

Tree utilities according to farmers

Table 3 shows the main trees farmers had on their farms at the time of research and how they were

being utilised. As can be seen, many of trees were considered multipurpose, whilst others had very

specific uses.

15

Table 3. Trees and their utilities according to farmers during on-farm interviews and the feedback session. Text in red highlights new information gathered during feedback session with all eight farmers present. Scientific names provided by Diriba Debele (Forestry Research Center), Ermias Alemu (Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre) and the National Herbarium at Addis Ababa University.

Trees Utilities

Comments (what were the other uses?) Number Local name Scientific name

Fuel

wo

od

(q

ora

n)

Ch

arco

al (

ciile

)

Fru

it (

mu

dra

)

Fen

cin

g (d

alaw

a)

Farm

imp

lem

ents

(m

esh

a q

on

na)

Co

nst

ruct

ion

tim

ber

(m

uka

eja

rsa)

Ho

use

ho

ld im

ple

men

ts (

mes

ha

man

a)

Med

icin

e (k

ori

cha)

Live

sto

ck f

od

der

(n

yata

ho

lri)

Oth

er u

ses

1 Ulaga Ehretia cymosa x x x x x x

2 Qanqalcha Tephrosia spp. x

3 Gora Capparis tomentosa

x x Cultural uses such as during wedding and Gada celebrations

4 Hagamsa Carissa edulis x x x Edible fruits

5 Baddano Balanites aegyptiaca x x x x x x

6 Tedecha Acacia tortilis x x

7 Hatte Dichrostachyus cinerea x x x x x x

8 Itacha Dodonaea viscosa x x x x Used for threshing (branches used as a broom)

16

9 Bargamo Eucalyptus camaldulensis x x x x

10 Kase Lantana camara x x x

11 Anno Euphorbia tirucalli x x

12 Umuga Adhatoda schimperi x x x

13 Doddoti Acacia spp. x x x x High value charcoal

14 Kasele Acacia nilotica x x x x x

15 Wachu Acacia seyal x x

16 Isbania/gabo Leucaena spp. x x

17 Neem Azadirachta indica x x x Medicine for cattle

18 Gerbi Faidherbia albida x x x x x x

19 Qurqura Ziziphus mucronata x x x x x

20 Meteqamma Celtis africana x x x x ?

x

21 Tromanturi Schinus molle x

22 Ejersa Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata x x x Used for smoking the house and making it smell nice (incense/air-freshener), also used to sterilize milk

23 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia x Ornamental

24 Bakanissa Croton macrostachyus x x x x

25 Lafto Acacia sieberiana x x Used during cultural ceremonies like weddings and disputes

26 Akacha Acacia saligna x

27 Wodesa Cordia africana x x x Highly valuable for lumber

17

Positioning of trees in farming landscape

As demonstrated by Table 4, certain trees were found to have particular niches on farms. Some were

purposely planted around homesteads and in woodlots, whilst others natural regenerated in the

fields and were either protected to produce long-term wood products through regular pollarding or

were removed and/or transplanted as seedlings so they would not interfere with crop production.

Eucalyptus spp. tended to be planted around the homestead or in separate woodlots, seedlings were

either bought from the market or seeds were collected from other eucalyptus trees in the area and

then broadcasted and watered.

Euphorbia tirucalli were planted to form boundaries around homesteads. Thorny branches from

acacia species were piled up against the euphorbia to protect against browsing goats when there

was a shortage of other fodders.

Acacia saligna seedlings were provided by DAs and planted by farmers, however one farmer told us

that there was a low survival rate on his farm due to root damage caused by mole rats (‘tuka’).

Schinus molle trees had been also been planted on his homestead.

Trees on farmland tended to be from natural regeneration rather than planned planting, and these

trees were stated as having protected status because of how they had regenerated. The decision

whether to cut or protect a tree was said to be based on its shape. Straight trees were desired for

wood products more than misshapen ones.

Acacia tortilis was said to regenerate more than Dichrostachyus cinerea or Faidherbia albida on the

fields because of its higher seed production. Farmers cut the roots of trees when they get in the way

of ploughing and the preferred distance between trees in the fields was explained to be 20 metres.

This was partly because of the shade cast on the crops which was seen as having a negative impact.

To improve light infiltration to crops, most trees were severely pollarded every two years.

Some of the farmers interviewed did talk about the positive impact that trees (specifically Acacia

tortilis, Faidherbia albida and Balanites aegyptica) had on soil, such as increasing fertility due to leaf

shedding and less soil erosion, and higher water retention under the canopy. Shade for livestock and

for humans was also an important positive service provided by trees on fields and around

homesteads.

18

Table 4. Table of trees mentioned by farmers during interviews and their position in the landscape. Text in red highlights new information gathered during feedback session with all eight farmers present. Scientific names provided by Diriba Debele (Forestry Research Center), Ermias Alemu (Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre) and the National Herbarium at Addis Ababa University.

Trees Common position on farms

Other comments (e.g. description of management practices, interaction with crops, anything else of interest) Number Local name Scientific name

Bo

un

dar

ies/

fen

cin

g (w

osa

na/

dal

awa)

Wo

od

lot

Cro

pla

nd

(h

oyr

u)

Op

en a

rea/

graz

ing

lan

d (

bak

a d

hed

ich

a)

Aro

un

d h

om

este

ad (

man

no

man

a)

1 Ulaga Ehretia cymosa

x x Found around homestead and on farm, useful to make farm implements

2 Qanqalcha Tephrosia spp. x x x Found in degraded areas

3 Gora Capparis tomentosa x x x Gora is found everywhere

4 Hagamsa Carissa edulis x It is grown naturally, edible fruits

5 Baddano Balanites aegyptiaca x x x x Found everywhere. Good interaction with livestock.

6 Tedecha Acacia tortilis x x x x Found everywhere. "Attracting rainfall" hearsay from extension officer, not able to explain. Crops not growing well under it.

7 Hatte Dichrostachyus cinerea x x x x Found everywhere.

8 Itacha Dodonaea viscosa x Grows well in wet lands (needs watering when grown at homestead).

19

9 Bargamo Eucalyptus camaldulensis x x Competes strongly with other plants and grass does not grow well under it when big. Planted as a cash crop.

10 Kase Lantana camara x Found in forest area.

11 Anno Euphorbia tirucalli x x x x Found everywhere.

12 Umuga Adhatoda schimperi x Found in gullies where there is water.

13 Doddoti Acacia spp. x x x x Found everywhere.

14 Kasele Acacia nilotica x x x x Found everywhere.

15 Wachu Acacia seyal x x x x Found everywhere. Wildlife "jart" debarks young trees.

16 Isbania/gabo Leucaena spp. x x Good interaction with crops and livestock.

17 Neem Azadirachta indica x Medicine for cattle.

18 Gerbi Faidherbia albida x x x x Found everywhere. Good interaction with crops.

19 Qurqura Ziziphus mucronata x x x x Found everywhere. Good interaction with crops and livestock.

20 Meteqamma Celtis africana x Found in lowland areas where there is water. Good interaction with crops and livestock.

21 Tromanturi Schinus molle x x It is only grown by planting seedlings

22 Ejersa Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata x x

23 Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia x It is ornamental

24 Bakanissa Croton macrostachyus x Found in lowland areas where there is water

25 Lafto Acacia sieberiana x x x Found everywhere

26 Akacha Acacia saligna x x Exotic, grows from seedlings

27 Wodesa Cordia africana x

20

Feedback session (validation and clarification)

On the last day of training, a feedback session was held with all eight of the farmers interviewed

over the two week period. The day before, course participants had prepared flip chart paper with

tables showing lists of all the trees mentioned during interviews, their utilities and position on

farmland, and management activities associated with those trees (Plate 7). During the feedback

session, there was a good discussion and four more trees were added to the list, making it a total of

27 trees (see Tables 3 and 4).

Plate 7. Discussing the trees mentioned during interviews with all the farmers during a feedback session. Photograph taken by Genevieve Lamond, February 2013.

21

Conclusions

The results from this short research study, conducted as a training course for researchers under the

ACIAR Trees for Food Security project, demonstrate the importance of trees for rural livelihoods in

the area and the importance of engaging with farmers when designing interventions. Although

farmers in the research site did not recognise many beneficial interactions between trees and

agricultural crops when grown together on fields, they were able to talk about specific trees having

better interactions with crops and livestock than others. Many important products were coming

directly from trees and they were being managed according to these utilities. Something that did

come out clearly was a lack of mixed age trees in the farming landscape and one hypothesis was that

this was due to regeneration being inhibited by severe pollarding of most of the trees on a regular

basis every two years. Two MSc students from Bangor University will be studying this in more detail

as part of their thesis projects – to be completed by September 2013.

Seasonal calendars proved very useful for collecting information about cropping seasons, phenology

of trees (and when farmers harvest products from them), livestock fodder availability throughout

the year, and income sources (see Appendix 3). Historical timelines gave us an insight into how land

use has changed over the years and the main drivers of tree cover change. Farm layout diagrams

demonstrated the distance farmers have to travel between their homesteads and fields and why

they sometimes cannot control what happens to the trees on their land. Combined with semi-

structured interviews and a feedback session at the end of the training, a great amount of

knowledge from farmers was gathered in a short time.

Overall the two-week training course was a success with participants learning the value of listening

to farmers and understanding trees from a local knowledge perspective. The course evaluation was

positive, with some minor changes to be considered for future trainings (see Appendix 4).

22

References

CARE International (2009) Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook. 1st Edition, CARE.

Miyuki, I. et al. (2013) Ethiopia Sampling Framework. ACIAR Trees for Food Security project. Nairobi,

ICRAF

23

Appendix 1: Interview focus

Group 1

Focus – provision of livestock fodder from trees and grasses

Collect names of the different types of fodder, fodder qualities (e.g. palatability for different

livestock), seasonal availability. Collect negative and positive attributes of tree fodder and why some

trees aren’t used as fodder compared with those that are.

Document any other uses of these trees in relation to livelihoods and impacts on environment (soil,

water, climate)

Group 2

Focus – tree management throughout the year

Collect tree names, position found in landscape/on farms, reasons for position, how they are

managed in terms of pruning, coppicing, pollarding, weeding and according to utilities such as

timber, firewood, fruit, fodder, medicine.

Document any other uses of these trees in relation to livelihoods and impacts on environment (soil,

water, climate)

Group 3

Focus – spatial elements of trees in landscape and on farms (on fields, around homestead, along

boundaries, along rivers, on grazing land etc)

Collect tree names, position found in landscape/on farms, reasons for position, and whether planted

or naturally regenerated (if naturally regenerated, were they left in the place they grew originally or

were they transplanted?)

Document any other uses of these trees in relation to livelihoods and impacts on environment (soil,

water climate)

Group 4

Focus – utilities of trees found on farms (on fields, around homestead, along boundaries) both for

direct household benefits (cash income or use in household and environmental benefits).

Collect tree names and all uses of those trees. Explore what trees farmers would want to plant more

of and why? Also document phenology of these trees (flowering, fruiting times).

Document any other uses of these trees in relation to livelihoods and impacts on environment (soil,

water climate)

Note: Everyone to also ask about tree-crop-livestock interactions: what grows well with what and

how they interact at the farm/landscape level.

24

Appendix 2: Photographs from training course

Plate 8. Feedback to the farmers interviewed in Ejersa Joro Kebele. Photograph taken by Genevieve Lamond, February 2013.

Plate 9. The whole group after the feedback session held on the last day of training. Photograph taken February 2013.

25

Plate 10. Course participants with their AKT5 course completion certificates. Photograph taken February 2013.

26

Appendix 3. Seasonal calendar depicting cropping seasons, income sources, labour requirements and public holidays - generated

from an interview with a farmer. Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Me T H Ta Ti Y Meg Mez G S Ha N

Weather - Rainrain spring rain spring rain spring rain spring rain rain rain rain

Spring rains are light and are absent

in some years

Work on land

bekeksa : l ight

land

preparation in

case of spring

rain

gurta : intense

land

preparation in

case of spring

rain

dirdaro : final

refined land

preparation in

case of spring

rain

bekeksa , gurta

and dirdaro for

normal rains.

Weeding for

maize.

General

weeding.

General

weeding.

Agrochemicals

dap (fertil izer)

application

when planting

bokolo, and

another dose

of urea after 2

weeks

dap (fertil izer)

application

when planting

beans, and

another dose

of urea after 2

weeks.

Herbicide

application for

maize.

dap (fertil izer)

application

when planting

main crops ,

and another

dose of urea

after 2 weeks.

General

herbicide

application.

Pests, shoot

boring larvae;

application of

pesticide.

General

herbicide

application.

Planting, harvesting &

post-harvesting

bukaso : bean

harvest. Late

month.

bukaso : bean

harvest &

hamo : crop

harvest

chebu : harvest

of maize &

dhewu :

(threshing) and

storing

dhewu :

(threshing) and

storing

dhewu :

(threshing) and

storing

bokolo (maize)

planted in case

of spring rain

Bakela (faba

beans) and

boloke

(haricot beans)

planted

Teff , kamadi

(wheat), gerbi

(barley), ator

(pea) and msir

(lentil) planted

Labor requirements

Not so bussy

with

agriculture

Bussy with

agriculture

Bussy with

agriculture

Bussy with

agriculture

House-keeping,

fencing

House-keeping,

fencing

House-keeping,

fencing

House-keeping,

fencing

Bussy with

agriculture

Bussy with

agriculture

Bussy with

agriculture

House-chores: These chores are done

when farming activity lessens,

throughout the year.

Finances

Heavy

expenditure for

agriculture:

hiring labor

for harvest.

Heavy

expenditure for

agriculture:

hiring labor

for harvest.

Heavy

expenditure for

agriculture:

hiring labor

for harvest.

Income from

selling crop.

Income from

selling crop.

Income from

selling crop.

Heavy

expenditure for

agriculture:

fertil izer and

seed (normally

not able to

purchase)

Heavy

expenditure for

agriculture:

fertil izer and

herbicide

Heavy

expenditure for

agriculture:

fertil izer and

herbicide

Heavy

expenditure for

agriculture:

herbicide and

pesticide

Crop is sold for additional income

throughout the year whenever the need

arises.

Events and celebrations

New Year

celebration.

Events Ethiopian

Epiphany

celebration.

Easter

celebration.

CommentSubject / Month

27

Appendix 4. Course evaluation notes taken at the end of the training.

AKT5 Course Evaluation 4th-15th February 2013 in Adama, Ethiopia

Thanks to ICRAF and Bangor University for organising the training

Interesting software and methodology

The mix of lectures and field visits was well structured throughout the course

Learnt a lot

It was very interactive with good communication

Taught us how to establish better relationships with farmers and the importance of second

interviews with farmers to clarify things

It is an important training to continue teaching

Really nice mix of people participating in the course

Points for developing the course in the future:

Follow up training would also be good in participants’ own countries

More time to do the scoping part of the methodology would be beneficial

More guidance on semi-structured interviewing technique and practising how to ask

questions in the right way would be great before going into the field

Longer training to practice everything more in-depth would be really good – software,

theory and methods

Working through more statements as a group during the training would help people grasp

how to do the different types of statements better

Idea of using a small example knowledge base to work from during the training rather than

developing from scratch

Expand the AKT5 website to include videos and examples of interviewing in the field