This document discusses land degradation in Ethiopia and efforts to reverse it. It provides background on Ethiopia's geography, population, and agriculture-based economy. It then summarizes the extent and impact of land degradation, its drivers at macro/meso and household levels, and land use changes between 2001-2009. Efforts to reverse degradation include food/work programs and the Sustainable Land Management Program. However, challenges remain due to the problem's magnitude and complexity. The document argues for a long-term "Master Plan" approach to comprehensively address root causes rather than just symptoms through consistent, large-scale interventions incorporating policy and local contexts.

1. Reversing Land Degradation in Ethiopia:
Thoughts on building resilience and
sustainable livelihood in Ethiopia.
(Some thoughts for debate and actions)
By Samuel Gebreselassie, Ph.D
Ethiopian Economics Association and Future Agricultures
Consortium
Presentation at side-event organized by Center for Development Research (ZEF), University
of Bonn; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
during the IFPRI 2020 Resilience conference in Addis Ababa,
May 15-17, 2014, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
1

2. Outline
• Background
• Land degradation in Ethiopia
• Its extent and impact
• Its causes and drivers
• Efforts undertaken to reverse the trend
• Challenges and problems to reverse the trend
–Thoughts for debate and actions
2

3. Background
• Ethiopia is located in the
Eastern Horn of Africa with
a total area of 1,126,829
km2 .
• Estimated population is 90
million; about 85% of the
population lives in rural
areas.
3

4. Background
• In terms of geography, Ethiopia roughly divided into two or
three sections: -
– The highlands (1500+ asl)
• comprise 45% of the land area, provide the livelihood of about 80% of
Ethiopia’s population.
• high population, high rainfall and sloppy and fragile ecology.
• Intensive, century-old semi-subsistence mixed-farm agriculture,
– Lowlands –
• 10 to 12 % of the total population reside on 50+% of the country’s area.
• pastoral and agro-pastoral areas/communities - largely sedentary
livelihood.
– Rift Valley:
*Because of difference in livelihood as well as ecological factors,
the problem of land degradation as well as potential solution
vary in these areas. 4

5. Background
• Smallholder agriculture is the dominant sector of
Ethiopian economy, accounts for more than 45%
of GDP, 80% of exports, and 80% of total
employment
• Livestock is the integral component of the
agriculture on which 80% of the population depends.
5

6. Land Degradation in Ethiopia:
• Its extent and impact
• Its causes and drivers
• Efforts undertaken to reverse the trend
• Challenges and problems to reverse the trend
6

7. Land Degradation in Ethiopia
Extent and impact
• Ethiopia is a country, where
natural resource degradation has
been going on for centuries
(Kidane, 2008).
• All forms of land degradation
occur in Ethiopia:
• water and wind erosion;
•both physical and biological
degradation of soils and
bio-diversity
• salinization (and recently
acidification); and
Land degradation on grazing
lands, Dembecha, west Gojjam
Farmlands
Gullies in farmlands
7

8. Other Features of Land degradation in Ethiopia
Grazing lands
Communal lands
Acid and termite affected farmlands
Woodlands
Source: Presentation by Melaku Tadesse, SLMP, National Program Coordinator, April 29 – May 1, 2013.Hawassa, Ethiopia
8

9. 36
49
35
41
4
9
Malawi Ethiopia Tanzania
Land degradation (soil erosion) and its control in
Ethiopia vis-a-vis other countries
Soil erosion (% of plots)
Soil eroision control (% of plots where SLM practices undertaken)
Source: Household survey conducted by ZEF
9

10. Land Degradation in Ethiopia
Drivers
• Drivers –
at macro/messo level
– High human population
growth
– High livestock population -
– High, widespread poverty-
– Low productivity growth
– No/Little structural
transformation,
• unable to reduce the
pressure on farming and
natural resources use,
• extreme dependence on
farming,
– Economic and political
malaise for long-period of
time ,
– Weak institutions – research,
extension and administration
• Some drivers-
at Household /messo level factors
– Biophysical characteristics
– Topography(+), temp(+),
– rainfall (-)
– Demographic characteristics
– Sex and education (+),
– labor availability (-)
– Plot characteristics
– Slope(+), access to market(-)
– Socio-economic characteristics
– Plot size, credit (amount), and
household wealth, expenditure =+ve
– Credit access, membership to local
organization = -ve
(Source: Study by ZEF 10

11. Land Use Change in Ethiopia 2001-2009
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Cropland Forest Grassland Shrublands Woodland Barren Water
2001 (Million Ha) 2009 (Million Ha) % Change
Source: calculated based on Nkonya et al. (2014), using MODIS data

12. Costs of Land Degradation due to LULC
Source: calculated based on Nkonya et al. (2014), using MODIS data
226 215
-11 19
8.8
-10
40
90
140
190
240
TEV 2001
(billion USD)
TEV 2009
(billion USD)
Change in TEV
(billion USD)
GDP 2007
(billion USD)
TEV:GDP ratio
Cost of land Degradation = decline in Total
EconomicValue (TEV) (4.9%)

13. Land Degradation in Ethiopia
Efforts undertaken to reverse the trend
• From the massive food-for-work programmes of the mid 1970s/1980s
to the present SLMP (and to less extent PSNP), Ethiopia with massive
support from donors and UN agencies has undertaken numerous
measures to minimize the damage as well as reverse the trend.
• Recent measures bear relatively better results, because of
– Better programs like the SLMP (Sustainable Land Management
Program) create more harmonized approaches (like watershed
approach interventions),
– Better/improved
• support from bilateral and multi-lateral agencies’
• peace and security in the country,
• weather/(climatic?) conditions over the past decade,
• awareness among farmers (better roads, extension, etc)
• grass root level community associations/organisations.
13

14. Land Degradation in Ethiopia
Challenges and problems to reverse the trend or
 Still, Given the magnitude of land
degradation and the vastness of
degraded land as well as other
compounding factors, the impacts
of conservation works seem
comparatively small; and seems
unable to break this cycle (at least
in most parts of the country)
 Effective, sustainable and
irreversible outcome can emerge
only when the country breaks this
cycle at least in most areas of the
country.
Problems to reverse the trend
and break this cycle
14

15. •Thoughts for debate,
research and actions
15

16. Land Degradation in Ethiopia
Thoughts for debate, research and actions
• Relatively we know better the causes, the drivers,
the impact as well as the remedies to the problem,
but so far efforts made are less effective, less
sustainable?
• The country has also long-experience in dealing
with problem and the constraints that challenge
sustainable progress.
– In the context of Ethiopia any real and sustainable
effort to reverse Land Degradation needs more than
time-bounded donor funded programs, projects but
• MASTER PLAN 16

17. Why Master plan
• Despite the history of thousands year of human
settlement and farming, the problem recognized
very lately, in 1970s (after the 1973 massive drought and
famine).
• Second, the causes and drivers of land degradation
are complex, interactive and self-reinforcing, both
across space and time/generations.
• time also play against future interventions and their
effectiveness.
(As time pass, the dynamics and complexity of the problem
intensified and reinforced -due to population growth,
poverty effect, climate effect??). 17

18. Why Master plan......
• Efforts made so far are few, far less effective, less
sustainable?
– Despite the progress achieved so far, projects/programs
under taken in the country are either
• not comparable to the scale of the problem; and
• sometimes there is high risk of reversibility of emerged results,
because of
– inappropriate programs - address symptoms rather than the root
causes) or
– partial interventions – that focus too much on technical solutions to
the relative negligence of policy, institution related factors , or
– interventions that lacks consistency and long-term vision/commitment
(partly due to their dependence on donors’ money).
18

19. What type of master plan?
• This presentation doesn’t aim and capable to answer this;
• But the master plan should match with the scale
and complexity of the problem;
• It should also not be considered as a one-time
‘blueprint’ but it should be crafted to
• provide long-term solutions while addressing short-term or
emerging problems,
• be dynamic enough to respond to new findings/research &
realities,
• be flexible to deal with and incorporate local/community interest
and capacity,
• be led by technocrats with stable institute . 19