IFPRI Discussion Paper 01142

December 2011

Responding to Land Degradation in the Highlands of

Tigray, Northern Ethiopia

Tyhra Carolyn Kumasi

Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere

Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) was established in 1975. IFPRI is one of 15
agricultural research centers that receive principal funding from governments, private foundations, and
international and regional organizations, most of which are members of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

PARTNERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

IFPRI gratefully acknowledges the generous unrestricted funding from Australia, Canada, China,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the
Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the World
Bank.

AUTHORS
Tyhra Carolyn Kumasi, International Water and Sanitation Center
Senior Research Officer/Triple-S Ghana, Community Water and Sanitation Agency
[email protected]

Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere , International Food Policy Research Institute

Director, Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office
[email protected]

Notices
1.
IFPRI Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have been peer reviewed, but have not been
subject to a formal external review via IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion
and critical comment; any opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of
IFPRI.
2.
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map(s) herein do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) or its partners and contributors.

Copyright 2011 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. Sections of this material may be reproduced for
personal and not-for-profit use without the express written permission of but with acknowledgment to IFPRI. To reproduce the
material contained herein for profit or commercial use requires express written permission. To obtain permission, contact the
Communications Division at [email protected].
 Contents

Abstract iv
Acknowledgments vi
Abbreviations and Acronyms vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conceptual Framework 5
3. Methodology 9
4. Results 14
5. Discussion 28
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications 36
References 38

iii
 List of Tables

3.1—Number of respondents interviewed in each tabia and kushet in the Tigray region 12
4.1—Demographic characteristics of respondents in the sample area, Tigray region 14
4.2—Perceived threats to livelihoods by changes in the climate 16
4.3—Projects that compulsory free labor is usually mobilized for and persons who mobilized the
community for community work 17
4.4—Motivation to participate in compulsory free labor for community work 18
4.5—Role played in the establishment of a community woodlot and a village grazing area 18
4.6—Benefits derived from the establishment of a community woodlot and a village grazing area 19
4.7—Conflict resolution mechanisms in community mobilization 22
4.8—Responsibilities of females and males in free labor for community work 22
4.9—How knowledge and information on climate change and ecological restoration is shared among
men and women 25

List of Figures

2.1—Conceptual framework for analyzing community participation in compulsory free labor for
ecological restoration in the Tigray region 6
2.2—Activities of community actors in the Tigray region 7
3.1—Map of the Tigray region showing the selected woredas 11
4.1—Reasons attributed to the changes in climate 15
4.2—Climate change adaptation strategies used by the farmers in the Tigray region 16
4.3—Problems encountered in getting people for community work 20
4.4—Resistance to community work 21
4.5—The role of gender in mobilizing people for compulsory free labor for community work 23
4.6—Sources of information and knowledge on climate change and ecological restoration by males
and females 24
4.7—Key actors in the diffusion of information and knowledge in Ketema kushet in Adwa woreda 25
4.8—Key actors in the diffusion of information and knowledge in Bolenta kushet in Endamehoni
woreda 26
4.9—Key actors in the diffusion of information and knowledge in Mitsnah Wegebet kushet in Ganta
Afeshum woreda 27

iv
 ABSTRACT

Improving the long-term sustainability and resilience of smallholder agriculture in Africa is highly
dependent on conserving or improving the quality of the natural resource. Conservation agriculture is
conceived around more integrated and effective management strategies for provisioning both food and
other ecosystem services. If unattended to, land degradation would reduce agricultural productivity and
increase pressure on marginal environments in the Tigray highlands of Ethiopia, adversely affecting food
security and livelihoods of smallholder farmers. This paper answers some pertinent questions about mass
mobilization of free compulsory labor for ecological restoration in Tigray. It details perception of changes
in climate; the process of collective decisionmaking; resistance, documentation, and enforcement of rules;
methods of conflict resolution; knowledge and information networks; arrangements for benefit sharing of
communal resources; and the role of gender in mass mobilization for communal work. We analyzed data
collected from 20 villages in 3 districts in the Tigray region through a household survey using a structured
questionnaire, focus group discussions, and personal observations. The results reveal that the people are
motivated to provide their free labor to restore the ecology to increase agricultural productivity and
production to avoid food insecurity and improve their general livelihood. Availability of institutions in
terms of grassroots organizations and rules and regulations was a major factor in the positive response to
the call for action. The commitment of the government at both the national and local levels (through
sensitization and mobilization for group formation and provision of tools and construction materials); the
ethnic homogeneity of the population; and the existence of the Orthodox Church, where most of the
people were members, were major factors for the success of the community mobilization for collective
action in Tigray. Social networking with neighbors, the clergy, and leaders of grassroots organizations
provided the knowledge and information on climate variability and solutions required to conserve the
ecology and improve human livelihood. We also observed that there were no differences in gender
division of labor except that women worked half the workload of men in a day; the women also did the
cooking and cleaned up the surroundings after eating at the site. Both men and women played active roles
in leadership with regard to mobilization of people, communal work planning and scheduling, conflict
resolution, and sharing of community products. An impact assessment of the ecological conservation in
Tigray on agricultural productivity and production and food security would be useful. It will be
interesting to replicate the study in other areas in Ethiopia and other countries where the societies may not
be homogenous to find out the level of commitment of the people to communal work.

Keywords: land degradation, ecological restoration, free labor, collective action

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the support and collaboration of the Bureau of Agriculture in Adwa, Ganta
Afeshum, and Endamehoni woredas. The contributions of field enumerators and focal persons, who were
involved in data collection, are gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank all the farmers who
participated in this study for their patience and understanding. We are also grateful to Sue Edwards and
Hailu Araya Tedla of the Institute for Sustainable Development for logistical information. We thank our
colleagues in IFPRI-Addis Ababa, especially Daniel Ayalew and Teferi Mequaninte for their assistance
during various stages of the research. The research was funded by the African Women in Agricultural
Research and Development program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research to
whom we are very grateful.

vi
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADLI Agricultural Development Led Industrialization

AUC Africa Union Commission
CFW cash for work
CSA Central Statistical Agency
EPRDF Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front
FFW food for work
FGD focus group discussion
GDP gross domestic product
IBAR Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources
MASL meters above sea level
NGOs nongovernmental organizations
NIE New Institutional Economics
OFSP other food security program
PSNP Productive Safety Net Program
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
STD standard deviation
SWC soil and water conservation
TPLF Tigray People’s Liberation Front
TWA Tigray’s Women Association
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

vii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Land degradation remains an important global priority issue for the 21st century requiring renewed
attention by individuals, communities, and governments because of its adverse impact on agricultural
productivity and the environment, and its effect on food security and quality of life (Stringer 2008;
Eswaran, Lal, and Reich 2001). The phenomenon is a multifaceted and dynamic process that depends on
biophysical, socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional factors, with strong negative effects on food
security and quality of life. The land degradation process appears particularly severe in developing
countries, which has significant implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation. This is
because the loss of biomass and soil organic matter releases carbon into the atmosphere and affects the
quality of soil and its ability to hold water and nutrients. The evidence that the climate is changing and
that these changes can be attributed to human activities has become stronger in recent years. Climate
change can be exacerbated by human-induced actions such as: the extensive use of land, deforestation,
major technological and socioeconomic shifts, and the accelerated uptake of fossil fuels (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Rainfall and temperature are important determinants of crop harvests, and unfavorable
realizations of either the amount or the temporal distribution of rainfall trigger food shortages and famine.
For many developing countries, the most important impacts of climate change arise from higher
temperatures, increased water stress, and extreme weather events that most strongly affect agriculture.
Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change because of its overdependence on rainfed agriculture,
compounded by factors such as widespread poverty and weak capacity. In these countries the agricultural
sector is more vulnerable to climate change. The risk of climate change thus has devastating effects on
crop farmers; pastoralists and agropastoralists; poor people with low economic power, low level of
education, low technological know-how; women; and children (Ishaya and Abaje 2008; Barber et al.
2003).
The current food crisis in the Horn of Africa is largely attributed to the adverse impacts of climate
change. Recognition of the urgency of the current crisis in the Horn of Africa has raised awareness and
renewed commitment from African leaders to find sustainable solutions for climate-induced vulnerability
in the arid and semiarid lands (ASALs) and prevent food crisis. Interventions considered key in advancing
long-term development of ASALS by the African Union Commission (AUC) and Inter-African Bureau of
Animal Resources (IBAR) include the integration of local knowledge through participatory action
research and enhanced use of natural resources (such as soil and water management initiatives and
improved land-use planning; see AUC-IBAR 2011).
Ethiopia has recently been reported as one of the countries with the least capability for resilience
and is therefore most vulnerable to climate change. In fact, Ethiopia has experienced no less than five
major national droughts since 1980 and several local droughts. Food shortage and famine associated with
rainfall variability has cascaded in high dependency on international food aid. Ethiopia is one of the
biggest food aid recipient countries in Africa, accounting for 20–30 percent of all food aid to Sub-Saharan
Africa (Yesuf et al. 2008; Bezu and Holden 2008). In recognition of the persistent problem of food
insecurity in rural Ethiopia and the need to move away from the previous system of annual emergency
appeals, the Government of Ethiopia and multinational donors in 2005 implemented the Productive
Safety Net Program (PSNP), a social protection program. It is viewed as a food security enhancement
program with the ultimate aim of providing transfers to the chronically food insecure woredas1 population
in a way that prevents asset depletion at the household level and creates assets at the community level
(Gilligan, Hoddinott, and Taffesse 2008; Government of Ethiopia 2004). The program allows households
to build assets and increase income through two components: community works and direct support.
Consequently communities build assets when they participate in public works through Cash for
Work (CFW) or Food for Work (FFW) programs. Direct support is a minor component in the form of

1
An administrative division of Ethiopia (managed by a local government), equivalent to a district.

1
cash or food transfers and targets assistance to members of the community who cannot participate in
public works but need help. PSNP beneficiaries are expected to remain in the program for three years and
subsequently exit from it. PSNP is complemented by a series of food security activities, collectively
referred to as the Other Food Security Program (OFSP). OFSP includes a wide range of activities that
differ by region, but the main element is a package of loans for agricultural and nonagricultural activities.
Beneficiaries of the OFSP receive at least one of several productivity-enhancing transfers or services,
including access to credit, agricultural extension services, technology transfer, 2 and irrigation and water
harvesting schemes. Whereas the PSNP is designed to protect existing assets and ensure a minimum level
of food consumption, the OFSP is designed to encourage households to increase incomes generated from
agricultural activities and to build up assets (Andersson, Mekonnen, and Stage 2009; Gilligan, Hoddinott,
and Taffesse 2008).
Ethiopia has a population of more than 80 million and an outsize number of rural people living in
the highlands vulnerable to land degradation. The highlands of Ethiopia have an area of 1.13 million
kilometer2, representing 50 percent of the total area of the country and 90 percent of the economy; it
produces 95 percent of regularly cropped land (Dejene et al. 2004). Agriculture contributes nearly 45
percent of Ethiopia’s gross domestic product (GDP) of slightly more than US$10 billion. More than 85
percent of the population is dependent on the sector. Although the country is highly reliant on the
agricultural sector for income, foreign currency, and food security, the sector is dominated by small-scale
peasant farmers who depend exclusively on rainfed and traditional practices. The most devastating
adverse impacts of climate change in this region are threatening the achievement of major developmental
goals and food security of the people. Land degradation and droughts have caused declining and highly
variable land productivity in Ethiopia (World Bank Report 2008; Yesuf et al. 2008; Holden, Shiferaw,
and Pender 2003).
The highlands of Tigray are well known for the devastating land degradation problem that has
resulted in a decline in agricultural productivity in the region. Land degradation is manifested in the form
of soil erosion, deforestation, declining biodiversity resources, and soil moisture stress. This severe land
degradation is attributed to the heavy concentration of the population in the highlands, coupled with
unchanged agricultural technology, thus putting tremendous stress on the natural resources, particularly
soil fertility. Average estimates of productivity loss due to soil degradation is estimated to be 2–3 percent
annually, which explains most of the failure to realize the potential yield gains expected from agriculture
intensification (World Bank Report 2008). Currently about 1.4 million people in 31 woredas in Tigray are
vulnerable to chronic food insecurity due to natural and social-economic factors in the region (Amede et
al. 2007; Nyssen et al. 2004).
Resolute efforts to remedy the degradation of natural resources have been under way, particularly
since 1991, by the regional government and the people at large to restore and conserve natural resources
in the region. Major strategies for environmental rehabilitation in the Tigray highlands—including
construction of stone terraces, soil bunds, and microdams; establishment and development of area
enclosures and community woodlots; enforcement of use rules; regulations for grazing lands; reduced
burning; and application of manure and compost have increased crop production substantially
(Gebremedhin et al. 2003; Taffere 2003).
The livelihoods of the indigenous people of the Tigray highlands depend on the natural resources
that are directly affected by land degradation, and they inhabit economically and politically marginal
areas in diverse but fragile ecosystems. They are vital and active parts of the ecosystems and help to
enhance the resilience of these ecosystems (Kronik and Verner 2010; Ishaya and Abaje 2008; Jan and
Anja 2007). Farmers possess valuable indigenous adaptation strategies that include early warning systems
(Ajibade and Shokemi 2003) that enable them to recognize and respond to changes in climatic parameters
(Thomas et al. 2007). In addition, they interpret and become accustomed to changes in climate in
ingenious ways, drawing on traditional knowledge as well as new technologies to find solutions, which

2
Such as advice on food crop production, cash cropping, livestock production, and soil and water conservation (SWC)
projects.

2
help the society at large to cope with the impending changes. Consequently, development of planned
adaptation strategies to deal with these risks is regarded as a necessary complement to climate change
mitigation actions (Burton 1996; Smith et al. 1999; Parry 1986).
A unique indigenous adaptation strategy to land degradation in the Tigray region is the
mobilization of free labor at the community level, invested in soil and water conservation (SWC) to
restore the ecology of the community. This adaptation intervention may also be seen as a Pigouvian tax to
address the environmental problems in the region. Mobilizing collective action labor for investment in
public goods may therefore be a cheap and cost-effective way to enhance welfare and sustainable land
management. Collective action is required to regulate rights and responsibilities to common-property
resources and public goods to manage biophysical processes, negotiate joint investments and
technological innovations for enhanced productivity, and to regulate benefits capture (German et al. 2006;
Gebremedhin, Pender, and Tesfay 2002; Scott and Silva-Ochoa 2001; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2002; Gaspart
et al. 1998; Munk Ravnborg and Ashby 1996; Ostrom 1990). The concept of collective action is rooted in
the premise by Olson (1971): Individuals in any group attempting collective action will have incentives to
free ride on the efforts of others if the group is working to provide public goods. However individuals
will not “free ride” in groups that provide benefits only to active participants. Collective action in an
attempt to eliminate the free rider problem in communities is challenged by the size of groups. Thus large
groups would face relatively high costs when attempting to organize for collective action whereas small
groups would face relatively low costs. Individuals in large groups would gain less per capita of
successful collective action whilst whereas individuals in small groups would gain more per capita
through successful collective action. Apart from the contribution of voluntary uncompensated labor in
Tigray, vulnerable persons in some communities benefit from PSNP and OFSP by providing labor for
community projects in exchange for cash and food.
Rural communities in Tigray have a far-reaching tradition of developing and enforcing
regulations on the use of woodlots and grazing areas. Collective action for SWC and woodlot and grazing
land management generally functions well in the highlands of Tigray. Community woodlots are common,
with nearly 9 out of 10 communities having at least one community woodlot. Most of these woodlots
were established after the downfall of the military government in 1991, and presently the regional Bureau
of Agriculture has been instrumental in facilitating the establishment of the woodlots by providing
technical and material assistance. The most common benefit from woodlots is the cutting and collection
of grass for animal feed and as roofing materials. Thus, community natural resource management can be
an effective means of redressing natural resource degradation and decreasing community poverty levels.
Most woodlots are managed at the village level, although some are managed at the tabia 3 level.
Conversely, unlike woodlots, all restricted grazing areas are managed at the village level (Badstue et al.
2005; Gebremedhin, Pender, and Tesfay 2003). Local communities employ regulations to contribute to a
significant regeneration of grazing lands and to support community resource management in the
restoration of the ecology.
Communities that depend on a common-property resource tend to self-organize to manage the
resource collectively so that they can benefit from it for a long time (Gebremedhin, Pender, and Tesfay
2004; Varughese and Ostrom 2001; Wade 1987). In the process the communities mobilize the people,
bring them together, and empower them to raise awareness so that collective action can be achieved for a
common goal. This facilitates change and development, while taking into account the needs of the
community, and leads to efficient community organization.

3
The lowest unit in the administrative hierarchy also referred to as a community or a peasant association.

3
Objectives of Study
The study assesses collective mobilization of the rural people in the Tigray highlands to soil and water
projects and woodlot and grazing land management as a focal point for conservation and agricultural
development. The study details the operation, structure, and process of the collective decisionmaking and
documentation of methods of persuasion (if any); methods of conflict resolution; arrangements for benefit
sharing; and the role of gender in community mobilization. We also study the role and characteristics of
how social networks function among farmers as catalysts for information diffusion on climate change and
innovation in community mobilization for ecological restoration in the Tigray region. Specifically, the
research intends to undertake the following:
1. Establish the command structure and modus operandi of community mobilization in the
different communities for collective action.
2. Determine the role and responsibilities of females and males in the community mobilization
for ecological restoration.

Research Questions
The research is structured around the following questions:
1. Who organizes the community for collective action and how is it done, and what is the
response of the people?
2. What motivates the people to participate in compulsory free labor to restore the ecology?
3. How is knowledge shared and learned in the community mobilization?
4. How are conflicts, (if any) managed and resolved in programs to mobilize the people in the
community for collective action?
5. How are the proceeds from the community mobilization shared?
6. What is the role of gender in the community mobilization?

4
 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework of this study is premised on the theory of New Institutional Economics (NIE),
which focuses on the social and legal norms and rules underlying economic activity, and rooted in the
broad schools of thought proposed by Coase (1937, 1960) and Williamson (1975, 1985) on transaction
costs; North (1971, 1990) on institutional analysis; and Olson (1971) and Ostrom (1990) on collective
action. NIE brings into play theoretical and empirical tools of neoclassical economics in analyses of both
the development of institutions and their effects on economic behavior and outcomes in different
circumstances in society. Its specific contribution arises from its acknowledgment that economic actors
face a particular setback as a consequence of imperfect information about the behavior of other actors in
transactions and that institutions play an important role in addressing these problems (Kirsten, Karaan,
and Dorward 2009; Dorward 2001; North 1994, 1995). This recognition demands explicit attention to the
ways that actors and societies address problems arising from imperfect information in transactions.
Thus institutions are a means to reduce information and transaction costs, and were formed to
reduce uncertainty in human exchange. They are viewed as formal or informal rules that govern people’s
behavior by providing a framework of incentives that shape economic, political, and social organization
(Dorward and Omamo 2009). Formal economic institutions and rules, culture, values, conventions, and
social networks are vital evolving structures in an institutional environment. Institutional structures
perform two vital functions in social and economic interactions between actors. One is to coordinate the
actions of different agents who all benefit from such coordination, but do not initially have a plan
regarding the specific actions they must take in order to be aligned with each other, such as natural
resource management. The other is to mediate and enforce in situations where there is some conflict
between the goals of the different agents who interact but where an overall superior outcome can be
attained if some of these conflicts can be considered (Dorward et al. 2009; Bose 2000). Institutions are
supposed to constrain actors. Above all, nested within these structures they provide low-cost exchange
and incentives for resource management, creating profitable opportunities for investment and exchange.
Natural resource is a dimension that influences the institutional arrangements governing relations
among actors who are stakeholders in the same activities for two reasons. First, externalities associated
with multiple-use rights are particularly important and complex for many, particularly renewable, natural
resources. This factor leads to the general importance of collective and state action in natural resource
management. Second, the general pattern of private-market contracts giving way to collective contractual
forms of activity coordination can take on a particular form in natural resources management activities, as
these resources generally exist without any investment. In communal management systems the income
and use rights typically rest with individual households, whereas transfer rights are restricted and rest with
the community. The latter right is generally less important to local communities than the income and use
rights. The institutional settings in general strongly affect the resource use incentives, that is, the costs and
benefits of different resource use options (Dorward and Omamo 2009; Angelsen 1997).
Ostrom (1990, 1992) documented resource characteristics of great relevance to natural resource
management to include the ease of resource use by multiple users; the ease of exclusion of potential users;
the importance of interactions and interdependence in use, management, and benefits across natural
resources; the degree to which benefits can be divided among users; the degree to which benefits can be
transferred between users; the size and dispersion of benefits; the temporal distribution of the resource
and predictability across time and space; the mobility of resources; and the extent to which different
resources can be distinguished from one another or recognized (Dorward and Omamo 2009). These
attributes play a critical role in natural resource management.
To examine the nexus of community reaction to compulsory free labor for ecological restoration
in the Tigray region and the institutions that are brought into play, we adapt the conceptual framework
developed by Dorward and Omamo (2009) to assess institutional analysis linking the physical-
infrastructure, socioeconomic, and policy-governance environments with the elements of the action
domain (institutions, actors, and activities; see Figure 2.1). Three types of factors describe the

5
environment in which action domains are entrenched: physical and technical, socioeconomic, and policy
and governance factors. The interactive impacts of these three categories of environmental factors
determine how institutions and attributes of actors and activities combine to shape outcomes. Identifying
and analyzing these interrelationships is therefore crucial for natural resource management. Institutions,
actors, and activities influence one another. What is more, activities and their attributes also interact with
different actors’ attributes to shape institutions governing access to natural resources or opportunities. On
the other hand, institutions, activities, and actors are affected by their wider environment. The interactions
among institutions, actors, and activities involve actions that lead to outcomes such as equality in the
sharing of communal products, good organization of the actors in restoring the ecology, and the general
well-being of the actors realized.

Figure 2.1—Conceptual framework for analyzing community participation in compulsory free

labor for ecological restoration in the Tigray region

Policy and governance (formal

institutions): Judicial system,
legislation, political
Environment

physical and technical Socioeconomic: Cultural

infrastucture: information, habits,ethnicity, religion,
marketplaces, literacy, population
communication

Local institutions: Bylaws, cultural

norms, rules, sanctions, and enforcement

Activities: Actors: Development

Resource, products, groups, farmer
associations, work Action domain
process
groups, clergy,
collective action

Action outcome: Susainability, equity,

efficiency, quality of standards, welfare

Source: Adapted from Dorward and Omamo 2009.

6
The action outcomes can strengthen or change the environment, institutions, activities, and actors as a
result of direct or indirect impacts. Changes in the environment as a result of action outcomes can cascade
into the aspirations and wealth of actors, and into the attributes of actors’ too. These occurrences lead to
institutional change.
In Tigray, the actors are involved in biological and physical soil and water conservation
measures, which include organic farming, afforestation, agroforestry, land restoration, and water
harvesting activities in their quest to restore the ecology, provide wood and nontimber forest products,
and maximize productivity (Figure 2.2). This study did not investigate organic farming activity in the
region. The term afforestation is used for the active establishment of enclosures, forest, or woodland in
areas where there was no forest in recent years and the restriction of human activities for the short term,
long term, or even permanently. Farmers plant woody perennials (economic trees) in association with
herbaceous plants (crops, pastures) and livestock in a spatial arrangement, a rotation, or both, in which
there are both biological and economic interaction between the tree and nontree components of the system
(Negassi et al. 2002; Young 1989). Agroforestry production functions include fuelwood, fodder, fruit, and
a range of other useful minor forest products such as medicinal plants and thatching materials. Service
functions include shade, fencing, and SWC. Terracing, bunding, and check-dams are used to reduce
erosion, enhance infiltration, and control runoff. Rainwater is harvested in wells and bunds and
transported through canals for irrigation and livestock.

Figure 2.2—Activities of community actors in the Tigray region

Ecological restoration/conservation agriculture

Organic farming Afforestation Agroforestry Land restoration Water harvesting

Compost Manure Terracing Bunding Check-dams Bunds Wells

Source: Authors’ creation.

Overall, what appears instrumental to resource management is that institutions consist of a set of
rights and duties or obligations. Even though legal rights are never unlimited, the kind of uses permitted
by the law is often restricted (for example, not cutting trees in a protected woodlot). Restrictions of the
rights that seek to minimize the set of permissible uses contribute to the economic value of the woodlot or
the land resource. Furthermore, social norms such as customary law can in some cases be superior to
administrative or judicial dispute resolution among people with close social ties. Local disputes are often
resolved by appealing to generally accepted social rules, not by bargaining over legal rights. Through
repeated interaction, agents tend to converge on strategies of cooperation that improve joint well-being.
These strategies replace traditional legal remedies, and in some cases relationships prevail over law
(Kirsten, Karaan, and Dorwad 2009; Ostrom 2005; Angelsen 1997).
Collective action is an area of considerable interest to NIE literature. The theory of collective
action is a valuable tool when exploring how to overcome free rider problems and fashion cooperative
solutions for the management of common resources or the provision of public goods (Olson 1971).
Additionally, Schmid (2000) asserts that the main agenda of institutional economics is collective action.
Collective action arises when people collaborate on joint action and decisions to accomplish an outcome
that involves their interests or well-being. Olson (1971) emphasizes significant determinants of success in
collective action to include the size, homogeneity, and purpose of the group. Building on this observation,

7
Gaspart and Platteau (2002) argue that the success of collective action depends on two sets of factors:
characteristics of the people concerned (size, homogeneity, and social capital in the group) and
characteristics of the environment that bear on the enforcement costs of a collective scheme (technical,
economic, political characteristics, and the role played by state institutions; see Kirsten, Karaan, and
Dorwad 2009; Sandler 1992).
Although collective action opportunities are high and information about actors’ behavior is also
available, contract enforcement can depend largely on a higher order set of norms and moral authority.
This situation is also the arena in which laws and formal rules governing economic exchange are likely to
be meaningful. This type of enforcement may prevail in formal commodity exchanges where many
buyers and sellers collectively agree to abide by rules and laws established by the market and when
information on behavior is readily available in a transparent way (Gabre-Madhin 2009). On the other
hand, in the absence of other incentives, ethnicity is the basis for existing collective action.
An important field of investigation in the theory and application of collective action concerns the
use of common-pool resources, such as land, forests, and water. Recent work by Ostrom (2005) and
others has shown that local institutional arrangements, including customs and social conventions designed
to induce cooperative solutions, can overcome the difficulties of collective action and help achieve
efficiency in the use of such resources (Nabli and Nugent 1989). The key distinction here is between
commons or common-property resources and open-access resources. Common-property and open-access
regimes are generally thought to be inclined to overexploitation of resources; thus, the incentives for the
individual users for conservation are small when the resource is shared by many (Kirsten, Karaan, and
Dorwad 2009; Angelsen 1997). Some admonition to this general proposition is necessary when applied to
the issue of land degradation.
Collective action is required to regulate rights and responsibilities to common-property resources
to reduce transaction costs and externalities. This paper takes the approach that communal resource
management can be a successful instrument for ecological restoration under local institutional
arrangements intended to stimulate mutual resolutions, in line with an existing number of examples of
successful management of resources held in common (Kirsten, Karaan, and Dorwad 2009; Fox 2007;
Ostrom 1990; Coase 1960; Pigou 1920). In particular we take the stand that the primary functions of well-
defined institutions are to allow agents to coordinate their actions and to induce cooperation between
them, ultimately trading off among meaningful arrangements.

8
 3. METHODOLOGY

Study Area
Tigray is positioned in the drier northern part of the country and belongs to the African drylands in the
Sudano-Sahelian region. It is located between latitude 14o 1’ north and longitude 38o 18’ east. The region
shares common borders with Eritrea in the north, the State of Afar in the east, the State of Amhara in the
south, and the Republic of Sudan in the west. Tigray covers an area of 53,000 kilometers2 and has a total
population of approximately 4.3 million, with an almost one to one male to female ratio; 76.2 percent live
in rural areas. The annual population growth rate is 2.5 percent per year, and the population density is 63
persons per kilometer2. Woreda densities vary from 31.9 persons per kilometer2 in Kafta Humera to over
250 persons per kilometer2 in Adwa, Laelay Maichew, and Alamata (CSA 2008). The region has six
administration zones: western, northwestern, central, eastern, southeastern, and Mekelle special zone. The
eastern and central zones are densely populated as compared to a sparsely populated western zone.
Administratively, the Tigray region has 35 woredas, 12 town woredas, and 665 tabias. Each woreda is
subdivided into tabias and each tabia is divided into kushets. 4
The landform is complex, composed of highlands in the range of 2,300–3,200 meters above sea
level (MASL), lowland plains with an altitude range of less than 500–1,500 MASL, mountain peaks as
high as 3,935 MASL, and high to moderate relief hills (1,600–2,200 MASL). By virtue of the
complexities in topography, Tigray has diversified agroecological zones and niches, each with distinct
soil, geology, vegetation cover, and other natural resources (Taffere 2003). Tigray is characterized by
high temperatures and erratic rainfall. The overall temperature ranges from 5°𝐶 to 40 degrees Celsius.
The climate is generally subtropical with an extended dry period of 9 to 10 months and a maximum
effective rainy season of 50 to 60 days. Total amount of rainfall for the region varies from 400
millimeters to 800 millimeters, which makes the region usually moisture deficit resulting in recurrent
droughts. The rainfall pattern is predominantly unimodal (June to early September). Exceptions to the
rainfall pattern are areas in the southern zone and the highlands of the eastern zone, where there is a little
shower during the months of March to mid-May (Nyssen et al. 2004). Taking into account rainfall,
atmospheric temperature, and evapotranspiration, more than 90 percent of the region is categorized as
semiarid. The remaining areas in the region can be categorized as dry submoist near the central south
highlands and the Wolkite highlands and arid areas of Erob and Hintalo Wajerat woredas (Taffere 2003).

Study Woredas

Adwa
Adwa is one of the 35 woredas in the central zone of the region (Figure 3.1). It is bordered on the south
by Werie Lehe, on the west by Laelay Maichew, on the north by Mereb Lehe, and on the east by Enticho.
Adwa lies between latitude 14o 15′ north and longitude 38o 55’ east. It has a total population of 99,711, of
whom 49,546 are men and 50,165 women. Adwa occupies a total area of 1,888.60 kilometers2 and a
population density of 52.80. There are 20,141 households in Adwa with an average of 4.95 persons to a
household (CSA 2008). Adwa woreda has a total of 18 tabias. Gendebta and Mariam Shewito tabias
were selected for this study.
Gendebta is 21 kilometers east of Adwa and has a total population of 7,948 with 3,950 males and
3,998 females. There are 1,573 households, composed of 1,994 male-headed households and 380 female-
headed households. Gendebta has a total land area of 3,634 hectares out of which 783 hectares have been
cultivated, 865 hectares enclosed, 1,142 hectares earmarked to be enclosed, and 844 hectares under
agroforestry use. In Gendebta tabia the entire four kushets (Bruh Tesfa, Wazga, Kmro, and Raeyo) were
also selected for the survey.

4 Kushet refers to a village.

9
 Mariam Shewito is 15 kilometers east of Adwa and has a population of 6,908 with 3,433 males
and 3,475 females. There are 1,416 households, composed of 936 male-headed households and 380
female-headed households. The tabia occupies a total land area of 3,502 hectares, 618 hectares under
cultivation, 616 hectares communal land, 998 hectares enclosed, 700 hectares under agroforestry, and 570
hectares earmarked to be enclosed. In Mariam Shewito all four kushets—Ketema, Daerowini, Genya, and
Erar—were selected for the study.

Endamehoni
Endamehoni is situated in the southern zone of Tigray region (Figure 3.1) and is bordered on the south by
Ofla, on the west by the Amhara region, on the north by Alaje, and to the east by Raya Azebo.
Endamehoni lies between latitude 12o 45′north and longitude 39o 30’ east. Maychew is the administrative
center of Endamehoni. The woreda has a total population of 84,739, composed of 42,052 men and 42,687
women. The total land area is 2,287.71 kilometers2, and the population density is 37.04 persons per
square kilometer, which is less than the zonal average of 53.91. There are a total of 18,816 households,
resulting in an average of 4.50 persons to a household (CSA 2008). Embahasti and Meswaeti tabias were
selected from a total of 18 tabias in Endamehoni woreda for the study.
Meswaeti tabia has three kushets: Piasa, Maekel, and Edaga, with a total population of 4,255.
There is a high population of females (2,561) in comparison to males (1,692). Furthermore, this tabia is
characterized by soaring female-headed households, which account for almost 60 percent of the
household heads. Meswaeti has a total of 431 hectares of cultivated land, 75 hectares watershed area, 125
hectares of forest, and 25 hectares enclosed area.
Tabia Embahasti has four kushets, namely, Adi Atsgeba, Bolenta, Degua, and Kola. It is
characterized by a high female population of 2,121 compared to the male population of 1,884. Despite the
domination of females in Embahasti, there are more male-headed households (533) than female-headed
households (317). Embahasti has a total land area of 1,918 hectares, with 835 hectares cultivated, 447
hectares watershed area, 524 hectares forest, and 112 hectares enclosed area.

Ganta Afeshum
Ganta Afeshum is positioned in the eastern part of Tigray region (Figure 3.1), sharing boundaries with
Hawzen in the south, Enticho to the west, Gulomahda in the north, and Saesi Tsaedaemba in the east. The
administrative center is Adigrat. Ganta Afeshum lies between latitude 14° 20′ north and longitude
39° 15′ east with a total area of 1,636.36 kilometers2. It has a total population of 88,644, with men and
women consisting of 42,096 and 46,548, respectively. Population density in Ganta Afeshum is 54.17
persons per kilometer2, with an average of 4.59 persons to a household (CSA 2008).
According to the Agriculture and Natural Resources annual report (2007), about 35 percent, 11
percent, 8 percent, and 49 percent of the woreda’s land is utilized for agriculture, forestry, grazing, and
other purposes, respectively. The woreda has a total of 19 tabias. Hagere Selam and Sasun were selected
for the study. Hagere Selam has an estimated population of 8,491, with 4,176 males, 4,315 females, and
1,294 households. Elevation in Hagere Selam ranges from 2,759 to 2,829 MASL. Hagere Selam has four
communities; Dendera, Keshehat, Mitsnah Wegebet, and Nitsnah. The study was conducted in Dendera,
Keshehat, and Mitsnah Wegebet. In Sasun tabia Bet Hawariat and Heli communities were selected from
three communities. Sasun has an estimated total population of 4,625, dominated by females (2,437), and a
total of 1,077 households (CSA 2008).

10
Figure 3.1—Map of the Tigray region showing the selected woredas

Source: Adapted from mapsof.net.

Sampling Method and Data Collection

The sampling method for data collection was explicitly designed to ensure adequate and relevant
respondents. Primary data were collected from April to June 2011. A reconnaissance survey was first
conducted to get familiar with the region and arrange for field collaborators. The main survey consisted of
a household structured survey and focus group discussions (FGD) with selected farmers. Key informant
interviews were also conducted and there were direct field observations of the extent of land degradation
and fieldwork by the people.

Data Collection

Sampling Method
The central, eastern, and southern zones in Tigray were purposively selected for this research. The
northwest and western parts were not selected because they are sparely populated and for security
reasons. Also Mekelle special zone and southeastern zone are urban and not likely to suit the research
focus. Three woredas were randomly drawn from the selected zones to include Adwa, Endamehoni, and
Ganta Afeshum, situated in the central, southern, and eastern zones, respectively. Woredas were selected
randomly to minimize bias and variance in the outcome. A total of six tabias were selected randomly
from the woredas with each division being the source of two tabias. This was to ensure a complete
representation of the total population and reduce prejudice as much as possible. Three to four kushets
were then purposively selected from each of the six tabias. Criteria for selecting kushet included
accessibility, compacted nature of group settlement, water management practices, and institutional
arrangement by a church or mosque. This was to guarantee accuracy in the choice of study tabias and in
this manner select exactly tabias involved in mass mobilization of compulsory free labor for the
restoration of the ecosystem. The respective samples were selected from 20 kushets in the 6 tabias.

11
 The sample administered questionnaire in each kushet varied from 20 to 27 farmers (Table 3.1).
Randomized stratification was employed to select the number of farmers in each kushet for questionnaire
interviews and FGD. Caution was taken to ensure that different smallholder farmers were selected for
FGD and questionnaire interviews. Households in each kushet were stratified into male-headed and
female-headed to ensure gender representativeness in the sample. Household heads were also regarded as
the primary household decisionmaker with regard to agriculture and mass mobilization of labor for
community work.

Table 3.1—Number of respondents interviewed in each tabia and kushet in the Tigray region
Woreda Tabia Number interviewed Kushet Number interviewed
Adwa Gendebta 80 Bruh Tesfa 20
Kmro 20
Raeyo 20
Wazga 20
Mariam Shewito 80 Erar 20
Daerowini 20
Genya 20
Ketema 20
Endamehoni Embahasti 80 Adi Atsgeba 20
Bolenta, 20
Degua 20
Kola 20
Meswaeti 81 Edaga 27
Maekel 27
Piasa 27
Ganta Afeshum Hagere Selam 81 Dendera 27
Keshehat 27
Mitsnah Wegebet 27
Sasun 80 Bet Hawariat 40
Heli 40
Total 482 482
Source: Author’s creation.

Field Survey
For data collection a structured questionnaire was prepared to cover demographic characteristics,
information on farmers’ perception of climate change, their adaptation measures, the process and
operation of voluntary uncompensated labor for collective action, and how knowledge is shared among
farmers. Both open- and close-ended questions were included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was
pretested in Debretsehay and Dibla kushets in Adwa and Ganta Afeshum woredas, respectively, to ensure
relevance (questions are pertinent to the objective of the research), validity (questions can be answered
correctly by the respondents), and reliability (questions are stated clearly and specifically).
Detailed data were collected on information flows in each of the selected kushets using
hypothetical, actual, and self-reported data sets. Hypothetical information flows explored questions such
as: “With whom do you discuss important information on changes in the climate and ecological
restoration?” “To whom do you give information?” “From whom do you receive information?” “What is
the age of each person?” “What is the education level?” “Where does this person live?” “Approximately
how far?” “Is this person a relative?” “Is this person from the same ethnic group?” “How often do you
talk about new weather coping strategies with this person?” Actual information diffusion focused on
farmers’ sources of information in the kushets and self-reported learning networks based on who in
farmer A’s opinion farmer B would discuss and share important information on climate change and
ecological restoration with. The snowball technique in which any actor mentioned became a potential
candidate for interview was used in social network data collection. However, the randomized

12
stratification of selected farmers limited us in interviewing farmers outside our selected framework,
although these were very few and thus the self-reported were used to fill omitted data.
The questionnaire was administered on head of households. Face-to-face interviews using the
questionnaire were conducted by trained enumerators in the Tigre language. To avoid disruption in farm
work, the survey was conducted during the dry season when farmers were less busy with farming
activities. On the average, one interview took about 45 minutes.

Focus Group Discussion

To complement the data and help contextualize the results from the structured interviews, one FGD was
conducted in each tabia that was selected for the study. The discussants were opinion leaders in the tabias
comprising heads of peasant associations, tabia managers, religious leaders, and other key informants.
The FGDs generated information on farmers’ perceptions and experiences of climate change, their
indigenous knowledge systems about the ecology, changes observed over the years, the different
adaptation measures they have adopted, the procedure for sharing community proceeds, and the role of
gender in community mobilization. Further discussions were held about division of labor between men
and women during communal work; how resistance, if any, was dealt with; and general problems they
encountered in mobilizing the people for ecological restoration.

Data Analysis
The data management and analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 18 for
Windows. Pearson’s Chi-square (𝑋 2 ) tests (non- parametric) were also used to compare categorical
variables and test the null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant difference between the
expected and observed result. Responses on projects that compulsory free labor is usually mobilized for,
motivation for participation, role and benefits derived from the establishment of a community woodlot
and a village grazing area, conflict resolution mechanisms in community mobilization, responsibilities of
females and males in community work, and how knowledge and information on climate change and
ecological restoration is shared among men and women were tested using the Chi-square
(𝑋 2 )model:𝑋 2 = ∑[(𝑄𝑖 − 𝐸𝑖 )2 ÷ 𝐸𝑖 ], where 𝑄𝑖 = observed frequencies and 𝐸𝑖 = expected frequencies.
Descriptive statistics were computed and pairwise cross tabulations were done to ascertain bivariate
relationships.
UCINET 6 for Windows, a social network analysis software package, was employed to analyze
social relationships through numerical and visual representations as in Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman
(2002) and Borgatti (2006). Data on interpersonal social networks were entered into 108-by-108 matrices
in UCINET 6. Every farmer name that was mentioned in the interviews was entered into the matrix in
order to fully display relationships and communication between individuals. Graphic networks were
generated for three levels of behavior-relevance: (1) discussion networks displaying who talks to whom
on climate change and community mobilization (receiving and giving advice), (2) the frequency of
discussions, and (3) how useful the advice received was.

13
 4. RESULTS

General Information of the Respondents

Males dominated the sample (60.6 percent), and the majority (38.2 percent) of the respondents were
above 45 years of age. The rate of literacy5 among respondents was high at about 60 percent of the sample
(Table 4.1). However, most of those who could read and write had only attended primary school,
constituting 43.6 percent of the sample. There was some homogeneity in the sample with all respondents
being Tigre and also orthodox Christians. Many of the respondents had lived in their kushets for over 30
years (71.0 percent) with only 6.0 percent residing for a period of 1–10 years (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1—Demographic characteristics of respondents in the sample area, Tigray region

Characteristic Frequency (Percent) Characteristic Frequency (Percent)
Sex Literacy
Male 292 (60.6) Yes 287 (59.6)
Female 190 (39.4) No 195 (40.5)

Age Length of stay in the kushet

18–25 39 (8.1) 1–10 years 29 (6.0)
26–35 97 (20.1) 1–20 years 35 (7.3)
36–45 162 (33.6) 21–30 years 76 (15.8)
Above 45 184 (38.2) Over 30 years 342 (71.0)

Level of education Religion

attained
Primary 210 (43.6) Orthodox Christian 482 (100)
Secondary 50 (10.4) STD .000
Tertiary 6 (1.2)
Adult Education 21 (4.4) Ethnicity
Illiterate 195 (40.5) Tigre 482 (100)

Source: Household survey 2011.

Changes in the Climate

Respondents (98.3 percent of the sample) had observed changes in the climate during their lifetime and
they attributed them to deforestation (53.9 percent), natural causes (24.9 percent), and agriculture (19.5
percent; see Figure 4.1). During the FGD, many of the participants said they had observed a stable
ecology with vegetative cover during their infancy, characterized by very cold temperatures, and
abundant water resources available all year-round for irrigating vegetables and maize crops. They asserted
that their lands were fertile and they did not have to depend on chemical fertilizers to maintain soil
fertility. A farmer from Gendebta tabia asserted: “I have lived in this locality all my life, at the moment I
am 61 years old. When I was a child this place was all covered with vegetation; it was green, forested,
and fascinating. The forests were closed with rivers and lakes all year-round, with large hectares of
uncultivated land and wild animals. However, in the course of time I have witnessed a decrease and a
subsequent disappearance of the natural resources. There were no gullies; however, later many gullies
surfaced and separated communities from one another.”

5
Literacy in this context refers to respondents who can read and write.

14
Figure 4.1—Reasons attributed to the changes in climate

Source: Household survey 2011.

The respondents admitted observing changes in the climate, including increased incidence of
drought (62.2 percent of respondents) and a rise in the temperature (90 percent of respondents) in their
lifetime. Flooding seemed not to be widespread in the study tabias, as about 67.8 percent of the
respondents had not observed increased occurrences of seasonal floods in the last 10 years. They agreed
that over time, as the community cut trees indiscriminately, the forests and water bodies also disappeared.
The rate of soil erosion increased and the amount of available water for irrigating foodcrops also
diminished. Consequently, land degradation and soil erosion were severe and drought also set in.
About 86 percent of the respondents had observed increased variety in the crops grown in the
area. For instance, in Embahasti tabia only indigenous trees common to Ethiopia had been planted in the
past, but at the moment exotic tree species and fruit trees have been planted as part of efforts to improve
and restore the ecology. New plants include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globules and Eucalyptus
camaldulensis) trees, which tend to absorb water and affect the ability of groundwater to recharge, thus
reducing the water available for other plants. The communities complained about the widespread
cultivation of eucalyptus on communal lands; they named it as the main cause of the devastation of their
ecology, which has made them resort to intensive agriculture. About 46 percent of the respondents
reported having experienced crop failure due to the worsening situation of the ecology.
Despite the observance of drought in the area, 60.2 percent of the respondents in the structured
survey said that the amount of rainfall was increasing during the main rain season, although focus group
discussants intimated that the increase in rainfall is a recent occurrence (during the last two years).
According to the farmers, the major reason for human-induced causes of the change in the
ecology was lack of education of farmers about the importance of conservation; as a consequence, they
indiscriminately cut down trees to put more land under cultivation instead of increasing their productivity.
“The government at that time did not make an effort to educate and alert us,” one focus group discussant
surmised.
Another cause of continued degradation of the ecology was the conflict caused by a war to
dislodge the military government that was in power from 1974 to 1991 and the subsequent war between
Ethiopia and Eritrea. These conflicts led to complete disregard for ecological restoration in Ethiopia,
especially the Tigray region. According to the farmers in Ganta Afeshum, the people of Ethiopia during

15
the Derg regime (military government) had little means of making a living and so in the absence of forest
guards they cut down trees indiscriminately and took the timber to Adigrat 6 to sell to make a living.
Apparently soldiers also contributed to the depletion of the forests when soldiers of the Tigray People’s
Liberation Front (TPLF), which was fighting the military government and had a military camp in Ganta
Afeshum woreda, cut down trees in the area for fuelwood without any replanting. These actions resulted
in severe degradation of the ecology and led to shortage of rainfall. Population pressure is another major
cause of the changes in the ecology. Farmers now have less than 1 hectare of land (as compared to about
2 hectares they had before) and so they cannot practice crop rotation on a large scale to rejuvenate the
soil.
Table 4.2 presents respondents’ perception of possible threats to their livelihoods by the changes
in the climate. About 92 percent of them considered that changes in climate would likely affect their
livelihood. However, farmers admitted that although in the past resources were relatively abundant, they
did not know how to use them efficiently to enhance their livelihood, and poverty also made them act in
some ways that were detrimental to ecological stabilization. Currently, due to technical and material
support from the government, the people are able to restore the ecology and adopt improved agricultural
practices, which have resulted in improvements in their livelihoods.

Table 4.2—Perceived threats to livelihoods by changes in the climate

Response Frequency Percent
Threats likely 443 91.9
Threats not likely 36 7.5
No idea 3 .6
Total 482 100.0
STD = 0.304
Source: Household survey 2011.
Note: STD = standard deviation.

Coping strategies that have been adopted by farmers to combat the effects of changing climate
include intercropping (17.6 percent of respondents), cultivation of different crops (18.1 percent),
introduction of new crop varieties (17.2 percent), and irrigation (15.6 percent; see Figure 4.2). The
adoption of the various strategies has been possible through the education imparted to the farmers by
officers of the Bureau of Agriculture (48.5 percent), generational transfer of knowledge (25.3 percent),
and through trial and error (26.2 percent).

Figure 4.2—Climate change adaptation strategies used by the farmers in the Tigray region

Source: Household survey 2011.

6
The administrative center of woreda Ganta Afeshum.

16
Compulsory Free Labor for Community Work
Generally, almost all the farmers (99.6 percent) interviewed had participated in compulsory free labor for
community work with only two who had never contributed labor because of health reasons. The
community contributed free labor for various activities covering soil and water conservation (SWC; 61.0
percent), irrigation projects (18.9 percent), and construction of public infrastructure (13.1 percent; see
Table 4.3). Mobilization of the people for communal work was done according to work groups (46.9
percent), development groups (27.0 percent), peasant associations (9.5 percent), and general mobilization
at the tabia level (16.6 percent). During the commencement of community work, the developmental
group leaders (30.9 percent), tabia heads (40.7 percent), and officials of the Bureau of Agriculture (28.4
percent) combined to take charge of overseeing that the work was carried out (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3—Projects that compulsory free labor is usually mobilized for and persons who mobilized
the community for community work
Who mobilized the community for compulsory free
labor for community work?
Community project Developmental Officials of Bureau
group leaders Tabia head of Agriculture Total
Soil and water conservation 72(14.9) 117(24.3) 105(21.8) 294(61.0)

Irrigation 37(7.7) 47(9.8) 7(1.5) 91(18.9)

Public infrastructure 19(3.9) 30(6.2) 14(2.9) 63(13.1)
Tree planting investment 21(4.4) 2(.4) 11 (2.3) 34(7.0)
Total 149(30.9) 196(40.7) 137(28.4) 482(100.0)
2
χ = 51.115
df = 6
P value = 0.000
Source: Household survey 2011.
Notes: X2 = Pearson chi-square value. Figures in parenthesis are the percentages and those without parentheses are the
frequencies.

Respondents (99.6 percent) who contributed labor for communal work did so for a period of 20
days per year during the dry season so that it did not conflict with farm work. Approximately all the
respondents (97.3 percent) considered the restoration of the ecology as a benefit they derived from
compulsory free labor for community work. Approximately all (99 percent) of the farmers interviewed
from the study tabias felt inspired to offer their free labor for community work. The motivation for the
work included improvement in their livelihood (43.2 percent), increase in foodcrop production (36.3
percent), and possible increase in groundwater availability (19.5 percent; see Table 4.4).

17
Table 4.4—Motivation to participate in compulsory free labor for community work
Reasons for feeling motivated
Contribution to Increases the Increases I wish to
enhancing production of water Not work on my
livelihood foodcrops availability applicable private land Total
Motivation for Yes 208(43.2) 175(36.3) 94(19.5) 0(.0) 0(.0) 477(99.0)
participating in No 0(.0) 0(.0) 0(.0) 0(.0) 3(.6) 3(.6)
compulsory free labor for
community work N/A 0(.0) 0(.0) 0(.0) 2(.4) 0(.0) 2(.4)

Total 208(43.2) 175(36.3) 94(19.5) 2(.4) 3(.6) 482(100.0)

2
χ = 9.640
df = 8
P value = 0.000
Source: Household survey 2011.
Notes: X2 = Pearson chi-square value. Figures in parenthesis are the percentages and those without parentheses are the
frequencies. N/A = not applicable.

On the whole about 80.5 percent and 68.9 percent had given their free labor for the establishment
of a community woodlot and a village grazing area, respectively (Table 4.5). Farmers were content to
give free labor and materials for the establishment of a grazing area because 45.9 percent of them felt they
had spare time to contribute labor, 30.4 percent considered it a source of feed for their livestock, and 23.7
percent wanted to restore the ecology. For community woodlots, the motivation for participating in their
establishment included availability of spare labor (40.9 percent), source of fuelwood (35.3 percent), and
ecological restoration (23.9 percent).

Table 4.5—Role played in the establishment of a community woodlot and a village grazing area
Role played
Not
Labor Material applicable Total
Involvement in the establishment of a Yes 388(80.5) 76(15.8) 0(.0) 464(96.3)
community woodlot No 6(1.2) 10(2.1) 0(.0) 16(3.3)
N/A 0(.0) 0(.0) 2(.4) 2(.4)
Total 394(81.7) 86(17.8) 2(.4) 482(100.0)
2
χ = 5.045
df = 4
P value = 0.000

Involvement in the establishment of a

Yes 332(68.9) 61(12.7) 0(.0) 393(81.5)
village grazing area
No 2(.4) 4(.8) 0(.0) 6(1.2)
N/A 60(12.4) 21(4.4) 2(.4) 83(17.2)
Total 394(81.7) 86(17.9) 2(.4) 482(100.0)
2
χ = 24.392
df = 4
P value = 0.000
Source: Household survey 2011.
Notes: X2 = Pearson chi-square value. Figures in parenthesis are the percentages and those without parentheses are the
frequencies. N/A = not applicable.

18
 Ecological restoration was important to the communities because of the realization that without
doing so their soils would continue to be poor and land productivity would be low. For most of the
respondents the major assets they possessed were their land and labor and so it was important to
safeguard them to enhance their livelihood. Rainfall was considered vital for crop, livestock, and milk
production, but most of the respondents were aware that adequate rainfall would not be obtained without
significant tree cover. This notion motivated them to reclaim land that had been engulfed with gullies and
cultivate plant species that provided vegetative cover and feed for their animals and helped to maintain
soil fertility, thereby reducing the dependence on chemical fertilizers.
According to the farmers, although they received food or cash under the PSNP when they worked
to conserve their lands, they were not discouraged to give free labor for the same purpose under the
communal work scheme because their ultimate aim was to restore their ecology, increase water
availability, and maximize farm production. They believed in the essence of conservation and were of the
opinion that without it they would perish. One focus group discussant summarized, “We consider
conservation as our life and we cannot live without it.” Another said, “We either survive or we are
eliminated from this environment. It is therefore important to restore our ecology”; and from yet another
discussant, “It is also imperative to leave the next generation a legacy of sound sustainable ecology to
enhance continuous productivity and survival.” With the support of the nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and the Government of Ethiopia they had resolved to work unrelentingly to prevent
environmental degradation.
Farmers derived various benefits from community woodlots and village grazing areas. The
benefits obtained from woodlots included cutting trees for building houses (40.5 percent), cutting trees for
constructing locally made ox plough (22.2 percent), and collecting tree debris for fuel wood (22.2
percent). Many of them had the benefit of a grazing area for their livestock (40.9 percent) and
subsequently harvested hay for their livestock (15.8 percent; see Table 4.6).

Table 4.6—Benefits derived from the establishment of a community woodlot and a village grazing
area
Benefits of a woodlot/grazing area
Woodlot/Grazing area Cutting trees for Cutting trees Fuelwood Revenue
construction of for ox plough collection from from the Beekeeping Total
house construction dead trees sale of trees
Yes 195(40.5) 107(22.2) 107(22.2) 8(1.6) 47(9.8) 464(96.3)
Woodlot No 5(1.0) 9(1.9) 0(.0) 2(.4) 0(.0) 16(3.3)
N/A 0(.0) 1(.2) 1(.2) 0(.0) 0(.0) 2(.4)
Total 200(41.5) 117(24.3) 108(22.4) 10(2.0) 47(9.8) 482(100.0)
2
χ = 23.707
df = 8
p-value = 0.003
Grazing area Grazing area Cutting grass Cutting grass Dung Beekeeping Total
for livestock for feed for thatching collection
Yes 197(40.9) 76(15.8) 72(14.9) 5(1.0) 43(8.9) 393(81.5)
No 3(.6) 3(.6) 0(.0) 0(.0) 0(.0) 6(1.2)
N/A 0(.0) 38(7.9) 36(7.5) 5(1.0) 4(.8) 83(17.2)
Total 200(41.5) 117(24.3) 108(22.4) 10(2.0) 47(9.8) 482(100.0)
2
χ = 94.371
df = 8
p-value = 0.000
Source: Household survey 2011.
Notes: X2 = Pearson chi-square value. Figures in parenthesis are the percentages and those without parentheses are the
frequencies. N/A = not applicable.

19
 About half of the respondents (52.9 percent) felt that problems were not encountered in getting
people for community work. Those who thought problems were encountered attributed them to small size
of households (22.8 percent), larger proportion of dependents (13.1 percent), and better market
opportunities in their communities (10.8 percent; see Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3—Problems encountered in getting people for community work

Source: Household survey 2011.

About 45 percent of the respondents did not think they faced any challenges in participating in
compulsory free labor for community work. However more than half of the respondents made mention of
various activities that conflict with communal work, including domestic work (21.8 percent), taking care
of livestock (19.3 percent), and other business activities (13.1 percent). There were reports of shortages of
tools and materials for undertaking communal work such as hammers, nails, wire mesh, pickaxes, hoes,
and shovels. The females were the most affected by the shortage of tools for communal work. Many of
the males were able to buy tools by themselves but the females tended to be constrained.
The communities were confronted with a mountainous topography, and climbing the mountains
was complex and precarious. The people were also vulnerable to scorpion stings and snakebites and
sliding or falling rocks from the hillsides as they worked on the watersheds. This was further compounded
by the deplorable road network—when there was an accident during communal work in the catchment
area in the mountains, it was difficult to transport the injured person to a clinic or health center in a timely
fashion. The inaccessibility of the road network also hindered the transport of cement and other materials
to the catchment area for community work.
Most respondents (77.8 percent) had not observed any form of resistance to compulsory free
labor for community work because they considered the land as their own (Figure 4.4). “There is no
resistance in communal work,” one focal group discussant asserted. “We can say confidently and boldly
that there is no resistance even in this entire woreda [Endamehoni] and the whole Tigray region in
mobilizing people for community work. We are in high spirits to participate in the compulsory free labor
for community work; amidst the challenges we have, we work diligently.” They acknowledge that they

20
have soil moisture and water conservation problems; it was therefore important to contribute their free
labor. They believe that this generation must restore the ecology and ensure the maximization of
production, thus “we give maximum labor and achieve maximum productivity,” another focal group
discussant said. According to the farmers, they have been fully involved in the compulsory free labor
initiative and also supported the idea. Twenty years ago the mountains were bare, but through committed
and enthusiastic contribution of free labor for SWC these mountains have been conserved.

Figure 4.4—Resistance to community work

0.41%

21.78%

77.80%

Source: Household survey 2011.

However, there were instances when very poor farmers who did not have anything to eat went to
their private farms to work. Nevertheless, these farmers believed that the area must be conserved and thus
saw the need for free labor mobilization for community work. Most of the people were happy to work and
there was also a local bylaw that stipulated that anyone who absented himself/herself from community
work due to travel to another tabia would be punished with a heavier workload than is usually
accomplished in a day. Absenteeism due to sickness, pregnancy, or traveling to another tabia for a funeral
was not considered a form of resistance to community work. The sick were required to provide evidence
from a doctor, otherwise they were penalized.
During conflict resolutions with reference to any form of resistances, the community employed
mediation through discussions with the entire community (38.8 percent), through the use of group elders
in a conflict resolution committee (30.3 percent), through the use of the bylaw as a point of reference in a
local court (16.4 percent), and through the involvement of the peasant association (14.5 percent; see Table
4.7).

21
Table 4.7—Conflict resolution mechanisms in community mobilization
Conflict resolution
Conflict resolution Through Local Peasant
committees discussions courts association Total
Resistance in compulsory free Yes
35(7.3) 62(12.9) 3(.6) 5(1.0) 105(21.8)
labor for community work
No 111(23.0) 124(25.7) 75(15.6) 65(13.5) 375(77.8)
N/A 0(.0) 1(.2) 1(.2) 0(.0) 2(.4)
Total 146(30.3) 187(38.8) 79(16.4) 70(14.5) 482(100.0)
2
χ = 40.634
df = 6
p -value = 0.000
Source: Household survey 2011.
Notes: X2 = Pearson chi-square value. Figures in parenthesis are the percentages and those without parentheses are the
frequencies. N/A = not applicable.

The Role of Gender in Community Mobilization

In compulsory free labor for community work the males were solely responsible for providing labor (66.0
percent) and materials (34.0 percent). Some of the females took charge of cooking (warming food and
making tea and coffee during recess—6.6 percent) and cleaning up the environment after work (2.9
percent). However, many of the females also contributed labor (55.6 percent) and materials (34.9
percent), just like the males (Table 4.8). The only difference is that females did half the workload of
males.

Table 4.8—Responsibilities of females and males in free labor for community work
Role of Females
Cleaning the Total
Cooking Labor Materials
environment
Labor 31(6.4) 13(2.7) 191(39.6) 83(17.3) 318(66.0)
Role of Males
Materials 1(.2) 1(.2) 77(16.0) 85(17.6) 164(34.0)
Total 32(6.6) 14(2.9) 268(55.6) 168(34.9) 482(100.0)
2
χ = 42.012
df = 3
p-value =
0.000
Source: Household survey 2011.
Notes: X2 = Pearson chi-square value. Figures in parenthesis are the percentages and those without parentheses are the
frequencies.

At the work site, the people worked in groups of about 10–15, with both men and women
carrying out the same activities. Each group had a leader that was either a male or a female. The leader
was responsible for planning, sequencing of various activities, scheduling, and organizing the people in
the group for the work. However, the development agent was in charge of giving out the workload to the
group leaders and undertook overall supervision of the work.
In mobilizing people for community work, gender played an important role in sensitizing farmers
on the importance of SWC. A total of about 30.5 percent males and 23.24 percent females participated in
mobilizing the community for work in their respective developmental groups (Figure 4.5).

22
Figure 4.5—The role of gender in mobilizing people for compulsory free labor for community work

Source: Household survey 2011.

Community associations consisted of 20–30 members for men, women, and the youth (18–29
years of age) separately. Although organized separately, they also belonged to developmental groups with
both men and women as members. Groups were used as machinery for organizing the people for
community work. The leaders of the developmental groups and associations played the role of mobilizing
their members for community work. They also educated members on the importance of community work.
If conflicts rose from community work the males as well as the females played active roles in
resolving them. However, males further provided security and restored the community to calm when there
was any type of disturbance or misunderstanding.
About 54.4 percent of the respondents perceived that benefits accrued from community work
were shared equally among men and women, guided by the appropriate bylaws and with the active
participation of all the people who took part in the communal work. However, when the product was
scanty, balloting 7 was used to share it with the active participation of both males and females. In Mariam
Shewito tabia, when the product was not enough, they would first conduct a meeting involving the entire
community. During the meeting the community would decide what to use the product for. They may
decide to share the resource by balloting or donate it to a school or health center to sell and use the
proceeds for maintaining these public facilities.
In Gendebta, when the communal product was not enough to be shared among all the men and
women in the community, they would share according to the poverty–wealth status of farmers. Priority
would be given to the very poor farmers in the community before others would be considered. A similar
procedure was used in Hagere Selam and Sasun. In Meswaeti the women were given 60 percent of the
product; however, when it was not enough then it would be shared equally among the households in the
community. In Embahasti tabia despite the fact that there were no differences in sharing the products
according to the bylaws, there was nothing to share. This was because they did not have control over the
eucalyptus trees they had planted on their communal lands. It was alleged that the entire plantation on the

7
Community recipients are drawn at random and the process of sharing is governed by chance.

23
communal lands had been sold to the Maichew factory for half a million birr. 8 Inhabitants were
disappointed they did not receive any money from the sale of the communal product. They apparently
blamed the tabia, zonal, and woreda officers whom they alleged had not been transparent with the
community.

Social Learning through Networks among Farmers in Tigray

Respondents in Tigray had many external sources of information on changes in the climate and ecological
restoration. Most females (19.7 percent) and males (29.5 percent) received their information from
extension workers (Figure 4.6). It is worthy of note that in the community, 22.2 percent of males shared
this information and knowledge with both men and women compared to about 17.2 percent females.
Females (21.8 percent) were more enthusiastic to share information with their fellow women than with
their male counterparts (Table 4.9).

Figure 4.6—Sources of information and knowledge on climate change and ecological restoration by
males and females

Source: Household survey 2011.

8
One US dollar is equivalent to 17 Ethiopian birr in August 2011.

24
 Table 4.9—How knowledge and information on climate change and ecological restoration is shared
among men and women
Gender Knowledge and information sharing among men and women
Women Men share Information is By the
Men share
Women share share with with men shared among us local elders Religious Total
with only
with women both men and at meetings by the and leaders
men
and women women development agent leaders
Male 55(11.4) 50(10.4) 56(11.7) 77(16.0) 14(2.9) 20(4.1) 20(4.1) 292(60.6)
Female 50(10.4) 33(6.8) 33(6.8) 30(6.2) 13(2.7) 20(4.2) 11(2.3) 190(39.4)
482(100.0
Total 105(21.8) 83(17.2) 89(18.5) 107(22.2) 27(5.6) 40(8.3) 31(6.4)
)
2
χ = 2.831
df = 4
p-value =
.587
Source: Household survey 2011.
Notes: X2 = Pearson chi-square value. Figures in parenthesis are the percentages and those without parentheses are the
frequencies.

Figure 4.7 presents the exchange of information on climate change and compulsory free labor
among farmers in Ketema. It depicts 20 farmers (actors) involved in information exchange. Almost all the
farmers in this kushet were connected directly or indirectly. The direct lines depict ties or connections
between members in the network. The size of the nodes represent the degree of influence (or engagement)
of members in the network in the exchange of information. Bigger nodes represent key actors and the
opposite is true for smaller nodes. Thicker lines depict higher frequency of communication. Four major
information brokers in Ketema included the priest, tabia manager, development group, and work group
leaders.

Figure 4.7—Key actors in the diffusion of information and knowledge in Ketema kushet in Adwa
woreda

Source: Household survey 2011.

25
 In Bolenta kushet in Endamehoni woreda the nature of the relationships that existed among the
different actors found dominance in the flow of knowledge and information among four farmers (Samuel
Luel, Habte Gimay, Lemlem Mehari, and Amlesu Gesesew), who were leaders of associations, and the
kushet priest (Solomon Hayelom; see Figure 4.8).

Figure 4.8—Key actors in the diffusion of information and knowledge in Bolenta kushet in
Endamehoni woreda

Source: Household survey 2011.

The exchange of information among farmers in Mitsnah illustrates 27 actors in the kushet (Figure
4.9). A key information broker in this kushet included the village priest and a few other farmers. Central
to the diffusion of knowledge was priest Aregawi Kidanu, Ggergs Reda, Tesfay Berhe, Taferi Grryohans,
Mekonen Ghiwot, and Abrehet Gslassie. One important finding is the role played by group leaders and
the local priest in knowledge and information dissemination. Farmers relied on neighbors (intra- and
inter-village) and kinship for their social network information on climate change and community
mobilization for ecological restoration. Information was also shared among people in the same
community and also among people in neighboring communities. Most of the exchange of information and
knowledge in the kushets occurred in households within 0.1–0.2 kilometers and 0.9–1.0 kilometers
distance.

26
Figure 4.9—Key actors in the diffusion of information and knowledge in Mitsnah Wegebet kushet
in Ganta Afeshum woreda

Source: Household survey 2011.

27
 5. DISCUSSION

Demographic Characteristics
The study shows that literacy levels among the respondents in the Tigray region are high (59.6 percent)
and thus households with better education are more likely to have enhanced understanding of new
technologies and so may be more likely to adopt new technologies (Yesuf and Pender 2005). Also, high
literacy rates among farmers increase understanding of conservation for productivity and thus result in
increased investments in land improvements and management (Tessema and Holden 2005; Pender and
Gebremedhin 2004; Gebremedhin et al. 2003) and the readiness to contribute voluntary uncompensated
labor.
All interviewees were Tigrayan and also orthodox Christians, reflecting a homogenous social
structure with shared norms and beliefs. This perhaps supports the hypothesis on why these communities
are well structured and also demonstrate unwavering commitment for compulsory free labor for
community work. The theory of a community as having mutual norms and common interests is strongly
dependent on the views of its members. This concept of community subsisting among individuals with
shared interest is rooted in the premise by Ascher (1995, 83): “common interests and common
identification growing out of shared characteristics.” Common and shared, rather than individual and
egocentric, is the recipe for successful community resource management. For this reason, in a community,
individuals relinquish some of their individuality instincts and work as a single entity to achieve
communal goals (Agrawal and Gibson 1999Kiss 1990). These individuality instincts apparently promote
the nexus among community members that uphold profitable collective decisions.
The majority of the indigenes (71 percent) had lived in their kushets for over 30 years and had in-
depth knowledge of the ecology and any changes that have taken place over the years. This might have
contributed to the willingness of the people to respond to the call to come together to restore the degraded
ecology. More to the point, Ishaya and Abaje (2008) and Nyong, Adesina, and Elasha (2007) assert there
is an increasing realization of valuable sources of ecological information from indigenes.

Changes in the Climate

Results show that farmers undoubtedly acknowledge a change in the climate during their lifetime,
including rising temperature and recurring drought. Low and variable rainfall and a short rainy season in
the northern highlands have been reported in the literature (Yesuf and Pender 2005; Esser et al. 2002;
Hagos, Pender, and Gebreselassie 2002) and have led to pervasive risk of drought. Smallholder
households in Tigray are highly reliant on agriculture and other natural resources for their livelihoods. For
these activities, the timing and quantity of rainfall are very important. Fluctuations in rainfall have the
potential of exposing farmers to environmental shocks such as drought and flooding, which can
undermine household livelihood. Although droughts are frequent in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially
Ethiopia, their effects are exacerbated by profound rural poverty; inadequate government capacity; and
exposure to other political, economic, and health shocks. The Tigray highland is of particular interest
given its widespread poverty, high population pressure on land resources, and exposure to recurrent
droughts (Gray and Mueller 2011; Kazianga and Udry 2006; Dercon, Hoddinott, and Woldehanna 2005;
World Bank 2005).
Drought in the Tigray highlands can be seen to generate both direct and indirect effects. It has a
direct effect on diminished crop production and an indirect effect on livestock prices as they decline when
the drought is severe. Additionally, drought has been shown to be a major production constraint that
reduces crop yields in low rainfall areas (Abera 2009; Ceccarelli, Acevedo, and Grando 1991),
contributes to land degradation, and threatens the food security (Holden, Shiferaw, and Pender 2003) of
smallholder farmers.

28
 Deforestation was perceived and ranked as the most important cause of the changes in the climate
in Tigray, followed by natural causes and agriculture, in that order. This is in agreement with other
findings in the literature that cite deforestation in the highlands and Ethiopia as a major problem impeding
the capacity of forests and land to contribute to food security and to provide other benefits such as
fuelwood and fodder (Holden, Shiferaw, and Pender 2005; Gebremedhin et al. 2003; Hagos, Pender, and
Gebreselassie 2002; Bishaw 2001). Farmers perceived the cause of the severe land degradation in Tigray
to be intensified social conflict and substantial resource allocation to the conflict instead of environmental
protection. Land degradation became severe as land and forest resources were literally left without
appropriate management. These perceptions are in line with findings from other studies (Hagos, Pender,
and Gebreselassie 2002; Gebremedhin 1998; Lanz 1996; Dejene 1990; Semait 1989).
Rapid population growth in Ethiopia (2.9 percent) and Tigray (2.5 percent) also contributed to the
widespread forest clearing for fuelwood, fodder, and construction materials, resulting in substantial
environmental degradation. Tigray highland is characterized by relatively high population density (33
persons per kilometer2) and a much higher population density per unit of arable land (138 persons per
kilometer2). This has decreased the size of holdings and resulted in small units of land intensively
cultivated by subsistence farmers, leading to the conversion of forested and marginal areas into
agricultural lands (UNESCO 2010; CSA 2008; Gebremedhin et al. 2003; Esser et al. 2002; Hagos,
Pender, and Gebreselassie 2002; Bishaw 1993; Hoekstra, Torquebiau, and Bishaw1990). As the
population increased, the demand for more agricultural land was inevitable and thus degradation of the
environment ensued. For example, in Ethiopia, from 1990 to 2005, 14 percent of forest cover or 2.1
million hectares of forest was lost. Then again between 1990 and 2010, an average of 140,900 hectares or
0.93 percent of forest was lost per year. Deforestation rates have increased by 10.4 percent since the end
of the 1990s. In total, between 1990 and 2010, Ethiopia lost 18.6 percent of its forest cover or around
2,818,000 hectares (Butler 2011; Bishaw 2001). These staggering statistics perhaps explain why farmers
identified deforestation as a major driver of change in the environment/climate in the Tigray highlands.
Respondents admitted having observed land degradation in the form of soil erosion and nutrient
depletion coupled with changes in rainfall and temperature. Consequently, farmers in the northern
highlands have adopted a variety of coping strategies apart from SWC activities. We observed that most
farmers practiced intercropping of different traditional crops, and new crop varieties, crop rotation, and
irrigation in an attempt to increase food production. These practices were adopted as coping strategies to
minimize risk and conserve soil fertility (Esser et al. 2002; Bishaw 2001).
Although some farmers attributed the changes in climate to natural or divine causes, they did not
envisage the solution to be beyond their control. Even though they admitted that they had low economic
capacity, they were of the conviction that with their strength they would be able to implement the
necessary conservation measures. It is important to note that if these mind-sets are successfully
encouraged and used (Hagos, Pender, and Gebreselassie 2002; Lynne, Shonkwiler, and Rola 1988), they
could be far more effective than the use of subsidies to promote community conservation projects
activities in the Tigray highlands.

Community Mobilization for Collective Action

Ethiopia has suffered extreme economic and political turmoil since the early 1970s with the overthrow of
the imperial regime and the transition from the overthrow of Mengistu Hailemariam and his Derg regime
in 1991 to the current Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) government. The
EPRDF commenced its rule with key priorities in the decentralization of natural resources management
with the full involvement of local communities and poverty reduction strategies. The Agricultural
Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) policy introduced required that farmers adopt profitable and
sustainable land management practices, or pursue alternative livelihood strategies that are less demanding
of the land resource. This policy initiative was viewed to be in sharp contrast to the heavily centralized,
socialist Derg regime and that of the imperial regime, which also neglected environmental issues. There
was also a general lack of commitment and awareness among farmers concerning SWC efforts (Segers et

29
al. 2008; Yesuf and Pender 2005; Jagger, Pender, and Gebremedhin 2003; Yohannes 2003; Esser et al.
2002; Ezra 2001).
Initiatives to promote SWC have been undertaken in the Tigray region since the 1970s. As early
as 1980s smallholder households in Tigray were required to contribute uncompensated labor with
emphasis on SWC structures. This was considered an important intervention aimed at restoring the
productive capacity of the land as water was conserved and soil loss was kept minimal. SWC
interventions introduced by the Derg regime during 1970–1990 were largely unsuccessful as they were
characterized by negative attitudes of farmers (Chisholm 1998). Thus compulsory free labor was amended
and reinforced by the current government with the full involvement of the local people. Government also
provided farmers with technical and material support. Specifically, the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural
Development is tasked with equipping farmers with technical skills to undertake SWC activities (Wolde-
Aregay 1996). It involved mass mobilization of labor during the dry season. Initially all able-bodied
persons in Tigray were obliged to provide labor for four months in a year during the dry season and were
mobilized to conserve the catchments. Every household was expected to provide 90–180 persons per year
spread over 90–120 days of the year depending on the size of the household. This, however, had serious
cost implications for the household and interfered with other activities. In 1992 the government, after a
critical assessment, substantially reduced the number of days allocated for compulsory free labor in SWC
activities to 20 days in a year and only in the dry season when there are no agricultural activities (Jagger,
Pender, and Gebremedhin 2003; Teshome 2003; Esser et al. 2002; Hagos, Pender, and Gebreselassie
2002; Tekeste and Paul 1989).
Religion plays a major role in the behavior of the people. For instance, in Tigray, the religious
composition is almost exclusively orthodox Christian, constituting 96.7 percent of the populace (CSA
2008), and as a result the people are subject to the norms and rules of the Orthodox Church. In particular,
religious leaders are able to define appropriate social behavior and conduct. In the highland areas of
Tigray, priests of the Orthodox Church in the villages tend to be influential and assume the position of
small-scale power brokers. They ensure that the norms and rules of the church are followed, including a
set of principles that, among other things, puts restrictions on when farmers can work in their fields in
order not to conflict with observance of saints’ days (Teshome 2003; Vaughan and Tronvoll 2003; Hagos,
Pender, and Gebreselassie 2002; Mequanent 1998). These local rules also have a very important bearing
on the contribution of voluntary uncompensated labor for the management of natural resources in Tigray.
Additionally, a number of studies (Segers et al. 2008; Vaughan and Tronvoll 2003; Lanz 1996)
have emphasized that farmers’ overwhelming and undeniable commitment to compulsory free labor for
the restoration of the ecology in Tigray originated from the 1975– 1991 revolution against the military
Derg government. The defunct Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and Tigray’s rural population
effectively coalesced. The TPLF used effective mobilization techniques that integrated cultural symbols,
propaganda, and coercion to rally vast numbers of the rural poor, with whom it established a creative and
stable relationship. The TPLF’s control over the rural population also maintained social order (Lanz
1996). What is more, the TPLF’s revolutionary democracy was based on communal collective
participation, premised on consensus forged through discussion led by the frontline organization.
Nevertheless, the strategy of allegiance to the TPLF’s activist doctrines and institution may actually
influence people’s decisions to contribute labor explicitly in community developmental programs. Simply
put, party members were made the target group and in general they were more receptive than other
farmers to the labor mobilization efforts. Through decentralized decisionmaking and administrative power
to local communities and the objective of enhancing farmers’ livelihoods in areas under its control, the
TPLF inspired rural people’s confidence and support for its political project (Segers et al. 2008; Duffield
and Prendergast 1994; Hendrie 1999).
In contemporary mobilization of people for community work, community leaders take advantage
of this historical legitimacy to stimulate farmers’ collective memory of this alliance and reinvent the
activist grassroots institutions through which resistance against the Derg regime was realized. In what
followed farmers were constantly motivated during meetings to participate in developmental programs as
a social duty, and a great deal of emphasis was put on collectivity. As with victory during the

30
revolutionary days, poverty was presented to the farmers as the enemy and a fight they must defeat
through dedicated labor for community development programs. Furthermore, literature supports the
premise that the effects of mobilization on participation in development are most evident among farmers
who are members of the TPLF (Segers et al. 2008; Vaughan and Tronvoll 2003). This also explicates why
the tradition of committed mass mobilization in Tigray has prevailed with very limited resistance to
devoting 20–40 days of uncompensated labor annually to various land reclamation and tree planting
initiatives since 1991.
The study exemplifies community mobilization on the basis of developmental groups and
associations for community work. Associations exclusively for women, men, and the youth were
established long ago during the TPLF resistance to raise consciousness about the TPLF’s ideology and
policies. As a result there was mobilization through the farmer’s (peasant association), women’s, and
youth associations. In the rural highlands of Ethiopia, several local associations, established and run by
the people themselves, have been instruments to organize socioeconomic collaboration and mutual
assistance among villagers. Although these associations are now, at least formally, disassociated from the
TPLF, membership is voluntary (Segers et al. 2008; Poluha 2003; Vaughan and Tronvoll 2003). Local
leaders capitalize upon these established institutions to continue to mobilize farmers for restoring the
ecology of Tigray.
Decisionmaking in Tigray is considered by some to be more participatory than in other regions as
a legacy of the early TPLF’s commitment to grassroots democratic control (Segers et al. 2008; Keeley
and Scoones 2003; Milas and Latif 2000). This was implemented during planning and organizing
community work, sharing community resources, and resolving conflicts arising from community work.
The planning and implementation process of SWC projects was done with the active interaction of the
people and the local baitos. 9 Mass mobilization and the involvement of grassroots institutions are perhaps
the main strategies for implementing the process, which depends very much on the motivation of the
farmers to participate (Hagos, Pender, and Gebreselassie 2002; Tekeste and Paul 1989).
A possible explanation is the institutional innovation in the development of the baito system,
which is essentially a system of local democracy, developed by the TPLF during the civil war, based on
direct election of representatives at the kushet and tabia levels. Tabia representatives then make up the
woreda council, which has major responsibilities for the planning and implementation of local
development. At the tabia level, social courts have been established that, among other tasks, deal with
conflicts over the sharing of natural resources. The baito system facilitated detailed discourse at the local
level of developmental problems, including those of a common-property nature. It is also used to mobilize
communities to directly deal with specific problems, both through labor mobilization and through rule-
making and resolution of conflicts over resource sharing (Segers et al. 2008; Chisholm 1998).
Intrinsically the baito system, to some extent, building on traditional community-based institutions, has
facilitated the region to mobilize considerable free labor to resolve natural resource problems, in a way
that was unattainable during the Derg regime.
Contrary to the findings of others (Hurni 1990; Gamachu 1988; Bishaw 2001), our study found
that currently farmers in the Tigray highlands were committed and enthusiastic about providing some
time for uncompensated communal work for SWC and afforestation projects. Although such time has an
opportunity cost, the people were not perturbed to shift their personal labor from private use to communal
need to restore the ecology. It is furthermore remarkable that the perception of land degradation and
awareness of the problem have also played an enormous role in their willingness to contribute labor for
ecological conservation.

9
Similar to village councils.

31
Compulsory Free Labor for Community Work in Tigray: Success or Failure?
Discussions with local communities have clearly indicated that their labor on SWC activities was yielding
good results with particular reference to availability of water and achievement of high farm productivity.
What is interesting in this context is that the people value the associated positive benefits of their labor
and are willing to continue to mobilize the local community in the sustainable management of their
ecology. These results have been noted in terms of soil conservation, water infiltration, crop yield,
biomass production, groundwater recharge, and prevention of flood hazard by Gebremedhin et al. (2003);
Taffere (2003); and Hagos, Pender, and Gebreselassie (2002).This observation is further substantiated by
field investigation results from detailed in situ studies of analyses of 30–year-old photographs of
landscape changes, which show that the status of natural resources has strongly improved since 1975. The
rehabilitation was due both to improved vegetation cover and the implementation of physical
conservation structures. The studies further demonstrate that in Tigray, sheet and rill erosion rates have
decreased, infiltration and spring discharge have been enhanced, and vegetation cover and crop
production have improved. Similarly, overall land management has improved in 85 percent of the
analyzed landscapes (Nyssen et al. 2007). Integrated conservation, rehabilitation, and community-based
management of natural resources are therefore vital, not only to maintain local biodiversity, but to
increase food productivity and enhanced livelihoods in Tigray. Maintaining and enhancing farmers’
participation is obviously a continuous challenge. Thus it implies that sustained motivation will determine
the success or the failure of any future SWC program in Tigray (Reubens et al. 2011; Nyssen et al. 2009;
Mitiku, Herweg, and Stillhardt 2006; Hagos, Pender, and Gebreselassie 2002; Tekeste and Paul 1989).

Impediments to the Contribution of Free Labor for Ecological Restoration

Our study found that farmers in Tigray encountered difficulties in getting adequate labor during mass
mobilization for compulsory free labor. Better market access, small size of households, and larger
proportion of dependents were found to impinge on the contribution of labor in Tigray toward community
work. The impacts of market access on the contribution of labor for SWC activities is generally diverse in
Tigray (Yesuf and Pender 2005; Hagos 2003). For instance, Gebremedhin et al. (2003) and Pender,
Gebremedhin, and Haile (2003) observed that collective action for natural resource management is
perhaps more effective in communities that are remote from markets. In particular, households remote
from a major road in Tigray were more likely to invest labor in SWC programs. Overall, it appears that
better access in terms of road and market can take some labor away from SWC activities.
Smallholder farmers were confronted with occupational health hazards associated with
community work because of the mountainous and hilly topography in Tigray. This is further compounded
by the lack of social services, such as health, and infrastructure, for example, roads that are not well
developed in the rural highlands of Ethiopia. This is worrying and can affect the contribution of labor for
community work. Better developed and networked roads help to ensure that during compulsory free labor
materials and tools can easily be transported to the watershed or work site. Farmers who are injured
during community work can also be easily conveyed to health centers for immediate treatment.
Eucalyptus has been established to provide a cost-effective way of increasing farmers’ income
and also providing them with timber for fuelwood and construction (Holden, Shiferaw, and Pender 2005;
Jagger and Pender 2003). Exotic species, mostly Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Eucalyptus globulus,
were promoted in Ethiopia extensively to principally cope with the ever-growing demand for fuel and
timber, even if not without problems (Reubens et al. 2011; Gindaba, Rozanov, and Negash 2005; Wilson
1977). In Tigray a new land policy prohibited farmers from planting eucalyptus on cultivable land
(Hagos, Pender, and Gebreselassie 2002). Conversely, eucalyptus planted on marginal lands can have
grave repercussions for food productivity and water availability. Contrary to this observation, Holden,
Shiferaw, and Pender (2005) reported that eucalyptus tree planting on marginal lands will not have severe
negative effects on food production and land conservation. Although in Tigray eucalyptus is generally
planted on communal lands, farmers in Embahasti protested about its allelopathic effects and its strong
tendency of absorbing all groundwater (Khan, Hussain, and Khan 2008; German et al. 2006), eventually

32
lowering the water table and depriving foodcrops of adequate water. Eucalyptus species have the capacity
to absorb excessive water, making them highly aggressive to the environment and transforming
ecosystems by drying the soil where they are planted. Farmers might therefore have some legitimate
reasons for objecting to the planting of eucalyptus on communal lands unsuitable for crop production.

The Role of Gender in Compulsory Free Labor for Community Work

Overall, it appears that both males and females provided labor and materials during community work, but
females further provided labor to ensure that the working environment was tidy and food and beverages
were served during recess. Strikingly, we found no differences in the pattern of gender division of labor.
Activities undertaken by females and males were the same. However, women were usually given a lighter
workload than men. This is perhaps because the community recognized the multiple roles of women in
society, which has been reported to affect their ability to respond and also to participate in community
conservation projects (Mehra 1993). It is therefore worth noting that despite the time limitations resulting
from women’s multiple roles and the possibility of multiple roles increasing women’s workload, creating
role conflicts, and inefficiencies (Lindsey 2011; Suda 2000; Mehra 1993), Tigrayan women combined
SWC activities with their regular traditional household chores. Ecological development programs in the
case of common-property resources can be sustainable if a developed consultative process with both men
and women takes into account critical complex gender and social relations within and among
communities (Shah and Shah 1995), such as the multiple roles of women in society.
There was also no difference in the specific tasks performed by men and women who participated
in the mobilization of the people for the communal work. Both men and women tend to be equally
involved in sensitization, community mobilization, planning and scheduling work, conflict resolution, and
the sharing of communal products. Men were, however, reported to be more involved than women in
providing security during conflicts. The active role played by women observed in Tigray is exceptional.
Research has shown that strong local and community organizations can empower women and mobilize
labor for community conservation projects (Dejene 2003). Furthermore, Tigrayan women are able to
participate in developmental and conservation projects because of their access to membership in
community associations. Teshome (2003) emphasized the role of the Tigray’s Women Association
(TWA) in mobilizing its members for developmental projects. The association is organizationally
structured in a way that it reaches down to the kushet level. It also provides short-term training for women
committees that coordinate women at the tabia and kushet levels around issues and women participation
in community developmental projects. Consequently, women play a fundamental role in
decisionmaking.
In addition, development literature has documented at length how the failure to integrate women
into developmental projects can contribute to their lack of success (Mehra 1993), especially natural
resource management projects. Taking into account that women are involved in all activities relevant to
natural resources and livelihoods, women are considered to be primary users and managers of community
resources. They are powerful agents of change and their leadership and decision-making in compulsory
free labor is critical (Aguilar, Araujo, and Quesada-Aguilar 2007). This growing recognition of the
importance of women’s roles in the development process and natural resource management is perhaps a
step forward to attaining gender equity.
Part of the reason for the active participation of women in the entire compulsory free labor
process—sensitization, mobilization, decisionmaking, and leadership—had to do with the empowerment
of women enshrined in their local bylaws, and also because women considered environmental
conservation activities important. The strong involvement of women’s groups in environmental
conservation efforts tends to reinforce the view that women have a high interest. Furthermore, collective
action has been seen as a potential means of achieving greater equity and a voice in natural resource
management (German et al. 2006). These require collective action where strong community and
grassroots organizations have been observed to be fundamental to mobilizing labor, facilitating training,
and ensuring that these resources are appropriately used in attaining the community’s objectives.

33
 We observed that female-headed household were economically vulnerable and thus severely
affected when there was a shortage of tools for compulsory free labor for community work. These
households remain at an extreme disadvantage and are likely to be among the most food insecure. This
possibly calls for programs to overcome structural constraints to development facing female-headed
households.
In fact, there is growing evidence to show that women and men have quite different channels of
communication and receive information from very different sources and in quite different ways (Mehra
1993; Collier 1990). We observed that both men and women had equal access to information regarding
ecological restoration and climate change–related information. This information was usually disseminated
during meetings by experts from the Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The role of
information and knowledge- sharing on climate change and ecological restoration cannot be underrated
(Roux et al. 2006) because the success of sustainable ecosystem management depends strongly on the
acquisition and use of knowledge that is continuously updated and shared among farmers.

Building Sustainable Communities through Social Networking

The analysis in NetDraw showed that the Ketema kushet had stronger social interactions among the
farmers, followed by Bolenta and Mitsnah Wegebet, in that order. Farmers diffused information among
almost all the farmers in Ketema and also disseminated information more frequently. It is also interesting
to note that although Ketema is not as remote as Bolenta and Mitsnah Wegebet, it demonstrated stronger
social interaction. The small population size in Ketema and the easy accessibility of the kushet possibly
explains this observation. Mitsnah Wegebet and Bolenta, although remote, are characterized by high
population and sparse settlement. Also the remoteness of Bolenta and Mitsnah Wegebet can perhaps
reduce the frequency of the farmers receiving knowledge from external sources to disseminate among
them.
We found out that within the kushets, social network learning was from key farmers who acted as
teachers or advisers to the other farmers. Most of these key information brokers were usually the religious
leaders or leaders of an association in the community, thus directly supporting extension activities within
the kushets and providing farmers with information from formal sources. Central to this idea is the
concept of information intermediaries who receive information and redistribute it in locally
contextualized formats, giving it validity and an appearance of trustworthiness. These brokers have the
ability to control the flow of information and resources to other less well-connected actors (Clark 2006;
Haythornthwaite 1996), particularly for people who are not in direct contact with the official extension
system. Identifying these brokers in the kushets and building on these existing systems and networks can
strengthen social networking and further improve information flows with respect to knowledge and
information on climate change and community mobilization.
The results suggest that an overwhelming majority of respondents in our survey paid heed to the
advice of farmers who had successfully adopted the knowledge or advice. This may explain why many
actors rely on the brokers in the kushets who are perceived as technically competent to obtain information
and advice. They work on the assumption that if one farmer adopts a technology successfully, other
farmers may learn the innovation from him/her, and share with others, thereby developing a multiplier
effect (Hoang, Castella, and Novosad 2006; Kiptot et al. 2006). The analyses found that minor actors
(learners/listeners) did not find all the advice from the brokers to be useful information, possibly because
even though they received diverse information they were cautious of putting the advice into use. A
majority of the respondents had close kin relations with people whose advice they found relevant and
followed. Hoang, Castella, and Novosad (2006) observed that the decision on whether or not to adopt
advice depends very much on kinship networks.
Farmers in the Tigray region were found to rely on neighbors (intra- and inter-village) and
kinship for their social network information on climate change and community mobilization for
ecological restoration. Social relationships such as kinship ties and physical distances are relevant proxies
that play a clear role in farmer information networks. Rogers (1983) highlighted the importance of

34
neighbor networks in the diffusion of innovations through their mechanism of information sharing. When
individuals interact frequently in local networks and in the observance of local norms, they are more
likely to exchange information (two-way information sharing) and to observe each other’s behavior (one-
way information sharing). Relationships with neighbors are highly regarded by poor households,
especially by farmers with few kin ties in the kushets. Neighbor networks provide this group of farmers
with a pathway to integrate into the local community and make up for the benefits that they do not get
from kinship networks (Van den Broeck and Dercon 2011; Hoang, Castella, and Novosad 2006; Isham
2002). In the kushets in Tigray, neighbor networks appear to play a significant role in the adoption of
technological innovations.

35
 6. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

This study has been motivated by the response of the people of the Tigray region in Ethiopia to
degenerative climate conditions with the associated land degradation, which is predicted to become even
worse in the years ahead. The study is premised on the notion that the long-term sustainability and
resilience of smallholder agriculture is highly dependent on conserving or improving the quality of the
natural resources. The study is aimed at finding out mechanisms that have been used to let the people of
Tigray recognize the need for action to restore the ecology and participate in it without any direct
compensation.
The study indicates that farmers have witnessed a change in the climate during their lifetime,
including rising temperatures and recurring drought. Deforestation was perceived and ranked as the most
important cause of the changes in the climate in Tigray, then natural causes and agriculture, in that order.
The human-induced land degradation in Tigray has been attributed to intensified social conflict,
population pressure, and the lack of education and awareness on the importance of conservation. The
underlying reason for communities in Tigray to restore their ecology through community work was the
restoration of soil fertility and the subsequent increase in agricultural productivity. Soil and water
conservation (SWC) activities in Tigray result in multifunctionality of the land through enhanced
irrigation, livestock production (pasture development), and crop diversification (introduction of new
crops). All of these functions ultimately diversify livelihoods and improve resilience among vulnerable
households in the Tigray region. Knowledge about the need for communal action and benefits that could
accrue and how they would be shared were major motivating factors for responding to the call to act.
The existence of institutions in terms of grassroots organizations and rules and regulations with
appropriate sanctions were major factors in the positive response to the call for community action in
Tigray. The community was structured and organized into development groups and men, women, and
youth associations. These community organizations played a vital role in mobilizing their respective
members for compulsory free labor. During communal work, the developmental group leaders, tabia
heads, work group leaders, and officials of the Bureau of Agriculture were in control of the organization
of people and tasks, and ensured that the work was carried out. We also observed that the strong
institutional and organizational developments were linked to the strong Tigray People’s Liberation Front
(TPLF) insurgency campaigns against the Derg regime and later the commitment of government at the
national, regional, and local levels.
The homogeneity in the community in terms of ethnicity and religion played a major role in
ensuring trust among the people and promoted successful group cohesion and cooperation. We observed a
docile society that was enthusiastic to take on community activities to restore their degraded ecology, and
this may be due to the connection of the people to the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia. All of these factors
contributed to the near absence of resistance to the call to contribute 20 days of free labor per year to
ecological restoration for SWC and the establishment of woodlots and grazing grounds.
We conclude that commitment of people to communal activities like ecological restoration can be
sustained if there are appropriate local- and national-level institutions, support systems, and policies
related to rural development. As it is done in Tigray, both men and women should be fully involved in the
planning, mobilizing, organizing, providing leadership, resolving conflicts, and sharing communal
products related to communal activities involving the whole citizenry. Such involvement of the whole
community in all aspects of the community mobilization and the ensuing collective action promotes
gender equity in the local communities and engenders positive responses to the call to act together to
tackle community problems.
The case study in the Tigray region has illustrated how social networks and power relations are
unique for each kushet and require appropriate methodological adaptations in research and development
approaches. Social connectedness in the kushets is an important resource that should be taken into account
by development agents, extension workers, and advisory services in the dissemination of knowledge and
information on climate change and community mobilization.

36
 We recommend similar research in an ethnically heterogeneous society in Ethiopia and other
countries to find out how institutions are used in mass mobilization of the community for ecological
restoration and maintenance of other common-property resources. Such a study would demonstrate any
spillover effects of the innovations from the Tigray study for community mobilization. In particular, it
will be interesting to study how the community responds to the call to act to conserve communal property
and the role of institutions in encouraging participation and preventing deviant behavior. Because
conservation agriculture is often conceived for provisioning both food and other ecosystem services, it
will be insightful to conduct an evaluation to find out how SWC initiatives have affected the agricultural
productivity, income, and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in the Tigray region.

37
 REFERENCES

Abera, K. T. 2009. “Agronomic Evaluation of Ethiopian Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Landrace Populations under
Drought Stress Conditions in Low-Rainfall Areas of Ethiopia.” University of Uppsala, CMB Master’s
Thesis, No. 61 Uppsala.
Agrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson. 1999. “Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural
Resource Conservation.” World Development 27 (4): 629– 649.
Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 2007. Agriculture and Natural Resource Annual Report.
A report submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Aguilar, L., A. Araujo, and A. Quesada-Aguilar. 2007. Gender and Climate Change. The World Conservation Unit.
Accessed July 20. www.genderandenvironment.org.
Ajibade, L.T., and O. O. Shokemi. 2003. “Indigenous Approach to Weather Forecasting in ASA L.G.A., Kwara
State, Nigeria.” African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems 2:37–44.
Amede, T., H. Kassa, G. Zeleke, A. Shiferaw, S. Kismu, and M. Teshome. 2007. “Working with Communities and
Building Local Institutions for Sustainable Land Management in the Ethiopian Highlands.” Mountain
Research and Development 27 (1): 15–19.
Andersson, C., A. Mekonnen, and J. Stage. 2009. Impacts of the Productive Safety Net Program in Ethiopia on
Livestock and Tree Holdings of Rural Households. Discussion Paper Series March 2009 EfD DP 09–05,
Gothenburg, Sweden: Environment for Development.
Angelsen, A. 1997. “Tropical Agriculture and Deforestation: Economic Theories and a Study from Indonesia.” PhD
Thesis, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen.
Ascher, W. 1995. Communities and Sustainable Forestry in Developing Countries. San Francisco: ICS Press. Africa
Union Commission-Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources. 2011. “Joint Statement: Expert
Consultation to Inform Long-Term Development of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands in the Greater Horn of
Africa.” Presented at the African Union Commission and Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources
expert consultation, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, September 2–3.
Badstue, L. B., M. R. Bellon, J. Berthaud, A. Ramírez, D. Flores, X. Juárez, and F. Ramírez. 2005. Collective Action
for the Conservation of On-Farm Genetic Diversity in Center of Crop Diversity: An Assessment of the Role
of Traditional Farmers’ Networks. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Accessed May 11. http://www.capri.cgiar.org/wp/capriwp38.asp.
Barber, J. S., A. E. Biddlecom, and W. G. Axinn. 2003. “Neighbourhood Social Change and Perceptions of
Environmental Degradation.” Population Environment 25 (2): 77–108.
Bezu, S., and S. Holden. 2008. “Can Food-For-Work Encourage Agricultural Production?” Food Policy 33 (6): 541–
549.
Bishaw, B. 1993. “Determining Options for Agroforestry Systems for the Rehabilitation of Degraded Watersheds in
Alemaya Basin, Hararghe Highlands, Ethiopia.” PhD Dissertation, Oregon State University.
———. 2001. “Deforestation and Land Degradation in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Strategy for Physical Recovery.”
Northeast African Studies 8 (1): 7–26.
Bose, G. 2000. “Institutions and Institutional Change: A Review of Conceptual and Analytical Issues.” In
Institutional Reform in the MENA Region, edited by Limam, I. 11–44. Cairo: Economic Research Forum.
Borgatti, S. P. 2006. Social Network Analysis: Overview of the Field Today, Presentation for NAS Statistics on
Networks Conference, Slide 6.Accessed May 14. http://www.analytictech.com/mb874/Slides/Overview.pdf.
Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 2002. UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network
Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

38
Burton, I. 1996. “The Growth of Adaptation Capacity: Practice and Policy.” In Adapting to Climate Change: An
International Perspective, edited by J. Smith, N. Bhatti, G. Menzhulin, R. Benioff, M. I. Budyko, M.
Campos, B. Jallow, and F. Rijsberman, 55–67. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Butler, R. A. 2011. “Ethiopia Forest Information and Data.” Mongabay.com/A Place Out of Time: Tropical
Rainforests and the Perils They Face. July 15. Accessed May 20. http://rainforests.
mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Ethiopia.htm.
Ceccarelli, S., E. Acevedo, and S. Grando. 1991. “Breeding Yield Stability in Unproductive Environments: Single
Traits, Interaction between Traits and Architecture of Genotypes.” Agronomy and Crop Science 186:119–
127.
Chisholm, N. 1998. “Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. The World
Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative.” Accessed July 5. http://srdis.ciesin.org/ cases/ethiopia-005.html.
Clark, L. 2006. “Building Farmers’ Capacities for Networking (Part II): Strengthening Agricultural Supply Chains
in Bolivia Using Network Analysis.” KM4D Journal 2 (2): 19–32.
Coase, R. H. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4 (November): 386–405.
———. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law and Economics. 3: 1–44.
Collier, P. 1990. Women and Structural Adjustment. Washington, DC: World Bank.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2008. Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa. Accessed November 2.
http://www.csa.gov.et/text_files/national_statistics.htm.
Dejene, A. 1990. Environment, Famine and Politics in Ethiopia. Boulder, CO, US: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Dejene, A. 2003. Integrated Natural Resources Management to Enhance Food Security: The Case for Community-
Based Approaches in Ethiopia. Working Paper No.16. Environment and Natural Resources Service
Sustainable Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Dejene, A., G. Zeleke. S. Abate, and M. Lule. 2004. “Towards Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in
the Ethiopian Highlands.” Proceedings of the Technical Workshop on Improving the Natural Resources
Base and Rural Well-Being, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, November 25–27.
Dercon, S., J. Hoddinott, and T. Woldehanna. 2005. “Shocks and Consumption in 15 Ethiopian Villages, 1999–
2004.” African Economies 14 (4): 559–585.
Dorward, A. R. 2001. “The Effects of Transaction Costs Power and Risk on Contractual Arrangements: A
Conceptual Framework for Quantitative Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 52 (2): 59–74.
Dorward, A. R., Kirsten, J. F., Omamo, S. W., Poulton, C. and Vink, N. 2009. “Institutions and the Agricultural
Development Challenge in Africa.” In Institutional Economics Perspectives on African Agricultural
Development, edited by J. F. Kirsten, A. R. Dorward, C. Poulton, and N. Vink. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute, pp 1-34.
Dorward, A. R. and S. W. Omamo. 2009. “A Framework for Analyzing Institutions.” In Institutional Economics
Perspectives on African Agricultural Development, edited by J. F. Kirsten, A. R. Dorward, C. Poulton, and
N. Vink. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, pp 75-110.
Duffield, M., and J. Prendergast. 1994. Without Troops and Tanks: Humanitarian Intervention in Ethiopia and
Eritrea. Lawrenceville, NJ, US: Red Sea Press.
Esser, K., T. Vågen, Y. Tilahun, and M. Haile. 2002. Soil Conservation in Tigray, Ethiopia. Noragric Report No. 5
February.
Eswaran, H., R. Lal, and P. F. Reich. 2001. “Land Degradation: An Overview.” In Responses to Land Degradation.
Proc. 2nd. International Conference on Land Degradation and Desertification, Khon Kaen, Thailand,
edited by E. M. Bridges, I. D. Hannam, L. R. Oldeman, F. W. T. Pening de Vries, S. J. Scherr, and S.
Sompatpanit. New Delhi: Oxford Press.
Ezra, M. 2001. Ecological Degradation, Rural Poverty, and Migration in Ethiopia: A Contextual Analysis. Policy
Research Division Working Papers No. 149.

39
Fox, G. 2007. “The Real Coase Theorems.” The Free Library. Accessed August 4.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Thereal Coase theorems.-a0173100869.
Gabre-Madhin, E. 2009. “Exchange, Contracts, and Property-Rights Enforcement.” In Institutional Economics
Perspectives on African Agricultural Development, edited by J. F. Kirsten, A. R. Dorward, C. Poulton, and
N. Vink. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, pp115-143.
Gaspart, F., and J. P. Platteau. 2002. “Collective Action for Local-Level Effort Regulation: An Assessment of
Recent Experiences in Senegalese Small-Scale Fisheries.” In Group Behaviour and Development: Is the
Market Destroying Cooperation? edited by J. Heyer, F. Stewart, and R. Thorp. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gaspart, F., M. Jabbar, C. Melard, and J. P. Platteau. 1998. “Participation in the Construction of a Local Public
Good with Indivisibilities: An Application to Watershed Development in Ethiopia.” Journal of African
Economies 7 (2): 157–184.
Gamachu, D. 1988. “Environment and Development in Ethiopia.” In Beyond the Famine: An Examination of the
Issues behind Famine in Ethiopia, edited by A. Penrose, 54–96. Geneva: International Institute for Relief
and Development and Food for the Hungry International.
Gebremedhin, B. 1998. “The Economics of Soil Conservation Investments in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia.” PhD
Dissertation, Michigan State University.
Gebremedhin, B., J. Pender, S. K. Ehui, and M. Haile, eds. 2003. Policies for Sustainable Land Management in the
Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Summary of Papers and Proceedings of a Workshop Held at
Axum Hotel, Mekelle, Ethiopia, 28–29 March 2002. Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper
54. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute.
Gebremedhin, B., J. Pender, and G. Tesfay. 2002. Collective Action for Grazing Land Management in Mixed Crop-
Livestock Systems in the Highlands of Northern Ethiopia. Socio-Economics and Policy Research Working
Paper No. 42. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute.
———. 2003. “Community Natural Resource Management in the highlands of Ethiopia.” In Policies for
Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands: Summary of Papers and Proceedings of a
Conference Held at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 24–26 April 2002, edited by S. Benin, J. Pender, and S. Ehui. Socio-economic and Policy
Research Working Paper 50. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute.
———. 2004. “Methods for Studying Collective Action in Rural Development.” Agricultural Systems 82 (3): 273–
290.
German, L., H. Taye, S. Charamila, T. Tolera, and J. Tanui. 2006. The Many Meanings of Collective Action:
Lessons on Enhancing Gender Inclusion and Equity in Watershed Management. CAPRi Working Paper
No. 52. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Gilligan, D.O., J. Hoddinott, and A. S. Taffesse. 2008. An Analysis of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program and
Its Linkages. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Gindaba, J., A. Rozanov, and L. Negash. 2005. “Photosynthetic Gas Exchange, Growth and Biomass Allocation of
Two Eucalyptus and Three Indigenous Tree Species of Ethiopia Under Moisture Deficit.” Forest Ecology
Management 205:127–138.
Government of Ethiopia. 2004. Food Security Programme Logical Framework. Addis Ababa: Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development.
Gray, C. and V. Mueller. 2011. “Drought and Population Mobility in Rural Ethiopia.” World Development.
Accessed May 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.023.
Hagos, F. 2003. “Poverty, Institutions, Peasant Behaviour and Conservation Investment in Northern Ethiopia.” PhD
Dissertation, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway.
Hagos, F., J. Pender, and N. Gebreselassie. 2002. Land Degradation and Strategies for Sustainable Land
Management in the Ethiopian Highlands: Tigray Region, 2nd ed. Socio-Economics and Policy Research
Working Paper 25. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute.

40
Haythornthwaite, C. 1996. Social Network Analysis: An Approach and Technique for the Study of Information
Exchange.” Library and Information Science Research 18:323–342.
Hendrie, B. 1999. “Now the People Are Like a Lord: Local Effects of Revolutionary Reform in a Tigray Village,
Northern Ethiopia.” PhD Dissertation, University College London.
Hoang, L. A., J. C. Castella, and P. Novosad. 2006. “Social Networks and Information Access: Implications for
Agricultural Extension in a Rice Farming Community in Northern Vietnam.” Agriculture and Human
Values 23:513–527.
Hoekstra, D., E. Torquebiau, and B. Bishaw, eds. 1990. Agroforestry: Potentials and Research Needs for the
Ethiopian Highlands. Nairobi, Kenya: Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa No. 21.
Holden, S., B. Shiferaw, and J. Pender. 2003. “Policy Analysis for Sustainable Land Management and Food Security
in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Bio-Economic Model with Market Imperfections.” In Policies for
Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands: Summary of Papers and Proceedings of a
Conference Held at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 24–26 April 2002, edited by S. Benin, J. Pender, and S. Ehui. Socio- Economic and Policy
Research Working Paper 50. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute.
———. 2005. Policy Analysis for Sustainable Land Management and Food Security in Ethiopia: A Bioeconomic
Model with Market Imperfections. Research Report 140. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Hurni, H. 1990. “Degradation and Conservation of Soil Resources in the Ethiopian Highlands.” In African
Mountains and Highlands: Problems and Prospective, edited by B. Messerli and H. Hurni, 51–63.
Marceline, MO, US: Walsworth Press, for the African Mountains Association.
Jagger, P., J. Pender, and B. Gebremedhin. 2003. “Woodlot Devolution in Northern Ethiopia: Opportunities for
Empowerment, Smallholder Income Diversification, and Sustainable Land Management.” Paper Presented
at The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany, May 19–
23.
Jagger, P., and J. Pender. 2003. “The Role of Trees for Sustainable Management of Less-Favored Lands: The Case
of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia.” Forest Policy and Economics 3 (1): 83–95.
Jan, S., and B. Anja. 2007. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change. University of Oxford and Missouri Botanical
Garden. A Tyndall Centre Publication. Oxford: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Ishaya, S., and I. B. Abaje. 2008. “Indigenous People’s Perception on Climate Change and Adaptation Strategies in
Jema’a Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria.” Geography and Regional Planning 1 (8): 138–
143.
Isham, J. 2002. The Effect of Social Capital on Fertiliser Adoption: Evidence from Rural Tanzania. African
Economies, 11(1): 39–60.
Kazianga, H., and Udry, C. 2006. “Consumption Smoothing? Livestock, Insurance, and Drought in Rural Burkina
Faso.” Development Economics 79 (2): 413–446.
Keeley, J., and I. Scoones, eds. 2003. Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. London:
Earthscan.
Khan, M. A., I. Hussain, and E. A. Khan. 2008. “Allelopathic Effects of Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis L.)
on Germination and Seedling Growth of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)” Pakistan Journal of Weed Science
Research. 14 (1–2): 9–18.
Kiptot, E., S. Franzel, P. Hebinck, and P. Richards. 2006. “Sharing Seed and Knowledge: Farmer to Farmer
Dissemination of Agroforestry Technologies in Western Kenya.” Agroforest Systems 68:167–179.
Kirsten, J. F, A. S. M. Karaan, and A. R. Dorward. 2009. “Introduction to the Economies of Institutions.” In
Institutional Economics Perspectives on African Agricultural Development, edited by J. F. Kirsten, A. R.
Dorward, C. Poulton, and N. Vink. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

41
Kiss, A., ed. 1990. Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Kronik, J., and D. Verner. 2010. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Lanz, T. J. 1996. “Environmental Degradation and Social Conflict in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia: The Case
of Tigray and Wollo Provinces.” Africa Today 43 (2): 157–182.
Lindsey, L. L. 2011. Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lynne, G. D., J. S. Shonkwiler, and L. R. Rola. 1988. “Attitudes and Farmer Conservation Behaviour.” American
Agricultural Economics 20:12–19.
Mehra, R. 1993. Gender in Community Development and Resource Management: An Overview. International Center
for Research on Women, Washington, D.C.
Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, B. Swallow, and F. Place. 2002. “Introduction.” In Innovation in Natural Resource
Management: The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in Developing Countries, edited by R.
Meinzen-Dick, A. Knox, F. Place, and B. Swallow. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mequanent, G. 1998. “Community Development and the Role of Community Organizations: A Study in Northern
Ethiopia.” Canadian Journal of African studies 32 (3): 494–520.
Milas, S., and J. Latif. 2000. “The Political Economy of Complex Emergency and Recovery in Northern Ethiopia.”
Disasters 24 (4): 363–379.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Accessed October 20. http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx.
Mitiku, H., K. Herweg, and B. Stillhardt. 2006. Sustainable Land Management—A New Approach to Soil and Water
Conservation in Ethiopia. Mekelle, Ethiopia: Mekelle University; Berne, Switzerland: University of Berne.
Munk Ravnborg, H., and J. A. Ashby. 1996. “Organising for Local-Level Watershed Management: Lessons from
Rio Cabuyal Watershed, Colombia.” AgREN Network Paper 65:1–14.
Nabli, M. K., and J. B. Nugent. 1989. “The New Institutional Economics and Its Applicability to Development.”
World Development 17:1333–1347.
Negassi, A., E. Bein, K. Ghebru, and B. Tengäs. 2002. Soil and Water Conservation Manual for Eriteria. 2002
RELMA Technical Handbook Series 29. Nairobi, Kenya: Regional Land Management Unit. North, D. C.
1971. “Institutional Change and Economic Growth.” Journal of Economic History 31:118–125.
———. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
———. 1994. “Economic Performance through Time.” American Economic Review 84 (3): 359–368.
———. 1995. “The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development.” In The New Institutional
Economics and Third World Development, edited by J. Harriss, J. Hunter, and C. M. Lewis. London:
Routledge.
Nyong, A., F. Adesina, and B. O. Elasha. 2007. “The Value of Indigenous Knowledge in Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies in the African Sahel.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
12:787–797.
Nyssen, J., M. Haile, J. Naudts, R. N. Munro, J. Poesen, J. Moeyersons, A. Frankl, J. Deckers, and R. Pankhurst.
2009. “Desertification? Northern Ethiopia Re-Photographed after 140 Years.” Science of the Total
Environment 407 (8): 2749–2755.
Nyssen, J., R. N. Munro, M. Haile, J. Poesen, K., Descheemaeker, N. Haregeweyn, J. Moeyersons, G. Govers, and J.
Deckers. 2007. Understanding the Environmental Changes in Tigray: A Photographic Record over 30
Years. Tigray Livelihood Papers No. 3, VLIR—Mekelle University IUC Programme and Zala-Daget
Project.

42
Nyssen, J., J. Poesen, J. Moeyersons, J. Deckers, M. Haile, and A. Lang. 2004. “Human Impact on the Environment
in the Ethiopian and Eritrean Highlands—A State of the Art.” Earth Sci. Rev 64:273–320. Olson, M. 1971.
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA, US:
Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
———. 1992. Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. San Francisco: ICS Press.
———. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ, US: Princeton University Press.
Parry, M. L. 1986. “Some Implications of Climatic Change for Human Development.” In Sustainable Development
of the Biosphere, edited by W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn, 378–406. Luxemburg, Austria: International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
Pender, J., and B. Gebremedhin. 2004. “Impacts of Policies and Technologies in Dryland Agriculture: Evidence
from Northern Ethiopia.” In Challenges and Strategies for Dryland Agriculture, edited by S. C. Rao. CSSA
Special Publication 32. Madison, WI, US: American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of
America.
Pender, J., B. Gebremedhin, and M. Haile. 2003. “Livelihood Strategies and Land Management Practices in the
Highlands of Tigray.” Paper presented at the Conference on Policies for Sustainable Land Management in
the East African Highlands, April 24–26.
Pigou, A. C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare 1952, 4th ed. London: Macmillan. Poluha, E. 2003. “Learning
Political Behaviour. Peasant–State Relations in Ethiopia.” In Contesting “Good” Governance.
Crosscultural Perspectives on Representation, Accountability and Public Space, edited by E. Poluha and
M. Rosendahl. London: Routledge/Curzon.
Reubens, B., C. Moeremans, J. Poesen, J. Nyssen, S. Tewoldeberhan, S. Franzel, J. Deckers, C. Orwa, and B. Muys.
2011. “Tree Species Selection for Land Rehabilitation in Ethiopia: From Fragmented Knowledge to an
Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Approach.” Agroforestry Systems 82:303–330.
Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press.
Roux, D. J., K. H. Rogers, H. C. Biggs, P. J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant. 2006. “Bridging the Science–Management
Divide: Moving from Unidirectional Knowledge Transfer to Knowledge Interfacing and Sharing.” Ecology
and Society 11 (1): 4. Accessed June 25. http://www.ecology andsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/ .
Sandler, T. 1992. Collective Action: Theory and Applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schmid, A. A. 2000. “Is There Any Theory in Institutional Economics?” Accessed August 7.
https://www.msu.edu/user/ schmid/commons.htm.
Scott, C. A., and P. Silva-Ochoa. 2001. “Collective Action for Water Harvesting Irrigation in the Lerma-Chapala
Basin, Mexico.” Water Policy 3:555–572.
Segers, K., J. Dessein, S. Hagberg, P. Develtere, M. Haile, and J. Deckers. 2008. “Be Like Bees—The Politics of
Mobilizing Farmers for Development in Tigray, Ethiopia” African Affairs 108 (430): 91–109.
Semait, B. 1989. “Ecological Stress and Political Conflict in Africa: The Case of Ethiopia.” In Ecology and Politics:
Environmental Stress and Security in Africa, edited by Anders Hjort and Mohamed A. Salih. Uppsala,
Sweden: SIAS.
Shah, M. K., and P. Shah. 1995. “Gender, Environment and Livelihood Security: An Alternative Viewpoint from
India.” IDS Bulletin 26 (1): 75–82.
Smith, B., I. Burton, R. J. T. Klein, and R. Street, 1999. “The Science of Adaptation: A Framework for
Assessment.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4:199–213.
Stringer, L. 2008. “Can the UN Convention to Combat Desertification Guide Sustainable Use of the World’s Soils?”
Front Ecol Environ 6:138–144.

43
Suda, C. A. 2000. “Gender, Culture and Environmental Conservation in Western Kenya: Contextualizing
Community Participation and the Choice of Techniques.” Nordic Journal of African Studies 9 (1): 31–48.
Taffere, B. 2003. “Efforts for Sustainable Land Management in Tigray: The Role of Extension.” In Policies for
Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Summary of Papers and
Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Axum Hotel, Mekelle, Ethiopia, 28–29 March 2002, edited by B.
Gebremedhin. Issue 54 of Socio-Economics and Policy Research Working Papers. Mekelle University,
Mekelle, Ethiopia, International Livestock Research Institute, International Food Policy Research Institute.
Tekeste, G., and D. S. Paul. 1989. Soil and Water Conservation in Tigray, Ethiopia: Report of a Consultancy Visit
to Tigray.
Teshome, W. 2003. Irrigation Practices, State Intervention and Farmers Life-Worlds in Drought-Prone Tigray,
Ethiopia.
Tessema, W., and S. Holden. 2005. “Soil Degradation, Poverty, and Farmers’ Willingness to Invest in Soil
Conservation: A Case from a Highland in Southern Ethiopia.” Paper presented at the 3rd International
Conference on Ethiopian Economy, Economic Association of Ethiopia (EEA), Addis Ababa, June 2–4.
Thomas D., C. Twyman, H. Osbahr, and B. Hewitson 2007. “Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability: Farmer
Responses to Intra Seasonal Precipitation Trends in South Africa.” Climatic Change 83:301–322.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2010. Ethiopia Statistics, United
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. Accessed June 10.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/ethiopia_statistics.html.
Van den Broeck, K., and S. Dercon. 2011. “Information Flows and Social Externalities in a Tanzanian Banana
Growing Village.” Development Studies 47 (2): 231–252.
Varughese, G. and E. Ostrom. 2001. “The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence
from Community Forestry in Nepal.” World Development 29 (5): 747–765.
Vaughan, S., and K. Tronvoll. 2003. “The Culture of Power in Contemporary Ethiopian Political Life.” Sida Studies
10:1-184.
Wade, R. 1987. “The Management of Common Property Resources: Finding a Cooperative Solution.” World Bank
Research Observer 2 (2): 219–234.
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-Trust Implications. New York: The Free Press.
———. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press.
Wilson, R. T. 1977. “The Vegetation of Central Tigre, Ethiopia, in Relation to Its Land Use.” Webbia 32:233–270.
Wolde-Aregay, B. 1996. Twenty Years of soil conservation in Ethiopia. A Personal Overview. SIDA/RSCU
Technical Report No. 14. Nairobi
World Bank. 2005. Well-Being and Poverty in Ethiopia: The Role of Agriculture and Agency. Report No. 29468–
ET.
World Bank Report. 2008. World Bank/Global Environment Fund Support Efforts to Reverse Land Degradation In
Ethiopia. Press Release No: 2008/288/AFR. Accessed November 20.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21750129~pagePK:34370~piPK:
34424~theSitePK: 4607,00.html.
Yesuf, M., S. Di Falco, T. Deressa, C. Ringler, and G. Kohlin. 2008. The Impact of Climate Change and Adaptation
on Food Production in Low-Income Countries: Evidence from the Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
Yesuf, M., and J. Pender. 2005. Determinants and Impacts of Land Management Technologies in the Ethiopian
Highlands: A Literature Review.
Yohannes, H. 2003. “Overview of the Tigray National Regional State: Achievements of the First Five-Year
Development Plan and Future Prospects.” In Policies for Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands
of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Summary of Papers and Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Axum Hotel,

44
 Mekelle, Ethiopia, 28–29 March 2002, edited by B. Gebremedhin. Issue 54 of Socio- Economics and
Policy Research Working Papers. Mekelle University, ILRI, IFPRI.
Young, A. 1989. Agroforestry for Soil Conservation. Oxford: CAB International.

45
 RECENT IFPRI DISCUSSION PAPERS

For earlier discussion papers, please go to www.ifpri.org/pubs/pubs.htm#dp.

All discussion papers can be downloaded free of charge.

1141. The quiet revolution in agrifood value chains in Asia: The case of increasing quality in rice markets in Bangladesh. Bart
Minten, K.A.S. Murshid, and Thomas Reardon, 2011.
1140. Sanitary and phytosanitary standards as bridge to cross. Abdul Munasib and Devesh Roy, 2011.
1139. Climate change and floods in Yemen: Impacts on food security and options for adaptation. Manfred Wiebelt, Clemens
Breisinger, Olivier Ecker, Perrihan Al-Riffai, Richard Robertson, and Rainer Thiele, 2011.
1138. Unintended effects of urbanization in china: Land use spillovers and soil carbon loss. Man Li, Junjie Wu, and
Xiangzheng Deng, 2011.
1137. A regional computable general equilibrium model for Guatemala: Modeling exogenous shocks and policy alternatives.
Samuel Morley and Valeria Piñeiro, 2011.
1136. Who owns the land?: Perspectives from rural Ugandans and implications for land acquisitions. Allan Bomuhangi, Cheryl
Doss, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick, 2011.
1135. Comprehension and risk elicitation in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal. Gary Charness and Angelino Viceisza,
2011.
1134. External shocks and policy alternatives in small open economies: The case of El Salvador. Samuel Morley, Valeria
Piñeiro, and Sherman Robinson, 2011.
1133. How does ownership of farm implements affect investment in other farm implements when farmers’ liquidity constraint is
relaxed?: Insights from Nigeria. Hiroyuki Takeshima and Sheu Salau, 2011.
1132. Poverty reduction in a refugee-hosting economy: A natural experiment. Jean-Francois Maystadt, 2011.
1131. Cereal production and technology adoption in Ethiopia. Bingxin Yu, Alejandro Nin-Pratt, José Funes, and Sinafikeh
Asrat Gemessa, 2011.
1130. A dynamic computable general equilibrium model with working capital for Honduras. Samuel Morley, Valeria Piñeiro,
and Sherman Robinson, 2011.
1129. The renewed case for farmers’ cooperatives: Diagnostics and implications from Ghana. Gian Nicola Francesconi and
Fleur Wouterse, 2011.
1128. Understanding the linkage between agricultural productivity and nutrient consumption: Evidence from Uganda. John
Ulimwengu, Saweda Liverpool-Tasie, Josee Randriamamonjy, and Racha Ramadan, 2011.
1127. How prudent are rural households in developing transition economies: Evidence from Zhejiang, China. Ling Jin, Kevin
Z. Chen, Bingxin Yu, and Zuhui Huang, 2011.
1126. Climate risk management through sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ephraim Nkonya, Frank Place,
John Pender, Majaliwa Mwanjololo, Appollonia Okhimamhe, Edward Kato, Susana Crespo, Jupiter Ndjeunga, and Sibiry
Traore, 2011.
1125. Evaluation of value-added agricultural advisory services: Case study of agriclinics in Southern India. Claire J.
Glendenning, Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere, and Suresh C. Babu, 2011.
1124. Making Agriculture Pro-Nutrition: Opportunities in Tanzania. Olivier Ecker, Athur Mabiso, Adam Kennedy, and
Xinshen Diao, 2011.
1123. Measuring the impacts of global trade reform with optimal aggregators of distortions. David Laborde, Will Martin, and
Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2011.
1122. Managing future oil revenue in Uganda for agricultural development and poverty reduction: A CGE analysis of
challenges and options. Manfred Wiebelt, Karl Pauw, John Mary Matovu, Evarist Twimukye, and Todd Benson, 2011.
1121. Impacts of an early education intervention on students’ learning achievement: Evidence from the Philippines. Futoshi
Yamauchi and Yanyan Liu, 2011.
1120. Supply and demand for cereals in Nepal, 2010–2030. Sanjay K. Prasad, Hemant Pullabhotla, and A. Ganesh-Kumar,
2011.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY
RESEARCH INSTITUTE

www.ifpri.org

IFPRI HEADQUARTERS
2033 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA
Tel.: +1-202-862-5600
Fax: +1-202-467-4439
Email: [email protected]

IFPRI ADDIS ABABA

P. O. Box 5689
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Tel.: + 251 (0) 11-617-2500
Fax: + 251 (0) 11-646-2927
Email: [email protected]