Local perceptions of and priorities for land restoration in northwest Ethiopia

Clashes between national level priorities for land restoration and those held by local actors may hinder the uptake of restoration actions at local scales. Yet, priority mapping for restoration rarely incorporates the knowledge or perspectives of multiple stakeholders, especially those of local land users, resulting in a lack of information regarding their preferences and priorities. Combining participatory mapping, farmer interviews and a field survey of soil erosion prevalence, we explore local perceptions of land degradation and restoration activities in the Gilgal-Abay watershed located in the Amhara National Regional State of Ethiopia. The watershed has experienced extensive land degradation in the form of soil erosion and soil nutrient depletion, largely attributed to the over-exploitation of communal resources and conversion of marginal land. Over the past decade, local communities have invested heavily in restoration efforts, including the establishment of area exclosures – an agroforestry-based intervention that promotes the regeneration of natural forest vegetation through the exclusion of livestock. Our study reveals discontinuity between current scientific perspectives and local values regarding when and where to act. While research has frequently shown that the prevention of land degradation is more cost-effective than its reversal, land users prioritised the areas they considered the most degraded for exclosure, despite being aware that once severely degraded land may become increasingly difficult to recover. This was because of the perceived opportunity costs associated with the establishment of exclosures on land that still maintained some productive potential, albeit very low. Perceptions of degradation and priority areas for restoration efforts were also found to vary with gender and that substantial disagreement between farmers existed over the establishment of exclosures on communal grazing lands. Two key factors were reported to influence farmers acceptability of exclosures: (i) farm size, and (ii) number of livestock. Farmers with many livestock or little or no land relied heavily on communal grazing and were strongly opposed to the establishment of exclosures. In contrast, farmers with sufficient farmland and fewer animals were able to designate an area of land for private grazing.Such findings demonstrate that land users may not share the same priorities, in terms of where, when and how to address degradation, as one another, or with other actors involved in restoration initiatives (e.g. researchers, government staff, and local planners) which implies a need for negotiation, and that the impact of restoration actions such as exclosures are likely to be socially differentiated. This makes it important to understand how livelihoods interact with different restoration interventions and to take measures to ensure that restoration efforts do not disadvantage the most vulnerable people.

---

• View source