Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern ... · Generally, the Konso community are...
Transcript of Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern ... · Generally, the Konso community are...
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology B 5 (2015) 589-600 doi: 10.17265/2161-6264/2015.09.001
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern
Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
Yohannes Gebre Michael
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 33569, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Abstract: The study attempted to understand indigenous small farming systems and its challenges with the framework of agricultural modernisation in Konso community, Southern Ethiopia. There were 400 household heads from different wealth rank and farming practices considered for in-depth interview. This was completed by focus group discussions and plot level investigations. The findings indicated that the community and landscape are characterized by heterogeneity, implying the challenges of introducing standard modern agricultural technologies. Moreover, the community has wide range of indigenous soil and water conservation (SWC) measures geared to production and protection. For example, in a single plot with a size of less than 0.4 ha, it was possible to produce up to 35 plant spices with multiple functions. The evaluation of the modern agricultural extension services by the community indicates that about 17% was found to be positive in line to diffusion of new technologies and rehabilitation of degraded lands. However, the strengths seem to be offset by the weaknesses (61%) with respect to food security, resilience to drought, synergy with indigenous knowledge, empowerment in decision-making. The findings underlined that to assure food security and sustainable resource management, creating policy environment for holistic and integrated approach, supporting indigenous practices and empowering community in decision making are fundamental.
Key words: Indigenous practices, modern technology, extension service, empowerment, sustainability.
1. Introduction
Today more than 80% of the population in Ethiopia
is depending on agriculture, while this sector
contributes about 46% of the national GDP.
Accordingly, the Ethiopian government have designed
different polices and strategies to achieve the vision of
becoming a middle income state by 2025. The
different polices, including the growth and
transformation plan (GTP) and establishment of the
agricultural transformation agency (ATA), are some
of the strategic interventions to address the vision of
food security and growth. However, in the course of
agrarian revolution, indigenous knowledge has been
marginalized and made smallholder farmers more
vulnerable to famine and drought [1-4].
To this context, indigenous knowledge refers to the
knowledge and know-how accumulated across
Corresponding author: Yohannes Gebre Michael, Ph.D.,
research fields: indigenous knowledge, local innovation and natural resource management.
generations and renewed by each new generation,
which guide human societies in their innumerable
interactions with their surrounding environment [5].
Indigenous knowledge is also sometimes known by
other names and interchangeably used in different
contexts. These names include traditional knowledge,
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), local
knowledge, farmers’ knowledge, folk knowledge and
indigenous science [6].
With the current global move towards sustainable
agriculture, indigenous knowledge is becoming a
point of departure, as it inherently embedded
eco-system approach and biodiversity in the practice
[5, 7-9]. Similarly, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) have acknowledge the role of indigenous
knowledge and practices mainly in agro-forestry,
traditional medicine, biodiversity conservation and
customary resource management in adapting to climate
D DAVID PUBLISHING
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
590
Table 1 Family size classification in the study areas.
Category of household Lehayite Gewada Doketu
Average SD Average SD Average SD
Better-off 9.7 2.5 8.7 2.9 8.7 3.0
Medium 8.9 2.8 6.0 2.6 6.2 2.5
Poor 7.3 2.9 6.1 2.6 5.9 2.3
Woman-headed 4.2 2.7 4.0 1.9 3.9 1.7
and other changes [10]. An attempt was also made to
compare indigenous and modern agriculture with cost
benefit analysis of economic and environmental
indicators, and the indigenous practice was found to
be superior in many aspects [11, 12]. No doubt that
the green revolution has fundamental role in
addressing the food gap with the global population
growth. However, the undesired foot prints of green
revolution include increases in environmental
degradation, inequalities and marginalization of
indigenous people from decision making [3, 5, 13-15].
On the other hand, some researcher have come with
the critics that both farming practices have many
common denominators, and an attempt of creating
dichotomy between indigenous and modern farming
practices was not only artificial but problematic.
Hence, building a bridge between the two systems for
synergetic effect is proposed [12, 16].
Therefore, this study attempted to understand
indigenous small farming practices and its challenges
with the framework of agrarian transformation.
2. Study Area and Methodology
2.1 Profile of the Study Area
Konso special woreda is located in the Rift Valley
of South Western Ethiopia in the Southern Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR)1. It lies
about 600 km South of Addis Ababa. In terms of the
Ethiopian agro-ecological zones, Konso has a dry
kolla agro-ecology in about 70% of the total land area
The current administrative hierarchy in Ethiopia from the highest to the lowest level is federal, regional, zonal, district (woreda) and sub-district (kebele). Some districts that are not part of a zone and function autonomously directly under the regional level are called “special woredas”.
and dry weyna dega in the remaining 30%. Konso has
bimodal rainfall: the main rains are locally known as
Hagaya (March-May) and the small rains as Katana
(September-November). The average annual rainfall is
797 mm, ranging from 519 mm to 1,094 mm. The soil
types are classified up to five major categories locally
based on their fertility, soil colour and slope. In 1994,
the total population of Konso special woreda was
about 152,106, and this grew to 235,087 in 2007,
which means that the population is growing by about
5% per year. Similarly, the average family size for the
better-off is nine people, while for the poor it was six
people and for woman-headed households it was four
people (Table 1). This also implies the challenges of
introducing standard extension services under labour
variability at household level.
Generally, the Konso community are selected as
study area fundamentally due to their deep rooted
indigenous soil and water conservation (SWC)
practices, recently register as United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) world heritage and paradoxically why the
same community are known for their chronic food
insecurity.
Accordingly, Konso district (woreda) has 50
kebeles2, including two urban kebeles. With the help
of persons, three kebeles were identified as study sites
on the basis of farming practice (oxen plough and hoe),
indigenous SWC and food insecurity. The three
kebeles selected were Lehayite, Gewada and Doketu.
The first two represent the kolla agro-ecological zone
and ox-ploughing farming system. The third kebele
2 The lowest administration unit of the government in rural areas; a sub-district.
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
591
(Doketu), including both kolla and weyna dega
agro-ecological zones, is dominated by hoe cultivation
and deep-rooted SWC practices.
2.2 Methodology
As shown in Table 2, a total of 398 household
heads were randomly selected from the list of wealth
categories in the respective kebeles for an in-depth
interview survey. In addition, a series of farmers’
group discussions (FGDs) was held with elders, local
leaders, women and youth, and individual
stakeholders, such as local healers, artisans,
development agents (DAs) and local administration
and government line offices.
This study was completed by observations of the
plots of better-off and poor households. A total of 27
households and their 80 fragmented plots were
observed with the support of a checklist.
3. Livelihood Bases
3.1 Land Tenure
There are different options to access land in Konso
area. The major source of access to land is inheritance
from family. However, some may also access land
temporary from the clan leader or poqalla. Others are
accessing land through the sharecropping and contract
agreements and some can also buy land.
The average fragmented number of farm plots per
household for the better-off farmer is five plots, while
for the poor it is about two plots (Table 3). The
average landholding per household in the study areas
is about 0.5 ha, but this varies with wealth rank and
between kebeles. As shown in Table 4, the
medium-wealth and poor households have less than 1
ha, while some of the better-off households use more
than 3 ha due to the additional farm coverage under
the contract of sharecropping with the poor who have
no access to oxen and labour power. Similarly, the
better-off households using the hoe with more than 2
ha are usually the poqalla. This implies the challenges
of introducing standard modern agricultural
technologies under heterogeneous resource bases.
3.2 Diversity of Livelihoods
The fundamental sources of livelihood in the rural
areas of Konso are crops and livestock (mixed
farming). In the ox-ploughing areas, different types of
cereals, pulses and oilseeds are produced, and cattle
and small ruminants are reared. In the hoe-farming
areas, cereals, pulses, oilseeds, tubers, coffee and
cotton are produced as components of agro-forestry
Table 2 Sample population with different wealth ranks.
Category of household
Kebeles Total %
Gewada Lehayite Doketu
Better-off 10 20 15 45 11
Medium 23 38 30 91 23
Poor 60 50 50 160 40
Ultra-poor: -Woman-headed -Landless
25 6
28 16
20 5
73 29
19 7
Total No. 124 152 120 398 100
Table 3 Number of plots observed in the study sites.
Location Wealth rank of households
No. of households
No. of plots
Gewada Better-off 3 15
Poor 3 7
Lehayite Better-off 3 16
Poor 3 6
Doketu Better-off 5 23
Poor 10 13
Total 27 80
Table 4 Household landholdings in ha (%).
Category of household
Lehayite Gewada Doketu < 1.00 ha
1.01- 1.50 ha
1.51- 2.00 ha
2.01- 2.50 ha
< 1.00 ha
1.01- 1.50 ha
1.51- 2.00 ha
2.01- 2.50 ha
< 1.00 ha
1.01- 1.50 ha
1.51- 2.00 ha
2.01- 2.50 ha
Better-off 58 42 - - 40 60 - - 38 38 19 6
Medium 75 25 - - 100 - - 76 24 - -
Poor 100 - - - 100 - - 9 8 - -
Woman-head 100 - - - 100 - - - 75 5 - -
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
592
Table 5 Sources of livelihood.
Category of household
Lehayite (%) Gewada (%) Doketu (%)
F T L PSNP F T L PSNP F T L PSNP
Better-off 100 30 40 4 100 47 7 5 100 20 10 4
Medium 100 15 15 5 91 100 12 20 62 9 11 18
Poor 49 65 55 70 64 72 18 70 47 22 14 37
Woman-head 75 50 3 80 44 60 5 63 60 45 10 72
F = mixed-farming, T = trade, L = labour, PSNP = productive safety net program.
systems with multipurpose trees for food, fodder,
medicine, timber and cash. Fattening of livestock is a
complementary activity in all wealth-rank groups;
some are also engaged on traditional beekeeping.
Many of the poor women household heads are
engaged on petty trade, such as selling local drinks
and attending periodical market days to sell different
crops and fruits. Some youth groups migrate
seasonally to neighbouring areas to work as farm
labourers. Most of the farmers are highly dependent
on the productive safety net program (PSNP)3, as part
of the agricultural extension system under the food
security programme (Table 5). Some are also
complementing their livelihoods with craftworks and
selling of firewood from both private and communal
land.
4. Farming Practices
To deal with the diversity and complexity of the
agro-ecological conditions in the Konso area,
including climate change and variability, the farmers
use a wide range of agricultural practices that can be
categorised into agronomic, biological and physical
measures.
4.1 Agronomic Measures
Mixed cropping or multiple cropping are widely
practised with cereals (sorghum, maize, finger millet,
wheat, barley and teff), pulses (pigeon pea, haricot
bean, chick pea, horse bean, lentil, mung bean), oil
3 The PSNP is mean to prevent asset depletion at the household level and create assets at the community level. With the transfer of food and cash, the target households are expected to work mainly on communal assets, including SWC, infrastructure (roads and water supply) and social services [17].
seeds (linseed, sunflower), tuber crops (taro, yam,
cassava, sweet potato, potato), tobacco, cotton and
vegetables (cabbage, pumpkin, onion, tomato).
Usually, with a minimum of seven different crops,
landrace are sown simultaneously and sequentially in
the double-cropping system over the two rainy
seasons. The growing period for the annual crops
ranges from 60 d to 180 d, and the rooting system of
the different crops varies from shallow to deep.
Other agronomic measures include timing of
sowing, seed rates, minimum tillage, green manure,
mulching, use of legumes, manuring and fallowing
with grass at specific sites. Crop rotation is widely
applied in the ox-ploughing system. Thinning and
sometimes replanting of finger millet and sorghum
land races are also widely practised as a way to deal
with poor germination or to prevent disease in the
crops, but also as a source of livestock feed to adapt to
climate variability. After harvesting crops, such as
finger millet and sorghum, the roots are left on the
ground and resprout up to three times as a component
of ratoon (Fig. 1).
4.2 Biological Measures
The biological measures applied in Konso include
live fences, agro-forestry, enclosures and afforestation,
cut-and-carry feeding, grass strips, stall-feeding and
controlled grazing. Agro-forestry with multipurpose
woody species includes fruit trees (papaya, banana,
avocado), stimulants (coffee and chat), Moringa
stenopetala, Ficus vasta, Cordial africana and
Terminalia brownill (Fig. 2).
Moringa stenopetala, locally known as shelqata, is
a staple food, and the fresh leaves are used as a kind
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
593
(a) Ratooning (b) Mixed cropping (c) Manuring
Fig. 1 Indigenous agronomic practices.
Fig. 2 Agro-forestry.
Fig. 3 Stone terraces.
of “cabbage” in the daily meals of the Konso. In
addition, it serves as fodder crop (also for sale) and for
medicinal purposes and water purification. It is a
drought-resistant and fast-growing plant [18, 19]. The
Moringa tree is also used as a dowry and measure of
wealth in the traditional culture of Konso [20]. In
Konso, Moringa is widespread, irrespective of wealth
rank and farming practices.
4.3 Physical Measures
The physical measures applied in Konso include
terraces, micro-basins, trash lines and check-dams.
Some of the physical structures, including terraces and
check dams, are permanently established, while micro
basins and trash lines are semi-permanent [19]. Each
type of technology and management complements
competes with each other. Some of the physical SWC
measures include:
(1) Stone terraces (kaweta): usually constructed by
the skilled and elderly, while the other people
transport the stones. The multiple functions of the
terraces include slope modification, as bench terrace,
water harvesting, removal of stones from the field,
space for producing fodder and wild foods during
drought, and serving as a fence for the farm plot and
boundary between fields (Fig. 3).
(2) Micro-basins (mona or korayita): made by any
member of the household during hoeing. These are
semi-permanent structures and the size of a
micro-basin varies depending on the soil type and
objective of harvesting more water or gaining more
land by increasing the number, size and height of the
ridges (Fig. 4).
(3) Trash lines (tura): made with the straw of
sorghum or maize as semi-permanent structures. Their
functions include reducing the splash effect of rainfall,
maintaining soil moisture, diminishing runoff and thus
increasing moisture infiltration and improving soil
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
594
fertility with decomposition. However, the use of trash
lines is declining, because the materials are
increasingly in demand for fodder and fuel-wood
(Fig. 4).
4.4 Plot-Level Observations
From observations of 80 plots of 27 households
(better-off and poor), the following major conclusions
could be drawn (Table 6).
Diversity of crops and trees is higher in the
homestead than in the farm plots. However, the
diversity of plants per plot is not strongly correlated
with size of the plot, as sometimes the smaller plots
have as many or more plant species than the larger
plots. The better-off farmers with larger overall farm
size and more plots have a greater diversity of crops
and trees than the poor.
The better-off households have 15-20 crop species
and varieties of cereals, pulses, oilseeds, tubers and
vegetables per plot and 10-15 multipurpose trees for
food, fodder, medicines, construction materials and
firewood. Thus, they have a total of 25-35 plant
species per plot. Similarly, other study found up to 24
species of plants in a single field in Konso [21]. This
implies no modern technology has able to produce
such huge diversity with a small plot with integrated
and multiple ecological, economic and social benefits.
Hence, there is a wide range of potential from the
indigenous practices for food security and sustainable
production.
The poor households have 7-12 crop species and
varieties and 6-10 multipurpose tree species per plot,
thus a total of 13-22 plant species per plot, i.e., less
diversity than the better-off.
Some plant species are common to the different
wealth-rank groups, e.g., the four major sorghum
landraces, finger millet, pigeon pea, cassava,
Terminalia browenil, Moringa stenopetal and coffee.
5. Grassroots Institutions
The Konso people have a wide range of grassroots
institutions with ecological, economic, social and
political functions. The traditional leaders (poqalla)
played fundamental roles, as spiritual leaders, clan
leaders, in managing the communal forests,
supporting the poor with access to land and other
forms of safety-net support, and mobilising labour for
communal farming and land-conservation works.
The main community-based organisations or task
Fig. 4 Trash lines and micro-basins.
Table 6 Summary of plot level observations.
Indicators Wealth rank
Better-off Poor
Average land holding 2.5 0.5
Average plot size 0.4 0.2
Average fragmented plots 4.0 2.0
Average crop species/plot 15-20 7-12
Average multi-purpose trees/plot 10-15 6-10
Average total plant species/plot 25-35 13-22
Common crops Major sorghum landraces, finger millet, pigeon pea, cassava
Common trees Terminalia browenil, Moringa stenopetal and coffee
Common physical SWC measures Stone terraces, micro-basins and trash lines
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
595
forces concerned with farming activities—oldawa,
perga, fedeta and keffa, operate by offering food and
drink or according to reciprocity arrangements or
payments. Other local institutions, such as kenta and
edir serve as social safety nets, and equip is a
credit-and-savings club. To overcome the seasonal
labour shortages, some can manage with only
household labour, because the farms have become
smaller, while others allocate their more remote plots
for sharecropping or planting them with trees, the care
of which is less labour-demanding than cropping.
Moreover, the diversification of crops and trees within
a farm lowers the peak labour demand, as the different
plants have different planting and harvesting dates.
Accordingly, any external development intervention
by the government and non-governmental
organization (NGOs) needs to understand how
indigenous grassroots institutions are functioning and
designed for synergy with local initiatives.
6. Modern Agricultural Interventions
6.1 Entry Point
Generally, the extension system of the government
and many NGOs in Ethiopia is based on the
transfer-of-technology approach, which assumes that
scientists create knowledge and technology and
farmers are the recipients who should adopt the new
technologies. This approach denies the competence of
farmers to experiment, innovate and engage in
participatory technology development.
The extension system undermined Ethiopia’s
genetic diversity and contributed to famine and
dependency on imported seed [1]. Similarly, in the
1970s, the World Bank supported the Green
Revolution in Wolaita in Southern Ethiopia (use of
inorganic fertiliser and introduced improved seeds and
line seeding), but the outcome after a decade was
disappointing and poverty in the area has increased
rather than decreased. This was fundamentally due to
the top-down approach that tried to replace indigenous
practices and local landraces, including root crops and
enset as staple food [22].
One of the main reasons given by extension
services for introducing modern inputs in Konso is the
low yield of the local landraces [23]. However, the
equation that attempts to show the superiority of
modern agriculture over the local farming systems has
several gaps. Firstly, in the local farming systems, the
seeding rate by broadcasting for local maize and
sorghum is determined by the fertility of the soil, the
type of SWC structures, the combination of plants
(cereals, roots and trees) and/or the need to feed
livestock. Dense crop cover helps to reduce the splash
effect of rain. Thinning is practised periodically to
obtain fodder for livestock, and at the same time,
reduce competition between plants when rainfall is
less than expected and soil moisture is low.
Furthermore, sorghum straw is used in soil
conservation and mulching. Yet, these benefits prior
to measuring the grain yield are not included in the
equation for comparing modern and local agricultural
practices. Secondly, in mixed cropping, the multiple
synergetic benefits are not considered in the equation.
Thirdly, the risks attached to modern inputs, including
timeliness of their availability, high prices, need for
good rainfall and high labour demands, are not
included in the equation.
Generally, the agricultural extension services
delivered by the government in Konso are in three
spheres: crop farming (agronomy), livestock
husbandry and natural resource management (Table 7).
In each kebele, at least three development agents
(DAs) with these different specialisations are allocated
to promote modern agriculture. For crop farming, the
extension service promotes “improved” seed,
chemical fertiliser and pesticides, and modern
irrigation technology, and gives advice on seeding
dates and rates, line seeding, sole cropping, cash crops
and irrigation. The focus is on maximising yields per
unit area [24] and little attention is given to
indigenous knowledge and local landraces.
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
596
Table 7 Technologies introduced by the government extension system.
Themes Technologies
Agronomy “Improved” seed, chemical fertiliser, pesticides and insecticides, pest management, crop management (seeding date, rate, line seeding, sole cropping, weeding, etc.), irrigation, marketing
Livestock husbandry “Improved” livestock breeds (including poultry), introduced fodder grasses and trees, modern beekeeping
NRM Watershed approach, with the construction of stone and soil bund, micro basins, check-dams, tree plantation, enclosures and community nursery development and private pond construction for supplementary irrigation
Access to credit “Improved” seed and fertiliser, cash on collateral/individual for short-term
Fig. 5 Defective introduced water-harvesting ponds.
For livestock husbandry, the extension service
promotes introduction of “improved” livestock breeds,
modern beehives, and fodder grass and trees. For
natural resource management (NRM), it promotes
land enclosures, afforestation mainly with exotic and
fast-growing plants, construction of standardised stone
and soil bunds, individual and communal ponds and
community nurseries (Table 7).
The extension service on natural resource
management uses watershed approach. The physical
construction and tree plantations in the communal
land are done through campaign works and with
incentives in the form of food or/and cash under the
productive safety net program (PSNP), usually youth
groups with limited farm skill and land less are widely
involved. Moreover, the push for private pond
construction across the nation in general and in Konso
area in particular was not successful, and usually the
ponds covered with imported expensive plastics are
with no water and occupied the scarce land without
any production, as it was a top-down approach with
no attention to the indigenous knowledge of water
harvesting practices (Fig. 5).
Regarding the use of incentives, there are different
schools of thought: some think that direct incentives,
such as food- or cash-for-work, help to introduce SWC
technologies and speed up project implementation
[25]. However, others have underlined that incentives
never assure sustainable development, push a
top-down approach and introduce inappropriate
technologies [26]. For the government extension
services, the success indicators are the number of
model farmers who adopt the introduced technologies,
the quantities of improved seed, fertiliser and
pesticides used by the community, and the total areas
in enclosures and treated with the SWC measures.
However, for the local people, the indicators of
success are related to empowerment of customary
institutions, socio-cultural practices, risk reduction,
diversity of sources of livelihood, equity of benefits
within the community and food security. A study on
small farming households in Northern Ethiopia
(Tigray) has also similar findings [17].
6.2 Community Evaluation of Modern Agriculture
The FGDs with different groups among the Konso
revealed that the modern agricultural extension
services have contributed strongly (17% of overall
assessments) to introducing new technologies,
providing access to credit, seed and food aid, and
rehabilitating the land. However, the strengths seem to
be offset by the weaknesses (61%) with respect to
food security, resilience to drought, synergy with
indigenous knowledge, empowerment in
decision-making and sustainability (Table 8). Moreover,
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
597
Table 8 Community assessment of government agricultural extension services.
Features Assessment
Comments of community members Strong Medium Weak
Food security
Increased yields * Availability of introduced seed and fertiliser
Access to cash crops * Producing “improved” seed as cash crop
Access to food aid (PSNP) * Extension support to graduate to a higher level
Access to seed and credit * Package of extension service
Cultural food and fodder sources * Staple foods (root crops/Moringa) not supported
Adaptation
To climate change and drought * Poor in drought resistance
To local environment * More relevant to high-potential areas
Protecting against pests/diseases * Vulnerable to disease and pests
Labour saving * High labour demand
Harmony with farming system * Conflict with traditional farming practices
Complementing indigenous knowledge * Usually standardised and in conflict with indigenous knowledge
Resource conservation
Environmental rehabilitation * Degraded areas are rehabilitated
Supplementary irrigation * Development of springs to support irrigation
Appropriate technologies * Biased to protection than utilization
Biodiversity * Biased to exotic plants
Resource management * Marginalised elders skill in NRM
Decision-making
Demand-driven * Addresses fraction of farmers’ needs and priorities
Participation and transparency * Usually top-down approach
Empowering grassroots institutions * Not working through existing grassroots institutions
Targeting poor and women * Better-off farmers are main beneficiaries Supporting local innovation and innovation
* Treats farmers as recipients of new technologies and creates dependency
Sustainability
Has long-term impact * Unlike manure or compost, chemical fertiliser hasshort-term impact
Can be maintained by the community * Farmers are less interested in modern inputs with their escalating prices and vulnerability to different risks
Percentage of the total assessments 17% 22% 61%
for the Konso people, the big rivers are
emergency-reserve areas for traditional irrigation
during prolonged drought and for collecting wild
fruits from the riverbanks. However, many of these
areas have been allocated to private investors by the
government. To counterbalance it, the farmers are
clearing more forest to claim land ownership and
protect further private investment. These points
indicate the gaps in Ethiopia’s agrarian policy, which
has been preoccupied with transferring standardized
modern technology and has undermined local
knowledge and farmers’ competence to experiment
and innovate [19, 20].
6.3 Incentives in the Diffusion of Modern
Technologies
Similarly, the PSNP has played a fundamental role
in bridging the food-gap deficit, protecting household
assets and building communal assets, if not assuring
food security with resilience to different shocks [8].
Moreover, the PSNP is complementing the extension
services to introduce new technologies and reduce
outmigration. However, the PSNP has many gaps and
possibly undesired outcomes due to a combination of
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
598
factors:
(1) The grain or cash payment as incentive serves to
enforce the power of the decision-makers and
government extension workers to practise a top-down
approach. Some farmers have destroyed their
traditional SWC structures and replaced them with
modern ones in order to assure their access to food.
(2) Management of the communal land shifted from
the customary institutions to the local (kebele)
administration. The deep-rooted experience of
resource management by the customary institution has
not been integrated. Moreover, the some of the ritual
centres are lost by the enclosures.
(3) The introduced technologies give more weight
to exotic plants with less diversity and little attention
to multipurpose indigenous plants with a wider range
of diversity. The traditional healers could not find
herbal plants in the enclosures and were not
encouraged to plant such species on the communal
land.
(4) Because of the expansion of enclosures on
communal land, using incentives and labour
campaigns, the poor lost access to fodder and fuel
wood in these areas. Many poor women forced to
travel long distance to access none enclosure and high
malaria infestation. With the push to the periphery
areas conflict with neighbouring kebeles who claim
the ownership of the communal land becomes
inevitable. Moreover, many poor women, who
generate income with preparation of local beer and
pottery that demands high fuel wood, suffers a lot
with the enclosure, and some are forced to quite as
mechanism of livelihood diversity. The enclosed areas
in the watershed were protected by banning any use,
leading to increased pressure of use on the other
arable land and riverbanks that were not enclosed.
(5) The incentives created a dependency syndrome
and undermined the identity, values and the
deep-rooted indigenous practices of group work in
different communal activities, including SWC, water
point construction, and road construction and
maintenance [26].
(6) The farmers have gradually lost in trust and
confidence with the government extension services
that is inferior to their indigenous practices and
attributed to the vulnerability of different risks and
uncertainties.
Any development intervention without the genuine
participation of the community (human centre) can
have many undesired outcomes, as it can marginalise
the community from decision-making and weaken
their ability and motivation to experiment, innovate
and solve their own problems.
7. Conclusions
Generally indigenous farming practices are
embedded in the socio-cultural fabrics of the
community with the framework of production and
protection. Moreover, farmers are always
experimenting and innovating to adapt to
environmental and policy changes. Hence, creating an
enabling policy environment for local experimentation
and integration of indigenous practices in assuring
food security is fundamental.
Similarly, the customary grassroots institutions
have roles of managing the indigenous farming
practices with the framework of environment and
socio-economic settings. Therefore, strengthening and
empowering the existing grassroots institutions is a
step to assure the success of framing system.
Finally, no doubt that modern agriculture has
played a fundamental role to meet the food demand of
the ever increasing population in spite of some of
undesired outcomes in the framework of sustainability.
Hence, it is not the choice between the two systems,
as both are equally important and need to be
integrated for synergetic effect in the framework of
assuring food security and sustainable resource
management.
Acknowledgments
The especial appreciation goes to the Konso
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
599
community and other stakeholders, who so generously
shared their knowledge and experiences. UNESCO
has funded in the early stage of the field study. Addis
Ababa University and the Department of Geography
and Environmental Studies have also creating
enabling environment to conduct the research.
References
[1] Chossudovsky, M. 2001. “Sowing the Seeds of Famine in Ethiopia.” Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal. Accessed September 10, 2001. http://www.globalresearch.ca/sowing-the-seeds-of-famine-in-ethiopia/366.
[2] Yohannes, G. M. 2001. “Community Assessment of Local Innovators in Northern Ethiopia.” In Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development, edited by Reij, C., and Waters-Bayer, A. London: Earthscan Publications, 171-7.
[3] Fenta, G. 2006. Farmers’ Indigenous Knowledge—The Missing Link in Development of Ethiopian Agriculture: A Case Study of Dejen District, Amhara Region. Social Science Research Report Series No. 34.
[4] Angassa, A., and Oba, G. 2008. “Herder Perceptions on Impacts of Range Enclosures, Crop Farming, Fire Ban and Bush Encroachment on the Rangelands of Borana, Southern Ethiopia Southern Ethiopia.” Human Ecology 36 (2): 201-15.
[5] Nakashima, D. J., Galloway-McLean, K., Thulstrup, H. D., Ramos-Castillo, A., and Rubis, J. T. 2012. Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. Paris: UNESCO and Darwin: UNU.
[6] Nakashima, D., and Roue, M. 2002. “Indigenous Knowledge, Peoples and Sustainable Practice.” In Social and Economic Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Vol. 5, edited by Peter, T., and Ted, M. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 314-24.
[7] De Schutter, O. 2010. “Report: Agroecology and the Right to Food.” 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (A/HRC/16/49), United Nations. Accessed March 8, 2011. http://www.srfood.org/en/ report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food.
[8] Ziegler, A. D., Fox, J. M., Webb, E. L., Padoch, C., Leisz, S. J., Cramb, R. A., Mertz, O., Bruun, T. B., and Vien, T. D. 2011. “Recognizing Contemporary Roles of Swidden Agriculture in Transforming Landscapes of Southeast Asia.” Conservation Biology 25 (4): 846-8.
[9] Wibbelmann, M., Schmutz, U., Wright, J., Udall, D., Rayns, F., Kneafsey, M., Trenchard, L., Bennett, J., and Lennartsson, M. 2013. “Mainstreaming Agroecology:
Implications for Global Food and Farming Systems.” Centre for Agroecology and Food Security Discussion Paper, Coventry. Accessed July 20, 2015. http://agroecology-appg.org/ourwork/mainstreaming-agroecology-implications-for-global-food-and-farming-systems-report-launch/.
[10] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2010. “The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention.” Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its 16th Session, UNFCCC. Accessed May 25, 2015. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/njlite?chapter=22&page=9.
[11] Altieri, M. A. 2008. Small Farms as a Planetry Ecological Asset: Five Key Reasons Why We Should Support the Revitalization of Small Farms in the Global South? Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network (TWN).
[12] Zhang, D., Min, Q. W., Liu, M. C., and Cheng, S. K. 2012. “Ecosystem Service Tradeoff between Traditional and Modern Agriculture: A Case Study in Congjiang County, Guizhou Province, China.” Front. Envir. Sci. Eng. 6 (5): 743-52.
[13] International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2002. Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
[14] Olea, P. P., and Mateo-Tomás, P. 2009. “The Role of Traditional Farming Practices in Ecosystem Conservation: The Case of Transhumance and Vultures.” Biological Conservation 142 (8): 1844-53.
[15] Shava, S., O’Donoghue, R., Krasny, M. E., and Zazu, C. 2009. “Traditional Food Crops as a Source of Community Resilience in Zimbabwe.” International Journal of African Renaissance 4 (1): 31-48.
[16] Ammann, K. 2007. “Reconciling Traditional Knowledge with Modern Agriculture: A Guide for Building Bridges.” In Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices, edited by Krattiger, A., Mahoney, R. T., Nelsen, L., Thomson, J. A., Bennett, A. B., Satyanarayana, K., Graff, G. D., Fernandez, C., and Kowalski, S. P. Oxford, UK: MIHR, and Davis, USA: PIPRA.
[17] Yohannes, G. M., and Waters-Bayer, A. 2007. Trees Are Our Backbone: Integrating Environment and Local Development in Tigray Region of Ethiopia. Issue Paper No. 145, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.
[18] Tadesse, M. 2010. “Living with Adversity and Vulnerability: Adaptive Strategies and the Role of Trees in Konso, Southern Ethiopia.” Ph.D. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala.
[19] Kruger, H. J., Berhanu, F., Yohannes, G. M., and Kefeni,
Conflicts of Indigenous Farming Practices and Modern Agriculture in Konso Community, Southern Ethiopia
600
K. 1997. Inventory of Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation Measures on Selected Sites in the Ethiopian Highlands. SCRP Research Report 34, University of Berne.
[20] Mezgebe, A. H. 2011. “Indigenous Talent of Konso People to Cope with Climate Change Susceptibility, Ethiopia.” Presented at Meeting of Indigenous Peoples, Marginalized Populations and Climate Change: Vulnerability, Adaptation and Traditional Knowledge, July 19-21, 2011, Mexico City.
[21] Foerch, W. 2003. “Case Study: The Agricultural System of the Konso in South-Western Ethiopia.” FWU Water Resources Publications, University of Siegen, Germany. Accessed January 10, 2014. https://www.uni-siegen.de/zew /publikationen/volume0103/1-wiebke-konso-pubs.pdf.
[22] Dessalegn, R. 1992. The Dynamics of Rural Poverty: Case Studies from a District in Southern Ethiopia. Dakar: CODESRA.
[23] Tadesse, M., Kassa, H., Sriskandarajah, N., and Powell, N. 2008. “Do Conservation and Intensification Have Their Limits? The Challenges of Food Security and
Vulnerability amongst the Konso People of Southern Ethiopia.” In Proceedings of Meeting Global Challenges in Research Cooperation, 229-39.
[24] Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). 2010. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) 2010/11-2014/15.
[25] Beshah, T. 2003. “Understanding Farmers: Explaining Soil and Water Conservation in Konso, Wolaita and Wello, Ethiopia.” Ethiopia Tropical Resource Management Paper No. 41, Wageningen University and Research Centre. Accessed January 10, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40128583_Understanding_Farmers_Explaining_Soil_and_Water_Conservation_in_Konso_Wolaita_and_Wello_Ethiopia.
[26] Giger, M. 1999. Avoiding the Shortcut: Moving beyond the Use of Direct Incentives—A Review of Experience with the Use of Incentives in Projects for Sustainable Soil Management. Development and Environment Reports 17, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Berne.