SOIL CONSERVATION

THERE WAS NO GOVERNMENT POLICY ON SOIL CONSERVATION OR NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN ETHIOPIA PRIOR TO 1974. THE 1974-1975 FAMINE WAS THE TURNING POINT IN ETHIOPIAN HISTORY IN TERMS OF ESTABLISHING A LINKAGE BETWEEN DEGRADATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FAMINE. THERE WAS A MORE DIRECT LINKAGE IN THE PUBLIC EYE BETWEEN HIGHLY DEGRADED LAND AND THOSE AFFLICTED BY DROUGHT AND FAMINE IN THE ETHIOPIAN HIGHLANDS. In 1978, a highly publicized article, which circulated in Addis Ababa, pointed out that about one billion tonnes of top soils were being lost every year in the faminestricken Ethiopian highlands (Brown & Wolf, 1978). This, and a similar effort by others, raised awareness of the threat of soil erosion to the viability of smallholder agriculture. In 1981, the Ministry of Agriculture and the University of Bern (with the support of the Swiss Government) initiated the Soil Conservation Research Project (SCRP), which generated one of the first systematic data sets on the magnitude and the severity of erosion. In 1983, the Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study (EHRS) was carried out by national and international experts, which reviewed the main reasons for drought and proposed for Conservation Based Strategy to address it (Constable et al, 1985).

Awareness has also led to action and the Government of Ethiopia (supported by various donors, international agencies and NGOs), has made largescale investment in soil conservation and land rehabilitation measures. The rehabilitation of degraded lands, which started through food-for-work relief assistance following the 1974-1975 famine, has become a major component of the Government’s approach to mitigate the impact of soil degradation in many regions of Ethiopia. This approach has focused on a) soil and water conservation; b) construction of terraces, check dams, cut-off drains and micro-basins, and c) afforestation and revegetation of fragile and hillside areas. The focus was on building physical structures to control soil erosion and to rehabilitate degraded lands and massive efforts were undertaken in this regard. This effort has resulted in many ecological benefits such as restoring farmlands, increasing soil depth, water holding capacity and improved woodlot and pastureland (Tato, 1991; and interview with current and previous soil and water conservation experts and officials in MoA).

As important as these ecological benefits were, the large-scale soil conservation efforts of the 1970s and 1980s had some serious shortcomings. First, these structural conservation measures were found to be too costly. After all the investment, not more than 10 percent of the cultivated land has been covered (Hurni, 1990). For example, it was observed that the labour input required for constructing fanaya juu bunds is ten times more than planting grass strips, which are reasonably effective in reducing soil loss and increasing moisture content and water infiltration (Kejela and Fentaw, 1992). Second, farmers were reluctant to adopt such labour intensive measures (without getting tangible benefits in terms of food or income). Third, there was little systematic effort made to incorporate indigenous soil and water techniques, and not to consider the loss of farmland for conservation (Kruger et al, 1996). Finally, there is no obvious relationship between this large investment in land rehabilitation on one hand and improvement in the food security and income of farmers on the other. This has also been observed by several other studies (edited by Assefa, 1999; Dejene, 1990; Hurni and Tato, 1992).

It is also widely acknowledged that the soil conservation policies and activities of the past decades have not been successful (Debele, 1994; Nedesa, 2002; Pender and Ehui, 2000). It is fair to say that the technologies focused narrowly on arresting soil erosion without fully considering the underlying causes of low soil productivity, socio-economic factors, and the need for tangible benefits to be attractive to poor farmers. Indeed the evaluation of the Swiss- supported SCRP has revealed that the project focused on the technical aspect of soil erosion and paid insufficient attention to other aspects of land management, including the role of livestock (soil compaction), traditional ploughing methods, root system, land-use dynamics and policy and socioeconomic issues (Bayers, Dejene, Haile, Jamel, 1998).

Another major weakness of the land conservation and rehabilitation effort over the past twenty years has been its top-down approach and that it has not shown demonstrable change in the day-to-day lives of farmers in terms of improving food security or income. This was also true of the Conservation Based Development recommended by the Ethiopian Highland Reclamation Study, which sees conservation measures (that has long-term pay off) as an important step in the attempt to increase agricultural productivity among small-scale farmers. This approach underestimated the short-term cost of some of the conservation measures (labour intensity and giving up of land used for crops or grazing), which were equally unacceptable to many of the poor farmers (Rahmato, 1994; Bayers, Dejene, Haile, Jamel, 1998).

In the late 1980s the weakness of the top-down approach in planning and implementation was recognized by the previous Government (Derge) and initiated the development of the National Conservation Strategy to provide legislative framework for natural resources management. Nevertheless, this did not come into operation, as the Government was fully absorbed in internal civil conflict that led to its collapse in 1991. The Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) that replaced the Derge recognized, in principle, the need to shift from the top-down approach to soil conservation and include the participation of farmers in the planning and implementation process (Shaxon, 1993). It established the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 1994 as the main policy formation body related to environment and natural resources management. The EPA carried out the task started under the previous Government in the finalization of the Conservation Strategy for Ethiopia, which was approved at the Federal level in 1997 consisting of sectoral and cross-sectoral policy guidelines and strategies in the management of Ethiopia’s natural resources (EPA, volume 1, 1997).

In spite of the weakness in strategies and, approaches and implementation used to address land degradation, there is a consensus (among international and local experts and policy-makers) that soil erosion and degradation are major causes for low productivity and vulnerability of smallholders^[1]. However, against this general consensus a World Bank economist has come up with one of the most astonishing claim, based on a brief visit to Addis Ababa, that soil erosion in Ethiopia has been overly estimated, and the cost of soil erosion is estimated at US$2 million and another US$100 million for nutrient loss (Bojo and Cassels, 1995). The authors compared the financial loss of soil erosion only due to its impact on production. They ignored the nutrient value of soil loss due to erosion from farmer’s fields production each year, which is estimated 100 to 1 000 times larger than the estimated production loss^[2] of the US$2 million. Furthermore, in the drought-prone Ethiopian highlands, where soils are shallow, accelerating erosion (unless effectively checked) will soon result in total economic loss in production, since the productive capacity of the soil will be irreversibly lost once a threshold value of soil depth is reached (anywhere below 20 cm). The study also considered eroded soil from farmers field and deposited elsewhere as having no negative effect on production. Crop residue, a major source of livestock feed in smallholder agriculture, was considered as nutrient loss. The key issue here is that the authors (unfamiliar with the technical issues and the complex landscape) have rushed to a conclusion that gravely underestimates the threat of soil erosion, which is one of the culprits of the recurrent drought and famine that is ravaging the country. In terms of public policy, such downplaying of the problem of soil degradation could also be counterproductive to the urgent need for increased political commitment by the Government of Ethiopia and international alliance to address this problem

Table 2. Summary of the Results of Development Scenarios with and without Soil Conservation Measures

A recent study draws attention to the enormous threat soil erosion poses to the country’s effort to attain food security (Sonneveld, 2002). The study examined the impact of soil conservation measures on various development scenarios until 2030 (see Table 2). The findings are based on a complex simulation model and should be taken with some caution. However, it provides further evidence on extent and severity of soil degradation in line with major findings based on field studies. It also provides very valuable insights to sustainable development options to avert the reinforcing cycle of food insecurity, poverty and environmental degradation that will be discussed in Section III. Table 2 highlights that irrespective of the development path taken, soil conservation measures will result in a significantly higher productivity, food per capita and income. For example, under the Stationary scenario (no soil conservation and no change in technology and no migration), agricultural production will be reduced to 30 percent by 2030, and per capita per annum will decrease from $372 in 2000 to $162 in 2030, while food availability per capita will plunge from 1971 kcal per day to 685 kcal per day in 2030. In the Control scenario (soil conservation is practised) productivity will improve by 9 percent in 2030, per capita income will decrease to $260 in 2030 while food per capita will improve from 685 kcal to 1085 kcal per day. Thus, a development path without soil conservation would be disastrous and clearly not an option.

SOIL FERTILITY

The role of fertilizer in improving the declining nutritional status and productivity of Ethiopia’s soils is widely recognized. Fertilizer use has increased from 947 metric tonnes in 1971 (when it was first introduced) to 1 42 000 metric tonnes in 1992. Fertilizer use has increased from 246 722 metric tonnes in 1995 to almost 300 000 in 2000. This is partly due to the decision of the TGE allowing farmers to buy fertilizer with 100 percent credit in 1995. The Government’s National Extension Package programme that put heavy emphasis on accelerating production using external inputs, often suited to higher potential areas, has also contributed to such a dramatic increase. Production has more than doubled, mainly in maize, due to its responsiveness to fertilizer. But the price for maize plummeted to a record low level (by about 80 percent in surplus areas) and many farmers faced serious difficulty in paying back the credit they took to buy fertilizer (Gabre-Madhin, 2002), which is a major disincentive in using fertilizer and growing maize. For example, the price of Urea fertilizer in one of the surplus areas (Nekempt, Oromia region) by 2002 was six times more than the price of maize while DAP was nine times more, making fertilizer effectively out of the reach of smallholders (Gabre- Madhin, 2002: World Bank, 2002).

In Ethiopia, Phosphorus (P) and Nitrogen (N) were the most crucial limiting factor to plant growth, and not Potassium. As a result, a blanket recommendation of 100 kg DAPS and 50 kg of Urea were formulated for Ethiopia. The Sasakawa Global-2000 (SG-2000) through its demonstration trials have shown that 100 kg of DAP plus 100 kg of Urea are sufficient for most crops except teff and maize which would require 50 kg of DAP and 200 kg of Urea. However, farmers do not often go along with the recommended practices but follow practices they can afford (often half the recommended rate). It is now widely recognized among experts and policymakers that the increasing application of fertilizer at the current price will not be affordable to many farmers and possibly the Government (that lacks foreign exchange to import fertilizer with out outside support). Thus, extension and research should accord a high priority to find an economically viable option that uses fertilizer in combination with other local available organic sources.

Table 3. Summary of Innovations in Maize Production and Their Impact on Yield

Source: Kidane and Abuhay (1998)

Recognizing that resource-poor farmers do not adopt recommended packages at once, farm trials have been conducted in semi-arid areas to show the relative contribution of agronomic practices and fertilizer on maize yields. The result (shown in Table 3) revealed that raw planting alone (no fertilizer, late weeding, and flat planting) resulted in a yield increase of 37 percent from the controlled plot and if early weeding and tied ridges are used yield increased to 73 percent from the control plot. The findings (in Table 3) underline that the most desirable and effective option in increasing yields significantly is the combination of using both fertilizer and agronomic practices. It also underscores the critical role of good agronomic practices since the application of fertilizer alone (without good agronomic practice) has resulted in lower yields than plots using good agronomic practices without fertilizer. Another study has also shown that tied ridges (very efficient in capturing moisture) in dry land areas have increased yields in crops such as sorghum and maize by 50 percent to 100 percent (Georgis, 2002). However, farmers do not like tied ridges because they have to be built by hand which is highly time-consuming. This gives further evidence that the Extension and Research programmes (and SG-2000) needs to show greater flexibility in design-recommended packages to farmers’ conditions and resources.

The soil fertility initiative (SFI) for sub-Saharan Africa was initiated in 1996 at the World Food Summit (WFS) under the coordinating role of the World Bank to foster global partnership of donors, African governments, NGOs, development agencies, national and international research centres to restore declining soil fertility in SSA. The SFI could have the potential to enhance soil productivity and promote the intensification of agriculture through a combination of high and low input technologies among small-scale farmers in Ethiopia, if it were implemented through the appropriate Ministry and in a participatory way. The National Fertilizer Industry Agency (NFIA), which was established in 1994 (formerly a unit under the MoA), emerged to take a lead responsibility in introducing the SFI in Ethiopia, with the support of the World Bank. It was not clear why the MoA had not assumed lead responsibility in launching and implementing this initiative when soil fertility goes beyond fertilizer use.

The National Fertilizer Industry Agency has pursued the implementation of SFI in Ethiopia by introducing soil fertility management as one of the components of the National Fertilizer Sector Project, which is financed by the World Bank. The project’s dominant component is fertilizer demand, which was allocated 93 percent (US$214.22 million) of the total 12 budget (US$230 million) and the soil fertility management has 3.6 percent of the project budget (World Bank, 1995). The soil fertility sub-components focused on looking at soil nutrient issues where soil testing laboratories and fertilizer trials become the main activity. Under this project, soil fertility management was pursued from a narrowly nutrient point of view in isolation from the broader socioeconomic and environmental issues. Fertilizer efficiency when applied to degraded soil (as is common in many parts of the Ethiopian highlands) is typically low with the result that the plant does not utilize the majority of available nutrients^[3]. Table 3 above also demonstrates this point. Table 2 also shows that a development path that relies on high input technology (i.e. intensive fertilizer use), but with no soil conservation, is not viable. Food production will increase until 2010 due to intensive use of fertilizer and then will decline by 2030 (due to soil degradation) resulting in significant decline of food per capita and value added per capita (Sonneveld, 2002). Thus, reliance on fertilizer does not lead to a sustainable path in improving food security and income of smallholders.

Soil fertility management requires a broader framework to attain its objectives. Yet, the Government’s National Extension Package programme (derived from the SG-2000 intensified package approach) with emphasis on increasing yields, has not been as flexible in responding to the various agro-ecological zones, local resource endowment and farmers’ capacity to invest in affordable soil fertility management techniques. The packages are designed by research-extension experts with little or no serious effort made to integrate environmental sustainability issues (crop and plant biodiversity) as well as indigenous knowledge and practices and crop and plant diversity at community level (Beshah, 1999). The package approach seems to have overplayed the production aspect through making investment on external inputs, which is out of reach of the vast number of resource-poor farmers who have no capacity to invest in this package. This paper will try to address this issue through a community-based integrated natural resources management in Section IV.

FOREST AND TREE MANAGEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF RURAL ENERGY

As indicated earlier, forest and biomass resources are the most indispensable source used in meeting the energy needs of the rural households in Ethiopia. They are also used for farm implements, construction and as a source of cash income. The use of forest resources by the industrial sector is not significant (EFAP, 1994) and industrial plantation and Government-managed National Forestry Priority areas and other protected areas are not addressed in this paper. The focus is on management of forest, woodlands and tree resources close to the farming, homestead, village and community levels as well as finding alternative biomass energy sources that is simple and affordable to farmers.

In the past Government policy did not encourage on-farm and homestead tree growing and even to this day, there is no clear policy in this regard. In some parts of Ethiopia, for example in the Tigraye Region, tree planting near and on the farm is seen as undesirable and competing with cropland. Forest research as well as agricultural extension has largely ignored on-farm tree growing. Recognizing that forest utilization far exceeds their replenishment in rural communities and that its management is closely linked to land conservation, soil fertility, water recharge, biodiversity, food security and livelihood issues, the 1997 Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia includes some basic tenets that try to address these problems. The CSA guidelines on forest, woodlands and tree management specifically mention that: i) forest development and projects are to be executed primarily by individuals and communities and the Government’s role is the provision of technical support (extension and research) and enabling policies (such as pricing policy and increased security of land and tree tenure); ii) forest development strategy should integrate the development, management and conservation of forest resources with those of land and water resources, energy resources, ecosystems and genetic resources as well as crop and livestock production; iii) efforts should be made to achieve the principle of “Sustainable Forest Management” where the volume of wood harvested is about equal to the net growth that forest is capable of generating in a socially acceptable and economically viable way (CSE, 1997, Volume 2).

The most crucial and immediate steps to address the depletion of forest resources that have an impact on other resources and sectors is on the supply side. Here increasing the production of forest products for fuel wood, timber, fodder and construction material is vital. The most promising vehicle to achieve this will be through individual tree planting by smallholders and agroforestry devolvement. This would also bring added benefits to mitigating land degradation (through the increased of vegetative cover) and to reducing the high cost incurred in the loss of crop productivity by the conversion of dung and crop residue for energy needs.

Community forestry, if managed in a participatory manner, has the potential to contribute meaningfully to increase forest products and meet the needs of rural households. In the 1980s the previous military Government introduced community forestry to meet the fuelwood and construction needs of rural households. Farmers for the most part were ordered to plant in the community forest (by peasant association) with no clear guidelines whether they would benefit from the trees planted and the grass growing from the community forestry. Needless to say, most farmers saw community forestry as an extension of the Government owned afforestation scheme. In fact, in some places the Government converted community forestry into protected forest areas. The net result was that community forestry was generally poorly managed, with very low survival rate to meet the expected needs (Dejene, 1990, Bendez, 1987). With the fall of the Government in 1991, this approach was abandoned. Recent experience in some regions in Ethiopia has shown that collective action in managing woodlots has worked well if they were managed at the lowest administrative level, involved villagers in decisionmaking and benefits were shared fairly among participants (Gebremedhin, Pender and Tesfaye, 2000).

Renewable energy sources, particularly in the form of biomass energy, are untapped in Ethiopia. The Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia makes very brief reference to the need for development of alternative energy sources namely, solar, wind, biogas, agricultural biofuel for small towns and villages (CSE, volume 2, 1997). However, little investment has been made in this regard, particularly biomass energy as it is widely available in most rural areas. Urgent attention and priority is required to examine the feasibility of converting agricultural and crop residue, dung and other wastes into an efficient form of energy. In this regard, biogas generation through anaerobic digestion of dung into high-energy form (methane) that could be used for cooking and lighting should be given priority. The by-product from this process (the slurry) would result in a good quality and environmental friendly fertilizer that can be used to enhance soil fertility. This process also contributes to improving sanitation at the village level, as experienced in China.

RAIN WATER HARVESTING AT HOUSEHOLD AND VILLAGE LEVEL

Until very recently Government policy had not accorded a significant role to rainwater harvesting (RWH). The recently approved Rural Development Policies recognizes the importance of rainwater control and utilization around the farmers’ plot and the work to be done by the farmer himself through labour-intensive technologies (GOE, 2001). This is a positive development although there is still confusion on the definition of rainwater harvesting since small river diversion is also included as part of rainwater harvesting. As stated earlier, this paper uses the definition and classification (Domestic Roof Water Harvesting and Non-Domestic Rainwater Harvesting) used by Anderson^[4] for rainwater harvesting (Anderson, 2002). However, in this paper, rainwater harvesting does not include diversion of rivers or stream nor groundwater harvesting.

The purpose of this paper is not to document rainwater harvesting technologies that are being tested or used for domestic and non-domestic purposes. A recent field mission report (commissioned by the GOE) that was prepared with key local water experts and agencies working in the area of rainwater harvesting provides valuable information and expert assessment on the design, cost, benefit, risks, various methods of RWH technologies and practices that are currently being used and tested (Anderson, 2001). The MoA, Extension Department, is also developing technical guidelines in the construction and management of rainwater harvesting (Nega, 2002). The major argument proposed in this paper is that rainwater harvesting for both domestic and non-domestic purposes (agriculture, livestock, etc.) should be seen as an integral part of the natural resources management, which requires collective action for its success and sustainability. Rainwater harvesting, particularly for agricultural and natural resources management (which is the focus here) is closely linked to agronomic practices, farming system and livelihood activities of the communities. The aim is to make rainwater harvesting a collective group effort for those who live in close proximity to each other in a village or community as is the case in most parts of rural Ethiopia. Groups will also have greater economy of scale to reduce costs incurred in RWH technologies (pooling labour and resources) and reduce health risk through joint monitoring and maintenance of the system (Rahmato, 1999).

Many of the experiences gained in RWH (either through WFP, NGOs or MoA) have been at homestead level. During a recent mission to Ethiopia, field visits were organized by MoA to see some of the pilot activities on Homestead Rainwater Harvesting (that involves individual farming families through support from Food-for-Work Programme and MoA) outside the city of Nazareth (about 130 km from Addis Ababa). Most households in this dryland and marginal areas do not have adequate food to last them during the long dry season. The benefits of RWH were quickly noticeable in terms of reduced distance and time on women and children in fetching water, improved nutritional status, ability to expand agricultural, horticultural, livestock, chicken and beekeeping activities particularly during the dry season, improved soil conservation and vegetative cover and environment around the homestead. One farmer interviewed indicated RWH had helped him to grow onions, vegetables and fruits, which he sells in Nazareth and in return buys food items that last him during the dry seasons.

Clearly, as shown above, the RWH system, (using roof and micro-catchments/farmers field) has made a difference in improving the nutritional status and diversifying the livelihood of farmers. Many of the experiences gained in RWH (through WFP, NGOs or MoA) have been at homestead level. Preliminary observation and discussion with farmers and local extension suggest that individually centred RWH for domestic and non-domestic purposes (agriculture, livestock, etc.) faces serious constraints to being a viable option without considerable external financial investment and supervision. Most farmers in this area, for example, do not have a tin roof, seriously limiting the amount of roof water to be harvested and stored. Farmers interviewed use a simple, low-cost hemispherical system (holding 50 to 60 cubic metres of water below the ground with cemented floor and walls and organic matter for roof cover) and indicated that they would not be able to cover the cost of construction material, skilled labour and transportation (amounting close to Eth. Birr 3 000.00) if it had not been for considerable outside assistance.

Extension agents also indicated that maintenance of the system is the same with the simple hemispherical tank (which has the advantage of holding more water at low cost than the other systems such as domed or the Chinese systems) and is much better if it is handled by groups of farmers rather than individual farmers. Sediments can easily enter a hemispherical tank lowering its water holding capacity and life span. It requires proper maintenance, which is difficult for individual farmers to handle and organize. In addition, this particular system occupies a large space in farmers’ fields (as it needs grass strips or trees along the water collection channels, which were not seen), taking up more farmland, which is in serious shortage in this area. Thus, this emphasis here is to see RWH as one of the essential elements/components requiring collective action to achieve a community-based natural resources management and development to enhance food security and livelihood of the rural people in a sustainable way.

LIVESTOCK IMPROVEMENT AND GRAZING LAND MANAGEMENT

There was no specific policy regarding livestock density or managing grazing land, until the guidelines that resulted after the Fourth Livestock Development Project in 1993-1994 and the Conservation Strategy of Ethiopia in 1997. Livestock and overgrazing have adverse impact on soil degradation, compaction and reduction on vegetative and biomass cover. It is certain that a policy limiting the number of livestock would not be popular or difficult to implement since they are the most significant means of capital accumulation and quickly disposable assets in time of famine and other emergencies (Rahmato, 1987; McCann, 1987). Even farmers indicating serious land shortage did not like their livestock size to be reduced (Dejene, 1990).

Some of the past as well as the current Conservation Strategies of Ethiopia, such as hillside and area closure, have underestimated the role of livestock and grazing practices in the process of natural resources degradation. Severely degraded areas with no or little vegetation have no human and livestock interference for 3-5 years until 80 percent of the grasses or vegetation are regenerated. Farmers in general are negative towards hillside and area closures (particularly in communities where even cut-carry is not practised) as it has meant taking away the grazing land in their communities forcing them to use their own productive land thereby exposing it to further degradation. The Highland Reclamation Study and its recommendations, which have greatly influenced the Conservation Strategy in Ethiopia, mainly focus on crop land. The severity and incidence of soil erosion (due to absence of vegetative cover) on cropland more than grazing land is not disputed. But the role of livestock cannot be neglected since nearly half of the country’s land is used for grazing and during the major rainy season livestock graze on the slope leading to “downstream effect” where water erosion and flooding affects agricultural land. In addition, cropland is left open for grazing during the long dry season denuding all vegetative cover and causing soil crusting, which exacerbates the incidence of soil erosion and decline in soil fertility.

Past efforts in livestock improvement may have focused on promoting veterinary service, which is important. But the major factors resulting in low productivity of Ethiopian livestock sub-sector is the serious shortage of feed. Livestock depends on natural pastures that are low yielding and grazing areas are shrinking due to expansion of cultivated land. Hence, improved livestock feed and forage production is crucial from both food security and prevention of natural resources degradation. The Fourth Livestock Development Project launched in 1988 by the MoA focused on improved forage development species that are low cost, acceptable to farmers and also contribute to soil and water conservation. These included backyard forage, under sowing forage legumes into cereals, stock exclusion area, forage strip establishment (soil and water conservation), and annual and perennial forage establishment. It has also given emphasis on the need to shift from shifting and uncontrolled and environmentally degraded grazing practices into a more intensive livestock feeding and management system (Mengistu, 2001).

One of the most notable Government strategies regarding livestock improvement is the National Livestock Development Programme (NLDP) which consolidates and expands (with appropriate modification) the results obtained from the Fourth Livestock Development Project, particularly in the area of forage and seed production that are suitable to local conditions (NLDP, 1997). The NLDP has come up with modified forage development strategies for different agro-ecological zones and farming systems that could also be used by other development agencies involved in natural resources management activities (NLDP, 1997). This paper sees livestock feed improvement and grazing land management as an important component of integrated natural resources management. It will examine the integration of crops and livestock, which can be a main vehicle for intensification and diversification of the production system in smallholder agriculture as well as mitigating the degradation of natural resources.