1. Farmers’ Perceptions of the Erosion Risk on Mt. Elgon: Implications to Soil and Water Conservation Farmers’ Perceptions of the Erosion Risk on Mt. Elgon: Implications to Soil and Water Conservation Y. Bamutaze 1, D. Nadhomi 2, P. Mukwaya 1 & M. M. Tenywa 3 1.Department of Geography, Geo-information and Climatic Science, Makerere University; 2. Department of Geography, Gulu University; & 3. Makerere University Agricultural Research Institute Kawanda.

2. Presentation Outline Introduction and problem investigated Study Area Methods of data collection Results Conclusions

3. Introduction Erosion is a serious enviro. problem, widespread & increasing in most watersheds in Uganda (NEMA, 2008,2006, 2004; Tenywa 1994). Approx. US$ 625 m is lost annually due to degradation & erosion accounts for 85% (UNDP, 2005). High erosion risk areas: Highlands & Mountain Watersheds, e.g Mt. Elgon (Bagoora, 1998). Most quantitative studies give rates > 5 t ha -1 yr -1 in Montane Watersheds (Bamutaze, 2005, Majaliwa, 2005, Nadhomi et al., 2006).

4. Problem investigated and hypotheses tested Quantitative information on erosion rates from experiments & modelling that exist, highlight the danger (Magunda et al., 2006; Bamutaze, 2010, Majaliwa, 2005, Nadhomi et al., 2006). However, adequate conservation measures are lacking. Although erosion is both a biophysical & socio-economic issue, previous studies have focused on quantifying erosion rates This study focused on understanding how farmers perceptions influence implementation of SWC measures on Mt. Elgon in Uganda Hypotheses ◦ Awareness of erosion as an environmental hazard positively influences field implementation of SWC measures. ◦ Farmers of education influences implementation of SWC

5. Study Area Conducted on the Ugandan side of Mt. Elgon Situated btn 1 0 07’07”N, 34 0 13’07”E & 1 0 07’24”N, 34 0 31’22”E. Two adjoining districts Landscape: Rugged, altitude (1200-2000m asl), gradient (up to 40%) Soils: Humic ferralitic Rainfall, over 1200mm annually Population density: >250 persons/km 2

6. Design and data collection methods Design ◦ Informed by the need to capture perceptions across biophysical gradients The area was thus determined on the basis of integrating ◦ Elevation ◦ Slope gradients ◦ Population GIS used for integration & delimiting erosion risk area ◦ DEM ◦ Census shape files ◦ Statistical information Sampling: Stratified sampling Target respondents: farmers Data collection methods 1. Structured Household Interviews ◦ Targeted mainly the household heads ◦ Selection based on lists obtained from LC’s ◦ Questionnaire used (80% closed, 20% open ended) ◦ Sample Size: 184 respondents ◦ Unit of study: Household ◦ Homes geo-referenced using a GPS

7. Data collection methods & analysis Two PRA sessions 121 participants in two sub-counties PRA tools used: ◦ Community resource mapping ◦ Problem identification ◦ Pair-wise ranking, ◦ problem identification Two FGD’s Target opinion leaders, model farmers, leaders & key community members ◦ 15 participants in FDG’s Analysis: Chi-square tests to detect associations

8. Results-Characterization of respondents Age: 17 to 80, mean 38 Education: ◦ 20% no education ◦ 68% primary ◦ 10% secondary Gender: 62% males, 38 females: Household size 5.7 (national 4.7) 90% engaged in small scale farming 91% intercrop 93% similar crops every year Livestock density: 3cows, 2 goats, 7 chicken

9. Do farmers perceive erosion to be an environmental hazard? Erosion as an enviro. prob Problems associated with erosion Occurrence of erosion on cropping fields

10. What are the perceived causes of erosion by the farmers? Heavy rainfall (49%) Steep slopes (23%) Poor land use (12%) Lack/inadequate conservation (6%) NB: From PRA, deforestation came out prominently (scale issues) Deductions: Farmers implicate themselves less (28% human vs. 72% physical).

11. How do farmers perceive the severity of erosion on their fields? Low (8%) Moderate (50%) Severe (16%) Very severe (26%) Deductions: Most farmers don't perceive erosion to be severe on their fields, hence lukewarm conservation

12. Which factors influence severity perception? VariableX2X2 dfPAssociation (5%) Age12.0150.665Not significant Gender20.53<0.001Significant Education21.2120.048Not significant SWC capacity16.8120.159Not significant Land size18.590.30Not significant Hillslope location41.86<0.001Significant Land tenure18.6110.55Not significant Slope gradient71.09<0.001Significant The perceived severity were associated with slope gradient, landscape position & gender

13. What trends do farmers perceive in erosion & land quality? Trends in erosion rates ◦ 46% increasing ◦ 32% decreasing ◦ 22% same as in the past Land Quality Perceived trends on land quality seem to contradict erosion ◦ Good in the past (78%) ◦ Good today (10%)

14. Which control measures are being implemented? Measures being implemented Farmers conserving

15. What factors can be associated with conservation efforts? VariableX2X2 dfPAssociation (5%) Age1.740.79Not significant Gender1.310.27Not significant Education3.530.32Not significant SWC capacity6.470.50Not significant Land size1.430.71Not significant Hillslope location3.620.17Not significant Slope gradient2.830.42Not significant No association was detected with selected variables

16. Conclusions Farmers are aware of the occurrence of erosion & its negative consequences Farmers perceive the quality of land to be decreasing Perceptions fairly match the quantified & modeled erosion There is a disconnect between perceptions and SWC actions probably due to Institutional constraints which need further investigations (labor, incomes, gender), historical approaches etc ◦ There is need to harness the high level of awareness of erosion as a hazard. ◦ Explore promising strategies to incentivise farmers to conserve

17. Acknowledgments NURRU for the funds Local leaders in the study area Production Officer, Kaato UBOS for some data

18. A BIG THANK YOU