This research examines the situation of climate variability/change; socioeconomic effects of climate change on livelihoods, food, water & energy securities; gender differentiated vulnerability of climate change in agricultural productivity, food security, health, water & energy sources, migration and conflict, and natural disasters; and adaptation to climate change. Some tables are presented in the supplementary material (SM).
Climate Change
The occurrence of climate change in the study area can be identified through the perception of households for climate change variability and change, and through the analysis of station data. Accordingly, Table SM1 shows that the majority of respondents (96.57 percent) have heard and perceived about climate change. This is an important finding since it is when smallholder farmers understand the notion of climate change; its adaptation programming becomes effective. Moreover, most households in the study area knew and understood their environment and there are major changes taking place from time to time. Furthermore, from their lived experience, key informants and focus group discussion participants have argued that population pressure, deforestation, and absence of natural resource conservation are contributing factors for climate variability and change. Climate change can be also investigated through temperature and rainfall station data of the study site stations collected from National Meteorology Agency. In so doing, Fig. 2 shows that, annual rainfall trend of Dale district shows decreasing during the last 30 years but not in the other study districts. The trend analysis done by NMA (2007) also shows that there is no change in average rainfall over the whole country. This shows that while the average rainfall of the country remains more or less constant, there is rainfall variability from place to place in the study areas.
On the other hand, maximum and minimum annual average temperature has increased significantly in Boricha and Dale districts whereas there is no significant change in Hula district. A study conducted by Assefa (2009) asserted that since the 1970s warming has occurred across Ethiopia at a variable rate but broadly consistent with wider African and global trends with an increasing trend in time (0.370C/decade). Figure 3 shows that maximum annual average temperature trend shows increased in Boricha and Dale districts whereas there is no significant change in Hula district during the last 30 years. Figure 3 also shows that minimum annual average temperature shows increased in Boricha and Dale districts whereas there is no significant change in Hula district during the last 30 years. A study conducted by NMA (2007) asserted that there has been also an increasing trend in the annual maximum and minimum temperature over half a century in Ethiopia and it has been increasing by about 0.37 0C every decade.
Socioeconomic Effects of Climate Change
Understanding climate change effects in different agro-ecologies is a good starting point for finding a solution particularly for its negative effects. Climate change has socioeconomic effects on livelihood, food, water and energy securities. More specifically, in many African countries like Ethiopia, agricultural production, and food availability and food security are directly affected and severely compromised by climate change (IPCC, 2007) and to achieve food self-sufficiency and security under a changing climate it should be examined together with livelihood, water and energy securities.
Climate Change Effects on Livelihoods
The majority of households (92.86 percent) livelihood source is crop and livestock production which is climate change/variability sensitive (Table SM2) though they have access directly or indirectly to different livelihood capitals. A study done by Goh (2012) shows that climate change affects human, social, natural, physical and financial livelihood capitals. Table 1 shows that proportion of households who attained formal education, get training, and being healthy are taken to develop human capital index. In all the three agro-ecologies, households’ proportion that attained formal education and being healthy indexes are lower as compared to households who get training index (Table 1) demanding a crucial work to improve education and health. Table 1 also shows that proportion of households who has social network, member of informal institution, and accepting modern technology are taken to develop social capital index. Households’ social capital indexes are higher in three agro-ecologies, implying that there is a good proportion of households who have social capital indicators (Table 1). However, key informants and focus group discussion participants have pointed out that though it seems that there is a good social capital, most of the households are not using this capital components to improve other capitals’ components so as to improve overall household livelihood.
Moreover, Table 1 shows that proportion of households who have access to communal natural resources, trees, and cultivable lands are taken to develop natural capital index. Households’ natural capital indexes are higher in three agro-ecologies, showing that there is a good proportion of households who benefits from communal natural resource, their trees and cultivable land (Table 1). However, key informants and focus group discussion participants have pointed out that though it is a very important livelihood capital for rural households, most of the households are not using this capital component to improve other capitals’ components. Table 1 also shows that proportion of households who have access to all weather roads, get affordable transport and have access to clean water supply are taken to develop physical capital index. Households’ physical capital indexes are better in three agro-ecologies, showing that there is a good proportion of households having access to physical capital indicators (Table 1). However, key informants and focus group discussion participants have pointed out that though it seems that there is a good physical capital, most of the households in the lower agro-ecology are facing a serious water shortage, and almost all agro-ecology households are not using this livelihood capital to access markets for their products. Table 1 shows that proportion of households who have saving, took credit, and have non-agricultural income are taken to develop financial capital index. Proportion of households who have saving, took credit and have non- agricultural income indexes are lower (Table 1) in three agro-ecologies showing that there should be a good work to improve these major components. Table 1 also shows that livelihood capital index is the average of human, social, natural, physical, and financial capital indexes; and in all the three agro-ecologies households’ human and financial capitals indexes are lower as compared to other livelihood capitals indexes (Table 1) requiring that there should be a good work to improve the major components of financial livelihood capital indicators like saving, access to credits, and non-agricultural income sources; and human capital components mainly education and health.
Table 1
Livelihood Capitals Indicators and their Indexes by Agro-ecology
|
Indexes by District/Agro-ecology
|
Boricha
|
Dale
|
Hula
|
Human Capital Indicators
|
Proportion of households who attained formal education
|
0.445
|
0.751
|
0.605
|
Proportion of households who get training
|
0.945
|
0.836
|
0.864
|
Proportion of healthy people
|
0.391
|
0.362
|
0.518
|
Human Capital Index
|
0.593
|
0.649
|
0.662
|
Social Capital Indicators
|
Proportion of households who has social network
|
0.992
|
1.000
|
0.975
|
Proportion of households who are member of informal institution
|
0.945
|
0.886
|
1.000
|
Proportion of households who are accepting modern technology
|
0.953
|
0.992
|
0.975
|
Social Capital Index
|
0.963
|
0.959
|
0.983
|
Natural Capital Indicators
|
Proportion of households who benefits from communal natural resource
|
1.000
|
0.984
|
0.987
|
Proportion of households who have trees
|
0.945
|
0.950
|
0.944
|
Proportion of households who had cultivable land
|
0.984
|
0.996
|
0.907
|
Natural Capital Index
|
0.977
|
0.976
|
0.946
|
Physical Capital Indicators
|
Proportion of households having access to all weather road
|
1.000
|
0.992
|
0.987
|
Proportion of households who get affordable transport
|
0.804
|
0.886
|
0.925
|
Proportion of households who have access to water supply
|
0.232
|
0.394
|
0.432
|
Physical Capital Index
|
0.679
|
0.757
|
0.781
|
Financial Capital Indicators
|
Proportion of households who have saving
|
0.578
|
0.567
|
0.604
|
Proportion of households who took credit
|
0.316
|
0.276
|
0.518
|
Proportion of households who have non- agricultural income
|
0.289
|
0.397
|
0.451
|
Financial Capital Index
|
0.394
|
0413
|
0.524
|
Livelihood Capital Index
|
0.721
|
0.751
|
0.779
|
Source: Field Survey, 2018 |
Climate Change Effects on Food Security
The majority of households (56.14 percent) do not face food shortage though a significant percentage of households (43.86 percent) have faced it (Table SM2). More specifically, most households (95.41 percent) in lowland agro-ecology face food shortage yearly which is also confirmed by key informants and focus group discussion participants. On the other hand, Table SM2 shows that the majority of households (47.56 percent) faced food shortage for 3 months yearly and 38.76 percent households faced food shortage for 6 months per year which is also supported by informants and group discussion participants. They have also argued that lack or shortage of farmland/rangeland, decrease of land productivity, crop failure due to drought, lack of technologies to improve crop and livestock productivity, and lack of draught animals are some of the reasons to suffer from food insecurity. In line with this, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated that climate change affects all food security components: food availability; food accessibility; food utilization; and affordability (FAO, 2008). This tells us even food availability alone does not guarantee food security since it may not be accessible and affordable to each segment of the society at any time and everywhere. This enquires designing programs and projects on each components of food and nutrition security to lessen climate change adverse effects (Vogel and Smith, 2002; Clover, 2003).
Climate Change Effects on Water Security
Most of the households, 53.13, 45.39, and 59.88 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively use water for drinking while only 9.38, 5.67, and 24.69 percent of households respectively use water for irrigation (Table SM2). Key informants and focus group discussion participants have indicated that this is due to the fact that there is water shortage in the lowland areas and lack of awareness about irrigation in the midland and highland areas of the study. While 96.88 and 60.64 percent of households in lowland and midland agro-ecologies respectively faced water shortage, 56.79 percent of households in highland agro-ecology do not face water shortage (Table SM2). If there is water shortage, there will be conflict in using water. Accordingly, of the surveyed households, 49.61, 32.98, and 48.15 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively have confirmed that there was occurrence of conflict in using water (Table SM2) which is also confirmed by key informants and focus group discussion participants. Previous studies also show that though water is very important for each socioeconomic development (Verner, 2010) abundant water resources in Ethiopia are unevenly distributed across the country (Savage et al., 2015) and this also holds true across the study areas.
Climate Change Effects on Energy Security
Out of the surveyed households, 94.53, 100, and 100 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively confirmed that their energy source for cooking is firewood (Table SM2) which is also indicated by key informants and focus group discussion participants and some women and girls collect this firewood by traveling long distances. On the other hand, Table SM2 shows that 61.16, 87.23, and 70.37 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively stated that their firewood source is privately owned tree. However, key informants and focus group discussion participants have argued that there is lack of modern energy such as biogas in the study area. This shows that there is energy insecurity in the study areas which consists several elements and of these diversification of energy sources, availability and affordable prices (Kessels and Bakker, 2005) can be the three important elements for this study. Accordingly, as it is confirmed by both the survey findings and the arguments of key informants and focus group discussion participants, climate change has affected the diversification, availability, and affordability of energy sources since it affects them directly or indirectly.
Gender Differentiated Vulnerability to Climate Change
The effects of climate change are experienced by every person worldwide though the consequences do not affect all segments of the population equally due to the differences such as gender (Sellers, 2016). More specifically, the same source has indicated that though Africa is experiencing the effects of climate change, there is a significant difference in the capability of women and men to effectively and efficiently cope with its effects. This is due to various reasons such as unequal access to and control for resources. For instance, in 2010, only 15 percent of cultivable land in sub-Saharan Africa is owned by women, although access to cultivable land creates a crucial resilience for women who might not have other means to adapt to the effects of climate change (FAO, 2011). Similarly, a study done by Deressa et al. (2009) stated that in Ethiopia, households who are headed by male are more likely to adopt new varieties of crop in response to changes in weather than households who are headed by female. Moreover, another study conducted by Alem et al. (2010) have stated that in Ethiopia male farmers use fertilizer to adapt to rainfall variability more than women since women usually face shortage of capital. In cognizant of such situation, gender differentiated vulnerabilities to climate change are examined in detail in this research in relation to agricultural production, food security, health, water and energy sources, climate-related migration and conflict, and climate-related natural disasters.
Vulnerability related to Agricultural Production
Table 2 shows that 84.38, 82.62, and 82.10 percent of lowland, midland and highland men headed households respectively have access to cultivable land showing that men headed households have better access to cultivable land which is also confirmed by key informants and focus group discussion participants. Similarly a study conducted by FAO, (2011) stated that rural women own one out of five farms in the developing countries like Ethiopia. As it is indicated in Table SM3, 88.43, 73.39, and 87.97 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively have argued that male dominated nature of the agriculture is the major reason for their better access to cultivable land. In line with this, a study done by Jost et al. (2014) indicated that women are land insecure due to their low political representation and minimum decision-making power. Table 2 also shows that 83.59, 81.91, and 62.35 percent of lowland, midland and highland men headed households respectively have access to agricultural extension services indicating that men headed households have better access to agricultural extension services which is also approved by key informants and focus group discussion participants. Similarly, UNDP (2009) indicated that more women than men hit worst and recover least from climate change disasters due to their low extension services for crop and livestock production and productivity. As it is stated in Table SM3, 36.45, 44.16, and 42.53 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively have argued that less participation of women in the field is the major reason for men’s better access to agricultural extension services followed by less access to/control over land (Table SM3). Similarly, UNDP (2009) indicated that men have more access to agricultural extension services because of women’s low capital accumulation, minimum asset ownership, less access to information, discriminatory land and inheritance rights, and limited access to credit.
Vulnerability related to Food Security
Table 2 also shows that 78.52, 74.11, and 77.16 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively are more vulnerable to crop failure which is also substantiated by key informants and focus group discussion participants. Similarly, a study conducted by FAO (2008) stated that individuals/households who are vulnerable to crop failure are also food insecure. As it is shown in Table SM3, 88.06, 66.99, and 63.2 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively have argued that burden of domestic work is the major reason for women’s more vulnerability to crop failure. This is because of women’s multiple responsibilities as a study done by Sweetman (2012) points out by stating women are the ones who feed the world by acting as producers, processors, cooks and servers of food. Table 2 also shows that 95.31, 89.36, and 97.53 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively are more vulnerable to food insecurity which is also endorsed by key informants and focus group discussion participants. Similarly, in South Africa, women headed households are more vulnerable to food shortages than men headed households (Tibesigwa et al., 2015); and in Malawi, women headed households are the ones who reduce the number of meals they eat more than twice than the men headed households as a climate change adaptation strategy (Kakota et al., 2011) which makes them food insecure. As it is indicated in Table SM3, lack of access to cultivable land (60.66 percent) is the major reason for women’s more vulnerability to food insecurity in lowland agro-ecology whereas 36.51 and 49.37 percent of midland and highland households respectively have argued that women’s being served at the end during meal is the major reason for women’s more vulnerability to food insecurity. A study conducted by Kakota et al. (2011) also indicated that women are more vulnerable to climate change as domestic workload increases since there is high demand for water and firewood which is considered as the responsibility of women to collect/fetch these resources which in turn affects their time to engage in income-generating activities and at last leading them to food insecurity.
Health Vulnerability
Table 2 shows that 82.03, 53.19, and 88.89 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively are more susceptible to diseases that is also substantiated by key informants and focus group discussants. A study done by UNDP (2009) also states that climate change affects human health in a variety of ways such as by increasing the risk of indoor air pollution, water-borne diseases, drinking water shortages, and reduction of agricultural productivity and food availability which results in lack of balanced diets and malnutrition. This in turn makes women headed households more vulnerable to climate change effects as they are cage-givers of the sick people, collect fuel wood, fetch water, and cook food for all household members using open fires in inefficient stoves that use biomass and coal-based fuels. As it is indicated in Table SM3, 88.57, 56, and 50 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively have argued that their higher exposure to food insecurity due to several factors is the major reason for women’s more susceptibility to diseases. In line with this, a study conducted by Bambrick et al. (2015) states that when rainfall decreases water availability decreases and there will be occurrence of different diseases since less water creates a favorable condition for direct transmission of pathogens through lack of both personal and environmental hygiene. This creates burden for women and makes them also more susceptible to disease as they are already food insecure than the rest of the household members due to several reasons such as being served at the end during meal.
Vulnerability related to Water and Energy Sources
As it is portrayed on Table 2, of the surveyed households 91.8, 90.78, and 88.89 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively are more vulnerable to shortage of safe and clean water which is also confirmed by key informants and focus group discussion participants. A previous study confirmed this finding by stating that in sub-Saharan Africa, women are responsible to collect water and this increases women’s burden (Sorenson et al., 2011). Similarly, evidences from rural Ethiopia shows that women cannot collect water within a short period of time due to long lines emanating from scarcity of water, and even their daughters drop out from school to collect water (Stevenson et al., 2012). Moreover, in rural South Africa, in some cases there is a situation that women are walking as much as 15 km to collect water (Stevenson et al., 2016). As it is stated in Table SM3, 94.89, 81.25, and 48.61 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively have argued that being the one who mainly fetches/collects water is the major reason for women’s more vulnerability to shortage of safe and clean water. Similarly, a study conducted by FAO (2011) stated that climate change makes rural women more vulnerable since they are responsible in giving care for child, fuel wood collection and fetching water. Likewise, Table 2 also shows that 96.88, 86.17, and 89.51 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively are more vulnerable to fuel shortage that is also approved by key informants and focus group discussion participants. A study done by UNDP (2009) also argues that women are vulnerable to fuel shortage since most of them are depending on fuel wood which is climate sensitive energy source. As it is shown in Table SM3, 94.35 percent of lowland households say that women are more vulnerable to fuel shortage since they are the one who collects fuel wood whereas 49.38 and 63.45 percent of midland and highland households respectively have argued that women are more vulnerable to fuel shortage as they are the one who use fuel-wood. Similarly, a study conducted by FAO (2011) stated that climate change makes rural women more vulnerable to its impacts since they are responsible for the collection and consumption of firewood which is climate-sensitive.
Vulnerability from Climate-related Migration and Conflict
Table 2 shows that 91.41, 87.23, and 87.65 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively are more vulnerable to climate-related migration and conflict which is also supported by key informants and focus group discussion participants. A study conducted by UNDP (2009) also argues that climate change vulnerability aggravates the effects of non-climatic stressors such as increase in migration which in turn increases the workloads of women headed households left behind when men migrate. As it is shown in Table SM3, 94.87, 78.05, and 59.15 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively have argued that less mobility/migration to find jobs is the major reason for women’s more vulnerability to climate-related migration and conflict. Similarly, a study conducted by UNDP (2009) argues that when male out-migration increases due to resource shortages and lack of job markets in their origin caused by climate change, there will be a significant number of women left behind with more agricultural and household duties making them more vulnerable as they lack access to and control over natural resources, technologies and credit.
Vulnerability from Climate-related Natural Disasters
Table 2 shows that 80.47, 52.48, and 51.85 percent of lowland, midland and highland women headed households respectively are more vulnerable to natural disasters which are also substantiated by key informants and focus group discussion participants. Similarly, UNDP (2009) states that climate change and other natural disasters affect women more than men as they have distinct socio-economic roles and responsibilities which is the basis for differences in vulnerability and ability to adapt to climate change. As it is indicated in Table SM3, 94.17, 75.68, and 50 percent of lowland, midland and highland households respectively have argued that less mobility is the major reason for women’s more vulnerability to natural disasters. Similarly, a study conducted by ADB (2013) stated that women and girls are affected by climate change disproportionately due to gendered norms in society like restrictions on the mobility of women which makes them more vulnerable to natural disasters such as droughts and floods.
Table 2
Gender Differentiated Vulnerability Indicators by Agro-ecology and Gender
District/ Agro-ecology with gender differentiated vulnerability indicators
|
Men
|
Women
|
Total
|
N
|
Percentage
|
N
|
Percentage
|
N
|
Percentage
|
Access to Cultivable Land
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
216
|
84.38
|
40
|
15.63
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
233
|
82.62
|
49
|
17.38
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
133
|
82.10
|
29
|
17.90
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
582
|
83.14
|
118
|
16.86
|
700
|
100
|
Access to Agricultural Extension
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
214
|
83.59
|
42
|
16.41
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
231
|
81.91
|
51
|
18.09
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
101
|
62.35
|
61
|
37.65
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
546
|
78.00
|
154
|
22.00
|
700
|
100
|
Vulnerability to Crop Failure
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
55
|
21.48
|
201
|
78.52
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
73
|
25.89
|
209
|
74.11
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
37
|
22.84
|
125
|
77.16
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
165
|
23.57
|
535
|
76.43
|
700
|
100
|
Vulnerability to Food Insecurity
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
12
|
4.69
|
244
|
95.31
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
30
|
10.64
|
252
|
89.36
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
4
|
2.47
|
158
|
97.53
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
46
|
6.57
|
654
|
93.43
|
700
|
100
|
Vulnerability to Diseases
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
46
|
17.97
|
210
|
82.03
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
132
|
46.81
|
150
|
53.19
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
18
|
11.11
|
144
|
88.89
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
196
|
28.00
|
504
|
72.00
|
700
|
100
|
Vulnerability to Shortage of Safe and Clean Water
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
21
|
8.20
|
235
|
91.80
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
26
|
9.22
|
256
|
90.78
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
18
|
11.11
|
144
|
88.89
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
65
|
9.29
|
635
|
90.71
|
700
|
100
|
Vulnerability to Fuel Shortage
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
8
|
3.13
|
248
|
96.88
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
39
|
13.83
|
243
|
86.17
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
17
|
10.49
|
145
|
89.51
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
64
|
9.14
|
636
|
90.86
|
700
|
100
|
Vulnerability to climate-related migration and conflict
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
22
|
8.59
|
234
|
91.41
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
36
|
12.77
|
246
|
87.23
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
20
|
12.35
|
142
|
87.65
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
78
|
11.14
|
622
|
88.86
|
700
|
100
|
Vulnerability to Natural Disasters
|
Boricha (Lowland)
|
50
|
19.53
|
206
|
80.47
|
256
|
100
|
Dale (Midland)
|
134
|
47.52
|
148
|
52.48
|
282
|
100
|
Hula (Highland)
|
78
|
48.15
|
84
|
51.85
|
162
|
100
|
Total
|
262
|
37.43
|
438
|
62.57
|
700
|
100
|
Source: Field Survey, 2018 |
Adaptation to Climate Change
As it is indicated in the aforementioned parts of this study, climate change has created various socioeconomic effects and these in turn create gender differentiated vulnerability. Moreover, during field observation, it was observed that different climate change manifestations are occurring in the study areas. For instance, while occurrences of recurrent drought due to moisture stress (erratic rainfall) affected seriously the lowland agro-ecology, the midland and highland agro-ecologies are affected by frost. These effects of climate change in different agro-ecologies forced households to adapt to climate change to reduce its socioeconomic and gender effects. As a result, it was found that households in those agro-ecologies of the study sites have employed soil and water conservation, water harvesting, changing crop varieties, intercropping, changing planting date, irrigation, livestock diversification, livelihood diversification, and migration as adaptation strategies to climate change.
Soil and Water Conservation
In order to reduce the effects of climate change on soil and water and in turn to increase crop and livestock productivity and later on to achieve food security, different soil and water conservation techniques are employed in the study area. During field observation, it was observed that households are practicing modern physical and biological soil and water conservation techniques such as fanyajuu, eyebrow basin, micro basin, and planting improved grasses for animal fodder directed by local development agents largely mainly in lowland agro-ecology. Key informants and focus group discussion participants have pointed out that soil and water conservation activities are conducted both on-farm land and outside the farm lands by men and women. Figure 4 shows trenches and other structures of soil and water conservation practiced in the study areas. Table SM4 shows that out of all the surveyed respondents, 95 percent of them are practicing soil & water conservation. More specifically, 97.3, 92.9 and 95.1 percent of households in lowland, midland and highland agro-ecologies respectively are participating in soil and water conservation. Comparatively, as key informants indicated, soil & water conservation is practiced more in lowland agro-ecology since the area is highly affected by drought and households sense the problem. However, some informants argue that it is not as such efficient & effective.
Water Harvesting
Focus group discussion participants have pointed out that the lowland agro-ecology is highly affected by shortage of water due to recurrent drought and shortage of rainfall. As a result, most households in the area harvest rainfall and flood water for household and livestock consumption (Fig. 4) though it needs improvement in different aspects. In line with this, key informants forwarded that traditionally constructed ponds are susceptible for water infiltration and evaporation which retain collected water for a short period of time. On the other hand, the midland households have access to groundwater whereas the farmers in highland agro-ecology have access to water wells. However, key informants in the midland agro-ecology point out that the sustainability of groundwater is decreasing from time to time. Table SM4 shows that out of the surveyed households, 53.5 percent of the respondents from lowland area are practicing water harvesting strategies. However, there is low practice of water harvesting in midland (4.3 percent) and highland (9.9 percent) agro-ecologies since there is no significant water shortage in those areas.
Intercropping
During field observation, it was observed the practice of intercropping at different agro-ecologies. The farmers in midland commonly cultivate maize with coffee and enset as well as maize and haricot bean. There are also different fruits like avocado and mango which serve as shade trees for other crops. The households in this agro-ecology are utilizing intercropping in a better way hence most of households’ farmland is covered by different crops (fruits, cash crops, vegetables). The households in lowland agro-ecology also plant maize and haricot bean, and maize and pigeon pea. Since haricot bean ripe earlier than maize they have an opportunity of getting products when shortages of rainfall occur. As it is indicated on Fig. 4, due to drought while the maize is drying, pigeon pea is green by resisting the drought. Key informants have also argued that the households in lowland agro-ecologies employ intercropping practice in different dimension to take an advantage of climate resistant crops. The households in highland agro-ecology are also practicing intercropping by cultivating bean and potato together. There is also a practice of growing perennial crop (i.e., enset) and cabbage. Therefore, intercropping is serving as a crop insurance which reduces total vulnerability of a given farmer by sowing similar crops. As it is indicated on Table SM4, 63.7, 74.5 and 45.7 percent of the households in lowland, midland and highland agro-ecologies respectively are practicing intercropping showing that there is a good practice of intercropping particularly in the midland and lowland agro-ecologies which rescues households from being totally vulnerable from climate change effects especially drought.
Changing Crop Varieties
Key informants and focus group discussion participants have pointed out that most households in the study areas practice changing crop varieties and most farmers are interested to use early maturing crops. In addition to this, farmers in midland and highland agro-ecologies are concerned with crop varieties which are frost resistant whereas the farmers in the lowland area are interested with crop varieties which are drought resistant. However, some focus group discussion participants’ particularly in the highland agro-ecology have argued that improved crop varieties are not effective by resisting the current climate change effects hence households are refusing the improved crop varieties and use local varieties. On the other hand, households also practice shifting from food crops to cash crops and climate resistant trees. During field observation, most of household’s lands are covered by eucalyptus tree. Key informant and focus group discussion participants have also pointed out that the recurrent climate change extremes are forcing the farmers to change the farmland into cash crops (i.e. coffee, khat and eucalyptus tree). More specifically, 83.2 percent, 82.3 percent and 69.1 percent of households in lowland, midland and highland agro-ecologies respectively have practiced changing crop varieties (Table SM4).
Changing Planting Date
The variability of rainfall across highland, midland and lowland agro-ecologies affect crop cultivation and harvesting seasons. According to the key informants, the rainfall sometimes enters earlier than the regular cropping season and then there is early cessation of rainfall which affects crop growth. As a result, households in the study areas practice changing planting date to utilize the available opportunities of rainfall. In addition to adjusting cultivation calendar the farmers also plant similar crops in different period to benefit at least from one of the cultivation period. During field observation, the farmers’ lands were covered by the same crops of different ages not to be the loser all in all. Accordingly, Table SM4 shows that 63.7, 26.2 and 51.9 percent of the households in lowland, midland and highland agro-ecologies respectively are practicing changing planting date/calendar. Discussants of focus group discussion particularly from lowland agro-ecology have argued that the rainfall is unpredictable; when we need rain for land preparation or sowing crops there is no rain and on the contrary when we are harvesting crops there is rain. Hence, they added, households in this area are trying their best to change the plating date to be productive and food secured.
Irrigation
As it is observed, the livelihood of farmers in highland, midland and lowland agro-ecologies highly depends on rain-fed agriculture rather than irrigation. However, according to key informants and focus group discussion participants there are few households engaged in irrigation activity to produce crops. Accordingly, as Table SM4 shows only 4.3, 16.3 and 29.6 percent of the respondents in lowland, midland and highland agro-ecologies respectively are practicing irrigation. In line with this, key informants and focus group discussion participants have pointed out the households found in lowland agro-ecology are unable to practice irrigation due to shortage of water even for drinking let alone for irrigation. Consequently, using irrigation in lowland areas demands technologies to efficiently and effectively use harvested water by reducing the water loss through evaporation and infiltration which is beyond the capacity of local farmers. On the other hand, the participants and informants argued that it is not only the shortage of water that hinders them in practicing irrigation but the culture of being totally depending on rain-fed agriculture and lack of awareness about irrigation. For instance, key informants in highland agro-ecology state lack of awareness in practicing irrigation by considering irrigating small farmland as laborious and tiresome. The key informants also argued the existence of capacity problem to pump water from the rivers in gorge areas. Similarly, there is also a capacity problem to use shallow ground water for irrigation in the study areas though some farmers in the midland agro-ecology use groundwater for households and livestock consumption.
Livestock diversification
Although the major livelihood of the households in the study areas mainly depends on crop production; there are also farmers who rear animals. During observation, the main livestock observed in the study areas are cattle. The key informants and focus group discussion participants have stated that most of the household participate in breeding cows to use milk and milk products obtained from cows either for household consumption or to generate income. On the other hand, to adapt to climate change the households in different agro-ecologies have been beefing diversified livestock species/breeds. In lowland agro-ecology, households choose goat and sheep for beef-farming since these animals require small amount of forage as compared to cattle. Poultry farming is also practiced in the study area. The key informants of lowland agro-ecology have pointed out that the youths in the area are participating in poultry farming which is coincided with employment creation opportunity. As it is indicated on Table SM4, 47.3, 56.1 and 38.3 percent of households in lowland, midland and highland agro-ecologies respectively were engaged in livestock diversification.
Livelihood diversification
The main livelihood strategy of households in highland, midland and lowland agro-ecologies depends on crop and livestock production. However, key informants and focus group discussion participants have stated that farmers diversify their income through off-farm and non-farm activities. In lowland areas households take part in off-farm activities including selling wood, charcoal and wage labour whereas the residents in highland and midland region mostly practice off-farm activities of selling eucalyptus tree products including timber and plank in addition to waged labour works. In line with non-farm activities, the key informant said that the community members trade local agricultural products from their local market to a better market. In addition to this, most of the community members participate in petty trade to sale products like clothes, local beer and fast food among others. When the households aimed to participate in such trading activities local omo-microfinance facilitates credit services. According to the surveyed data, following soil and water conservation, the most practiced climate change adaptation strategy is livelihood diversification. As it is indicated on Table SM4, 83.2, 85.6 and 85.1 percent of households in lowland, midland and highland agro-ecologies respectively are practicing livelihood diversification. This implies that households in the study areas have a good awareness about non-agricultural income generating activities to minimize the impacts of climate change on their climate sensitive livelihood strategies mainly crop and livestock production.
Migration
Most of the households in the study areas lead a permanent life at their place of residence. However, climate change effects forced household members to leave their place of residence for wage labor or to get animal fodders. According to key informants and focus group discussion participants, household members migrate to urban areas particularly Addis Ababa and Hawassa to seek labor work and generate income to support their families. Some migrate temporarily during post-harvest season and return back during cropping period while others migrate permanently. Moreover, informants and participants have argued that some household members migrate to foreign countries. In addition to this, households migrate with their livestock seeking fodders to the nearby kebeles (the lower administrative unit in Ethiopia) and districts mainly to their relatives. Accordingly, the Odola Kura kebele households migrate with their cattle to neighboring kebele called Teticha; and Bera Tsedicho kebele households migrate to Aleta Wondo district. As it is indicated on Table SM4, across three districts, the practice of migration accounts 10.6 percent which is less practiced strategy by the households in the study areas. Relatively, the distribution of migration in midland area is very low which account only 2.9 percent. This might be due to cash crop production and stable livelihood of the farmers. However, 21.5 percent the households found in highland agro-ecology take part in migration which may be related with transport accessibility and existence of towns near Odola Kura kebele. Even though the households of lowland agro-ecology exposed for climate change, their trends of migration is below highland area accounting 12 percent which might be because of lack of transportation expenses of the migrants and social networks.