Summary: agriandlivestock30.pdf

ETHIOPIAN VALLEYS DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE IN  l’HE
r
KESEM-KEBENA PLAINS  A REAPPRAISAL
ADDIS ABABA
AUGUST IQ89
A CO-OPERATIVE PROJECT OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF ETHIOPIA THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND
THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME,TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
1.    BACKGROUND TO THE REAPPRAISAL STUDY .................................................................... 1-1
2.    DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ................................................................... 2-1
3.    COMMON PARAMETERS AND RELEVANT DATA FOR ALL SCENARIOS ... 3-1
IFIGURE
NUMBER
1.1
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
PAGE
NUMBER
LOCATION MAP........................................................................ 1*Z
4.1                       GENERAL   PROJECT     LAYOUT    SCENARIO I............... 4-2
4.2                       GENERAL   PROJECT     LAYOUT    SCENARIO 11....          4-17
4.3                       GENERAL   PROJECT     LAYOUT    SCENARIO III...            4-41
4.4                      GENERAL   PROJECT     LAYOUT    SCENARIO IV....           4-62
4.5                       BOTTOM OUTLET AND SPILLWEIR DETAIL.... 4-71TABLE NUMBER
2.1
3.1
3-2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.1.6
4.1.9
4.1.10
4.1.11
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
PAGE
NUMBER
PROJECTED          CROP          YIELDS          -          STATE          FARMS
ECONOMIC    GROSS    MARGIN    TOBACCO    ON    BETTER    SOILS•    •• ECONOMIC GROSS MARGIN TOBACCO ON POORER SOILS
ECONOMIC GROSS MARGIN COTTON IN COTTON 4 WHEAT SYSTEM.
ECONOMIC  GROSS  MARGIN  COTTON  AS  BREAK  CROP  IN  TOBACCO
ECONOMIC GROSS MARGIN WHEAT ON STATE FARMS
ECONOMIC GROSS MARGIN MAIZE IN TOBACCO SYSTEM ON STATE
FARHS.............................................. ................................................................................................ J
ECONOMIC        GROSS        MARGIN        ORANGE        IN        CITRUS        FARM        3-13
ECONOMIC      GROSS      MARGIN      GRAPEFRUIT      IN      CITRUS      FARM.....      3-14
BREAKDOWN OF IRRIGATION AREA UNIT COSTS......................................... 3-15
STATE          FARM          TOBACCO          500          Hn          UNIT          STAFFING          3-16
STATE FARM COTTON/WHEAT 500 Ila UNIT STAFFING.................................... 3-1?
STATE FARM CITRUS 200  lla  UNIT STAFFING 3-1« STATE FARM TOBACCO 500  Ha  UNIT EQUIPMENT 3-|9 STATE FARM COTTON/WHEAT 500  Ha  UNIT EQUIPMENT 3-20 STATE FARM CITRUS 215  Ha  UNIT EQUIPMENT 3-2l
AREA      TO      BE      DEVELOPED      EACH      YEAR      (Hft>      SCENARIO      1      4-3
STAGED               DEVELOPMENT               UNITS               SCENARIO               1               4-4
WATER            REQUIREMENTS            FOR            7U            Ha            PASTURE            4-5
IRRIGATION           DIVERSION           REQUIREMENTS           SCENARIO           1           4-6
CAPITAL COSTS FOR SCENARIO 1 4_g
SCENARIO [ STAFFING COSTS 4.9
AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY COSTS SCENARIO I........... 4-1Q
ENGINEERING                   OAM                   COSTS                   SCENARIO
I
WITHOUT      PROJECT      AGRI      CULTURAL      BENEFITS      SCENARIO      1
WITH         PROJECT         AGRICULTURAL         BENEFITS         SCENARIO         1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO 14.2.1                       AREA to BE DEVELOPED EACH YEAR (Ha) SCENARIO II........................................................... 4-18
4.2.2                       STAGED DEVELOPMENT UNITS SCENARIO 11............................................................................ 4-19
4.2.3                      WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR 600 Ha PASTURE.......................................................................... 4-20
4.2.4
IRRIGATION DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS SCENARIO
II........................................ 4-22
4.2.5                      KESEM RIVER INFLOW SEQUENCE............................................................................................... 4-23
4.2.6                      KESEM RESERVOIR PARAMETERS............................................................................................... 4-24
4.2.7                      RESERVOIR TRACE SCENARIO I!.................................................................................................. 4-25
4.2.8                      POSSIBLE RELEASFS TO HFET IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS OF
SCENARIO II................................................................................................................................... 4-26
4.2.9                      COST ESTIMATE BOTTOM OUTLET AND SPILLWEIR                  SCENARIO It.................... 4-28
4.2.10                    SEDIMENT INFLOW TO KESEM RESERVOIR................................................................................ 4-30
4.2.11                    CAPITAL COSTS FOR SCENARIO ................................................................................................... 4-31
4.2.12                    SCENARIO II STAFFING COSTS........................................................................................................ 4-32
4.2.13                    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY COSTS SCENARIO II................................................................... 4-33
4.2.14                    ENGINEERING OAM COSTS SCENARIO II.................................................................................... 4-34
4.2.15                    WITHOUT PROJECT AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS SCENARIO II................................................ 4-35
4.2.16                    WITH PROJECT AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS SCENARIO I!........................................................ 4-37
4.2.17                    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO II............................................................................................. 4-38
4.2.18                    FOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY SCENARIO II...................................................................................... 4-39
4.3.1                      AREA TO BE DEVELOPED EACH YEAR (Hal SCENARIO III...................................................... 4-42
4.3.2                      STAGED DEVELOPMENT UNITS SCENARIO II!.......................................................................... 4-43
4.3.3                     WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR 520 Ha PASTURE....................................................................... 4-44
4.3.4
IRRIGATION DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS SCENARIO III......................................................... 4-45
4.3.5                     RESERVOIR TRACE SCENARIO III................................................................................................ 4-47
4.3.6                      POSSIBLE RELEASES TO MEET IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS OF
SCENARIO III................................................................................................................................ 4-48
4.3.7                     COST ESTIMATE BOTTOM OUTLET AND SPILLWEIR SCENARIO III.... 4-50
4.3.8                     CAPITAL COSTS FOR SCENARIO III............................................................................................ 4-52
4.3.9                      SCENARIO ill STAFFING COSTS.................................................................................................. 4-53
4.3.10                    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY COSTS SCENARIO III............................................................... 4-54
4.3.11                    ENGINEERING 0 A M COSTS SCENARIO III............................................................................... 4-55
4.3.12                    WITHOUT PROJECT AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS SCENARIO II]............................................ 4-56
4.3.13                   WITH PROJECT AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS SCENARIO III.................................................... 4-58
4.3.14                   ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO Til........................................................................................ 4-594.3.15
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
FOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY SCENAKiu in.........................
AREA TO BE DEVELOPED EACH YEAR (Ha) SCENARIO IV..
STAGED DEVELOPMENT UNITS SCENARIO ...... .........................................
WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR 830 Ha PASTURE............................................
IRRIGATION DIVERSION REQUIREMEN1S autWAKiw
....................... ..
. .. 4-68
.................. 4-60
... 4-63
... 4-65
... 4-66
. .. 4-67
4.4.5                     RESERVOIR TRACE 3vENAH1U !¥•••••••■■■•«-
4.4.6                      POSSIBLE RELEASES TO MEET IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS OF
. . 4-69
<1.4.7                   COST ESTIMATE BOTTOM OUTLET AND SPILLWEIR SCENARIO IV........................ 4-72
4.4.8                     CAPITAL COSTS FOR SCENARIO IV......................................................................................     4-74
4.4.9 
SCENARIO IV STAFFING COSTS.............................................................................................     4-75
4.4.10                   AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY COSTS SCENARIO IV..................................................... 4-77
4.4.11                   ENGINEERING 0 k M COSTS SCENARIO IV..................................................... 4-7B
4.4.12
4.4.13
4.4.14
4.4.15
5.1
WITHOUT PROJECT AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS SCENARIO TV . WITH PROJECT AGRICULTURAL BENEFITS SCENARIO IV
4-79
f.gQ
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SCENARIO IV.............................
1 Q1
FOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY SCENARIO IV
'.
nn
ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF STUDIED SCENARIOS
j„SUMMARY
1.    tn the enrlv 1960's a na.ior river bnsin study was undertaken by the FAO for the Awash River Bnsin.Arnone the areas identified for potential irrigation development was tlie Keaem-Kebena Plain.a relatively flat area of some 20,000 ha
on the left hank of the Awash in its middle course.Based on a reconnaissance soil survey it was concluded that a gross area
of 17550 ha on these plains could be irrigated by gravity
using the Kesem River flows.
2.    Further studies conducted during the 70’s downgraded the irrigable area to 9000 ha.In 1984 a proposal was made for a joint venture between Bulgaria and Ethiopia to develop 1350
ha in the dry season and 6500 ha in the wet season as a
run-of-river development.
3.    FAO undertook in 1986 a comprehensive feasibility study of the possibility oT developing the Kesem-Kebenn Plains.The objectives of this comprehensive study were to use nil
resources to maximise agricultural potential under a balanced environmental and ecological system producing cash and industrial crops for export and/or import substitution plus food crops al least for local seIT-sufficiency.This emphasis
on maximisation rather than optimization is significant and was based on the optimistic assumption that all land
identified in the earlier FAO study could be economically brought under irrigated agriculture.
4.    The conclusion derived from this comprehensive study was that it is technically feasible to develop all the land
resources of the plains but such a development is not economically attractive.
I
5.    During the course of many discussions that were held during and after the study it became evident that the economically attractive development scenario will have to be
a much smaller project in the Kesem-Kebena Plains.
6.    This reappraisal study is based on the above and is an attempt to salvage a workable project based on possible
viable alternat1ves.ThLs is an appraisal and not a
full-fledged feasibility study.
7.    All relevant concepts developed in the 1986 FAO study by the consultant (MHP) have been adopted in this study with minor modifications where necessary.
8.    The alternative scenarios were set up using the crops best suited for the Kesem-Kebena Plains subject to market constraints.In each scenario maximum land is allotted to a particular crop to meet the projected market demands.
9.    In this study four scenarios were selected for final appraisal.These are :
Scenario 1 Development of the Kesem-Kebena Plains for Citrus alone - 430 ha
Scenario II Development of the Kescm-Kcbena Plains for Citrus and Tobacco - 3550 haScenario      Tit      Development      of      the      Kes*rw-Neb*ns      Plain* for Tobacco alm* * JT5W bn
Scenario IV Development of Eh* 
for Cttrus•Tobacco and additional Cotton
-       - 090 ha
10.    Since th* tobacco crop occupies th" land only for about tour months.Rheat and Malum have h*m used as break crop* In the tobacco systm as appropriate.Sial tarly In th" cotton
system wheat has been used as a second crop.
11.    For all scenario* additional land ami water allocation have been and* to provide for Irritated pasture for th* Afar* to compensate for the lues of dry season arsa InS.Compena.st Im land has been allotted at th" rate or lha p*r everv «ha of
dry season <rmin< lost.
12.    Snob of the studied alternative* wer* evaluated on th* basis of economic cash How and economic Internal rat* of return.The economic cash flow Invoves the estimation of the costs and benefit.* stream.The benefits are derived on th* basis nf economic crop tfros* martin* ami the area itmler each crop.Th* costa Include Capital and Annual Costs.The capital coat* cov»r Initial Investment for Irrl<atlon.Dralna<e ami Flood Protection Works.Plant and Vehicles for
m»n-a<rIritlturn 1 purpose*•Road*♦Dams and associated structures lhilIdliK* and ServIce*.Annua I costs Include
Plains
t
StafTlny Costs, Aifr Iciil turn I Plant and Machinery Costa ami Fn<lneerln< Recurrent Coat*.
!3. In order to clear I v hr Ins out tin* root Implication of housing and related services each scenario has been divided Into two cases:(’nan A ami Case R.Caae A doe* not Include th" houalns and related costa.Case D does.
II. The economic Internal rales of return for the studied scenarios are compared In Table .9-1 slven below.Rawed on this tahl* It can ha concluded that <rowing citrus alone In the Plains Is not prof ItahIe.At the !99R«level cotton prlrew It
Is not. economical to hr Ins in additional arras for Irritated cotton. The beat option la to trow tobacco with cot Ion,wheat and salxa an break crops.
TABLE S-l
ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF STUDIED SCENARIO*!
Case A
Case R
Scenario t
1.9%
i. ax
Scenario II
7. IX
5.7%
Scenario II!
7.9%
R.3%
Scenario IV
7.IX
5.5%
15.   Such . ■ milum .cal. d.vrlopment |. I.pllclflr allc-l for
la th. Awa.h Maater Plan .Ince If r>rm id-. for th- al Incat fon or land and water resources tor several (.Mated .-din. scale develop.ent. totalling 35.000 ha la th- Awash Ba.In.
Ui)16.    A development of the type envisaged does not preclude future developments in the middle awash valley using the Kesem River flows.In the year 2030,groundwater sources could be tapped to provide for the Scenario III development thus reducing its dependance on Kesem flows particularly if these flows could be used more effectively elsewhere in the awash valley.
17.    Ou the basis of this reappraisal study it is recommended that a full-fledged feasibility study be commissioned using
all available data to develop about 3000-4000 ha for tobacco,cottoniwheat and maize.1. BACKGROUND TO THE RE-APPRAISAL STUDY
In the early  1960’s  a major river basin study  was undertaken by  the FAO for the Awash River Basin. (Ref.1) Among the areas  identified for potential irrigation development was  the Kesem-Kebena Plain* a relatively  flat area of some 20,000ha on the left bank of the Awash In its  middle course, intersected by  the tributary  rivers, Kesem and Kebena flowing off the western escarpment of the Rift Valley. The report on this  basin study, issued by  FAO in 1965, recommended the construction of a major dam and reservoir on the Kesem and the development of a large irrigation scheme on the plain after developments  of the right bank  of the main awash river.
In the same report, based on a reconnaissance-level soi
survey, it was concluded that a gross area of 17,550ha
on the Kesem-Kebena Plain could be irrigated throughout
the year by gravity from the Kesem river.
During the 1970rs  under a twinning program, an Australian expert studied this  area and downgraded the irrigable area to 9000 ha. No further field studies  were undertaken until 1984 when the Bulgarian Organization Agrocomplect proposed a run-of-river development for the Kesem and Kebena. irrigating 1350ha gross  in the dry season and 6.500ha in the rainy season.
FAO undertook  in 1986 a comprehensive feasibility  study of the possibility  of developing the Kesem-Kebena plains. (For location map see Figure 1 . 1 )The study  titled M Kesem Irrigation Project” (KIP) was  conducted by  Sir M.Macdonald and Partners  (MMP) under a contract with FAO.(Ref.4)
The objectives  of this  comprehensive feasibility  study were to use all resources  to maximise agricultural potential under a balanced environmental and ecological system producing cash and industrial crops  for export and/or Import substitution plus  food crops  at least for local self-sufficiency. This  emphasis  on maximisation rather than optimization 1s  significant and was  based on the terms  of reference issued for the study  which in turn was  prepared under the optimistic  assumption that all land Identified in the earlier FAO study  could be economically brought under irrigated agriculture.
The       conclusions       of       this       detailed       study       were       summarized by MMp as follows:
(a)
the      project      as      studied      is      technically      feasible      but not economically attractive.
(b) on the Kesem-Kebena plain, a gravity  irrigation scheme can be developed that can extend to about 14,000ha net.

Summery

Document Overview

Title: Development of Irrigated Agriculture in the Kesem-Kebena Plains: A Reappraisal

Authors: Ethiopian Valleys Development Studies Authority (EVDSA)

Date: August 1989

Collaborators: Government of Ethiopia, FAO (UN), UNDP

Key Findings

Reappraisal of a 1960s FAO proposal for irrigated agriculture in Ethiopia's Kesem-Kebena Plains (20,000ha).
Original plan proposed 17,550ha irrigation; later reduced to 9,000ha due to feasibility constraints.
1986 FAO study found full development technically feasible but economically unattractive (2-4% IRR).
Four scaled-down scenarios analyzed for citrus, tobacco, cotton, wheat, and maize production.

Recommended Crops

Crop	Suitability	Economic Potential
Citrus (oranges/grapefruit)	Best ecological fit	High returns (~10,000 Birr/ha/yr) but limited to 400-450ha due to market constraints
Virginia tobacco	Good returns	Import substitution potential; market limited to ~1,500ha annual production
Cotton	Tolerates saline soils	Unlimited export market for high-quality cotton
Wheat/Maize	Break crops in rotation	Food security for local communities

Economic Analysis of Scenarios

Scenario	Description	Area (ha)	Economic IRR (Case A/B)
I	Citrus only	430 + 70 pasture	4.9%/4.8%
II	Citrus + Tobacco	3,550 + 800 pasture	7.1%/5.7%
III	Tobacco only (with break crops)	3,120 + 520 pasture	7.9%/6.3%
IV	Citrus + Tobacco + Cotton	4,990 + 830 pasture	7.1%/5.5%

Recommendation: Scenario III (tobacco with break crops) shows highest economic return. A 3,000-4,000ha development is advised.

Critical Considerations

Requires compensation pasture (1ha irrigated pasture per 6ha dry grazing lost) for Afar pastoralists.
Water needs can be met through run-of-river flows (Kebena/Kesem Rivers) for smaller scenarios.
Large-scale development would require 90m dam (studied but deemed uneconomical).
Soil drainage systems essential due to hydrogeological conditions.