6S«
THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENERGY
ETHIOPIAN NILE IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE PROJECT (WORLD BANK FINANCED)
FEASIBILITY STUDIE8 OF ABOUT 90.000 HA NET IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SCHEMES
UPPER BELE8 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SCH FEASIBILITY 8TUDY FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 6: LAND P SOURCES & AGRICH L HJRA'
SK 028; IRRIGATED ACRJCULTURH % AO KO CCGIOMM Vf
•RO2C LIVESTOCK DEVELOfMEJlT SKO3D: LAND A WATERMHED MAhAGCM» KI A.’.D ; - >
talcrow
ASSOCIATION WITH
GENERATION INTEGRATED RURAL DCVELOFMEXT |GOkD) CONSULTANTSFederal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Ministry of Water and Energy
World Bank Financed Ethiopian Nile Irrigation and Drainage Project Feasibility Studies of about 80,000 ha net Irrigation and Drainage Schemes Feasibility Study Final Report
UPPER BELES IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SCHEME
Volume 6: Land Resources & Agricultural Development
SR-02B: Irrigated Agriculture & Agro-economic Development SR-02C: Livestock Development
SR-02D: Land & Watershed Management and Forestry
2011
Kalcruw Group Limited and
Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants PO Box 102175, Comet Building (5th Ffoo<)
Hake Gebcewlasste Road, Adda Ababa. EtNopa Tel *215-1 (0) 116 63 09 92 Fax *251-1 (0) 116 63 09 91
hgtoflw t^ryi
<
Thu Report ha* been prepared in accordance »nn the instructions of the Federal
Government of Ethiopia, Ministry ol Waler and Energy for the* sole and ipecr6c
Any other persons wtio use any information contained Mrtn do so at the* own
nsk
CHalcrow Group Limited and Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants
2011Halcrow Group Limited and
Generation integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants
PO Box 102175. Camel BuIMkig (Sth Root)
Haile Gebreselaisje Road. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia
Tai *215-1 (01 11663 09 92 Fax+251-1 (0) 115 69 09 91
wwwhakrowccm
Th* Report hj* bean prepared in scoxdance with the instructions of Hie Federal
Government of Ethiopia, Mntstry ot Water and Energy for th«r sole and specific
iFte Any other persons who use any mtorniatMxi axiLainod herein do i* al their own
risk
© Halcrow Group Limited and Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Cons
2011r^Are^fjrf A*/£
arid             PjTJfA/
FEASIBILITY REPORT STRUCTURE
Volume 1:          Main Report (Plus Annexes)
Volume 2:          Water Resource*
SR-01A Water Resources
Volume 3:          Irrigation Development
SR 01B Irrigation A Drain ngr Dock ?pm ent
Volumei 4
& 5:
Soils. Land Use & Suitability
SR-02A: Soils, Land 1 Ac & Suitability Part 1 of 4: Main Report
Part 2 of 4: Annexes A, B A C
Part 3 of 4 Annex D
Parr 4 of 4. Annexes E - N
Volume 6:          Land Resources de Agricultural Development
SR-02B: Irrigated Agriculture & Agro-economic Development SR-02C Ijvcttock Development
SR-02D: Land A Watershed Management and Forestry
Volumes 7
& 8:
Resource Users A Socio-Economic*
SR 03A; Resource Users and Socio-economics
Part 1 of 5: Summary Report (T^eft A Right Banks)
Part 2 of 5; SDAs I A 111 on Right Bink
Parr 3 of 5: SDAs Til A IV on Left Bank
Part 4 of 5: Survey Data Annexes (Sl>As I A HI on Right Bank) Part 5 of 5: Survey Data Annexes (SDAs IV A IV on Left Bank)
SR-O3B: Resettlement
Volumes 9, Engineering Survey*, Investigation^ Planning & Design
10 -5c 11:        SR-O4A; Engineering: Irrigation A Drainage Works
SR-O4B Engineering Storage Dam
SR-fMC Geology. Hydrogeology and Geotechnical Interpretive Report Parr I of 1; Mam Report & Annexes A D
Part 2 of 3: Annexes E - 11 Pan 3 of 3: .Annexe? 1 - P
SR-04D; 1 opograp hit Survey Works
Bdes i -’4 -VrdkMHi: t
1 July 2011MmJ Ihm*
$ f£/ANjprk Wty oflFatrr C~ E*ip
Lilterw Ntlr irrigation Dwrqp P,**y*f
Volume  Li  Environmental  Status.  Financial  &  Economic  Analysis,  Stakeholder ConiuliBfiont & Study Term* of Reference
SR-05: Environmental Status
SR-06: Financial &: Economic Analysis
SR-07: Stakeholder Consul rations
SR-08: Study Terms of Reference
Maps and Engineering Drawing*, AJ
Map Albums, Al
Main Album
Derailed Soils. Land Use A Suitability Album Topographic Album
Beks 14 -VuIiwrc 6
u
1 Inly 2(H1Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia
J V.
Ministry of Water and Energy
World Bank Financed Ethiopian Nile Irrigation and Drainage Project Feasibility Studies of about 80,000 ha net Irrigation and Drainage Schemes Feasibility Study Final Report
UPPER BELES IRRIGATION &
DRAINAGE SCHEME
SR-02B. Irrigated Agriculture ard Agro- Economic Development Planning
Halcrow
in association with
Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) ConsultantsHslcrow Group Limited and
Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) ConeuHante
PO Box 10217S, Comet Bu*<5ir>g (5th Floor)
Hate Gebreselaisle Roed Addis Abo bi, EthiopQ
Tel *215*1 (OM16 63 09?2 Fan +251-1 <0| 116 63 09 91
www.halcjfO’w com
This R&txtft Ms boon prepare in accordance with the aistncuons oFlhe Federal
Gortwrimen! ol Ethiopia, Mtntsuy of Waler and Energy tor their tola and *p*dfK
jm Any odw persons wt<. u«q any eilormaAnn contamod hcrwn do so al the« O^i
nsK
© Halcrow Group Limited and Generation lnt*Brated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants
2011Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Ministry of Water and Energy
World Bank Financed Ethiopian Nile Irrigation and Drainage Project Feasibility Studies of about 80,000 ha net Irrigation and Drainage Schemes Feasibility Study Final Report
UPPER BELES IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SCHEME
SR-02B: Irrigated Agriculture and Agro- Economic Development Planning
Halcrow Group Limited and
Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants
PQ Box 102175. Cornel Budding (Sth Floor)
Hade Gebrselassie Road. Addis Ababa, Elhopia
Tel *215-1 (0} 116 B3 00 92 Fax +251-1 (0) 116 63 0391
www halonw com
Report has been p<wp«d acaxtiawe with the msinjcwni of tn. Federal
Government el Ethrw Mmtry of Water and Energy far thor sole specific
use Any other pcrsoni who uw any in form a Don contained herein do so al tiieur own
risk.
e Halcrow Group Limited and Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants
2011Halcrow Group Limited and
GonaraHon Integrated Rural Davalopfmnt (GIRD] Consultant*
PO Bqi 102175, Comet Bidding (blh Floor)
Halle GebreseLesne Road, Adrfh Abate, Ethiopia
Tel *-215-1 (0) 116 63 09 92 F*m *261-1 (0) 116 63 09 91
WWW hatoovi oom
Thtf Rtpdfl has teen prepared ,in accordance with the ri lirwctens of the Federal
Government of Eih-opm, Mlnratry oi Waler and Energy far me* sole Speoftc
use Any Other penom who use any mfamiallon contained iwn do SO al their own
risi
© Harrow Group Limited and Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultant*
2011b’flrffn? / JJMWciwfr toa/w ft/’Erfejy-M. ^frcr/i? of ir JWH- <*-
F/As^prdir A'wfr   rad Dnaia^e ?w/
FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT
UPPER BELES IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SCHEME
SR-02B: IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE AND AGRO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
/. / Prvjtif ImiTwi
1.2           Prvjerf GmI/
tJ DrJhMtof
HI Study & Project Areas
L3.2 Land U tills atirm Types
1.3.3        Stage Develop mem Areas
1.4           Mtthadotyp
L5 Report Sfrvrturr
2       PRESENT AGRICULTURAL SITUATION
9
2/
I j' fHttqt Sytrnii lit tht Payed Afta
9
22
IjW LJw Paffenr
fO
Z3
PemdholdiKg Jr*r and Pfistributton
It
24
Lmh Amatfn*eitfJ, Land 7 rnurr and S h&rsropptKx
It
2.4.1 Lease Arrangements
n
2-4.2 Land Tenure
13
2.4.3 Shareci upping
14
25
SifitMoUfr AjffMiJ/m
!4
2.5.1 Cropping Patterns
14
2.5.2 Cropping Calendar
16
2.5.3 Imgafrin Area and Imgauon Practice
17
2.5.4 Crop Husbandry
18
2.5.5 Labour - Family. Hired and Mutual Exchange
23
2.5.6 Draught Power, Equipment and Tools
24
2.5.7 Crop Yields and Production
24
Ztf
Ctiwwfiu/ /^rnaf/Arrr
27
26
Afincn/iimil Support Services
28
2.7,1 Agricultural Research
28
2.7.2 Agricultural Extension and Training;
2.8
Riffle Jjrpur
30
JJ
3  WITH-PRO]ECT AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL
J. f /ff/nwiftuTWJT
3 A Ltftf* Jaai Er/j/r Affift/txn
3.2,1        Proposed Crops and Cropping Patternstaw*'-'^
Ndr ***
5.2.2    Imgaoon System
3.2   3 inpui Requirements
3.2.4    Farm Operations
3.2.5   Crop Yields and Production
J. J Mfifxwffj ant/ SmiiH Srafc Cfiwmmal afffnt/twf
3.3.1    Proposed Crops
3.3.2    Cropping Patterns
3.3.3    Irngat»n System
3-3 4    Input Requirements
3.3.5    Farm Mechanization and Equipment 3.3.6    Crop Yields and Production
3.4       5,4fnw//irtT
3 4.1     Smallholder Farm Areas
3 4.2     Proposed Crops
3.4           3              Cropping Patterns
3 4 4     Irrigaram System
3.4.5    Input Requirements
3.4.6    Crop (^petitions Calendar
3.4.7    Farm Operations
3.4.8    Access to Improved Tools and Equipment
3 4.9     Farm Labour
3 4 10 Crop Yields and Production
15                     dWCh^ IFd/er Rrqurrrrwn/j
35
36
36
38
41
41
43
43
44
45
46
46
47
48
51
52
55
64
64
65
66
69
3.5.1 
Introduction
69
3,5 
2 
Climatic Data and Reference Evapou inspiration
69
3 53 
Rainfall
72
3,5 
4 
Calculation of Crop VC’aicr Requirements
75
3,5-5    Irrigation Scheduling 
4        CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
4, f     Major Con/tmmti to ^ffKvHufu/
4.2 
5  AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
5.1      infnnbi.-fror.
£2      O^nflirr zl/jfrniA-A
5. i     Pitj/w/ Pro/fiW 
53.1    Pre*mt Popuhixm
£4 
5.3   2      Rc-settlement Requirements for tilt Present Population 5.3.3    Population Projection
5.4.1    Allocation of Land for Cultivi lion
79
87
S7
87
89
89
Sffl
Pf
91
91
92
94
94
5.4.2    Allocation of l-and for Fuel wood. Grazing and SmaHboldet Infrastructure                     96
5. £ 
Ljad  C.jiar/ff IffJidr jas' Jrn^frrwrc LVn^fc jdrttfr
1
5.6           I fee LiJffc/         M«de/
^8
/*9fi
iiMwm tfnftr c?-£«^
N7A Jn^tr/™ gwrf Drtiwfigjr Fnyfir
5.6.1   Methodology 
5.6.2    Allocating Land Use to SO As
563 Allocating Holding dan Numbers and Areas to SDAs
5.6.4        With project Land Use and Settlement in rhe Project Area 
5.7      A tarkrt / W- The I if mt* ndfir Seheiae Pnufarfiv n
5.7.1    Method of Approach
57.2     Demand from Regional and National Markets
5.7.3    Export Opportunities
5.7.4    Production With-projcct
5.             J              f’rvdurtian Push      IntrtdftJ 
5 8 1 Smallholder and Commercial Farm Gross Margins
5.8           2 Large Scale Sugar Cane Production
53       Cflw/vnjoM of Ajrvxow and Market I jfinaftf &J W'ithfinfert Pmitctwr 5.10 Far* favrntff AfafrZ' Akwnfflr£ IF7/j5 frtyfrt Scheme Produrt/orr under (Mrtrurttff 5.11    Sunrmjjy of IFi?h-flftyfrt Fjfw Prwbirtrtm
5.11.1  Farm Tenure
5,11         2 Cropping Pattern and Intensity 5.11.3 Farm Budget
5 114 1 lousehold Food Security 
5 11.5 With-project Production
5,11.6 Value of With-project Production
100
103
105
ff-
6  SUB-PROJECT INTERVENTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES
6.1      Itrfrwfai f' Mn
6.2       Cnhananrrnr o f Sod Fertiiify (CP 1)
6. 5     /rtmtjed Stppff
Jwir (CP-2)
JVww/ro/i of Effort* PtJf Cofrtrvf, CP-3
63 Improivd                            Markerm^ CP-4 
6.6      SrmtftiMted s I jprorZterW /’.vta/w           and Rwarrh Artinites. CP-5
* *
116
H®
11
IW
123
123
12 > 133
133
135
138
144
145
147
151
/J/ f 5 / f J f /52 ff?
6.7 
and On-Par* LPtf/cr
CP-£
6-8     1/npmifdAiVtrj fl? FdflW Crrdrt. CP -7
6.9  IfnpnvemeHfi io Post hmtJi Trchmrtog. CPS
6 10 Cort Ertimato
iiift—*.
* E'fr**A,n^' *r,r'"' *
Ntit             J»i Dnnnqf PnjM
7
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A: TABLES
Table Al: List of Recommended Crop Varieties
Table A2:: Seed Requirement for Smallholder Farming
Table A3: Seasonal Requirement* of Fertilizers for Smallholder Farming Table A4:: Seasonal Agro chemicals Costs for Smallholder Farming
Table A5 Crop Area and Production in Pawc Weredas
1 able A6: Crop Area and Production in Dangur Weredas
Table A : Crop Area and Production in Jawi Weredas
ANNEX B: CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS
Annex B-1: Sugar Estate Crop Wafer Requirements
Annex B 2; Commercial Farm Crop Water Requirements
Annex B-3: Smallholder Farm Crop Water Requirements
ANNEX C: SUBPROJECT PROFILES
CP-1 Enhancement of Soil Fertjbtv
CP 2: Increased Suppl}1 of improved Seed
CP 3: Promotion of Effective Pest Control
CP 4 Improved Agricultural Marketing
(.P-5: Strengthened Agricultural Extension Services and Research Activities CP’6. [rogation Agronomy and On-farm Water Management
CP-7: Improved Access to Farm Credit
CP-8: Promotion of Effective Post-harvest Technologies
ANNEX D: CROP AREA BY SDA AND ESTIMATED PRODUCTION
iv-—-- H » i psi
RrfMW. Efh'opta. A fm.'M if Fttfr &E*rrg
F/.Wwn Nj4f Irrif^fnft ami Dnjpwp Png^T
list of tables
Table 1-1: Study and Project Areas.................. ......... .................................................................
Table 2-1: Land Use Patterns by Stage Development Aras.................................................. ............—-....... ......... ...... •11
Table 2-2 Distnbution of I -and Use Rights——’ —................. ........ .......... ........................................ ......................—+-11
Table 2-3: Leued-in Commercial Farms m Piwe and Jawi weredas............................ ........................ ..... .....................13
Table 2-4: Typical Rainfcd Smallholder Cropping Patterns ..._............................. ...................................... -................ 13
Table 2-5: Typical Imgatrd Smallholder Cropping Patterns.................................................... ....................... . ..............16
Table 2-6: Irrigated landholding Size.............. ««-*■... .......................................... ■■—............................ ..........
Table 2-7: Area fit Number of Traditional and Modem Irrigation .Schemes................ ..................... ...... ................... 17
Table 2-8: Crop Varieties Grown in the Project Area............................. —............................... —....... -........... ...... ...... 20
Table 2-9: Common Crop Pests and Weeds.......................... ................................—— ..................... ’........ .................... 21
Table 2-10: Exchange and Hired labour Utilization and Payment Rates,................................................. ................... -23
Table 2 11: Draught Power Ownenhip and Coping Strategy.........................................—................ ............................. 24
Table 2-12: Crop Production and Yields in the Project Wcredis.—.................................. «« .............. ................ ........ 23
Table 2 13: Cultivated Area of Commercial Enterprurs in lhe Project Area ............. ...... ...... -......... ..........................26
Table 2-14: Cropping calendar for Commercial Farms...............................................—............................. ,................. 27
Table 2-15: Crop Varieties Released/Adopted by PARC....................................... ..... .................... —...... —...... -........ 29
Table 2-16: Distribution of FTC and Development Agents——  ................................................. ................................. 30
Table 2-17 Chemical Fertilizer Distribution in the Project wriedas .................. .................................... »..... ...............31
Table 3-1: Upper Bdes Development Options ........ .............................. ...... -......... ,........... ......... —..........-........... -....... 33
Tabic 3 2:    Input Requirements for Large scale Sugar Estate ... .......... . ..................—.......................................... ,.-36
Table 3-3:   Expected Cane Production from Upper BeJcs Core Sugar Eatate       Area (36,225 ha). .................... 40
Tabic 3 4:   Commercial Farm Distnbuooo by Land Suitability Type................. ..............................................   .....41
Table 3-5;  Cropping Patterns for Small/Medium Scale Commercial Farms (Out-growers).................................... 42
Table 3-6:   Optimised Cropping Patterns lor Commercial Farmi......................................—..™,+.™„43
Table 3-7: Seasonal Seed Requirements for Proposed Crops.................. .................. ......... . —..... ........ ...... ................. 43
Table 3-8: Seasonal Fertilizer Requirements for Proposed Crops.................... ........... ,.................. . ...... ................... 44
Table 3-9: Seasonal Agro-chemical Costs fur Proposed Crops.............................................. ............... . .......... ...........44
Tabic 3 10 Types of Machine!)' Recommended for Commercial Firms..................................... ......... ................... ..... 45
Table 3-11: Yield Projections for Crops on Commercial Farms ................ —. ......... ........ ,....... ........ ....... ......... ........ 45
Table 3-12 Estunatr nf With-project Production from Small/Medium Commercial Farms......................... ........... 46
Table 3-13: Smallholder Farm Areas by SDA and Land Suitability Type..........................................................   .....46
Table 3-14: Cropping Patterns for Smallholder Farms on Noti-vertk soils-.......................... ............. r_,„................. 49
Table 3-15: Cropping Patterns for Smallholder Farms on Vemc Soils .................................................................      49
Table 3-16; Cropping Pattern for Out-grcrwei Smallholders................ ......... ......................... . ....................... ,„5Q
Table 3-1": Optimised Cropping Patterns for Smallholder Farms (Option 2A)................................................     ,„50
I able 3-18 Optimised Cropping Patterns for Smallholder Out-grower Farms (Option 2B  Out-growcrs)51
Table 3-19: Annual Seed Requirement for Smallholder Crops ..... .....................................................................        52
Table 3-20; With-projcct Fertilizer Applications for Smallholders, kg./ha.............................................................    53
Tabic 3-21; FcitilizcJ Requirements for Smallholder Farm*.................. ....... ............................................................   54
lablc 3-22: Cropping Calendar and Activity Schedule for the Wet Season................ ..............................................  55
1 able 3-23: Cropping Calendar and Activity Schedule for the Dry Season............................. ..............................   59
Fable 3-24: Labour Reqmrenitnrs by Crop, Person days per ha ..... ........... ............. ............. ......... ....... ,
65
1 able 3-25; Labour Requirements by Crop, Person days per ha (cont). ............................................................      66
1 able 3-26: F.kpetted With-prioject: Irrigated Yields on Smallholder Farms ... ................................................. 67
vM*            »tmJ Djw^ -r
Tible 5-2“: Yield Projection for Smallholder Crops, qt/h*................................................................................
Table 3-2* Esttmtted With project Smallholder Crop Production............................................................................. fiJ| Fable        3-29        Climatic        data        and        FT„        for        Upper        Beles        Command        Area,Q Table 3 » LongTeim Average Rainfall, 1 Jependable (80%). and F.Fectnt Retail for Command Area
Tibk 3-31: Sugarcane Net Crop Water Requirement................................. -............................................................... ..76
Table 3 32: Suggested Cropping Partem for Commerdal           Farms on Luvisnls................................................  .77
Table 3-33; Suggested Cropping Pattern for Commercial         Farms on \ ertisols................................................   7;
Table 3-34: ( ommcrdil Firm Net Crop Water Requirements .................... .................... ■............. -...............................
Title 3-35: Suggested Cropping Partem for Smallholder* on I.uvtsols ............... .............-........ -............. ....... ........... 75
Table 3 36: Smallholder Firm Nel Crop Water Requirements....... .......................................................... .................... 79
Table 3-37: Average AWC Measurements by Soil Type.................................................................................................79
Table 3-38: Average AWC for soil group*—,,,.-......... ........................................ .................................. . . ... Bfi
Table 3 39; Adopted Soil Characteristics to Assess CWR Scheduling......................................... ..................... .........,81
Table 3-40: Crop Scheduling Options and Yields for Selected Crops.
. ............... —.............. ................... 81
Tabic 3-41: Test Results for Irrigation of Vertisols.- -..................................................... —........... —-................... - S3
Tabic 3-42: Suggested Nel Irrigation Applications for Vinous Crops in the Dry Season................................ ..........83
Table 5 1: Present and Post Re-srrtlrmrnt Population by SDA............... ................ ,.................. ............................. ..92
Table 5-2; CSA Population Growth Rare?  «.....«—   — .^
fc4 4
. ^„ .,
F   rrr
.... ........... 93
Table 5 3: Population Projection for the Project Area. ...........      .................. ........ ..... ............................... ............. 94
Table 5-4:1 Inusehold Land Allocations, ha ....................... .. .......... ,—.............. -............ ...................................... 97
Table 5-5: Projected Number of I .and Holdings bv Size..—......... . ................... ............. ................ ......................... 98
Table 5-6: lamd Classes Within Imganon Design Areas, hi............................... ............. ........................ .......... .........99
Tabic 5-7: laind Classes Outside Irrigation Design Arras, ba....................... ............... ....... ................................. -.99
Tabic 5-8: Three Options lor Sugar Estate Area (net cultivated hi)............... ................. ...................................... IW
Tabic 5-9. With-profccr Land Use Assuming Sugar Estate Core Area 
..... ....... .................«—* 10B
Table 5-10: Summary ot Smallholder Farm Sizes and locannns (numben)w............................... ...... -............ 110
Table 5-11 Involuntary (2010i and Voluntary Re settlement (2010-2020) (Option 2A)....________ .... -......... HI "I  able  5-12:  Estimate  of  Present  and  Projected  Food  l>cmand  in  the  Project  Area,  tonnes         1  D
1 able 5 13 Estinialc of Traded Commodities for Food Consumption in Project Area............... . ............... ...... ■ 1
Tablr 5-14. Estimate of Production for Projected Consumption............................... ................. „,,,................... 1 1
Table 5-15: Eisrimaie nf Present Froduetton for Regional and Local Markets_____________ ....................... 11^
I able 5-16 Present Zone Crop Production and Crop Production in the Project Area .................. ..............      11 '
I able 5-17:1 pper Heir* Present and With-pmjccT Production Estimate
..................................... I
Table 5-18    Enterprise Gross Margins in Financial ETB per ha and  FTB per head... ......... ......................... 122
Table 5-19    Grots Margins for Sugar Cane, FTP per Planted
........................................ .... ...... 123
Table 5-20-   Comparison of Wnh-project Production Estimates... ............ ................. ................................ 124
i abk 5-21    Farm Net Revenue Optimisation Model- Constraints   to  Production (Option 2A)................. 131
L able 5-22 KX ith-project Numbers and Areas of Farms and Estates and Net Returns: Irrigated Area
{Opnon 2A)..........—............... 4... .... .......... ................................. .................. «.......... ....................... ........... ... 134
1 able 5-23 VC rth project Numbers and Areas of Farms and Esfatrs and Net Returns Run fed Area and Project Area Total (Option 2A)............ ..... .............. ..... ........ ................. .. ................................ ... ...... ......... 134
Table 5-24; With project Generalised Scheme Cropping Partem (Opoon 2A)............... .................................... 136
1 Able 5-25: \XTth project Detailed Scheme Cropping Paticm (Option ZA)  ................... ............................... 13?
Tablr 5-26: Crop Returns, LTB/net farm cultnatrd ha (Option 2A)................... ........................... ............... .....139Frknti DtMftMr R/pwWiT of          Afrjuiflp oflFrftr & hat^i
Ufa/**: Nib IrT^tfofl Dmmt Pr^ftl
Table 5 27: Crop Returns ETB/ Net Scheme Cultivated ha (Option 2A)...»-.......................... .................................. 139
Table 5-28; Estimate of With-project Labour Requirement Crops (Option 2A)...................................... ................ 142
fable 5-29 With project Farm Family Rrturn*, ETB/family labour dny......................... —..... ............ . ................... H3
Table 5-30: Returns to Family Labour, ETB/day.....................—............... .............. ........ ................. ...... ...... ............. 144
Table 5-31 I [nuschdd Food Security Budgets ((>puon 2A).................. ............ «.................-......................... ............ 144
Table 5-32 With-projcct Production (Option 2A)
................... ...........................„.......... ........... • ■•    146
Table 5-33 With-projcet Value of Production (Option 2A)............................... —   ........................ .......... ................. 150
Table 6-1: Cost Estimate for proposed Sub-projccts.....................„....... ........................................... ....... ...... ....... ...... 155
vijtenpu Kilt Ivj**9
LIST OF FIGURES
Prjnf
Figure 1-1: Project Location.....—-
ripiic m,«*v
--------
Figure 2-2: Minor Imgibon in the Proje^ Area Fipure 2-3: Basin irrigation of onions in Piux wereda
10
18
22
30
70
riguic -r».
- ---------------------- a
Figure 3-2: Seasonal Variations in Reference Evapotranspiration (ET  )
O
Figure 3-3: Mean, 80* ♦ Dependable, and Effective Rainfall for Upper Belos —
Figure 3 4. Annual Rainfall Isohyets from Co kriging for the Upper Bcles Project Area
Figure 3-5: Typical Sugar Crop Cycle——................................................................................. /!>
71
73
74
75
Figure 3-6: Plot of Results of Test for Irrigation of Vertisols~~-..84
Figure 51 Schematic of Land Allocation Model: land Use: SDA I Option 2A ................................ 102
Figure 5-2  Schematic of Land Allocation Model. Fann Sizes and Numbers SDA 1  Option 2A!(M
Figure 5-3. Schematic of Farm Net Revenue Optimisation Model...................... —...................................126
Figure 5-4: Constraints to Cropping Pattern by Production Type............................... ...129
Figure   5-5;   Agricultural   labour   Requirement   With   project.   Labour   Days   per   annum   141
Figure 5-6: Scheme Net Value of Producnon, I TB million and  »of total ((.)pnon 2A)
0
...... —149rf
.WArrfr) tf Vater & Ewrjp
E^wCM# Nr£
diirf Drwjwqw’
Rrtjr/rf
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 2 4-D           Commonly used herbicide
ARD
DAP
ETB
GPS
ha
Agriculture and Rural Development Di-ammonium phosphate Ethiopian Birr
Global Positioning System 3lectarc
Kilogram
]/ste
litres per second
rn
1
cubic metres
n
NK OIAXM PARC
number of observations
Not Known
On farm water management
PauT Agricultural Research Centre
qt
SDA
TCD
Quintal
Stage Development Area
Tonne* of Cane per DayEvin               fyMr of FJtidfiw. Mint? of Vatr awi Enty EttopM Xtk Imfjftfr and DfBMgtAMw/n           c*- Ewj» Efface*™ Nrk Imr-MM jw*  DmMQt
1
1          INTRODUCTION
/, J            Project Locjtftoo
The Upper Bek, Irrigation Prefect is one of rhe prapowxl Ethiopkn Nile Imptioo «nd
Drainage Project, It b heated m Amhira and Benshangul-Gumuz reports southwest of I akc
Tana, see figure I-1 The feasibility study of the project is apectetl, titrrj&i to assess the
irrigated apiculture potential of the project area, and with-project allocate resources including investment in irrigation for appropriate agriculrural production systems, thus achieving both significant improvements in the financial performance of farming tn the project area and an accrptibk level of economic return m the investment
/.2 Project Gogh
Thr goals- of the Ethiopian Nik Imgarinn and Drainage Project arc to:
•      Promote the development of sustainable, jtrruillhoWer-based irrigated agnculrurr,
•      Reduce poverty m the project areas and to contribute to rural economic activities and livelihoods by providing opportunities to grow high value crops.
•      Promote food security through inc reased production of staple crops,
•      Promote The involvement of the private sector in large scale commercial irrigation development, and
•      Contribute co rural employment and hence wealth and well-being.
The project's design is consistent with these goals., ind parricularSy tn the cist of die L ppc^r Beks irrigation scheme, where large scale commercial (sugu) development is envisaged along
with smallholder farm development and some medium small commercial farms.
ZJ          Dc&unons
F. 1 f      Sm^ C" Pnyrrf
For clarity adopted terms for Study, Project and Imgable (Irrigation) areas ire tabulated below. For the Upper Beks irrigation scheme the Study Area totals 137.626 ha, while the Project Area totals lift.157 ha
Table 1-1: Study and    Project Areas
Nr        Dc*cnpboi)
Clanfvmg Remarks
1
Study Am              The Study Area Is the ira for when: (i) imh. land use and land suitability studies ind imps, and (u) topographic survey / contour / DEM maps arc prepurd Areas obviously not suited to irrigation. development (eg hills) ace excluded from the Study Area. Breakdown of the Study .Area by, eg. soil types, hnd slope nnepmci. land suitability (Si. S2, S3. NT. ere) ire given in rhe ■’lols"
report.
2
Project Am
—
Ibe Project Area may be mote or lr» than rhe Study Area, and is delineated by the inigauun engineer fotkmng hung of alignments for Main Canals and Drains, etc- The Broker irn n divided into two num caregonri tn rhe Development Ptaimuig Process;
• Irdgable Command /Area; inc ___  * Nnn-irngaliJc Area.
1  bngablc
_Tbe irrigable Coinmimd Am it detenrufwd t.-. lhe Effljpuon          f    „rH
cnmeCl   Or
L’b F4 s-rtJJb Agriculture & PlanmriE(2)
I
Jfljurw 201 1Frttoat' Drwan.
Matty $ U atrr cu Ewq
F.Muput .\dt Imp fa* jas F'^r^-ift Pfwtii
Nr Descripboo
Clarifying Remarks_______________ _
Command
Area (also Net
IrngaUr
Command
Ata)
—___     mdZetondary   canal
co nrr
'   ‘ind     haicd     •°P°R *P
r
hic -   ’’nd     «>“»Wtty   and
Non Irrigable
Areas
water availability considerations.
I determine the Set Irnpble Command Area the land take for (tmgabon) uifrastnicture is deduoed. typically 4 9"..
The (Net) Irrigable Command Area is further broken down into Land Utilisation Tepes. LUTt 1.23 (surface) and LUTs 4.S&6 (pressure), based on social / commercial. etc considerations i.scc below}.
The non-imgable area? comprise all land not allocated for irrigated agricultural development. for example
•      Settlements / homesteads
•      Infrastructure (other than trogatxm infmtructure included above)
•      Environment preservation / enhancement
•      Forestry planations (for fuel wood / construction;
•       G>mmiinal grazing
•       Rainfrd cropping
•      Non productive land (eg rocky out crops)
I Some land areas may be multi use. For example the nvrrs,' streams gulbes lhat bisect the Upper Belts project arra delineated from consideration of land suitability and extent seasonal flooding. arc set aside for environmental, communal grazing and (to some extent) fuel wood with plantations to mark the
boundaries
f.L2 LartUtibfdhnTypu
The uTigable land is divided up into various tvpes or categories according to. i)
water application, and□ (u) management type The consKicrcu        Land Utilisation Types for the
. 
Upper Belts irrigation development project arc:
LUT 1: surface irrigation, smallholders;
LUT 2: surface irrigation, large enterprises. LIT 3: surface irrigation, out-growers;
LUT 4: pressure irrigation, smallholders.
LUT* 5: pressure irrigation, large enterprises; and LUT 6: pressure irrigation, oui-growcn
Due the large me of Upper Heirs with highly wW P _ charactenstics ir was divided into Stage Development bnundan*. sec f igure 1-2. The idea was that the Rig t >nd Ill Note that Stage II for Upper Hyma (Drndtf) area, but is included as trngaiton development of t < the Mam canal at lendtka. The assumed net tmgab ar The 1 zft Hank would then be developed subsrqurn 1
. ,S1C1] {and wdd / population)
b>%fd phv5lfi] hv(Jnuhc
pin of
SDAs ,
SDAj R. y
U ' b< 'jtnculfurr A Phnnmg(2)
16 lune* 20J1Etyta0r« J?niw/*'w *«*f
.W
Some of The SDAs uric further divided up into different sub-stagrs as land suitability brcani< known in more detail They were named by cardinal references according to posinoit The SDA
□nil has been the building block of the planning process
/,-/ Methodology
The purpose of this report SR-02H Irrigated Agriculture and Agro economic Planning >s to recommend appropriate widi-projcct agricultural interventions tn the project area Io aclucv this, an innovative approach was adopted. The ipproach combines the agronomic and
economic methods mtn an optimisatton process
The agronomic approach requires marching Land suitability types with 1 Jnd L tilisatynn Types
•LUTt) m order to make recommcndatjon* for suitable combinations of farm enterprises
■model farms) and crops (model farm cropping patterns). Thr economic method makes assessments of agm-economtc potential (usually ar scheme or regional level) based on market acres* [local. regional and export markets}, ’(hr advantage o f combining the agronomic anti economic methods u that land suitability; recommended agronomic practice and feasible financial performance of different farm enterprises are considered together to derive an optimum solution which maximises scheme production iTie solution is derived under the constraints of known availability of land of different suitability (for irrigation). the agronomic rule* for assigning crops to land of different suitability and different farm enterprises, lite production potential (mostly crop yields) of thr model farms, and the production constraints (minimums and maximums) which identify die market environment in which each tarm enterprise comperes to nuxinuic farm revenue. A three stage process was used in deriving the solution
Firstly following the agronomic approach, land of different suitability is allocated t<> model farms and then crops are allocated to the model farm according to its specified land and management resource*. As a result each farm enterprise type has a specific cropping pattern iand sometimes a specific combination of livestock ennerprisesj from which input requirements and produetjon ran be calculated and bulked up to scJicine level. Agronomists usually have crop gross margins to hand during this process, and also assume that farmers ate economic ally rational and seek to maximise the value ol farm production. Agronomists may also have some uorkmg principles on appropriate production levels - for example they understand that markets should not be glutted by over production, and they seek to incorporate new crops with market potential But what is rarely done is to use the principle of comparative advantage when allocating production between different model farms Thai U. what is die optimum cropping pattern for one mode) farm, bearing in mind other farm models (with different land and management resources and facing different enterprise grow margins) also face production choice* and ultimately share market potential according to their land and management resources If the optimum value of the cropping pattern of each model farm can be modcLlcd, then the sum of the value of all the optimum cropping patterns will gn e die optimum value of scheme production.
Lib I'4 Sflinh Agueulrurc & l'l»nmng(2)
J
lfi June 2Cl I.Mrci/n
**** *
Mw* ™ ’m^!K'
m Md« <o pursue thri goal. two stage nx^ng process was followed Firstly, a !^d
Allocarioo Optimisation Model was prepared which >'under constraints) allocates the «« irrigable area to: (i) the sugar estate, (ri) (small/medium sized) commercial farms; and (iij) smallholders (preferentially allocanng luvisols to smallholders), and non-irngablc land to the non imganon land use of smallholders > for grazing, wood lots, house plots etc). The Opnnuzanon Model calculates the number and bciuon of farms (minimum allocation, small, mednun and large smallholder farms, small /medium sized commercial farms and a large <upr estitr) by land suitability class (sumnunzcd under vertisols, luvisols, soils requiring special measures and suitable for rainfed only; and by stage development area (SB A).
The land Allocation Optimization Model then transfers (his information to a Farm Revenue Optimization Model which maximizes total net farm revenue on the firngated and rainfed) cultivable area. Thu optimization is done under specified agronomic constraints (c.g. limits on cropping intensin and cropping pattern) and economic constraints (eg a defined proportion of the farm under food crops and a defined proportion under higher value crops) which differ between farms The model also has targets of production it must achieve for each crop (19 crops were selected many of which are relatively new to the area) which arc based on agronomic and market assessments (done separately bv the Project Agronomist and Economist and later reconciled) of the production capacity of the scheme
The methodoiogv is integrated and therefore each step tn the modelling process is dependent on others However, there are arguments and assumptions (usually defining constraints) which arc reasonably self contained and described in detail in this report. See particularly the discussion on land suitability classes (Section 5.5), population (Section 5.3), agronomic potential and constraints (Section 5.8), market opportunities (Section 5.7), with-projrct land allocation to smallholders (Sccuon 5 4) and the agronomy and expected production of the large scale sugar enterprise (Section 3 2).
15 Report Structure
Ihis report documents the results of a detailed assessment of present crop production in Chapter 2 Then, based on the data obtained from different sources, alrrrnatrvr with-projcct cropping pattrms art recommended for production systems which include a major sugar estate development. small and medium commercial farms and smallholdings. Chapter 3 These cropping patterns arc based on agronomic pnnoples. and based on these farm input requirements art identified, crop operation calendars prepared, and the annual production potential at hili development is estimated
The study has considered the technical inputs neerssary to realize the significant incremental crop producuon which wiB be required io justify the proposed investment- The required incremental production will be achieved by:
Intensification of the cropping system to optimize the project outputs;
•     Increasing the annual crop production and improving the livelihood of the community, Promotion of market oriented farming systems;
•     AUcvuuon of poverty at household and community levels and ensure sustainable development. and
L’b E4 SrO2h Xgncuhwr & riwimng(2)
4
J 6 June 20] 1f-r.dr-w/' Dwiwfc .RrfwjM. -
f2/Zr.^wjtr A'.* Amy^'- Prarnip /W
.Urr-.^ sfir'Wrr ch Jjflpgp
• Promotion of industrial crops and strengthening rhe link between agriculture and
tndns trial sectors.
The   constraints   and   opportunities   to   achieve   the   required   incremental   production,   addressing the above objectives, arc briefly summonsed tn Chapter 4
Chapter 5 describes the approach to land use planning and benefit estimation,, and describes the optimisation models used in planning. The planning process is described by winch the
pre »iccr area on he transformed from a dominantly smallholder nun fed agricultural economy of about 18,000 households, with a small number of commercial farms which arc generally poorly performing, into an irrigation scheme dominated by a large commercial sugar estate together with a complementary smallholder irrigated farming system, with or without the presence of small / medium commercial farms The planning process focuses on the optimal use uf land resource*, in particular prioritising smallholder settlement on luvisoh. ensuring the use of non irrigable land for non irrigation uses, minimising forced and voluntary re-settlement during proirrt tmplcmriiiauon, examining file potential for in-migration during the project lite and maximising the project's access to local, regional and national markets.
Seven sub-protects are identified in Chapter 6 which will support development activities to enhance the rapacity of both smallholder farmer beneficiaries and agricultural support institutions.
t)h 14 SHIZb Agnculftire Ac HjnmnW{2)
5
16 June 2011Fe+fd DeMKTtffir
.\’f> frrqyitw ast/i I hwwgr /*»^>.T
Figure 1-1: Project Location
tflFjtfr <*• Eanp
» J.IfjaflWY #r IF>nr r*- fi'nwp
Gflb^pawAtofr frrijdftjr i/t^DjNMtg;r r,njM-.i
1
_
I *b P4 Sr)2b Apinilnirc * rinnninf(2)
16.1 me 201jXnr fmgwfwir sW                  P^r
2 PRESENT AGRICULTURAL SITUATION
2 / Fuming Systems fa /Ac Pro/crf Are*
The livelihood of the rural communities in the Upcr Bdcs Irrigation Project area is almost
entirely dependent on agnetdrurr and its related sectors. Mixed agriculture i*» the prominent
farming system, in which the crop sector contributes a substantial share ot the annual
agricultural product ion. The area is charactcnscd by the following types of 1 arming system*.
•       Lowland cereals mixed farming system:
•      Medium tn large-sc ale commercial farming system;
•       Irtigatmn farming system: and
•      Recession farming system.
lowland re reals farming  syafem is a  major farming  system which employs the majority  of smallholders in all SDAs,  The net cultivated area  in 2010  was probably  aver 40*000  ha  under about 17.000  smallholder farms.  Lowland cereals such as mn/c and sorghum are mapr food crop*  and pillan of (he farming  system Sesame and ground nut are very  important for household income generation,  The fan-nets use traditional agricultural practices which achieve low crop productivity  except for i few crops like maur for which improved seeds may  Ik* available Animal traction is ven important for land preparation,  threshing  and transportation and in merst of the project area  the donkey  also  has a  significant role in the supply  of animal power for agricultural activities.
Commercial farming  system: includes medium and large-scale farming  systems: it is a tarming  system practiced on relatively  lafgr holdings by  local and foreign investor*  with some access to  capital ' 3  lie re arc probably  about 2,200  net cultivated hectare?  in 2010*  out of a  tola] of 6 200 leased hectares.
r
Camrreruil    firms    arc    market    oriented    utd    attempting    to     produce    ihe    ™
](ir     tas]l      „ops     on      ,
larger    land    area    Mow    of    the    medi«™le    eommcrdal    farmers    are    using    draught    power    to perform agricultural activities including land preparation. However there arc a few investors
LT ]’4 Sr02b Agricullutr Planmnj;(2)
9
UJwncZOIIo  .,. .vm ^"M   W
rt
ftow.’Vfo R<r»"i
h’"F
which  employ  machuicn*  for  mapr  agnculttiral noug, pepper, and fruit trees.
operations They arc producing maize
Ijirgc-scale commercial farming is mainly practiced by investors from outside the who have leased larger areas of arable land Some of the large-scale farmers soec I
crop production, for example maize seed production. The main features of
|  | Qlc
tn
firming system tn the project area are partly mccharuwd farming, a market oriented
system and limited use of improved inputs, all practiced on larger land holdings pro<,Uc[*c?)
1  miration  forming  «v.iem:  dns  fomung  system  is  practiced  mainly  on  the  banks  of  the  men wd   tn  suitable  areas  using  over  dnenion  and  traditional  application  methods  Only  about  144
ha were identified bv  satellite tmagrn (some of the schemes  are very  small) but the area i, certainly larger, sav «>0 ha. Pump imgauon is also practiced by a few fanners. A wide range 4 crops  ,s  produced, mainlv  for market Vegetables  including onion, tomato, cabbage, potato, pepper, maize, sugarcane, banana, mango, avocado and papaya arc  grown to generate household income.
Recession farming lyatcm: is a typical riverside cropping system using the seasonal moisture accumulated after the overflow ot the rivers The area under recession agnt
could not easily be estimated but u is in the order of a few hundred hectares. On the ban
d n<’'^
Gilgel and Abai Ikies the farmers are producing different early marunng crops by tr* ' agricultural practice The effective ura would have a width from die ever of up •<>
)
meters.   The   .mall   holders   arc   growing   green   pepper,   cabbage,   kale,   maize,   and   banana   J residua! moisture.
2.2 L*nd Ute Ptrtem
The data retained from respective weredas of the 3 project kcbclrs which arc hilly and partialis included id the project area shows that cultivated land use accounts for about 39% of the total area of project kcbclrs Kebclcs in SDA I cultivate a more extensive land area compared toother development stage areas, sec fable 2-1.
lib H SrC'Zb Agnrulfurr & Pldnmnjc(2)
ID
16 June 2011ftvW DMwnitt R/pwW-- fl/Afrwrrn <
E/W^n «s Xrjfr OniuMftf JW
<7* £«*£■
bv
Areas
SDA
Gro*« MTCM Of kebekfl
(ha)
F.rimsted Lind uM? pattern (ha)
------
Cultivable
land
Grazing
hud
Foreat
land
Waste
land
Houitt A
road*
Other*
Total
35,723
28.897
1U.227
3,157
782
4.739
I
___ I ,je-------- 83.637
43%
35%
12%
4%
1%
6%
% Total
rm
3,965
19.616
2,253
830
3,550
III
47325
% Toni
36%
8%
41%
5%
2%
8%
IV &
V
47.918
34.2 ID
38,563
1307
2.581
5,093
_To»J_
0 * Total
129,975
37%
26%
30%
1%
2%
4%
Total * of Total
260,937
109,752
67,081
68.706
6.717
4J93
13,382
•/
39%
26%
26%
3%
2%
5%
SoiMce; SR 03 Resource I *c« ad serin rtucouuo. 2010
ZJ              /^ndhokhrjg 5/m and DitftribufioD
Thr data  presumed in Table 2-2  indicate that in the project area  their arc foui groups ol land users with entitlement to  use Land for different purposes.  Individual,  community  and state are entitled tn nrarly equal land areas
Table 2-2: Dis tri button of Land Uac Rights
SDA
Land area
(h>)
Land use righi (ha)
Indhddual
Communal
Church
State
I
Total % Total
79,708
20,470
37,287
52
21,890
26%
47%
<1%
27%
111
Total
47,325
13,434
10.165
38
20.444
% Total
28%
21%
<1%
43%
TV & V
Total
124,580
44,918
35.153
822
43,681
% Total
36%
28%
<1%
35%
Toiali
23L613
78322
82,605
912
86,015
Perccntj^cA
100%
31%
33%
<1%
34%
Source: %'ercda nftice-f
According io the results nf thematic focus group meeting* in sixteen kebeles and data from project wrrrdas offices, rhe average cultivated area per household is about 1.91 ha. See Sccnon 5.4 I for further detail5.
jJ.4
£<?
iLam# Tenure afic/
2.4 J          I jfajc simiJtgwffffJ
leasing oligncultural land has been undertaken by three governmental administrative bodies - the wcreda administration, the Regional and the Federal governments. There are land size limitations to die leasing arrangements permitted to each administrative level, however all three bodies need to get approval from the kebek administration at the initial stage The most common expenenct u that before applying Tor the land, the investors have to go to the specific area of interest to cheek the availability of arable land which should be unoccupied and free
Ub 1-4 Sriilli Agncukurr <5c PlaiintJrt|g(2)
11
IfjJun-c 2UJ IUvfim N* 
£>'••* W
from  forwt  vegct.non  Then,  depending  on  the  area  of  land  applied  for.  the  mveror, to above mentioned government bod.es to secure the land
,  on behalf of Regional government to lease-out land in the o(
The Federal govemmen
jhnned technical capaatv to a mm
lMgc Jrels of ^cultural land and when there B, apphcanon refers to fln „ea of more 500
lease   request   for   n   f   ^.out   the   land   on   behalf   of   the   region   If   the   requested   h^
ha the Federal government “n technical staff
ungated agriculture, the wereda administration can
.... —>
If the land size is between 15 and 54M) ha. the Regional government requests confirmation from tlic wereda administration. The wereda administration also sends a similar request to the kcbclc administration to check the land is unoccupied and in a lowland area on vertisols. This type of land is mostly under-utilised tn the protect area The kcbcle administration then establishes a committee of elders, kcbclc officials, dev elopment agents and other relevant people co assess the status of rhe requested land for investment purpose Then, after the committee has expressed its opinion to the wereda administration, the wereda office responds to the Regional administration and if approved at all lev els rhe land could be allocated to (he investors.
’l*hc land size being leasing out by the different administration bodies varies between regions The lease payment rale also vanes from wereda to Federal level For instance, the wereda administration requires the payment of about E’I’B 70 per hectare, w hercas at Federal level the
r
land rent increases to betwren ETB 650 and E’I’B 712 per ha (c g. Sister pic and Mis ton pic in I’awc wereda). ITic investor is expected to pay the first year s payment in advance.
Table 23 names and locates ihc majority of the commercial farms operating in the pro|tc1 area, most of which would have had regional involvement in arranging the lease Ji can be seen rhar these leasing arrangements arc all relatively recent
t*b 1-4 SrO?h Apiculture & PUnitin^2)
12
It Ii,ni.EiMfiiM Nt* Imptm J*i DrJtftatf P^r
T<bU XV f^aecd-in Com merci*! Farm* m rawe ano .iwi
~            _
Commercial farm
Location
Arcs,
ha
Year of
establish
ment
Leased
dumtio
o
Abie CniTUnertiaJ. I1 arm
Pzwf Wcrrda
40
NK
Abav pk
Pawr Wcrcda
40
2005
NK
A be haw pic
Pawr Wercda
430
2007
NK
.Mob Integrated I arm
,,
Pawr Vldrcda
28
2007
NK
KP*<uon pk
Pr»r ereda.
431
NK
Suter pic
Pi ut Weredi
720
NK
A tain Kjdanc
J awl wefeda
150
2008
NK
A vai n pJc
Tawi wereda
600
2009
NK
BiraW Tcfura
liwi xcreda
272
200s
H years
Dchrwcrk
J awl werrda
.MM)
21108
10 vein.
Belav Geaencw
|awi wrreda
109
2008
8 years
Moharricd Ahmed Tahir
Jawi wereda
621
2008
13 years
Albeshir
law? werrda
200
2008
W years
Yibdtil Ale ft
Jawi wcreda
300
2008
10 year*
Alams *Kro-proce*MHg pk
law wcrriln
952
2008
13 year?
Temamcn Commercial Finn
Dangur wereda
500
2007
Unlimited
Ahuncm Ago development pic
Langur wereda
wo
2003
Unlimited
Source: Wered* VlmuiistratH ni Other. Land \dmmistnu'nn and I jivironmcntjil Pro!rrn<<» Office, 2010
2.4.2          Land Tfwi
I juid 15 the property of the State and Ethiopian nation and nationalities. The farmers have a use right for their Land and may fcnr out their land for not more than 25 years. The holding right to farm land is unlimited. 'Ihe hrdml Land Lhc Right Proclamation prohibits the culcrvation of annual crops on land with greater than 60% slope, however the user can use steeper land if appropriate conservation measures arc applied and/or perennial crops and forest trees ate planted.
As stated in the rernsed Amhara NailttiuJ RciEtonal State Rural Land Administration and Use Prodimilinn (200")- 'ar, hxd /o fv aiiiivattd in Modem .minion, nauixj; /Ar a^mniiex of the proper tixirt rffhepmwti la»dh>JJrr. tax be distributed" Thu implies that construction af an irrigation scheme will involve re-di5tnbunon of lhe irrigated area between the ousting land holders. The redismbunon process will require • specification of the poor area entitlement of each farmer
The ngho of die present landless will be considered. The Proclamation suggests that land allocation will be based on rhe prior size of the farmer’s ramfed holding, less * percentage for irrigation infrastructure. Compensation rates for permanent assets destroyed during construction will also be paid. According to the Proclamation, imgated land redistribution would be applied based on the available trngable areas and the number of potential users, taking wito account present landless households and (if the command is very large and the present populism density low) the possibility of in migration The size of land to be allocated for the households will be determined by the community and concerned governmental offices based
on the State PiociimatioD.
l"b F4 S«O2b Agoculturr fit !’lmning(2)
13
16June20l1FtM
ty****!* *Ir
■
2.4 J
Startaoppmg i
■ common practice in the proj
ec
t are
a. Land holders t
.suallv exchange
fo(
‘  50%  share
of  its  annual  producoon
S
hare
cropping  is  p
articularly  common
bet
ween
‘
households  a
nd  holder,  of  large,  b»-  F
or
rea
sons  of  labour
availably  and  hold
ing
SUc,
female headed households are frequently involved m sharecropping agreements. In settled kebcles land becomes a scarce resource due to the increase of population and extension of family size; this demographic change forces the farmers to search for extra land for renting, Moreover, suitability of the area for cash crop production encourages the landless and other better-off families to rem or contract-in the land to generate household income
The household survey results asserted that the land being used by share cropping vanes depending on the avulibility of arable land and the demand for (he agr icultural land Some tumen tn kebcic* of Jam wereda (SDA I) are taking 0.5 ha - 4 ha of land each cropping season in addition to their own landholding The sharccropped land in SDA III of Dangur wereda is shghth larger 0.5 ha -10 ba) due to the greater accessibility of arable land compared to Jawi wereda. Payment for die land ranges between ETB 500 and FIB 2,750 per season in SDA I Icebeles of Jawi wereda In SDA III in Dangur kebeles it ranges from ETB 400 to ETB 2,000 per season If we compare the value of sharecropped land within the same SDA, payment for the use of land in kebdcs tn Pawe wereda with better ruad accessibility and proximity to Belos River rises to EFB 900 to ETB 3,000 per season.
Tn both parts of the project area the payment in kind ranges from 50-75% of the harvest given to the land owner The valuation of the sharccropped land is mostly dependent on the sod type, soil fertility, the potential for imganon, crop selling price, accessibility and current land demand
25        Smallholder Agriculture
2.5.1        Crvppif% Faff mu
Ixjwiand cereals and oil seeds are the common field crops grown under rainfed agriculture. I^c project ares and surrounding lands are considered to be one of the major sesame producing areas of the country Both investors and smallholders are producing significant tonnages of exportable sesame seeds Other important crops grown in the project area include cereals (maize, sorghum, nee, nulkt); oil seeds (sesame, noug, soybean); pulses (groundnut, chickpea, haricot bean), vegetables (pepper, onion, tomato, sweet potato), and perennial crops (mango, banana, orange, avocado, papaya, coffee, chat, sugarcane).
Cropping patterns represent the level of cropland utilization and its allocation to crops, and icfleu the agronomic, climatic and socio-economic conditions in a given cropping season Smallholders have a more dwerstfied cropping paticm than commercial farmer, to mitigate risk of pests and diseases, (partially) fulfil household food requirements and allow increased opportunities for sale. The croppmg pattern of smallholders also depends on the availability of agnculturai inputs, sod type, holding size, length of growing penod of the constituent crons, run f ill duran<m. and market opportunity.
Cropping patterns ui the project area do not differ significantly betwren kebcles Moreover experience* introduced by the former Tina Bdes Integrated Development Project have played
l h F4 S»<12L Apirultvtr PUfinmg{2)
f
U
16 l^ic TonFWhv/
H/W^nr ,V» Jrwflvir **d Dnitn^t Pvfrd
Maty *nF«frr t* Izwfjf
l considerable role m the adoption of new crops and cropping systems. In puracultr new crops such » dee, mango, banana and soybean have been incorporated in the cropping patterns of rhe smallholders
For large-scale enterprises the prospective marker pnee is the main factor, but lahoui availability, Una nail rapacity and die possibility of crop pest infestations and diseases are supplcmcniarv factors m designing the cropping patterns.
As shown in Table 2 4 and Table 2 5 the cropping pariems in different landholding atze* vary due lo the access lo cultivated land. Those farmers rhat have larger landholdings cultivate a more diversified range of crops than olhers The same pattern is true for irrigated fanning, for instance large landholders cultivate additional perennial fruit trees and tnaizr for green cobs production The re suits show that availability of cultivated Imd i.M a major factor determining rhe cropping pattern at household level
Table2-4: Typical Rain fed Smallholder Cropping Pattern*
Pawe area
|                    Dangur area
Jawi project area
Crop
1-arge
Medium
Small
Ume
Medium
Small
Large
Medium
Small
Area, %
Area, •/.
Area* %
Am, %
Art j, %
Area, %
Area, %
Air a, %
Area,%
Maize
12.5
20
17.9
25
25
25
333
.Millet
25
20
50
17.9
125
40
25
33
333
Sorghum
125
23.6
12.5
16.7
17
16.7
Groundnut
123
20
25
63
42
Rice
7.1
6 3
8.2
Sesame
25
40
25
28.5
57.4
40
16.7
25
16.7
Soya bejin
6-25
20
H cot bean
6.25
Pepper
42
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source I luiucWdSurvey 2D1U, ARD "aluhci and Confuhants* ftddwnrk
lib b'4 Sr02b Apiculture A Planning^)
15
16 June 2011■jgated Smallholder Cropping Panems
P»W£pn>k<2     ?
arC
Large
Area, %
Medium
Small
Area, %
Jawi project area
Medium
Ovon
p 5r?fL
Tomato
Maize
Biruni_atnH, papa™
Binini _ 
_
Told irrigated__________
Sourxr: llouirhnkl Survey 2010, ARD Ultimo u><! Consultants’ fieldwork
Under ninfed agriculture. soil type was also found <o be an important factor for the selection of crop*, especially for smallholders Vertisols are more difficult to work and may present
problems of timeliness when they are too dry or too wet. These problems are accentuated if
only draught power is available As a result, the area of nee has reduced significantly dur to difficulties of land preparation Another important factor is price trends Due to price increases following the increased global and national demand for quality food oils, sesame has become one of the num crops of the farming system On the other hand, soya bean has become less important because of poor market linkages with potential traders or agro processing
enterprises.
The diversified cropping patterns suggest that the project area has a reasonably good potential for producing a pxxi range of crops and contributing to the supply of regional and even export demand However. even with irrigation it will remain a knviand farming svstem. the comparative advantage of wnich is large (relatively) uniform land areas suitable for mechanised cropping of relatively lower value cereals, pulses and oilseeds This is in contrast to highland farming systems with more fragmented land, higher population density and more amenable and fertile soils, w hich have a comparative advantage m higher value crops.
I lowevet, the demand for higher value crops from local markets in the pro|ect area should not be under-estimated. As shown tn Table 2-5 vegetables, rnaut and fruit are already important in irrigation agriculture. Banana, alius and papaya account for 16% to 18% of the area of irrigated plots Demand for higher-value crops will mcrcase both with population and wraith. With more disposable income, a greater proportion of higher value crops are consumed
( n>pptit& Calendar
Tnder rain fed agriculture scheduling of agriculture! practices is enurelv reliant on the onset of raintaiL 1-and preparation and sowing agncultural practices is adgisted on the expected rainfall dtstnbunon bared on farmers’ long term experience of the climatic condmon of the area The
protect areal. charretenred by mono modal ramfall pattern re, 
June depending on the length of growing penod of the crops Han esn„„ October and November
ls
fof a„d
ts earned out m
l*b F4 SrOJb Agriculture A Pl*nnmg(2)
16
16 June 201]PiwvfiiTjffc’
AfrsjfrT tf/ IT ftfrr «"*' jEiW*Jj*
.TirirtjfMJff _\7# Jn^Af//et -JA’i*/ PrjrWrti^f’ Prw.t
25 J Im&rwt y|rr.j and Irrigation flraftr
(ij          I rngat rd Arras
The present irrigation urea is concenrtaird on the banks of river* and streams where farmers can easily across water by pump and gravity flow. Also, in areas where the waler table is shallow rhe farmers me getting water from shallow wells The command from a shallow well is small and dlls type of irrigation is mostly practiced around homesteads. According to the household survey results, the iingatcd landholding ranges between (U25 ha to 0.75 h«  though in Jiwi the
t
farmers around Fendika town have larger holding;. This suggests that market access and road infrastructure play an important role in the involvement of the farmer* in irrigated agriculture
Nevertheless, Table 2-6 and Table 2-* show that access to irrigation w ven limited, both in terms of size of irrigated holdings and numbers of farmers involved in irrigation In the study area as a whole there may be not much more than 700 ha of minor irrigation, involving about 3,000 farmrrs
Table 2-6: Irrigated Landholding Sire
SDA                        Average holding
b*/house ho Id
Remark
J
0.1211.25
< hdv 1 rrbjHuident has lha ferwn 20 rrtpcmdencs
III
0,12 — 0.75
IV
025-05
b'olir htXHchfjIdi out of 120 mpendents
V
-
-
SuLtfcei I-IcMuchfJd Survey JJl>W
Table 2-7: Area & Number of Traditional and Modem Irrigaiiun Schemes
TrididuniJ [rrigatkOQ System
Modem Irrigation Syairm
SDA
GtJMtjj.
number
Lift
tram
River
bo.
Well
no,
Irrigated
Are*
Number
of
[nig'* tor*
Number
d
Irrigation
Coops
Gravity,
number
Lift
from
River
no.
irrigated
Are*
(M
Number
of
Irrigator*
I
17
33
75
146
372
5
III
22
5
17.75
46
4
14
28
IV
19
3002
1.06H
5
4
1.815
V
2S
35
18
117.5
1.236
65
1
55
52
Total
ul
68
98
581.45
2,722
75
5
4
____________
19.5
1.895
SiHirccr Flriuwhrjid Survey 2010
(«) Irrigation Practices
Perennial river, are the major potential source of irrixanrrn water, The lirmcrs cultivate maize and vegetable crop, using the residual moisture after die river flow of river, and stream, This experience lead, on to propci irrigation farming by lifting water from men, traditional river dtversioDs and earth dams (GPS location point, 0240259, 1256610 and 0233630; 1258277). The irrigation water from these sources is ck,tnbuted in furrows at required irrigation intervals depending on the availability of water and crop water requirements.
Ulb 8 4. S[02b \j£inicu]i’fciir ft Phricu 11^(2)
17
16 June 2011•-
9
•tVa/rreV
Ethfaptai Xt* Mpteft Mil OrsMJff P™'7
Most   irrigators   ne   orgtnizcd   in   producers’   cooperatives   to   facilitate   access   ir marketing For example Sesbadi Vegetable Growers’ Cooperative (GPS locat a,x*
0224631/1252512) ha* 60 members working crillecttvelv at their rlirm
sugarcane, maize and vegetables (onion, pepper and tomateKs) on 2. 3 and 2
respectively.  Onion  and  pepper  are  planted  mid  of  January  and  will  be  ha  C
'
May.
^’H^Pnlitid
\ round Ctbeja" ktttnj 2 .Mtndtr 24, individual farmer* are involved in irrigated
agneuhure by lifting water from the All River and cultivating chat, tomato, onion, pepped sugarcane, lemon. orange, and avocado “Diev have experience in growing short cycle 'Cg* aftrr the harvest of groundnut in December.
In Village 1” four farmers are organized in a producer cooperative. between (hem owning - hectares of irrigable land The, have three motorized pumps and they are using the Be les rB during the dry season During the wet season the area will be flooded and it is impossible to u the land twice a year In 2010 cropping season they arc growing tomato, green pepper. *n<1 onion October to November is a transplanting penud and January to March is the harse*^ pcn<xl The members of the association captained that tomato and green pepper have the potential to harvest more than five times in one harvesting period. The farmers are expected <° get 100 qi/ ha to 200 qt/ha from this pamculai area. The irrigation users confirmed that they arc getting the yields of lOOqi/ha; 150qi/ha 110 qt/ha of anion, tomato and green pepp^ respectively. They are not using any fertilizer because ofgood status of soil fertility which IS annually replenished from die uansponed silt accumulation from the Belts River
tables
M |
2.5.4 Gsp I iujbjudn
(l            1 .and Preparation
land preparation is one of the most important agncultural activities that make the seedbed suitable tor proper root growth, nutrient intake and other physiological development Land clearing is earned out at an early stage after the harvest of previous crop Usually the farmer* bum the crop residues in the field and slash weed growth where required Ploughing is carried
t'b H Srf>2b \pnrulturv A PlanmnK(2)
16 June 2011F/Avipfjie AM                   jjtf D*ar«W r«^if
out mainly bv oxen with the set of ploughing took* Ploughing with donkeys is also common due to the presence of tec tsc fly tn some areas The household survey indicated that most of rhe households have at least 1 to 2 oxen. Those farmer* that have a single ox are ploughing their land by borrowing in additional ox from relatives or rhe}’ access draught power through
an exchange arrangement locally named
- Ren nog oxen and exchanging with human
labour  (r.g-  three  days  working  for  ihc  oxen  owner  and  one  ox  day  tor  him)  are  ways  ol  getting draught power for land preparation.
The first ploughing helps to break the compacted plough layer, allowing improved aeration and water percolation. This ploughing i* taking place along the slope of the land Depending on the size of sown seed and soil conditions the frequency of ullage is ranging from one io four times.
Tillage is carried out three Id four times for small seed crops like leff, nee and millet Maize, groundnut and sova bean fields arc cuiuvalrd twice brtorc sowing.
(n)         Sowing / plan nng
Broadcasting is the most common sowing practice in the project liea With rhe exception of maize and ground mu which are nearly always sown in rows, all other crops are sown by broadcasting. Early sowing is undertaken Ln May and April for long cycle crops, whereas short cycle crops are sown tn June and July as well as those which are susceptible- to moisture strefis. Planting of perennial tree crops like mango, papaya, banana and sugarcane is earned out in June when rainfall distribution is more reliable to avoid wilting nf seedlings due to any long dry period earlier in the runs.
Improved varieties arc not widely available or used in rhe project area. The farmer* do grow improved varieties of maize; this is the result of an extension package which has been disseminated for the last 3-4 years through ARD office* The fanners arc getting improved seed mainly from the wereda ARD office and from Pa we Agricultural Research Centre (PARC) Improved varieties cf tomato and onion arc common among lhe vegetable growcri Vegetable seeds are supplied mainly by private dealers outside thr projccl area and of course there is an attempt by the wueda agricultural office but it is not consritcndy and timely distributed Despite the existence of improved seeds of different crops like ground nut, sesame, and soybean in PARC (the erntre is well k^ated in the middle of the project area/, the farmers arc apparently not interested in using these varieties. All other crops except maize and vegetables are grown with local varieties The major causes for low’ use of improved srrds which were noted by the farmers arc unavailability in local markets or inadequate supplies from die government office and cooperatives; high selling price, and lack of knowledge nr exposure to the technology
Tile commereu) farmers also use local varieties of most crops except maize and soya bean Improved vanenes utilized by the farmers and commercial enterprise* (mainly by Avalo Agro rccli pie) m ihe project area are shown in Table 2-8
I b 1-4 SrfHb Agncul rurr & PlaiMiin^Z)
10
16 June 2011n
sM '1 a"d Dn*u& P'^,iT
htvpjt W l' fi
Table 2-8: Crop Varieties Grown in the Project Area
Crop
Maize
Soybean
Sesame
Pepper
Varieties
BH >40, Gibe 1. Awassa 511. Zcm 10, BH 660. Toga, Pioneer 3OH83. Belew 95.TGX 135-2644
A basin? 
Marekofana
Mainly produced m AvX '
farm for seed production
J ;or irngatcd and rain jed
*
ic4rurt
Turaalu
Onion
Roma VF
Adanv Red
TPl  niango
For irrigated agneuJrure
For irrigated agnculrurr
hfaoK
Banana
ac
introduced In Tana Belts
xt
Dwarf Cavandish, grande men
Introduced by Tana Bries pnrcr»
je
Valencia, Washington Naval
1 !ntr<^uced by I’^a Belesjv^11
proved Mneues of perennial fruit crops like banana, mango and orange were mtroduadS
el ana Bries project and still the plantations are producing good Fields, though some ecu
has been damaged by fire and poor managcrocnI
aenruln 'FL ^°ma Adama  red and Marekofana  arc producing  under raided
agriculture. The vegetables orrm« 
i
Table 2 8 
? under irrigation arc using improved varieties as indicated r
. 
( ul) b'ertiluer Use
manure and am6^1 lcrtlll2
by rotating the night cattle e 1 
have priority for treating unth a
both used m the project area. Animal dung i’apf^ h^ds of high nutnent demanding and valuable copi
collecting   irumd   dung   and   spread^   dUUg     °thcnw“e    thc     farmers   do   not   have   cxpcocnct   io
to mabe, sesame and vegetable nuxwic” 
Amfioalfemluer, tnclusW,
Rcs Pondents said they apply !WJt
numcn, repkmshment The farmer,                   P’’°SPhate ^AP) and urea arc hardly used for
**" “« PU„, ,7 
'     “ ’PP‘^rf
*>»”|S <"J “»
fo™. 
o
f pl
„^" IK '•» «r w'“”f
whereas the Dap ,, 
fcmltten i„ IOtt, u
broadcasm.j, 
C oti u’hcrr thrv 
rc p°rtcd by the farmers durirt#
100            ?
**      kg/£  IK "blended by agn^,^
50l */h* of urca’
ire f  both QP«
anners appJying
d
' *°  apply DAP by
Acco.ding to 
ColCOOPtta,,V” Wd P—rradet'h *e —°^c“ only suppher
«*»•« have gre.,„ 
7
**“ group ducusmm C
‘ ^'ur.l office ,. . 
*" the ,      ’
“ 11 ^rent lcvc, PPV ’>'stcra
• f^rrners asserted tliaf
20Fffimii DrwwrWfr Rjp*Wr tfElhttyi* Mimitn tf Waler r- Etv/p
FitbwtTWi NibImgJft*'* a»dDrwtavr pnirtf
inadequate  supply  of  fertilizer  And  poor  market  network  are  the  main  constraint*  on  Icrtilizer distribution in die project area.
Nevertheless most of the respondents believed tbit their cntplznd is still fertile ind there is do
need rc appb fertilizers. About W/i of the respondents in SDA I justified that they ire not
using fertilizer because their land is still fertile enough to produce reisonlblc yield. On the
contrary the farmers living tn the irea rhimctenzed by frequent cultivation and high population
density arc demanding Luge amounts of fertikrer to maintain soil fertility. They explained dm unavailability of fertilizer, high price, and lack of knowledge in utilization are considered aS the
major constraint* of tow level of fertilizer utilization.
(iv)           Control of Weeds, Diseases and Pc*ts
Pcste  and  weeds  arc  major  cause*  of  loss  of  crop  production  in  the  Geld  and  in  the  store,  rhe
extended rainfall distribution ind hurmdjtv encourage pest infestation and wrrd growth. Major
pest* and weeds are
listed in Table 2-9.
Table 2-9: Common Crop Peats and Weeds
Insect pt SI
Animal pests
Disuses
Weeds
Tcmulrs
1 lead imur
Striga
Weevils
Rodents
Ruit
Dodder
Sucking in&ccra
Root rot
A tmv u'orm
Late Night
Stalk borer
African lull worm
Cut I'Drm
Thripi
Damping off
Termitei art an important post in the area. Tcmuiana are wide spread in the project area and
affect almost all crops particularly maize and sorghum. The farmer* try to reduce the damage by digging and killing the queen remwc, however die problem is beyond their capacity ro soke
because of the extent of the problem, ineffective control measures and non availability of
chemicals. Armyworm is a devastating pest that can be controlled when rhe agricultural office
takes responsibility fur a pest control campaign to provide chemicals 'free of charge) for
Crop rotation, urine irarmenT and animal dung spreading are some of the cultural practices
applied to control pests Rodents are listed as the major pest attacking crops in the field and in
the store. Maize, sorghum, groundnut and miller are ihr most affected crops, and the farmers
are using trap*, chemicals and cats to protect seeds from rodents. According to the
respondents, the CTtimaird damage by rodents and pests is ranging from 5-25% of total
production, rhe farmers purchase chemicals horn private traders and cooperatives.
Weed  lnfesurion  1*  the  major  constraint  to  crop  production  in  the  project  area.  Finger  milki and nee arc the most affected crops which require frequent weeding and therefore much
t 'Ti M SKJZb Agriculture & HanMng(2)
21
16June 2D11forkra/D&to.VUfa RfpHvfa of lifteofta. Mwtfrt of ITd/rr e>
pjlnopiiin A7£ Irnran&rt and OrutRWf PnyrJ
human labour The crop loss due to weed infestation extends up to 60% loss unless the
required attention is given to weeding activities. The farmers arc using 2 4-D and hand weeding to control the weeds. This herbicide is applied to maize, sorghum, rice, and millet fields apainji broad leaf weeds. Hand weeding is earned out 2-3 times in a season depending on the level of infestation
(v)             I larvesnng, Threshing and \X innowing
Harvesting is one of the major agricultural operations and is ihr most laborious cultural practice. All crops are harvested manually either by sickle or hand picking or use of machete for maize and sorghum with their stalks When thr harvested crops arc dried and have attained favourable moisture content rhe grains arc removed from the cobs, chaff or straw Ihreshing with oxen by trampling is most common for small-seed crops like finger millet and sorghum. It is the process of loosening the edible part of cereal gram from thr scale, inedible chaff that surrounds it.
Figure 2-4: Harvested finger millet in Jawi wcreda
Threshing is carried out on pre-prepared plastered ground to keep dir gram from mixing with soil, sand and other coarse materials. Depending on the tonnage of harv ested crop sorghum and nee can be threshed bv bearing with stakes to remove the grain
Winnowing involves the use of a straw-made tray where harvested material is gendy poured into rhe wind Hie accumulated pile of gram and chaff will then be cleaned by gendy raking thr fine chaff away using a coarse brush Thr pile of chaff immediaiclv adjacent to the mam pile is re winnowed to obtain more grain
(vi)        On-Farm Storage
The farmers arc using different forms of storage structures to keep die crop products safely with minimal crop loss. Maize cobs and sorghum heads are temporarily kept in
a |o
bed like structure near to the house. The second structure is open for vr 1 ntihb^« i . and the familr
will lake small portions of the harv est tor manual threshing and further proccssin d
on rheu immediate needs Similarly, part of the maize harvest can be kept m      i uaojtionaJ stores
1 'b H Stfl2b Agnculnwc <k l’bnnmg(2)
l6 Junc 20T1Ftiifr*'                    Kowtow er Eftoffw.            y’lTW/r rv Cwqp
jX># Impr™ nd Dntn^gf Piw
made of bamboo with mud pii<tcnng for home consumption or marketing. Sometimes the
grain is stored in sacks usually when the harvest is larger than the capacity ot lhe traditional store structure.
2.5.5          /          - hv*r7). / bna mJ A/utMd! lixthtrng
Labour allocation to crop production is undertaken in three forms. As elsewhere, family labour is lhe main source of human labour in the subsistence farming system. Labour exchange arrangements and hiring are alternative sources to get extra labour Different labour exchange arrangements are undertaken as labour distribution mechanisms Weeding, harvesting and land preparation arc the agricultural activities which require a relatively large labour force to accomplish within the required time. The arrangement u designed lo support resource poor families that do not have capacity to hire to carry out aforementioned laborious agricultural activities. Through mutual labour exchange arrangement the household could use more than 300 labour-davs depending on the size of the cultivated area.
Table 2 10 shows the proportion of households invoked in exchange and hired labour — by lar the majority of those interviewed. Analysis of the Household Survey data (by respondent) showed that 60% of respondents considered their household to be short of labour, 72% were involved in Labour exchange (the mean number of exchange days per annum was 23) and 53° o of respondents activch hired labour
Table 2-10: Exchange and Hired Labour Utilization and Payment Rates
SDA
Exchange labour,
% of total
respondents
Hired labour
% of total
respondent!
Payment rate
Cash,
ETB/dav
Cash
ETB/tea son
In ldndT %
I
73
66
15 40
1,000 4.EXJ0
25
in
65
60
20 30
Up io 1 jSOO
.25
TV
70
Up to 2h(MMJ
25-50
V
65
50
1.000-1.400
25-33
Source J11 Mlttholdl 5 urvry 2010
Hired labour is used mainly for particular agricultural activities However there is a possibility
that dir household could hire for the complete season when the owner is busy in other business
or the members of die household are old or infirm. Obviously rich households take die
opportunity to maximiae the crop return paruculaxlv when they use this extra Labour for high
value crops like icsamc ind vegetable*.
According to dur household survey results, the labour payments are taking place tn three forms: daily basts, seasonal and in kind The first two forms of payment are tn cash with a rate of about 11 20 (ranKes tmrn kTB 15 -40 /day). The seasonal payment ranges between ETB
1,000 to ETB 4,000, whereas the payment in kind ranges from 20% - 25% of the harvest.
Analysts of the I louscltold Survey data returned a mean reported hired labour rate of ETB 23 per day (i>=70, standard deviation = 5.8) This is higher than the average rural datly rate in
I 'b 1‘4 SrfEh Agnculiuic & Plan.nmjd2)
23
16 Jw 2011Federal  Dtmoirufic  KtpabUe  of  Ethiopia,  Ministry  of  Water  &>  Eaetgp
Ethiopian \’rh Impation and Drainage Pryerf
highland  areas  which  is  about ETB  18  per  day.  Clearly  the  project  area  has  a  relatively  loi population and the number of commercial farms increases daily labour opportunities.
2.5.6             Draught Pouter, I iqutpmenf and Too Lt
Oxen and donkey  arc the sources of draught power and both are used for land preparatic transportation. Oxen with local ploughing  equipment set are mainly  used for land prepar Sometimes farmers use donkeys because they  are more resistant to  trypanosomiasis. ’Dire is done by oxen for finger millet, sorghurn. and teff
Table 2-11  shows that oxen ownership is widespread About 85%  of the households have least one ox  and maximum of seven oxen per household, and the average number of oxa owned by  individual household is 2.5  oxen, which implies that majority  of farmers do  hav pair of oxen that enables them to plough their land
Table 2-1L Draught Power Ownership and Coping Strategy
SDA
Owning
oxen, %
Amount in
range
Average
oxen per
household
Draught power accessing st rat eg)
I
9<)
16
Sharecropping,    oxen    power    exchange, borrow single ox
111
79
16
2 9
Sharecropping,     labour     exchange, borrow ox, rent
IV
93
1-7
2.4
Sharecropping,   oxen   power   exchange*, borrow single ox. use of hoc
V
79
16
2.2
Sharecropping, labour exchange, borrow ox, rent
Average
85.2
1-7
2.5
Sourer. Household Survey 2010
The livestock Report suggests that
he number of oxen available for ploughing is
(at a  cultivation rate of 2.98  ha  per pair per
approximately    in    balance    wi    i    c    ?    botion      of    those    oxen    between    households.    Fanners    h
annum). The mam problem is t e
draught power shortage. Sharecropping, usin
developed        coping        mechanisms        tokbour            cxchange        arc        common        mechanisms        us.
oxen     from     neighbours     or     reU°'eS,^‘
m       >(       houscbold     level     The     labour     exchange     arrangemcn
in rcsohmg the draught power pro 
is  that  the  ox  owner  provides  a  pan  ° owner’s land for three days or 1:3 raao
borrowcr mu„ 
the
2i 7 C.rvp YfO, wd PnOM.f>»»
A wide range of crops arc cult,V* 
farmers are currently producing
und„ rainfcd ^culture in the project area Commercial £>((h crop. ln the wet season The major crops growl
soybean,   haricot   bean,   pepper,   mango,   md   papay arc maize, sorghum. finger millet, noug.yw> Fof imMn<;e Pgwe
Most the crops show -an increasing. r
level data (sec Table 2 12 and ^nncK
r               1 tV)2 at from 20U to -
from 135/85 qt to 185,002 qt
|h>t cereal
producQon mcrcascd
increment results from the expansmn o
Vb P4 Sr02b Agriculture &. l’lanning(2)
24
June 2o| |I'tdrra.' DfffftNrafJ.'          of Efhre^ Mivjfr, of 'KT'dfrr *** Ewp VibtopM* Silt Impt™ pMMkgr P^wh-r
(he area cultivated on the one hand and increased Mckj on the other Hie average cereal yield increased by 11 2 qt/lia within rhe same cropping year, but on the other hand the crop area expanded by 49.217 ha I’hc data imply that crop production improvement is a function of area expansion and intensification of farm management.
2-12:
Production and Yields in the
Weredwifi
P«we Wcreda
awi Wereda
Dangur Were da
area,
ha
prod,
ql
yidd,
qt/ha
ajrca,
ha
prod, qf
yield,
qt/ha
area,
ha
prod.
<r
yield.
qi/ha
Cereals
Wheat
2,589
.JU 14
B.O
Maize
1.914
84J84
43.0
6,704
259,891
41,0
5160
142.541
28.0
Sorghum
2.353
45.16D
190
1RJ0I
543,425
30.0
1643
__ 88,656
24.0
Millet
3,176
51,400
16,0
7.292
207.248
2B.U
1,620
21 ,«5
14.0
Rice
347
4,259
110
908
25.232
28.0
84
1,080
IVO
TtfT
479
4,348
9.0
Bariev
150
1.745
12.0
Sub-coud
7.790
185.GO2
24.0
33,482
1,040,142
31.1
1X245
277,100
20.9
Pubes
Chick pti
42
376
9.0
188
1,202
60
Sera bean
6(11
10,212
17.0
a-r
17340
18.0 1
51
1,033
20.0
Maricnl liean
0
0
0.0
433
4.497
to J
Field pea
157
1.649
11,0
Sub-toul
643
10,5S3
160
B47
17340
18.0
B27
838»
10.0
Oil teed
Siinw
2^65
14,121
5.0
16,600
164.315
9.8
3.749
27/111
7,0 1
Groundnut
2,304
21.199
9.0
3.265
5132"
16.0
2.174
30.610
14.0 1
Soug
97
362
4.0
2.036
16.443
a.o
Safflower
9
110
13.0
1 jnved
39
213
6.0
Sub-total
5,065
35,682
7.0
21,904
232,140
10,0
5.961
58.Z3J
10.0
Cation
10
83
8.1
27
218
8.0
Vegetables
Pepper
64
475
B.O
vr
3,948
12.0
191
1,927
10.0
PnCalD
0
0
0.0
Ckmon
W
5B5
62.0
Pumpkin
62
M10
14H0
Sweet potato
43
6.850
161,0
3,298
11JS5
107.0
Sub-tool
107
7325
71.0
419
15,302
37.0
262
11.122
42.4
PertrinuJ
crops
B*rwia
10
400
13.0 i
4
135
32.0
Papava
13
2,800
’0 0
10
194^
40.0
Mange*
0
0
0,0
Suguvaric
160
24,000
150.0
6
173
15.0
Guava
6
900
150.0
Sub-rooJ
236
250,500
1,061.0
__________
47
919
20.0
Grand iouJ
13,1341
489,097
353
56,657
7^1
20.295
354.834
17.4
Semret; U'cttda ARD Sramum
I’b 1-4 Sf02h A^nculiuru- A; rimiuinR,(2>Ffdtra! Democratic
of Ethiopia. Mtiuttr) of U jter & I: rttrg,
Efhiafwn Nik Im/anon anti Dntinqgt Propa
2.6               Comm crcisd Agriculture
Since 2005, small and medium scale commercial farms have been established in the project a by leasing in land, as described in Section 2.4 Table 2 13 gives a reasonably comprehensive of commercial farms m the project area
Table 2-13: Cultivated Area of Commercial Enterprises in ihe Project Area1
Commercial
farm
Abie commercial
farm
Locatioi        Area, h; I           Currently
cultivated, ha
Year of
eaiablishmei
Crops grown
it
Pawc
4(
) ()
] Far
Not •
Abay pic
Pawc                              4()
If
200
Onion, tomato,
5 pepper, l»ananx
Pumj
A be haw pic
Pawc
43C                                 280
200*
Maize, orange, Imga
mandarin, grapefruit 1 not o
Mob integrated
farm
Kilisiion pic
Pawr
28
431
Cafllc fattening
2007
Alfa aJfa. sesbarua,
sweet potato, rice, 1 Trad: pepper, onion | practi
Pawc
0
Ph nned to grow
maize 1 New I
Sister pic
Pawc
720
0
1 New 1
Atalu Kidanc
Jawi
150
150
2008
I Rain f
1 trad j tn Sorghum, sesame            [ farmin
AvaJo pic
Jawi
600
200
2000        Maize seed, soybean
Birawi Tcrara
JftWI
272
272 1                       2008 |    Sesame, sorghum
Rain ft
mechai
farmmj
Traditii farmin.
Debrewrrk
Jawi
300
200 '                        2008      Sesame, sorghum
Iradrtit
famun^
Belay gene new Mohamed Ahmed
Tahir
fawn
109
109
Rain fei
mechan
2008 Sorghum, sesame farming
Jawi
621
Not operational
2008 1
Albeshir
Jawi
200
Not operational
2008 1
Ytbeltal Alefc
lawi
300
Not operational
2008 1
|T  raditiof
Alma
Jawi
952
2o<)8 Sorghum, srsame            j fa
pi echani;
rming
BDFC
fawi
17,400
.... 1
2009 Njgarcanc                        | fa  mung
Ahunem
agricultural
development pic 1l>angur
7 Sc mi
rchanis
300 '                            300 1
M<
2003 M
*izc, sorghum            J far
nung
Temamer
commercial farm I)angux 500 £
2               2007 N<     >t operational
Souicv ARI)/I‘.PL\L
* Note that the BDJ'C 1ca»ch«4d wax never developed and that Federal I »ovcni merit announced that all and/or under rniru- in earh 2011 Section 2.6 should be read hearing in mind that the Future without »nd will be Afferent from rhe present m rrxpcct to comtnerciaJ farming
a5 *’ wen- withdrawn
na u’® T'Mccr sinrarion
Uh F4 Sr02h Agneulcutc A PUnning(2)
26
>6 June 2011I'HifruJ Dewvfh
EthteiM Nj* /mjaOftft P/ww
*f'^T>ffrr^ F.httjq
In the project area, there arc 7, 9 and 2 registered commercial farm enterprises in Pawc. Jawi and Dangur weredif respectively The enterprises have a land size ranging from 40 ha to °52 ha. Thej- are cultivating mainly cereals including sorghum and sesame. Maize seed, onion, tomato, banana, orange, mandarin, and grapelruit arc minor crops produced by two commercial enterprises In Pawe wereda at least three enterprises have not yet started cultivating.
Except for Abay pic, all commercial farms are under rainfed agriculture. Abay pic farm is using pump irrigation from the Kctab and Bcle* nvers to irrigate about ten hectares of land According to wcreda informants and site visit results, the majonty of the operational commercial farmers are using traditional farming practices such as oxen/donkey ploughing, broadcast sowing. hand weeding and manual harvesting. Land preparation which is the mam laborious activity is carried our by draught power contrary to expectations of a commercial farming system.
All commercial farmer* except Avalo Agro-lech, Belay pic and Ahunem Agricultural Development pic are employing traditional farming systems and using local crop varieties Surprisingly, large numbers of donkeys are invoking in ploughing hundreds of hectares of land. For instance in Jawi wcreda the “investors” are renting draught power and performing rhe ploughing and transportation activities for hundreds of hectares. Dunng the field visit it was observed that hundreds of donkeys arc moving from other areas to Jawi and these donkeys will be rented by investors to transport the production from the field to the store The “investors’’ or commercial farm enterprises prefer tn use draught power instead of tractors, thus avoiding the purchase of expensive machinery
Those commercial enterprises thar do use uacior power use it only for ploughing and discing; other agricultural operations such as sowing, cultivation. weeding, spraying and harvesting are carried out by human labour. The cropping calendar used to be applied by the commercial farmers is presented in Table 2-14
Table 2-14: Cropping calendar for Commercial Farms
Crop
Land Preparation
Sowing/
(run » plan ring
Harveaong
Maize
| an-Feb
May
Oct/Nov
May
lune
Inn
Soybean
May
June
Ocr/Nov
End of | une
Nov
Sesame
May-1 unr
Oct/Nov
May
June 10-1S
Oct
Rice
May
July 20-23
Nov
Pepper
May
June
Oct
Groundnut
Apnl-May
June
Oct
April-Mair
June
Nov
Source: Consultation with commercial farmers, 2010
Kb I■4 Sr02b Agnculrurr & l'Unnij^2)
16 June 2011F«kra! Dtmofrtrtic              nf Tuhtopw, Mmitjy tf Water Enerjr, Ethiopian Nik I Ration and Dmu/f Prwea
Avalo Agro-tech pic is the only commercial farm involved in improved seed production Th enterprise was established in 2009 with a total area of 600 ha. Currentlv only 200 ha of lancj h under cultivation, out of which 150 ha is used for improved maize seed production Thr remaining area is in soybean, sesame, rice and noug. Seed production is earned out under ram fed conditions with the dose supervision of Amalira Regional Seed Agencv to ensure rhe quality of the seed. The enterprise has three tractors, and they are working eight hours a day with work efficiency of 3-4 ha/day Avalo Agro-tech has established a market network with Admas Service Cooperative Union to purchase the maize seeds and distribute to member farmers’ service cooperatives.
In general die performance of the commercial farms in the project area has not met expectations, ihc proportion of leased area actually developed has been too small land clearance has often been wasteful and die methods of production arc barely an improvement on smallholder practice. As a result both production and productivity have been very low The main reason for the poor performance of commercial farms is that they are under capitalised and have minimal fixed costs (machinery, storage, management etc.) per hectare. The investors are not in fact investing.
I lowever, the initiative has only been operative since 2005. so it is too soon to say that commercial farm leases have been a failure. Significant improvements in rhe performance of commercial farms could be made by (emunaring thr lease of poor performers forthwith, supervising better (hr remaining investors and bring morr rigorous in thr selection of new ones. An obvious means of doing tins is by making thr lease application conditional on the submission of a business plan which should meet a defined standard. ’The plan would then he up-dated annually (as required for anv commercial operation) and agreed in advance with the leasing authorities. Gross under performance could then be measured and lease terminations could be objectively decided Investors need to be monitored to ensure they arc actually investing rather than making a quick profit on land clearance or acting as landlords to smallholdci fanners.
2.7            Agricultural Support Servicer
2.7.1        . '\ffiatlktral Rr/tarrfi
AgncukuraJ research «the area is mainly undertaken by PARC PARC u centrally located in rhe project area and has an muncnse opportunrrv to mcrease rhe product™ of lowland crops through improved technology. PARC „ currentlv cartpng out different research actnines
cereals, pulses, oil seeds, fibre ciopi, horticultural croo<
i L « j . i i
..
-i.
*°^ a°d water conservation,
animal husbandry, and agricultural economics. The centre has five peimanent m 1 Mambuk, Pa we. Man dura. Dibate and Bulrn weredas.
* WC5 W
PARC has developed and released productive and discasi     rcU5Lanl v>nctics oftk~ .k
indicated crops (see Table 2-15) and also earned out the foDowmg actmtje.
lb ovc
•      Developed methods to control of stnga infestation on mauc *
•      Ser appropriate ncc seeding rates and time of weeding
•      Established thr appiopnate sowing date of haricot bean
•      Evaluated the impact of weed iniesiatx?n on finger millet yield
•      Idcnnfird the common agricultural pests in Pawr wcreda
Ub 14 SiO2b Agri culture A ?hnning(2)
l6 J“nr2Qnf-rdiw/
Er'tyw* N7/f frrqMwr mi
AfrWu/n ?r iT^rr <^Etorg
P^r
•      Investigated the effects of mulching practices on web blight infestation of haricot bean
•      Identified the optimum rale of application ot organic fertilizer for maize and linger milki production
•      Investigated crop water requirements for Pawr area
•      Described rhe physical and chemical characteruncs of soil* in P.ARC intervention areas
•      Assessed agro forestry and non-timber forest potential bv products
•      And others,
Table 2-15: Crop Variedc* Released/Adopted hv PARC
Crop
Variety
Yield, qt/hfl
Seed rote, kg/hi
Maw
BH54O
80-100
60-80
BHI40
80-90
36
BH53O
50 60
Bl 1543
50 60
BHQP-542
8f1 90
50-60
Gibe comp I
60-70
4045
Sorghum
f'jmahov
45
Finger millet
Birudi
30
Haricot bear
Roba 1
17
Nasir
21
Dimtu
13
Awash melka
16
Soybean
Bclcift 95
24
Awasa
18
Soya millennium
28
Ground nut
Manipter
r
Roba
24
Leu
19
Bulks
19
Rjcc
Pawn: 1
42
NERCA-3
45
NERCA-4
46
Supeoca 1
51
Sesame
Ahasem,
6 12
feraire. PARC, 201U
PARC's agricultural research activities are earned our with the participation of the end users that allows communities to become involved in on-farm adaptation trial activities In 2008 more thin 5300 farmers were actively participating in the proccis of technology adaptation and dissemination tn Enc wcredas. According to the werrda informants Adet Agnculmral Research (.cnuc also Will be invoked tn research activinn and seed multiplication. In Jawi wenda seed
Ub H SrQlb .Agnculnur & Pfeftftkig(2)
29
16 June 2011Ffdfru/ DfuHhVM; R/pM; of Ethiopia, htimstr, of W'alrr & lintig,
Ethiopian Kilt Imotion and Dnnnagf Pnjta
multiplication will be undertaken on farmers fields in collaboration with Adet Agncultur • Research Centre.
2.7.2          Apriatltura! 1 ixttnnon and 7 raining
Agricultural extension is the technology dissemination service to potential producers in oijcr to facilitate the dissemination process and information transfer between one and three development agents are assigned m each kcbelc who should be trained in different product**, disciplines - ideally agronomy, livestock production and natural resource management Technical staff from the wereda ARD provides technical support to development agents as required In-service training is given to development agents to improve their skills and introduce extension packages programs. The number of development agents in the protect arcs is given in Table 2-16.
Table 2-16: Distribution of FTC and Development .Agents
SDA
Number of DAs
Number of FTC
1
.-“
2
in
28
4
Y1
34
J
IV
1       39
4
Sourer AKD ( Hhccs
In each kcbelc there is a development ream where the farmers group for the dissemination of agricultural information and experience. Each ream would have 20-30 members, they have group leader that would usually be a model fanner. Figure 2-5 shows a schematic of this process.
Figure 2-5: Outline Administrative Structure of the Extension Service
Ub I'4 SrO2b Agnoilrurr Ac l Linnwg(2)
>
30
Ujunc20l!D'Wfx-nT’- R/^ax EfhtpM Mwfrt tflFaHr (*E*rp Erhvptait .X’r£ Mitj/t' * l>rri**& Prwr.r
1
2.8             Farm Input Supply
The three csscntul agricultural inputs (fertilizer, agro chemicals and improved seeds) sic supplied by the wereda ARD. Cooperative Unions and private traders. Fertilizer and improved sreds of maize are supplied through farmers' service cooperatives from respective unions, however during focus group discussions the participants noted that most of the cooperatives are not well organized and in addition poor road accessibility in the northern part of the project area constrains the operation of rhe input supply system. The supply of fertiliser is summarized in Fable 2-17. Probably about 500-400 tons of fertiliser are supplied to weredas in (he project area each year, at least 75% of which is DAP.
Table 2-17: Chemical Fertilizer Diatribudon in the Project weredas
Type of
ferdhxer/wcreda
Amount distributed. qi
Major supplier
20DB
2009
2010
[ Hfiffur wcrrch
DAP
772
927
WRADO
L’rei
439
607
WARDO
Pawe wcrrdji
DAP
403.5
BGCSI
Um
187.5
BGCSI
Ind werrda
DAP
1802
3604
Admas Union
Urea
507
270
Admas L'nlon
WAR1DO   =   Were   da  Agnculture  and   Rural   Development   tlffke
BC A .Si - H<*n»kari|rul (rtimur Crrd»t and Saving lnitifution
Admas Union of Service Cooperatives and Mama Union of Cooperatives arc community based organizations invoked in input supply Despite weak organizational set up of sendee cooperatives in the project area these umons arc providing an input supply service to the required members when they have them in stock Improved seeds of maize and vegetables are the dominant seeds used by smallholder and large scale farmers Vegetable seeds are distributed mainly through wereda ARD because of unreliable seed quality those purchased from private trader*
Regarding agro-chrnucah, mainly herbicides arc available from private dealers The aforementioned mapr suppliers are not involved tn the distribution of agro-chemicals; however during the outbreak or mapr pests like army worm the government office will supply the required chenucds
Only AvaJo pk is engaged tn seed multiplication. This ean also be constdered as part of the inpur supply system. According to the information obtained from Avalo pk management, unproved seeds of maue ts produced and supplied to the client (Admas Sexvier cooperatives Union). Thw Union wall supply m the member service cooperates and then distribute to the tamers according to thru request
l 2i ! 4 Si02h ApnculrujT 4 PLuimri^S)
r
31
16 J line 3D]Fatal/
RrpMc of iifhupa, Mtaurr) of V’jfrr & Ewg
li/fapun N’xZr iTitfifioK o*t Drwna^r Pr^nf
3          WITH-PROJECT AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL
J. /           /ntaNfocflw
Thi< Chapter describe* the agricultural potrnoal of three firming systems (large scale irrigated <ugar cane, small/medium commercial farm* ind *mallholder farms) which arc expected ro lx* the main agricultural production syitems of the I *pper Beks Irrigation Scheme Planning is an iterative (arrular) process, and it must be remembered that the optimum mix of production systems is an output of the Land Allocation and Farm Revenue Optimisation Models Ulis out put is itself modified when translating optimised farming system ireas to maps T his is because model output is based on aggregated land suitability units by SDA, while practical engineering considerations also inform irrigation layout, for example making irrigation of small fingers of land unviable due to either cost of mechanised access limitations
The optimization modelling (sec Chapter 5) was run for mans option* (based on different sues and locations of sugar estate selected from large contiguous areas of land suitable for Urge scale cane production with tow population density) to estimate optimum land use allocations to land suitability m the project area. The < Jpnon* considered and referred to in this and other report* ate summarised below.
Table 3*1: Upper Bries Development Options
Option
Dricription
Net Irrigation Areas (ha *
Total
Sugar
eilitc
Small-
bokiefi
Commercial Farm*
Option fl
1
No sugar estate
63.871
0
33284
(52.1%)
30^87
(47.9%;
Option 1
Minimum sugar estate
6W1
21.860
34.2%
26,644
[41.7%)
15,366
(24.1%':
Option 2A
Care sugar esrire
63,871
36.225 (56.7%)
22.872 (35.8%)
4,773 (73%)
< Option 2B
Corr sugar estate fie as Option 2Aj but with call gruwrri
63,871
36225
(56.7%)
22.872 (35.8%)
4,773 (7.5%)
C Iptiori 2C
Corr sugar estate with pressure
■ jpnnklerj in SDA |VB W
fiS,|tl
37.515
(576%)
22.872 (35.1%)
4,773 (73%)
Option 3
1
Corr sugar estate plus expansion area
63,871
4OJW9
(642%)
22.872 (35.8%)
----------  r
0
Option 4
Ail sugar estate with ord) pumped left bank development & accelerated implementahnn
39,175
39,175
(100%)
0
0
Opfinn 5
All sugar esraic
63,8’’ J
63.871
(100%)
0
0
Option 2A which recommends a sugar estate of 36,225 ha and associated development of about 4,773 ha of jtnaH/mwliuni commercial farms, 22.W2 ha of irrigating smallholder > and 5.074 ha of smallholder runted cultivation was found to be an acceptable option which would accommodate the present (18,382 households) and projected future rural population (20,500 households) of the proper area The Land Allocation Optimisation Model allocates pr.xluetion
l."h 1'4 SriJl’b Agnnilnue & PluuwigfZ)
33
IfiJune20111
Fftirrui Drmocruttc Rtf nixie ofEthttpiJ, Mir.ufn o{ W a.'tr & Entry
E thiop an Nt it Imitation uad  Dramag Pryt.7
systems to land suitability classes. The location of the sugar estate is determined apion smallholder agriculture is given preference to luvisols, and large scale agriculture is given preference to vertisols.
This option (referred to as Option 2A) avoids the necessity of resettlement of the present population outside the project area and the projected rural households up to 2020 can also be accommodated within the scheme, together with a reasonable number of in-migrants (1,563 households). The drtails of land use by SDA under Option 2 can be inspected in Table 5-9.
'Hie agronomic proposals below are detailed for land Utilisation Types:
LUT 1: surface irrigation, smallholders;
LUT 2: surface irrigation, large enterprises;
LIT 3: surface irrigation, out-growers;
LUT 4: pressure irrigation, smallholders;
LUT 5: pressure irrigation, large enterprises; and
LUT 6: pressure irrigation, out-growen
In practice LUT 4 and 6 arc not planned for recognising the n*k and difficulties likely to be faced by smallholder / out growers in maintaining pressure (spunkier) equipment and as water supply is not a major constraint to irrigation development Commercial farms have been shown to be unwilling investors, and arc unlikely to adopt pressure (sprinkler) technology in die foreseeable future
Option 2C (Prrssure irrigation in IVB-VC') estimates the performance of LIT 5 (see SR 06) Another LUT may also be included, smallholder rainfed. the characteristics of this LUT will be similar to present rainfed cropping practice but with SWC appropriate to the land suitability class on which it is found No rainfed large scale agriculture is envisaged for the scheme
These LUT arc allocated to land of different suitability for irrigation For compactness, rhe
I .and Allocation Optimisation combines land of different suitability as desenbed in detail in Section 5.5. Basically, within rhe irrigation design areas (delineated by the irrigation engineers, sec SR-0IB) the suitability units are
•      Vertisols < 3% slopes;
•      Vertisols 3-6% slopes.
•      Luvisols < 3% slopes,
•      Luvisols 3-6% slopes; and
•      Land requiring special measures and unsuitable land
agriculture), and
• Land unsuitable for irrigation (which may or may not be suitable foi
•t rainfed farming)
T
L b W SiO2b Agriculture A PUnmng(2)
34
16 June 2011frdmH
Efhoptm Nil/
Ethiopia, Aftm/rn tffatrr & Earj^
ami Dnaatff Pm*1
3.2             I~*rge Settle Estate Agriculture
A sugar cane estate is the main large-scale agricultural development proposed lot die project
area. The estate proposed for Option 2A, the recommended development option for the
scheme would have a net irrigable area of 36,225 ha. Other sizes have also been considered
(Options, 0. 1. 3. 4, and 5) The estate will be in SDA LA and IB, IVA, 1VB and part of IVON
In addinon expansion into SDA III could be possible (Option 3) A partially mechanized
farming system will be established to supply a sugar factory, Lhe capacity of the factory required for 37,000 ha (allowing for a rotational requirement of 10% per annum) would be
about 11-13,000 TCD. According to the soil survey results about 86% of the land allocated to
the estate arc vertisols. 8% are special measures soils and the remaining 6% is hivisols
J. 2 I Pmfw/d aaJ Cn>ppui& Partm/s
Sugarcane will dominate 90%  of the capping  pattern, with 10%  of the irea  under rotation with maize, sorghum (suitable for vertisols) and beans These rotational crops would be a  source of foodstuffs for the considerable labour force required by  the estate which will be the equivalent of about 12,000 people per annum2
Two LUT are relevant co the large scale estate farm; these arc surface irrigation, large enterprise (LIT 2) and pressure irrigation, large enterprise (LUT 5). Sugarcane is the recommended crop for both LUTs. LUT 2  is wholly covered by sugarcane and the breaking crops like maize will be grown in LUT 1.
J. 2.2 
.fyr/rw
The estate may use both surface and pressurised irrigation systems. depending on the slope of the land and the advisability of conserving water. However, it is envisaged that most of the area will be irrigated by furrow, According to the engineering design of the project, the left and right bank mam canals have capacities (ar the head) of 40-50 m' /s and supply water to branch canals, or directly to secondary canals Secondary canals flow capacities arc typically 0.5 — 2 mVs and command about 400-1,200 ha_ These supply tertian* canals wuh design capacities of 30-60 l/s and commanding 30 60 ha of land Ternary canals supply field channel*; and these supply field furrows or, on more sloping land, basins.
The estate may also use spookier irrigation which is relatively free from topographic constraints, Where sprinkler irrigation is appropriate, the command is divided into pressure zones, each commanded by a high point Within each pressure Zone the command area is divided into 200 ha blocks or units.
Pressurized irrigation has been considered as an alternative ro surface imganon for a net irrigable area of 7,083 ha and 8,482 ha in SDA IB and TVB-W respectively Option 2 Pressure considers the financial and economic implications of introducing pressure irrigation (sec SR
06) Each lateral would irrigate about 5 ha and the sprinkler irrigation would be practiced about 23 hours each day.
I,OWJ permanent waiters and 7,000 seasonal worker* per 10,000 estate ha Uh 5-4 SrfEb Apfaihott A rhniiinj^S)
1<i June 20tlFtdtral   Dtwotneic   RtpMc   vfEtbitpu.   Mtwrtp   cf^'attr   c*   Ew$
Et^t^nat Fiiit Irrigation ami                 Pro/ta
3.23           Input Rrquirt mtn P
Seed cane or set: Yield of sugarcane is dependent on good seed variety. Sugarcane is propagated by cutting a section of seed cane stalk 'rhe planting rale ranges from 37,000 to 44,000 seed canes per ha The cutting should be:
•      Fresh and juicy;
•      Age should be- of 9 to 10 months;
•      Free from disease and pest;
•      Eye buds should be fully developed; and
•      Selected from seed or planted cane not from a ratoon cane.
Fertilizer: for the correct nutrition schedule of sugarcane knowledge of its growth physiology is essential. 1‘here is an ininal phase of slow growth of about 6 ” months followed by a faster rate which lasts for another 6-7 months. In the second phase about 75% of dry matter is accumulated Therefore die nutnrnt supply must be sufficient to accommodate (his dry matter increase. According to the other sugarcane estates in Ethiopia DAP and Urea fertilizers are used for fertilizing the soil at rales of 200 kg and 100 kg per hectare respectively.
Chemicals: For estimating the chemical costs it is assumed that about 40% of die plantation area affected by pests, because raking the whole for estimation would exaggerate the project costs. Input requirements arc summarised in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Input Requirements for Large-scale Sugar Estate
Inputs
Rate of
Annual requirement,
('000)_______|
Sugarcane
Seed canes
no rwr
521 640
Fertilizer
tonne
DAP
tonne
Urea
Sub Total
tonne
0.1 t/ha
Chemical costs
Maize
Seed
ETR
3L
\26f)
Fertilizer
DAP
lonnc
3.260
Urea
Sub-Total
tonne
| Chemical costs
Source CoflMiltant’i etnmste see also crop grow margin,, SR-06 Annex 1- and farm bud ;
k
M>u1
3.23          Fam OW™""
tLes*n.dudecskorinnveJTgetation^ t^
After one or two 
operation, the field s o 
slope gradient should be
d ircpartttou for sugarcane starts with clearing the preceding crop , anon through tractor draw implement, is better and
rungs soil must be allowed to weather for a week. After ullage ploughed using a tractor levelling is required and a gentle
t<> faallt>IC the tmgaoon water flow,
t’h F4 SrO2h Apiculture A Planning)
36
16 June 2011Ft^rrv/ Dr-ftTuft? 
vf
«f II' irf/r r- h WfJO
t/Afflfww Nl> hnfliflwr •«•* Drwr^r Pro/fiV
Furrowing and ridging: Furrow) arr made with a distance apart of 75 to 150 cm depend on
the chosen spacing. A siib-sotJer attached ro the plough is run through the furrow to loosen Lhc
soil
Transplanting: At establishment stage the first planting ol seed cane is transplanted in the recommended spacing A ratoon crop will hr replaced every 3 years, but in Ethiopia a 3-4
year-interval has been pracuced. In conventional transplanting practice the spacing between
rows is 45 -75 cm in order to maintain a plant density of 44,000 canes per hectare- Some studies
noted that with this plant population only 25.000 mill-able canes arc achieved at the end. I he
same study suggested ihat bv increasing thr spacing to a wider spacing ot 60 I 50 cm the null
able canes will increase to 45,000 - 55,000 because of mure tillering due to good aeration and
stLiihghl pencil a bon that facilitate be tier and healthy carle gwwLh_ Seedlings are to be planted in. the moistened soil. To moisten the soil, irrigate the field one or two days before transplanting Irrigation should be given immediately alter planting. After the establishment of plants, the
mother shoot may be cut to get even tillers. This will ensure a greater number of oilers and
therefore null-able canes per plant.
Weeding;  A  weed  free  environment  is  absolutely  essential  for  efficient  uptake  of  nutrients  by ihe crop Therefore
*     Plough deeply and remove perennial weeds
•      Larry out frequent hand and mechanical weeding
Mulching-. Trash mulching is important in ^ugarcanr cultivation as it helps in checking the weeds and providing more moisture Sugarcane trash can be applied within 3 days afier of
plan Ling After de trashing the removed leaves can be appLird in the interspaces as mulch This is an exprrimrnial practice in lhc newly established XX am a sugarcane estate in Sibu Sue wereda of East \X dcga Zone.
r
Waicr management: Tr is always bener tn provide sufficient quantity of water on time, After transplantation, the frequency rrf for irrigation may differ depending on rhe soil type, rainfall and moisture availability For instance, it u recommended to imgarc once cvcxy 10 days dunng ollenng stage, once every 7 days dunng ihe major grow th period and once tn 1 5 days during maturity period.
Earthing up: this strengthens. the crop stand, helps to develop sufikicnt anchorage to reduce lodging, covers up femlucr, encourages loot development, checks further tillering and provides better aeration
De-tra.hing: this is a removal of excess and unproductive leaves from the plant sugarcane produces large numbers of leaves. A normal stalk, on an average, bears 30-35 leaves under good growing condinons But, for effective photosynthesis, only the top 8-10 leaves are neccssarv Therefore it is important to remove the lower dry and green leaves during 5* and 7* month, and apply them as mulch in the interspaces. De trashing has advantages in:
• Cleaner cultivation
Ub F4 SiCi2b Apkulturc & PbnniiiH(Z)
37
16 June muFttkra/ Dffirofra/if RtfMc nJ Ethiopia. Minifry of W ater t> Eaerp Ethiopian Nik Impart ok and D^ttupe Prytit
•      Easy movement of air into the crop canopy
•      Reduction of pests
•      Easier intrrcuJturil operations and
•      Use of leaves as a source of mulching materu) or compost preparation
Harvesting: the harvesting should take place when the sucrose content of the plant is ophrm] for nulling Also the weather should lx suitable for harvesting and transport and not dunngti* rainy period when access is difficult.
J.2. f Crop Yulds and Production
As the expected area is so big, it is important to rstimatc the productivity expected correctly nor just for valuing output (in fact the financial value of sugarcane is only of interest to out- growers and being an intermediate product it has no attributable economic value) but also to size die factor}' capacity required. However, an advantage in the assessment is that estate management uali be uniform and therefore more predictable, and the performance of irrigated sugarcane is well known in Ethiopia
Table 3-3 shows the throreucal production of cane likely from a core estate area of 36,225 ha within the Upper Beles project area. No out-growers are included in die calculation, though the impact of oui-grower production is assessed as Option 2B Out-growers in the financial and economic analysis (sec Supplementary Report SR-06) and could add an additional 40% to cane production There may also be a substannal area available outside the scheme in Hynu (assumed to be about 10,000 ha), bur the area is not known and the financial and economic assessment would have to be handled separately In addition a 600 m altitudinal haul is required from the bottom of the Hyna basin to the Dinder/BcJes watershed It would probably be more economical to site another, smaller factory to avoid this upward haul
The assumptions behind the esumair ire.
•
’‘Other crops comprise 10% of the gross cultivated area and arc expected to he food
crops for the labour force and satisfy the limited rotational requirements of the mono
crop cane production system
•
Seed cane would be 2% of the cane area and 1.8% of the estate area
•
Fallow in any year would be zero
. Plant cane (planted directly w>th seed one) would be 24.5% of die cane area and following ratoon crops would be 73.5%
. The hanesting period for phnt cane ,s assumed to be 18 months and the harvest penod of ratoon cane is 14 months, this enables a calculate of the annual area harvested
. He yield of plan, cane u expected to be 160 ton, per harvested h, and the weld of ratoon cane is expected to be 144 tons per harvested ha.
, lead to an estimated 2.4 million ions of cane harvested
These assumption
overall y*H °
P cf annum, with in h cfl4re of the total cane are* and 145 tons per ha of harvested cane
dJfeiencc has been assumed in the peJd on lunsols and vertisol*’
»“* Vo°«nific*nrfy ‘h,frtefll" COuW ** f*c,ored m’° d* ««in»te because the lindDfAwnWir RgpwHp.* t'E/fapra. MtMtr) tfTttir f-. EifaptM Nib frnptrn* lWDow P-xtf
stiir&hihty of the esutc area is known- The production toiit per (n« of cane on vertisols is higher Than luvitoh, and the ratoon crop i< higher rhan seed cane free SR-06 Annex B).
The theoretical size of the factory to mill this production, assuming 210 cane crushing dap per annum would be 12,000 TCD, At 8 75 Ions of cane to one ton of sugar the output of the factory would be about 220,100 tons of sugar per annum.
Production of break crops would be significant given lhe size of the estate and would probably exceed the food requirements of labour The value of break crops is calculated in ihe Farm Model optimisation, see Section 5.10.
Preliminary calculations suggest that about 17,000 ha of out-grower sugar cane might be available in rhe proicet area, which would increase the required capacity of the factory to aboui 18,000 TCD. The matter is discussed in more detail as Option 2B Out-growers in the financial and economic analysis, see Supplementary Report SR-06.
’ 1* F4 Sr02b Agnculruw & THin<nng(2)
lfijinu- 2fl| 1Fnirnt/   Drwaraftf   R/^*Wrr   ffhlhhfua.   XUatifry   j/W j' ter   Rzj0«nrj   Effrqp EjbtfM'M Nr Jr                 a*d Drvntajf Profit
Tabk 3-3: Expected Cane Production from Upper Belen Core Sugar Estate Area (36,225 ha) I Seed cane
Harvested
Other crops (production
—-—I
Plant
Harvested
plant cane,
4H |
685 T
697 |
ha (Fallow ha| cane ha
____ 74
123
125
cane ha
907 02 | 2,721.07
(
--------
4.113
6353^
6,966
Tons  of  plant I cane harvested
IB E
IB W
IBS
111
IVB E N
1511
1536
4,533
4,608
ha
148.15
247
wF|                  25                                      311                933
|
215
39
475
1.425
78
(
1VB W
rVB E S
IVCN
rvcE
TVCS
VN
V w________
vs______
Outgrowrri
Total Estate
1,410 I
2,154
6,631
663                  119
t 462             4386                     139
8,09"                     810                  146
1.785
5356
292
ratoon cane, ha
1,71427 2,856 2,903
588
898
2,763
3374
23304 39,490 40,141
8,128 12,414 38310 46.659
Ton* of ratoon cane I
harvested 246,855
411357 418,036
84.642 129,282 397,935 485,921
Theoretical tons of cane
harvested 270.559 450.746 458,176
92,770 141,696 436,145
532,580
36325
Totals                                          36325
3.623
3.623
652
652
".988
".988
23.963
23.963
1305
1305
15,09
15,09
208,745
2O8"45
2.382.673
2382.673
VJb 3*4
At
**Pw.TJ/rr RjpaMf »f
Eftrnpia* Si/r bn/pfiM **d Dntt^ Profit
AGwrftT «f llzdfer ftcwnFf and li
j j Mrtfium and Small Scxlc Coram emal a^ncu /fu/r
3.3.1 Pnpwd Crvftf
Selection of crops for supplementary and full irrigation lor 5 null/medium scale commercial farms considered the objective of lhe farm and net farm return. Optimising crop production in the context of scheme production and the comparative advantage between LUTs is discussed in Section 5.10). The following marketable crop* arc recommended sugarcane (it out-growers. arc required by the sugar estate), imi2t seed, haricot bean, sesame, pepper groundnut. Mai/c
seed will be produced during the dry season under hill irrigation.
Note the total area of the small and medium scale commercial farms is expected to be about 4,773 ha, see Land Allocation Optimisation Model output for Option 2A (Section 5.6.4) with distribution as shown in Table 3-4. The farm budgets i SR-f)6 Annex Fl treat this a* one farm
r
(
per land suitability type, with fixed costs calculated on a unit area basis fhe commercial larm area will be dominanily ^0%) on vertisols and a cropping pattern has hern prepared accordingly.
Table 3-4: Commercial Farm Distribution by Land Suitability Type
SDA
Vertisoh
Luviaola
0-3%
3 6%
0-3%
3-6%
Special Measure*
and Marginal
Total
1A
-
IB E
0
-
0
IB W
0
0
IBS
,
in
1.023
1,409
1,322
3.755
IVA
tVBEN
IVBW
*
IVBES
JVC N
IVCE
-
ives
VN
VW
815
84
17
H
87
1 018
vs
—--------  2 ,
-
Total*
1.839
1,494
17
U
1,410
4.773
13.2         OD^prjg fWrrwj
According to the information obtained from wereda offices, most of the land leased out for the commercial farms u on vertisols, the hmsol lira being more suitable for smaillioldcrs In the with-project future therefore, the suitability of vemsob for different crops is the starting point to determine the cropping patlem for commercial farms Currently, the small and medium commercial farmers axe using traditional practices such as draught power for ploughing. There aie only Nn commcrcm! fanners involved tn mrch am?.cd farming.
Lb 1-4 SrtJh Agnculiwt- & Pl*nnmrf2)
41
16 |unc 2011Ftdmi/ Dt*o<wte
of Ethopta. Muttrft) of Watt? & E*rp
F.rhioptai Pstk Imp/bon and Dftxnagt Piqtrf
Catena considered in crop selection:
•      Existing cropping experience tn commercial farms;
•      Suitability to the given agro-ccology;
•      Yield potential of the crop;
•      Market opportunity in local and export markets.
•      Crop suitability for mechanized farming;
•      Crop potential for irrigated agriculture;
•      Crop potential used as raw materials for industrial products;
•      Availability of improved inputs: and
•      Ixngth of growing period
With-project, sugarcane will be a major crop m the project area. A total area of about 37.000 hi will be under cane production fwith an allocation to other crops to provide a periodic break tn the cane mono-crop, to provide food for estate labour and for sale). To supplement cane production, medium-scale commercial farmers could grow sugarcane under an out-grower arrangement Out-growers will be required by the sugar estate if a factor}’ size of more than 15,000 TCI) is contemplated and (he area suitable for cane in Dinder is served by a different factory. Ihcrcfore the proposed commercial farm cropping patterns incorporate sugarcane Ihc medium-scale commercial farmers' cropping pattern gives an opportunity to include other marketable crops to diversify the income of the enterprise and to respond to market demand, see Tabic 3-5.
Table 3-5: Cropping Patterns for Sinall/Mcdium Scale Commerdal Farms (Out-groucr\
Crop
Wei season
Dry season
Area, %
Area.
ha
Planting
date
Harvest
date
I Area, %
Area,
ha
I   Planting ! date
Harvcu
date
Sugarcane
30.73
1467
May
I 30.73
1 146’ I
| 12/18
rnonthf
Hancot bean
29 .r
1397
lune
Scp/Oct |
29.27
1397
Nov
Feb J
Maize seed
w
477     1
Nov I
Feb_
Sesame
40
----- —-----L
1909
Mar
Oct |
30%
1432    1
Nov
---------------
MarchJ
L Total______
100%
4,773
100%
4,773 ]
____
L:zd
Th'
■« O »™ Mndrl fa <2A fa. T.b  S-M
«» « W 
R„muc
P
lt
patterns would be the overall observed crooning 
tort from F.m,
S-25). Tto. „„pw
...
r
1
suitabditv cluses if e»ch LLT (fou, types of smallholder farm, commercial
J
estate)  on  each  land  suitability  class  produced  to  maximize  the  value  vf  I.  *”
...      .      f         .      ..-T?      PP^g      pattern      on      commercial      fanusooaU      land
interesting that in the out grower opnon. commercial farms have a 
producDon H “
the  estate;  it  represents  die  most  efficient  use  of  resources  for  a  media  -^°PP‘ng  partern  t0
Option 2A, the cropping pattern is more diversified
r, ^rr
L*b I 4 SrOJb Agriculture Ac P!annmg(2)
?
42
,6 Jur<20||pfrirrv? Df9Kr0fJ‘ ttyM;
Ethiafw Imffrtw Jxi Drm^gt Ptytrf
Afifcitfn d H'dlfrf <" P.JTfHff
Table 5-6: Opiiminetl Cropping PattrrmyfoT^oinmrrciA^FanTi*
OPTION 2A
__________________ ___________ OPTION 2B OUT-GROWERS
wet
dry
wet
dry
Cereals except rice
46%
25%
1%
2%
Rice
Suntlcrwrr &: safflower
Beans and pulses
35%
4%
3%
(kherds
42%
35%
7%
1 Perennial tree*
5%
5%
1%
1%
Sugarcane
94’.
94%
Conon
Vegetables
h irage
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Nel cultivable area, ha
4.773
4,773
4,773
4,773
Note; The mt daEa air lhe wri^hted by area cirtpping patterns fur ail mils types, kt I able 5-25
7 i J              / nn-jwjw Tyrtoir
T"he project am proposed for medium-scale farms would have i surface irrigation system composing main, branch (if required}, and secondary and on-farm irrigation iiifras true lure. Irrigation would be by furrow or basin depending on crops grown., sods characteristics and land slope Commercial farm boundaries would follow h^driulic bnundanrs.
J. 5.4 /iirp*/ Ktyv/rrmejiis
Improved Seeds; Small/medium commercial enterprises are intended to utilize high yielding crop vineries under irrigation agriculture Crop varieties that have been released from agricultural centres and tested in a similar agio-ecology arc essential inputs, Shortage nf certified seeds of many crops is identified as one of die major bottlenecks facing commercial farming in the project area as it is elsewhere in lhe country. To establish reliable seed sources, the commercial farms will be involved in seed multipbcauon aemitjes in order to fulfil their requirement and sell co surrounding smallholders An estimate of unprovrd seed requirements is given in Table 3- .
Table 3-7: Scuonal Seed Requirement for Proposed Crops
7
Wei Scasac
Dry Beacon
Crop
Seaaoual requiremeai, qc
Area ha
seed
rate(
kg/ha
Curangt
No./h.
Seed
v
H1
Seed cant (3
budded teta)
Area ha
SeuiHial
teed
require men 1,
QI
Sugarcane
1467
16,000
--------- X
E lane or bean
23,467,886
1467
1397
UM)
1397
1397
1397
Mice seed
30
477
143
Sesame
1909
5
95
1432
72
TlhmI
4.773
1492
23,467,XM.
4.773
1612
Ub j a SriJ2h AgttfuJhMv & IWuhr(2)
16 J unc 2011
73 1 3  1
*1 1
1Frdfral DemvafM Rtpttbfcof EPinW. M/rjjfr. of Wafer c" foee^.
FJhrtpia* \iie Imy/fron Jftd Pr.ortjp PfVftJ
Suutcv. Consultant's estimates, derived fnwn I able 3 5
Fertilizer is an important input to ensure high production under improved irrigation agriculture Moreover the commercial farmers need maximum yields to sustain their business therefore use of fertilizers will br part of the interventions in the cropping system. Based on -i,* proposed cropping pattern shown in Table 3-5 and die recommendation given by the rescap institutions the following requirements arc computed and shown in Tahir 3-8.
Table 3-8: Seasonal Fertilizer Requirements for Proposed Crop*-
Wet season, area.
Dn, Reason, Area
Crops
Area (ha)
DAP (qt)
Urea (qt)
Total (qt)
Area (ha)
DAP (q()
Urea (qt)
Total (qt)
3
Sqgarcstnr
1,467
2,933
1.467
4,40(1
1.467
2,933
1.467
4,400
73
J linear bean
M97
133"
999
2.536
1:•
1437
908
2,445
Maizr seed
4**?
477
4r
955
41
Sesame
1.909
1,432
St Hirer: Consulfanr’s enttmate*
Agro-chemicals: an estimate of the annual costs of agro-chemicals is presented below in Table 3-9 "Hie approach to estimation was to consider an area likely to require treatment each year, rather (han provide a more expensive “prophylactic*’ costing
Table 3-9: Seasonal Agro-chcmical Costs for Proposed Crops
Crops
Area, ha
Es lima red cost, ETB
LT1
Estimated
cost, ETB
Annual Cost,
ETB
Sugarcane
1,467
205,344
1 467
205.344
410.688]
Hancor bean
1,397
111 765
1.397
111,765
223.529
Maize seed
100.233 1
100,2331
Sesame
1.909
190 920
1.432 1
143,190 |
1
334.110 |
Total
4,773[
4,773 [
1.06S.5W,
Source: Consultant’s r»ujnjfr»
J. 3.5        I anN A                    and ! tqtttpmritt
Commercial fanning requires mechanisation to achieve timeliness on the relatively large areas that will be cultivated and more uniform appixnt™ of inputs to ensure uniform and consistent yields In particular tractor drawn equtpment is strongly recommended to carry our the ma|or agricultural operations such as land preparation Some of die farm machineries to lie used by rhe commercial farmeis are luted below in Table 3-10 together with then pnee Thu information was used to estimate land development costs of commercial farms for the CBA (see SR-06. Annex D)
( b I 4 $tO2b Agriculture 8c PUnmng(2)
16 June 2(JHPfiwwrrfft-
et Hz/wp/rf. Mtiwtn tf'Wdrtr & Bang
fE/JWjfthJrt NWt /ffljffllflFBW Drawjjp J’lWi?
Table 5-10; Type* of Machinery Recommended for Commetdd Farms^
__________ ___ __
No
Types of Machinery
Average Unit price /ETB
1
Tractor 90 !40hp
650.000
2
Plows
150,(100
3
fhic harrows
200.000
4
Slashers
90.000
5
Badgers
100.000
6
Cultivators
80.000
7
Fertilizer Spreader
130.000
8
Trailcr 5T-TT
200.000
9
Row planters
250.000
10
Sprayer*
30O.000
11
Shelter
200.000
12
Waler tankers
70,000
13
Sub-Soilci
80.00(1
14
Levelers
150.000
SoUfd [.rwi*iJriUiT>> r^ftfflJiCS
1 J. 6 Cmp } ttltfj t/ittf PwArffo*
l“hc crap yield cstimatr cun<idcr* the pnirnuaJ of the Crop varieties which are suitable for thr irra, From the first year of project implementation the vidd progressively increase* and at some future year it reaches maximum potential and for thr rcinainiiig years of the project the crop will main lain the achievable yield Table 3-1 1 summarises the expected yield achievable by Commercial farms, l"hc assumptions considered during the yield projection for * mallholdrr farming u workable for a mill/ medium scale commercial farms, while rhe efficiency of mechanized farming is additional factor undertaken fur this farming system
Table 3-U: Yield PrajecrioriH for Crops on Cpmmefdil Farms
Currcni
Average
yield
Projected yields (ql/ha)
Year J
Year
2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
7+
Maize seed
30
30
45
45
45
45
45
45
Haricot lie an
5
10
15           20
23           23
23
23
23
Sesame
6
10
12
15
20
30
20
20
2(1
Sugarc arw
_______
6W    I.IXXJ   1.2CKJ
1.500
1.500
1,500
1.500
Sourer:                            rinmnr*
Crop production based on the cropping patterns and yield projection rhe annual crop production for commercial farms is presented in fable .3-12.
Uli, Fa SifftZb J\|£iii£uJrurL' Ai E"Liii.ni!if’(2)1
45
16 June 2011Vrntrul Dfmocrati: fapMic of Effatptj.                  oWatr C* Lintig)' IMopwit Silt lnT^aftan ari Dwiqt Prottrt
Table 3-12: Estimate of Whh-project Production from SmaD/Medium Commercial
Farms
Crops
Wet seaton
Dry season
Area, %
Production,
tonnes
Arca,%
Production,
tonnes
Sugarcane
1467
205.344
1.467
I lancot bean
1.397
2.794
1,397
2.794
Maize seed
477
2.148
Sesame
1.909
3.437
1.432
2.577
Ann^i
J<»nnei
- __2OSj4j
-----------
-----«
_______ 6£.
Total
4,773
211,575
4,773
7,519
_  ay*
Source Ccmroltanfs estimate*
3.4 
Smallholder Agriculture
3.4.1 
5 mat/ho tier Farm Areas
The area of the smallholder farms is expected to be about 22,872 ha, of which about 10,793 hi
is expected to be on luvisols (47%), 9,064 ha on vertisols (40° «) and 3,014 ha on special
measures (13%). The areas were obtained from the Land Use Optimisation Model (for ()puon
2) which prioritises luvisols lor use by smallholders. Note though that the distribution of
smallholder farms by suitability rbs* is constrained by smallholders' non-irngablv land
requirements (ic. land outside the trriganon design areas, sec Section 5.6). The distribution by
SDA and land suitability class is shown in Table 3-13.
Table 3-13: Smallholder Farm Areas by SPA and l^and Suitability Type
Vcrtiaols
Luvisols
SDA
0-3%
3-6%
0-3%
3-6%
Special
Measures
1 and Margins
' T~' LI
1A
1.580
55
1.90.3
15
213
1       3,766
IB E
-
1BU
-
IBS
-
•
-
111
1.702
•
1.848
1,096
4.645 '
IVA
240
18
148
81
268
755 I
1VB E N
-
-
-
J
1VB W
-
-
-
J
IVB E S
-
•
-
J
1VC N
3.072
119
1,87.3
266
557 ]
5 88" 1
JVC E
-
-
-
7j
,
JVC S
1.604 |
328
1.727
600
1.W3 r
VN
253
94
746
492
873 1
5.361 | 2 457
V \x
-
-
vs
-
-
Totals
8,451
614
8,245
Z.M«
t on r
. 22,877]
I ’b IH StO2b Agriculture & Plannu>|((2)
l6 June 20|]T f' drfM'
<L7Ar^, Abwirn « Water d- Ewr^.
E&tpi*t S/ir tfrnrtro* axJ Dr**aqt Pvp.1
J 4.2 Imposed Otpi
The smallholders have two main objectives co carry’ out irrigation agriculture on their plots ot land; attaining the food demand of the family members is die primary objective, while growing cish crops to generate household income is the second important objective. Hie proposed
crops are grouped into subsistence and cash crop groups to attain multiple objectives. About 1 ) crop tvpes are included in rhe project design to address the economic, social and cultural problems of tlie farmers considering their livelihood strategies. The wet season crops arc both staple and cash crops which will grow under supplementary irrigation The dry season crops will be fully irrigated these are cash crops to generate income for the households. Hie crops include rer^ak fmai2e. finger millet, sorghum, nee), pulses (soybean, groundnut, and chickpea., oil seeds (sunflower, safflower, and noug). vegetables (pepper, onion, and tomato), and perennial crops (sugarcane, mango and citrus).
Food crops Different types of cereals (c.g. maize, sorghum, finger millet and rice), pulses (e g cluckpea) and oilseed* (c.g. noug, sunflower and sesame) have been cultivated bv smallholders tn the project area for many vrars as staple foods. The major part is used for home consumption and any surplus is sold locally to consumers and traders. It is estimated that in 2010 about 58.000 tons of crops were produced in the project area of which about 40% was sold (see section 5.7). Smallholders, characterised by relatively high financial and physical risk and ven small farm area, will always grow a range of food crops, for which they have a locabonal advantage in local markers, and reserve a certain proportion tor home consumption Tim is in contrast to commercial farms Diversification of cropping militates against the benefits of large scale production, so commercial farms tend to have a more specialised cropping pattern
Cash crop*: The proposed cash crops will be grown under full irrigation to avoid crop failure due io water shortage Some of the proposed crops have already been cultivated in small plots under smallholder management to maintain household income. Some of them are new crop* but can be grown with technical support. The proposed crops have high market demand at present and good market prospects for the future.
The proposed cash crops arc divided into the following sub-groups;
* 
Certah:
M iizr seed
* 
Pulses:
Soybean, and chickpea
*
Oilseeds:
Groundnut, sesame, sunflower, safflower, and noug
* 
Vegetable:
Tomato, onion, and pepper
*
Fruit crops;
Mango and citrus
■ Industrial crap:                      Sugarcane, cotton
It i* preferable that a s miller range of dry season crops is recommended rather than a larger to sUnpLify irrigation scheduling.
Categorising the proposed crops in different LUT» will help the implemented to plan crop production constdenng other determining factors. For example LUT data provides information to dcade on die most appropriate imganon applications and methods. Therefore listing crops
L’h F4 s<O2b Agricultan? fit PhnnuigCZ)
47
1 (June 2011Mrul
HpMc of EfHepta MiuJfn afTafrr c*r Ent^.
Ethiopian Stif Imtattor. and Vrvtntrft Pnpf
suitable for each LUT will facilititc effective land utilization for smallholders to opting janc
and irrigation water resources During detailed design, each crop mil be allocated to suitable land within tertian /secondin’ units to enhance productivity and effective water utilization feasibility level it is possible to identify crops for identified IJ Ts as follows:
•      LIT 1 surface irrigation, smallholders this LIT can be spin into furrow and basin irrigation system Accordingly maize, sesame, soya, haricot bran, groundnut, safflo^ sunflower, fingrr millet, pepper, chickpea, noug. cotton, forage and sorghum arc rrxee suitable under furrow irrigation. The crops can be well managed in row planting to practice cultivating, weeding, and watering. The remaining crops including nee, omon, mango, and citrus more suited for basin irrigation During implementation the crops could be interchangeable, except for nee which is more reliably grown in basins.
•       LUT 3 surface irrigation out growvn: tn this land use type the project proposes to grow* sugarcane under contractual arrangements with the sugar estate. The farmers wit use furrow irrigation for the production of canc.
1,4.1        Cropping Palft ms
Crop selection is a determining factor for the success of the entire irrigation project The peculiar charactrnstics of the Upper Heirs project area, in terms of land resources, agro climate and socio-economic aspects arc takrn as the background to propose rhe most suitable crops to lie grown under supplementary and full irrigation system.
The existing indigenous knowledge in selection of crops suggests future cropping patterns Farmers have sufficient knowledge about the soils, climate, rainfall pattern, drought events and risks of pest and diseases, on which they base cropping decisions in any given season. They arc somewhat more deficient in respect of crop technology, marker information and processing opportunities. The crops which are donunanr tn the cropping parrerns seem to be suitable for that particular area Ihcreforc the existing cropping system patterns are taken as the main indicators for level of crop suitability for the project area.
Introduction of new crops tn the cropping systems of the area during the earlier Tana-Bclrs project gave the opportunity to increase the crop mix of the farming system and of course enhance crop diversity The existing cropping panems of the .small holder farms show that smallholders have developed market onmted crop selection which currently boosts household income It implies that market demand also plays an important part in crop selection and it will be pan of rhe selection arena for the future crop development For instance, some crops like sesame and noug are predominantly prrxluced for market and the)’ arc part of rhe cropping patterns of many of the farmers in the project area
Based on the aforementioned area specific experiences and field assessment resuJt5 following factors are taken into consrdcranon for the selection of crons for...
,
productions.
•      Existing cropping and farming system experience
•      Role of the crop in food baskcr of the communitv
•      Suitability to the given agro-ecology
>.
r* tor wet and dry season
J
L'b F4 Sd*’2b Agriculture At Ptonmng(2)
48
,6 .lunr ?0]|MmW? fl/IFtfftr r*-Ew^ JErAiiqfiwnr -V/tir fmjf-rtowr flW                  PnyfiV
•      Consumption chamcterutics of the cnmrniinitic*
•      Crop potential for irrigated agriculture
•      Market opportunity m local and export markets
•      Crop potential used as raw rrutenak for industrial products
Two cropping patterns arc proposed, one tor IuvhoIs (Table 3 14) and one for vertisol f \ Fable 3-15). Given the relatively low irrigable percentage of rhe projec t area, many* smallholders will inevitably have tn adapt to firming on the more difficult vertisols. Based on recommended cropping patterns the irrigable land in each SDA is allocated to east the implementation
activities which will be carried in different phase refer detail distribution in Annex I).
Table 3-14: Cropping Patterns for Smallholder Farm a on Non-vertic noils
Seaton. %
Crop
Area,
%
Sowing
dale
Ha eventing
date
Area,
%
Sowing
dare
Harvesting
date
Maize
May 20-25
Sept
10
Nov
April
Maize iced irrigated
—
—
2
Nov
April
Sesame
27
Miy
Oct
25
Nov
March
Sova twin/hartcor hean
to
June
Oct
B
Nov
Feb
Groundnut
12
May
Sept
10
Nov
March
Sun. (lower
5
Nov
Feb
Saffltwer
5
Nov
Feb
Pepper
14
May
Aii^
8
Dec
Marc
Vegetable?
Tomato
5
Dec
March
OnMjn
10
Nov
Feb
Perennial fruit trees
Mango
5j
May
PertTmul
5
Perennial
Perennial
Citrus
2
May
Perennial
2
Perennial
Perennial
Total
100
100
ScHErCri < juCLiLlIiitnfs c^hm-iies
Table 3-15: Cropping PniTcms for Smallholder Farmi on Vercic Soil*
Crop
Wei season, %
Dry season. %
V.
Sowing date
Harvea ting
%
Sawing dale
Harvesting
Finger milkr
15
May
Sept
IB
Dec
April
Sorghum
20
May
Sept
22
Dec
April
Sugarcane
10
May-Jun
10
12/18 mnehj
1 Rice
20
June
Oct
Pepper
10
June
Oct
20
Dec
March
Nuug
15
May
■
17
Dec
April
Chicle pej
12
July
Oct
15
Nov
Feb
Colton
3
Mav
rrirnmal
3
Perennial
PrrenrujJ
Forjge
5
May
Perennial
5
Perennial
Perennial
Total
100
IM
_______________
Source <AHi!SuJi*nfs eiucnalcR
I Hi 1*4 Sr«2b Afinnilrmr & P1nmtag(2)i
49
1 fj J tine 2011Ftftra! DtnoiTiiffi fapMcefUttepia, Miiurtr, tf IFafirr {*” Energy
F.fhicftan JVi> Imparion and Drainap Prwect
To provide more options for analysis and considering the rapid change of the marker opportunities and development strategies a cropping pattern for smallholder out-growers u considered (Option 2B) It is assumed that about 70% of the irrigable land will be allocated sugarcane production and other 30% is distributed for other potential subsistence farming tf> maintain their food demand and generating certain amount of household income, see Table
3-16.
Table 3-16: Cropping Pattern for Out-grower Smallholders
Crop
Wet season, •/
Dry season, %
%
Sowing date
Harvesting
%
Sowing date
-
Harvcitm
.
Sugarcane
70
May-June
70
Sorghum
10
May
Sept
Maize
10
May
Sept
20
Nov
Hancut bean i
Chickpea
12
June
Oct
15
Nov
Apni
J
Tout
J 00
100
Source G»n«ullanr*« cstimans
‘llicse cropping pattern* can be compared with the smallholder cropping patterns generated by the Farm Revenue Optimisation Model 7he value of scheme production is maximised while solving the net farm revenue of each LLT on each land suitability type. Four sub-LLT arc introduced, minimum allocation, small, medium and largr smallholder farms, as drsenbed in Section 5.4: these cropping patterns have been aggregated The cropping patterns of
smallholder farms in SDA that must remain without irrigation supply arc also shown.
'Fable 3-17 show's the cropping patterns generated for smallholders assuming they arc nor involved in growing cane See Section 5 10 for the production constraints modelled to face smallholder farms in each sub-LLT.
Table 3-17: Optimised Cropping Pattern* for Smallholder Farms (Option 2A|
SMALLHOLDER FARMS
LUV1SOLS               VERTISOLS
SPEC.  MEAS,
wet j dry
RAI NEED
tPepper_____________
Cereals exyepr rice
Rice
Sunflower A: safflower
 Beans and pulses
1 hKeed*
Perennial trees
Sugarcane
Cotton
i Vegetables
Forage,
Net cultivable area, ha
J- ,6 1%4%
7
29% 1
lb F4 SrO2b AgnruJfurr Ac l’Unnxng(2)
* 6 June 2011Jvrfrra/ IW*
ErbwpM* ^,ie
fl
Mfortoy < ITairr & E/ttffl
”  Drji»d# Pf^t.7
J
Tabic 3-18  shows the aggregated cropping  pattern for all smallholders. by  land suitability  class after introducing  a  production larger far *ugar cane which *nll allows smallholder farm*  t<> achieve targets for household food production, crop diversity, sustainable rot arsons and market surplus of other crops
Table 3-18: Optimised Cropping Patterns for Smallholder Out-grower Farms (Option 2B
V------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ~                                   1
SMAIJ.HOLDER
LUVSSOLS
VERTISOLS
SPEC
.MEAS,
RAINPED
wel
dry
wet
dry
wet
dn-
wet
dry
Cereals extepr rite
14%
a%
7%
B%
9%
38%
Rier
12%
Sunflower & safflower
10%
Beans and pubfl
4%
Oilseeds
34%
36%
2%
9%
53%
Pepper
0%
16%
0%
28*o
1%
Percnrual trees
0%
0%
8%
8%
Sugarcane
3B%
3B%
77%
77%
64%
64%
Colton
1%
Vegetables
1%
26%
F< wra^e
8%
8%
%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
8%
Net cukivahle area,
ha
10,793
10.793
9,DM
9,064
3.014
3,014
5,074
5.074
^4.4         Imgatwit SjfJtoH
l'br smallholder farms a surface irrigation system is proposed mmpnstng main, branch (if required ', and secondary and on-farm irrigation mfrasmicturr Irrigation would be by furrow or basin depending on crops grown, soils characteristics and land slope I-and consolidation would be required to enable optimum field layout, and so that fanners had only one (at most rwo; irngablr plot within a ternary unit
The farmers in the protect area de not have adequate experience in irrigation water
management and so training will be required. Some of the net irrigable area requires special Land management, like grass strip* and other conservation measures The measures required will also call for special training In areas with higher dopes (> 3%) water flow velocities must be kept to an acceptable level to minimize soil erosion and enhance crop pnnlucrion.
rhe irngainrs will establish water users’ associations to manage the water resource in an efficient way and to avoid conflict in rhe allocation and distribution of ixngiHon supply, as well “ establishing a system to recover management, operation and maintenance costs.
On-farm water management (OFWMJ will be established through rhe provision „f training, trial* and demonstrations. The trials and demonstration practices need to be developed in
Lb I>4 StOZS Agwuhrurr He Planning^)
51
I 6 |unc 2011B
Ffdrrot                   R/putfhc o! Elhtofifa. Miwfy W ater <* Ewg EtWfu* Nik Imfdfron anti Dnwugt Pnyfit
conjunction with PARC (the principle research and development organisation in the prnjeq area) to develop the system and enhance farmers’ capacity for effident utilization °f irnga^ water. PARC itself may require technical strengthening in this matter, The main topics related to OFWM will include the following aspects of irrigation agronomy:
•      Application of proper amounts of water at the correct time and frequency to optenjk crop production and water use efficiency;
•      Improved land preparation to ensure sufficient infiltration of irrigation to the root
zone;
•      Land levelling / land grading to facilitate the uniform distribution of irrigation water and to avoid water logging,
•      Improved layout of fields and suitable furrow alignment, length and size commcns.iatt with irrigation supply;
•      Improved crop husbandry practices (i c. mulching, weed control) to reduce water losses due to evapotranspiration
Ifrpuf RfcjMfrrfiHHtJ
(a)            Improved Seeds
Improved seed is an essential agricultural input to achieve improved crop production. I ligh yielding varieties of proposed crops released from different rrsrarch centres will be the major input to complement irrigated agnculrurc Shortage of improved seed is the major limiting factor of agricultural development of the area. In the ( pper Bries project area maize and soya bran have supplies of improved seed available from agncultural offices and PARC. However, the current supply of these resources will be insufficient Considering this problem, the project plans to produce certified improved seeds of potential crops to establish reliable sources of seeds The fanners can be self-sufficient in selected seed supply by producing seeds in collaboration with PARC and the seed agencies of the respective regions.
Improved seed varieties with a relatively short growing period arc preferable to suit the quite tight schedule of planting expected under irrigated agnculrurc. Thus during rhe proper penod and based on the output of the research centres the improved varieties will be updated and those appropriate to meet the agro-chmatic conditions in the project area will be selected and released for multiplication. Ihc potential improved seeds recommended for the project area arc listed in Annex I able Al and summarised in fable 3-19. The derailed seasonal requirements tor wet and dry season cropping are presented in Annex Table A2
Table 3-19: Annual Seed
for
Crop
Wet season
Area, ha
Dry season
Area, ha
— ■
Mai2c seed irrigated
Maize
3,221
1.074
E?-------------’------
Annual seed requirement
Quin tala            Number
1.074
0
215
Sorghum
2,561
2.817 |
Finger millet
1.921
2305 "
. Rice
2,561
0
Nuug
1,921
2,177 ’
1 Chickpea
1,537
1.921
Lib !•< Sc021> Agnculrurr Af Planning)
52
16 June 20||0rW.TiJ^
EtfaaffM ^f'f !"&*<** "d
jtfW.lftr^EwJj.
Prmhf
Annual seed requirement
Crop
Wet -reason
Area, ba
Dry Reason
Area, ha
Quinlab
Number _
Sesame
2.89ft
2J4L
252
Groundnut
U8H
1,074
2,362
1 lineal/ Soybean
1.074
1.306
2.469
Sunflower
537
64
Safflower
5F
161
Pepper
2.784
3.420
37
Trawl u
1,074
3
Onton
1.074
38
(Chick pra
384
384
2.305
Forage
640
640
281,732
Mangr i
537
537
144,023
Citrus
215
215
85.H8U
Total
21341
23341
16,638
512,535
Stiu±ce_ C^innuli'Aill 't tJiLLfiiatr »
(b)            Fertilizers
Fertilizer is an important agricultural input targeting maintenance nt soil fertility through replenishing soil numcnTs. Part of the Upper Bek? project area is characrcnzrd by intensive cultivation ami nutrient depletion was found to be one of the major causes of low crop productivity. In order to iminiiin the soil numcnr loss and considering the increased cropping intensity expected with-ptoprct, fertilizer application levels will become increasingly important
I hr most common types of fertilizer available ire DAP and urea and thesr formula lions arc there fore recommended Based on the research findings the irrakzci application rales shown in fable 3-20 are proposed lor different crops. This enables an estimate of with project fertiliser requirements. Table 5-21.
Table 3-20: With-j
project Fertilizer Applications fnr Smallholders, kg/h
Crop
Type of fertilizer
DAP
Urea
Maize
loci
100
Sorghum
165
100
Finger rrulki
110
65
Hiancnt bran
no
65
Pepper
100
luu
Tomato
100
lOti
Onion
200
50
Gruundnut
ItKl
Sugarcane
200
It®
l_R»cc
100
100
Suuitv; 1*3 All, 2007, MuKA, 2l*J6 and nihcr sourais
1 b J’4 Srtlh ARricubxire & Phmutig(2)
16 J Liftr ?l) I 1FtHmt
K/portt of Ethiopia. Mnuty of IT afrr cu E*rp
Ethiopian i\ih Imgrtion and Dranagr Pnftrt
Table 3-21: Fertilizer Requircmen ts for_ Sm allb old er F arms
Crop
Annual requirement              J f_t
i oiai, qi
DAP, qt
Urea, qt
Maize
4.294
4.294
8.588
Maize seed
215
215
429
Sorghum
8.875
7.210
16,084
Finger millrf
4.649
2,897
'545
Rice
2.561
2,561
5,122
Sova bean
2,469
2,469
Groundnut
2.362
2.362
Pepper
6,204
6,204
12,407
Tomato
1.074
1.074
2.147
Onion
2J4?
1.074
3.221 1
Total
34,848
25,527
60375 ]
Source. Connifrint'* oom a to
As shown in Table 3-21, most crops have good responses to both fertilizers while other mainly the leguminous crops tend to respond to DAP only. The detailed seasonal distribution of the fertilizer requirement? can be rrferred to in Annex A, Table -A3
Manure and compost arc both potential organic fertilizers that have been used by the smallholders around their homesteads and on crop fields by rotating the livestock mghr closure on their landholding. In settlement areas, where land is a scarce resource due to population pressure, manure application through the above-mennoned process is prominent. The response of the system to crop yield is not defined and quantified However the communin’ asserts that there is a positive correlation between rotational night closure applications with crop yields. Therefore organic fertilizer is also recommended for to selected crops with project, especially perennial crops. Locally available compost making marcnals and animal dung will remain the major source of organic fertilizer which can be used under smallholder farm management
(c)            Agro-chemicals
Pest infestation is a major constrain! to crop production in the project area Die nsks of pest ulbreaks will increase with trnganon. Costs of control are estimated The agrochemical
rcquiremmi will include insecticides, fungicides. bactericides and herbicides The cost of with’ r Tjrct applications is calculated taking into account the ask of pest outbreaks and the arras
hkely to be affected The agio-chemicals will be supplied by fanners’ cooperatives and private traders to meet the future demand. The research and extension institutions have to give attention to capacity building in plant protection, and proper utilization and safe storage of agro-chemicals At present a lack of chemical sprayers is identified as a constraint to plant protection actniocs Considering the importance of pest control equipment in future crop
production development. the farmers uiU requue recess to sprayer., uhKh w slmpk_ (Q
I
operate, and reliable As most farmers ca
nnot afford the purchase of , ,pfavcr
to be
L’b F4 SfOJb \gneulturc A PUnoing(2)
54
16 June 2011f-'Mkrrfj' D/-«*TUflrr Rtf            fl/JiTWw, 3frw/rjf fl/ITmftr d- FE.wip
jXW              tri Vmtf Pty*
available for rent from service coopcraiive« and / or pm* ate service supplier*. The estimated cost for agro-rhrm>cals is presented in Annex A. Table A4.
Cntfi Ofwtrtwif Caktdar
A schedule of crop operations, based on rhe smallholder cropping pa I terns already defined is provided in for the wet season in fable 5 22 and the dry season in Table 3-23.
H SrOZh Aprioiiti
ire &: 'lhnning(2]i
55
Ki |unr 2013F'lirrtf
R/teM.
Miwtr) 9f IFsfrr t*" Earrji
Erhnpras .\’/> bnfjtr^a a*4 Drwaogt Pr^tct
Table 5-22: Cropping Calendar and Activity Schedule for the Wet Season
lan
Feb
Max*
lulv
Aug
ssni
Jox
I>ec
Crop
1
Mmr
I-and Preparation
n
2
]
7
3
1
3
1
3
|
K
1
t
|
7
1
2
1
2
1
X.
}
X.
X.
1 ------
-1
X
J
_________________ _  Prc-lmgatam Seeding Planting
Weeding
< .hexmed Spraying
Harxmnng/ShcUmg
2
Sorghum/ Other Cereals________
I-and Preparation
__________________ Prr-Irrigation Seeding/ Plan ting
__________ Weeding
Chemical Spraying
*
r
I Iwrinng/SbcUing
.3
R 1— 
--
Fingermailer
Land Preparation ___________ ______ Pre - Irrigation
._________ Seeding/ Plan ting
_________ ______________ Weeding -------- ----------- ----- Chemical Spraying ------------------ Harvesting/Shelling
bee
----- ------ ---------- l -and Preparation ---------- ---------------------- Pre Irrigation — — _ _ _________ Seeding/Planting
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
-
—
, __
__
__
—
-
—
—
—
t
E
_
1
r
G
□
t
1
t,
tUbH SrO2h Agnailturc & [’l>n!unji(2)
16 June 2011l tJrruJ 
:
Mimtrf tfVFaftr <> ti«np
lithHfMM Ni/r /»75ufwn j«i4 Pnitw^r Pnyr.f
Crop
71
lan
T
Prt-lmgatvHi
Seeding taft'pUnttng
n
Wccdmft
7Hi
f
Feb
1
Mm
Ann
1
Mwv
lune
luh
A
»'C
,
1
Scot
Oct
Nov
-4
>cc
3
■ X. 1
A1
-
.
71
<
2—
1
1—
a-
2T
dT
i
1
1
-L.
1
7
t
1
1
7
7
}
|
2
J
1
21
JL-
JL.
X-
1
4
J
Chemical Sprannp
—
1
—
7
H
9
Harvesting
Pepper.
—
1 -Mid PrcpantxHi
________________ Pre-1 mg.itKMi
Sccding/ I nn«pliniing
—
\Xctdtng
1
( -hcmical Spraying
1 tarvcirinx
1
L
J—
3
r
1
i
]Aft'wxr) *r IPaitr £T fle/rp
fjT^^MV jVj* Jn-fjpjfi^W W PhiTA^r PiTjAf.-f
r           Crop
Table 3-23; Cropping Calendar and Activity Schedule (or the Dry Sc mon
J"
Feb
Mur
April
Mrf
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
J
2
5
1
2
3
•Ji
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
I
2
3
L
2
3
1
2 1
3
1
Maize
1 jnd Prcpanoixi
Pnz-lmphim
Seeding/Plan ting
Irrigating
Weeding
(ZHtmical graying
1 larvohng/SlicUirig
2
Sorghum
J jijlI E^rcparinixi
Pre-1 rngaiion
Settling/Plan eng
“"7
■—
—
—
Imgaring
Weeding
Chemical Spraying
J bnonng/Stldtag
J
Finger miUcl
1 Jind PrrparatMKi
-
Pre Irrigation
Seeding/Planting
l_
1 rrlgl ring
Weeding
Chemical Spraying
1 laTVAting/Shelling
4
Pulae cropi hark'vl
J
L
1
L
_
Uh f-4 5t92b Agriculture i n.innwK(2)
59
16 lune 2011Jv/t'i'w'
A^flu/h */ IF JJ7^ f"
.Vfjfr                  nJ flruraJfT PrjftT
Crop
l*n
Feb
Mae
Apnl
May
June
Aug
Sept        |       Oct
Nov
Dec
1
2
J
1
2
J
1
2
3
I
2
J
1
2
3
I
2
3
2
J
12
3
1
2
3
I
2
s
1
2
3
I
2
3
Rte-1 rngiUiwi
Seeding/Plan twig
1 railing
Weeding
Chemical Spravuig
llarvuiring/Shcllmg
a
Oibcedi; SifDowee
|j*nd PrqwatKm
■
I'rr-lmgari**
Seeding/Planting
Irrigating
—
Weeding
Ovfiucil Spnnng
1 Imre* ting/Shelling
___
9
Oiltccda: Noug
J .and I'lrpifinirfi
Prv Imjinon
—J
■
Seeding./Plan rang
1 trigs ling
Wreding
( hauical Sparing
1J ancrtnn/Staling
—
10
Some
C^nd PfrpanfiL.ci
-
!■
rrr-lrriganun
■■■
••
Sctitm^.Tlaiilirijr
J
J
-
Wj 1-4 SrfiZh Agnailrurt A rhnning(2)
bl
26 lune 2011-Frtrraf Deamnuh' Rmtbii ErAtisrirj of W'arrr r- H «*rj?
Stk irnpn* ttSDrw/wqr Prywr
1              Cron
Inn
Feb
April
Mjv
tine
J«*y
Sept
Oct
ND¥
Dec
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
i
2
3
1
2
3
12
3
1
2
3 1
1
2
3
I
14
L
Pre- J mgatii <i
Scvding Jianipljrinng
irrigating
Weeding
Clicmiul Sprairinp
H arvemng.'Shdhng
14
Fruit irr«
J Jud 1'rqraraniHi
Vre-lmgaiiirii
Srcdulft/Plan tag
—
Irrigating
_
_
Weeding
Chcrni«l Spraying |
Harvesting
15
Siwkw
i_ind Prrpirj can
Pre Irngatiiwt
Seeding/ I’Linring
..
1 rriga ting
—
Weeding
•
.
■
Chemical Spraying
r
Hirvctring |
L *h |'4 SfO2h Agriculture Ac Pknning(2)
63
16 JwncZUl LI ttkrjf DftKWfh
of EthtofW. .\ fourty tflTtfrr C* Etfty
EMopito Pfot Itytftfw* ar.4 Dnaftuf-t Pnj*1
3,4,7         / ->w Opcnitions
(a) I .and Preparation and W eeding
Smallholders in the project area arc largely dependent on oxen draught power for tracrJOrL traditional plough set (wnrr/Zw) has its limitations in the ploughing of vertisols and the sub- soiling of exhausted cropland Therefore the local plough set requires modification to earn different land preparaoon operations Considering this capacity gap, suitable ploughing accessories for ploughing vertisols and earning out *ub-soiling have developed (eg. by BB\f and are in use by farmers in different areas. This animal drawn ploughing accessory will be appropriate for most of the smallholders in the project area
Further, larger land holders would have the opportunity’ to use tractors Cor major land preparation operations bv renting from commercial farms or sen-ice cooperatives if they get involved in renting farm machinery.
Tlir effective exploitation of water and soil resources within the command area for double cropping would be seriously hampered if the farmers continue to use only traditional plough sets. Smallholders will have to get to grips with farm operations on vertisols, which up to now have been selectively ignored for cultivation It is therefore imponanr that farmers have access to improved ploughs sets, especially for heavy' field operations, such as the first and second ploughings Other field activities (eg weeding) could continue to be by rradilional plough set using improved and modified tools.
(b) Harvesting and Threshing
.XU crops tn the project area are harvested manually. usually with sickles To separate cereal and pulse grains from the chaff, straw and cobs, farmers thresh their harvested crops with oxen, whereby rhe animals tramp on rhe dried stalks of crops spread over the threshing ground, which is plastered with cow dung Dried sorghum heads are shelled manually by farmers beating the heads with sucks so that the grain falls off clean of the husks and chaff. Maize grains arc peeled afici the removal of ihr cob’s sheath
The present threshing methods are very nine consuming, and a significant portion of the crop grain is lost due to breakage and wild scattering To save labour and reduce Josses f armers should have access to mechanised threshing machinery. Renting rhe required equipment from the local service cooperative and/or private service suppliers would be the most obvious option.
J 4. Jf      z law J to Improved 7 oo/j and Iiqnrpmtitt
Currently, farmers in the prefect are* onh have tradmonal hand took. ,uch *, slcWc sh<>vels
and hoes To facilitate the effiaent use of trngation water the farmers requtre access re
appropriate tools and equipment for land preparation. ternary irrigation and dramas channel
construction /repair, formation of furrows and other farm operation' ru
.
equipment need to be available locally include
°   piircd tools an
/n
•    Ox-drawn field ndgcr/ditchcr;
•    Improved irrigation shovel;
•    Ox drawn leveller;
I lb I I SrOJb Apn'ctilluri A. i'anfung(2)Ethi+tM KM Im&H'M mf D«’< Pry^Y
•    Ox-drawn harrow*,
•    Two/three pronged digger; and
•    Improved ox -drawn plough set
}4 9 Fan# Labour
Under smallholder farm management, farm labour is the most important agricultural input to carry out almost all activities Farm labour is mainly mobilized from within the family and in addition, dtp ending on the nature of die operation, the household could arrange labour exchange among neighbours and relatives There are also traditional mutual labour exchanges among neighbouring households, known as "DrMtf” Another form ol labour exchange is that die households that do not have oxen for ploughing can negotiate ro plough for two days for
the oxen owner and one dav for him Ebe oxen owner then has the opportunity to access
human labour through such arrangement*. The household survey results asserted thar majority of rhe households (73%) in rhe projecr area are involved in mutual labour exchange arrangements to acquire extra labour With-prnject it is very likely that this tradition will be maintained and even enhanced to fill the inevitably increasing labour shortage problem Such social systems are cheaper and have socio-cukural value in ttghirning social linkages within the rural community -
Thc labour requirements per hectare of proposed crops axe presented in Table 3-24 and Table 3-25, also see SR-06 Annex E for these estimates translated into the enterprise gross margins per hectare.
Table 3*24: Labour Requirements by Crop, Person days per ha
Activities
Unit
u'
■3
E
I
Ji
1
u
■
u
f
E
to
8l
E
GU
2
Jf
£
B
u
J
U
¥
z
Nursery managmicui
Sowing
MD
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
Fertilizing
MD
1
1
2
1
1
1
I
1
2
' Spraying
MD
0.2
0,2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Thinning
MD
3
3
3
3
3
1
”3
5
Weeding 1
MD
12
12
12
10
12
12
10
10
16
fi
Weeding 2. 3
MD
»
8
10
8
8
8
0
----- -- 8
24
6
Harvesting
MD
14
10
14
6
12
12
12
6
12
ft
Threshing
MD
10
4
10
10
6
6
4
S
flagging and handling
MD
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Loading and. unloading
MD
2
-i'
2
2
2
*>
2
■>
s
Guarding
MD
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
6
Irrigation
MD
14
14
H
B
l
10
12
10
14
6
Toul
MD
66
R0
50
1°
70
65
65
48
91
39
Land preparation
L
Oxen-davs
12
12
16
12
12
B
a
14
8
' h’*
KrD 1
- ' Aj-nrulnire fc
tfi [unr 2011J'fikrut' Dvwjrii
litfapw* i<iit lmgrtren aid Drwwpr Prwnf
Mutufp ofll ’affr^ fartg
Tabic 3-25: Labour-Requirement a by Crop, Person days per ha (cont)
M■
Activities
1
0
jX
1<5
§
&
a
s
0
fl
«
h
fit
□
J
o.
a
Nursery management
40
60
1 40
Sowing
2
1
20
14
L
4
20
16_
Fertilizing
0.5
1
3
1
1
1
3
Spraying
0.2
02
02
3.0
0.2
05
2.0
3.0
Thinning
3
3
3
1
3
3
Weeding 1
8
10
16
10
10
10
16
1
Weeding 2, 3
16
10
14
10
6
10
14
1
Harvesting
3
14
16
ls
20
20
16
10
’rhrrshing
6
16
Bagging and handling
2
2
2
2
2
JLL
2
Loading and unloading
2
2
2
2
2
2’
2
2
Guarding
6
'°4
10
10
10
10
Irrigation
12
s4
. i’..
_
JJ
48
12
16
16
5
Total
56
«
142
178
81
78
144
38 |
Land preparation
iii
T
1
()xcn da vs
12
«
L
20J
jaL
30 J
J2j.
According to the household survey. over 66° o of households hire labour tor land preparation, weeding and harvesting activities due io die shortage of family labour. 'Hie daily rural wage rate at an average of LTB 23 is higher than national levels. Considering the existing experience and future expansion oi agricultural activities and crop intensity hiring labour would be one of the main sources of farm labour Due to the high demand of labour in particular for cash crop production daily labourers udl m-mignte to the pro/ca area and the capable households could hire labourers to undertake the indicated labour intensive operations See SR.06 section 3 16 for a detailed analysis of wnhprojecr labour requirements and availability.
J. 4 10     Cnft ) 7rZZ' Pnxfalrcn
(») Crop Yield Estimation
»( ™lW' -dd. <»n.,d„ ,h>
o fp,«, } an
.
yitU, whith oc mwed nth
<m
r
oprtmum  yields  depends  cm  sutubihty  of  the  area,  level  of  farmers’  wpO5urf  f   P
technologies and efficiency of supporting institutions
° ^ivcn
The following assum,
assumptions arc apf»^
farm management.
.ns are made to estimate achievable yield and neld projection ll’e syMem pIOp« trngauon application, appropriate
o( con4,stent agricultural support bv competent institution* (m fMmen- fields and fanners' experience the following crop
Ub F4 SrOZb \gncuhurr A l*Linninp(2)
6(.
l6Junc2011
3UIV13S
-------------------------- --------------
Groundnut ,a#***
Table 3-26: Expected Wilh-pfojecl Irrigated Yielda on Smallholder Farms
lame
-.......
r
—
Crop
Poten tial yield*, ql/lu
Maize
60 70
Maur seed
45 55
Sorghum
3035
Finer r millet
22 25
Rice
42-50
Haneef bean
25
Sen bean
20 25
Chickpea
18 20
Sesame
20
Nnug
10
Grcnindrauf
20
Sun flc rwer
15
Safflower
25
Onion
250
Tomato
220
Pepper
17-20
Citrus
250-300
Mango
240
Cation
12
Sugarra nc
1.300-1,500
Forage gran
284
Source; Vsrinrui trap pniJutuun ^uxJdiDc? and EAKO, 2077
Yield projections are usually nude for (he tint five to seven years of the project over which time (he exploitable genetic potential of the different crops is capiurrd. Then thr yields stabilise at the same rate for following yens provided all other conditions, such xs proper use of inputs, viability of the seeds, cffiacnt use of waler and good management practices arc maintained. Such projections are made for smallholders in Table 5-27. Sec also enterprise gros* margins, SR 06 Annex E. The assumptions taken for yield projection are; exiting ndd; potential of the given crop vinery under small holder management; reasonable annual yield increment based on the expected farmers' experiences; application of recommended rate of inputs and improved access to efficient igncukural services.
It is expected that with-project the yields will improve due to the following favourable conditions;
•    Access to full irrigation in the dry season and supplementary iragauoo as required dun ng the wet season;
•    Reduced flooding and water losing due to drainage works.
•    I-armen acquiring necosuy agricultural skills And knowledge due to the provision of training and ex Uns ion services;
•    Improved access to improved seed varieties and other farm inputs, induding fertilise^ nd agro-chemicals;
•    Improved access to improved equipment; and
1b
AgrinJronj & J’hnnmH2)
6'
16 June 2011Frdtnd DtfWnrfh Krpuirf:* of lithtpia. MtitiJfry of W j/tr & Eurr^ Eflwpivt iXrJf faptipu and Dww Profit
• Reduced crop losses due to better control of weeds, pests and diseases Table 3-27: Yield Projection for Smallholder Cropa, qt/ha
Projected Gelds (qt/ha)
Crops
Current
average yield
(qt/ha)
Yearl
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year!
J y..,';
Maize
230
30
35
45
55
60
60
60
Maize seed
20
30
45
45
45
45
45 ''
Sorghum
16.0
20
25
30
30
30
30
3o
Finger millrt
13.0
15
17
19
22
22
22
22
Rice
16.0
25
30
35
40
40
40
40
Hancot bean
5.0
10
15
20
23
23
23
23
Sovbran
14.0
16
18
20
25
25
25
25
--1
Chickpea
7.5
9
11
13
18
18
18
___
18
Sesame
6.0
10
12
15
20
20
20
20
Noug
6.0
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
Groundnut
80
12
14
16
20
20
20
20
Safflower
13.0
17
19
23
25
25
25
25
Sunflower
*
,
10
12
■»
15
15
15
Onion
62.0
80
100
150
200
250
250
250 | 1
Tomato
100
120
160
220
220
220
220 n
Pepper
6.0
8
10
20 1
20
20
3) |j
Citrus
120 I
1
150 j
200
25« J J
Mango
120
200 1 I
Cotton
6
8
wf
12
>2
12
2p
Sugarcane
82.5
800
1,000 j
1.200 1
.400
,400
.
1,400 H
Forage grass
85
110 |
160 1
------ -------- 210 j
284
284
284
(b i Crop Production Estimates
Taking into account the above yield cjdmatw and the proposed cropping patterns for smallholders, crop production is estimated for bod. the wet and dry cropping season. It is assumed that the farmers will use inputs properly and they will receive appropnate technical support. Tile crop production estimates al full development stage presented in Table 3-28
Table 3-28: Estimated Widi-j
Wet
Crops
Area,
ha
Production
looncs
>p Production
Of)' »c non
Production
Jonnes
Maae grain
3,269
19,616
Maize seed
I
Sorghum
2,599
7,796
Finger mdkr
y«l
4.288
Annual
Production,
tonnes
32^693 1,245
15,591 1.575
L’b F4 Sr02b Amculfurr A P|jnnmg(2)
68Mral
Mttfu, Afaufty r/ IF^rr & Ear/p
Xt* Irrtfte* IWfljay Pnfaf
Wet
Dry acaaon
Craps
Aren,
ha
Production
(otmci
Area,
ha
Production
tonnes
Annual
production, ,
lonnes
Rice
1,949
7,7%
0
0
7.796
Nome
2.858
2,858
2,599
2.599
5,457
Chickpea
<550
1.169
910
1.637
2,806
Sesame
2,100
11.415
1.090
5,708
17.123
Son liean
1,090
5,8 II
1,090
5,811
11,623
Gmundnur
1,744
9.132
ljwo
5,708
14,840
Sunflower
0
0
545
2,902
2,802
Safflower
0
0
545
2,906
2.906
1 Pepper
2,825
10,589 !
4.120
11.062 ,
21.652
Tomato
0
0
1.090
9.863
9,863
Onion
0
0
1,090
10,487
10.487
Sugarcane
1299
194.894
1.299
194.894
Cotton
590
468
390
116
583
Mangd
545
5,139
545
77
5*216
CiLnis
210
1.682
218
19
1.701
Forage
127
3358
327
M
1.412
Totab
2J.S91 |
286,011
23,891
85*254
371^65 j
Source Cnmulrinr** cinnuin
35
35/
Clima/e and Crop Wafer Requirement
In ilw section climatic data for the Project area ire manmuised and net crop water
rcL|LLimTirnL3 determined for typical cropping patterns for the major farm types or categories, specifically for
•      Commercial sugar cultivation on Vertisols;
•      Small / medium commercial farms, mostly on Vetisols; and
•       Smallholders farms (rnosdv) on I.uvisols.
3.5.2              Cii/rrutir Paid mJ RtfatiM niwpotraJWptrtitNM
(a)          Climatic Dau
Monthly and king tcnn avenge estimates of temperature were calculated using the measured data obtained for the Pawc climate nation Climatic data such as humifoty. wind speed, and sunshine hours were also provided by NMSA for Pawc or obtained ilirecdy from the climatic Station located at foe Agnculniral Research Station  Long term average monthly values for these climate data are given in Table 3-29 Seasonal vuutions in climate data w presented in Figure 3-1.
1
LIU jr<
SrflZb Apncuhuic Al Planningf?)
fit)
1<* (nnc 2011Ethitfon Sih 1^om»        P'"'**'
t» CLimxtic d.U ,ndETD for U^er Beks Command Are?
Table 3-29: Climatic data a£_
Humidity
Sunshine
Month
Min.
Temp
' Max.
Temp
Average
Temp
Wind
(km/day)
(»C)
(°C)
January
February
— ’M,
5.09
March
April
May
Junc_
July_
Ames_
September
October
November _
December
Note ?Ui almude of *1.119 mail i. used and a latitude of 11.
,
aeeewe —"
.31 "N and bogiimk of 36.41 I
-1—-lhc L'^r
c, ”m”d
we,
T’C             «>J A.go« « the heght of the ah <e„on
Fip re
,
J* Long Ten. Awwge Ctawk Dau an. ET. foe Uppf._Bd.._Co-mw«l At.. PmM d«m*» *****
. u»
L’b H SrO?b Agriculture A Planning)
lune 2011frlrnii f
•fEthnpia, Mint? Faurr e*£wqp
Elh*f*>* Xftfr Jm/4/j<J»r M<i DnuMgr Ptyhl
The humidity is highest in August in the wet season when humidnv reaches 9U%. and a minimum of 59% occurs in March in the dry season tinder clear sky conditions. W md speed varies firom 30-82 km/day and averages 56 km/day Sunshine hours vary from 4.6 hours in July to 9.8 hours in December,
lb) Reference Kvapotranspiration (ETn)
Ibc long term average climate data is used to estimate the reference evaporation ETO for the command area for estimating crop water requirements. The ET .was calculated using the Penman-Monteith formula, as recommended by FAO (1908) using the CropVX at (version 8) snftwarr The ETO ranges from 3.31 mm/day in July to 5.33 mm/day in April with in average annual value of 4 14 mm/day The seasonal variation of ET.. is shown in Figure 3-2. Thr total annual ET w 1,492 mm for the Upper Belt* project irea.
Average monthly rainfall exceeds reference evapotranspiration in the wet season from June to September indicating that in the wet season the flat plain areas tn the project area will need (surface) drainage to avoid flooding and crop damage
Average monthly reference evapotranspiration exceeds rainfall during the dry season until the start of die summer rains in June. Irrigation is rcqmrrd in the dry season for cropping.
S -l' P4 SrtJ2h AkhcuJhjh- & Plnrtai.^2)
-1
1 6 Jijflr ?0| 1irikfiji Dtn*n»fK R/fM. t>f Ethiopia. .\fewtn ofW'attr ,-  F.oerp
v
litwptM N/ir Imgafjor juJ Druftwft Pnjtil
3.5.3 Ejtnfall
Figure 3-4 shows the annual average rainfall isohyets for the Upper Belts project area. In upland hills surrounding the scheme to the west, south and south west average annual rii^ about 1,600 mm or more. To the north and north-west however average rainfall drops off sharply to about 1,100 mm or less. Within the command area average annual rainfall var^ from about 1,300 -1,500 mm, increasing from north to south.
Table 3 30 and Figure 3-3 give the long term average rainfall (LTA) estimated using co-lmpng for the irrigation command area, as well as the 80% dependable rainfall used to estimate the effective rainfall (P rr) required for the crop water requirement calculations The monthly vahq
r
for the 8(1% dependable rainfall are estimated from the standard normal cumulative distribute* (Chow, 1988) using the mean and standard deviation fSD) from the 27 years of monthly
rainfall.
'Flic effective rainfall P n used to determine irrigation water requirements is calculated by the
c
L’SDA soil conservation service method (using Crop Wit version 8) using the dependable rainfall data. P. where P ffis given by the following:
r
Prff = [P (125-0.6P))/125 for P < 83 mm
P,ff = 41.7 4- 0.1P for P > 83 mm
Table 3-30: Long Term Average Rainfall, Dependable (80%), and Effective Rainfall for Command Area
Month
Standard
Devia don
80% Dependable
rainfall
(mm)
Effective
rainfall
240.7
171.5
285.3 259.7 157.0
15M_j
I
L
Ijanuan______
February
March
Apgi _
r' bI-    — J’S*__
M
August September October November December
Annual
1,447
The long term average rainfall for the command area is 1.447 mm, but with an SD of 556 mm. It is quite common in some yean for there t< I * dry season months (November to March or Apnl;. The long term tv
*
995 mm, and the annual effective rainfall is 655 mm In the dn                    dependable rainl*^ 15
to April the effective rainfall is zero.
M>n m°ndis from Movent
IJb F4 SrO2b Agriculture A I’bnning(2)
16 June 20Ufrfar/ D//rwn^7
Mfr Jrrqfrt*'' jwJ Dwj& Ptyd
It .Ewjj
lb •’■» SrU3*     -^culture p|annlnR(2j
73
1 f'jLirtr 201 IFrtfrw/
Mi*hny q W’jtrr C E»wjo
Nr> r-n^,'r»r aud t)/w«4gr
Figure 3-4: Annual Rainfall Isohyets from Co-kriging for the
B ®r G*.qm
I &»JQB
o&*i
_ <VAtUE>
□ 760 - looo
Omoo- iioc
E312O0- 12TO
®i IXX? - 1J00
K00 - Koo
1500- 1500
■ 1600 - |600
• 1700 • teoo
■   t900- 1900
■    2000 2300Ftiitrd/ Dr^cntr^ Ripfa of            Miwtiy ofV'arrr dJ- Ilan# Ntk Imgpw anti Dm^gt P^ftT
j 54 
ofCnf> Waitr Rfm*vnn
(a)            Introduction
‘Hie FAO programme CROPWAT 8.0 was used for ill calculations of crop water requirements. In all cases effective rainfall was calculated using the L’SDA soil conservation service method and using the 80% dependable rainfall, sec Section 3.53.
It must he remembered that theoretical crop water requirement calculations arr only estimates based on average (climatic) data Actual crop water needs would be regular assessment of field moisture and crop condition However the calculations given in this section serve to indicate the relative amounts of water needed for the major farm categories.
Irrigation efficiencies and water demands inform sizing, choice and design of engineering infrastructure and are discussed in SR-01B Irrigation A Drainage Development
(b)            Sugar Cultivation on Vertisols
For the sugar estate the proposed cropping comprising 90® o cane and 10% of the area under rotation with maize, sorghum and beans, see Section 3.2.1-
Figure 3-5 shows a possible cycle of planted crop and subsequent ratoons over a 12 year crop cycle with fallowing. I lowcver as fallowing is not commonly practiced in Ethiopia, crop water requirements have been estimated without fidlowing. *l*he indicated duration to harvest for plant cane it 17 monrhs, and 14 months each for three ratoon crops.
MONTH
J1    A
LEGEND
Planted crop
1st ratoon
2nd ratoon
3rd ratoon
Fallow
L 'h r-4 SrfiZh AgncuJiiirc i PfannragP}
75
It -Jun-11Ftatnrf
Kepnoin' of&hofw Afrwfr) rfW'attr & F.tf/g
litbirtto* ,\ /Jr Jmgt/fjM tjtt.i Dnri/wgf Prytrf
:
CROPWAT8 does not allow crop durations exceeding 12 months, and for crop water requirements for cane were calculated for the following three ratoon planting options;
• <   Option A five staggered ratoon plantings each over 20° □ of the farm area with pi^ in the dry season starting on 15* November and continuing over five months to |j.
March;
•      Option 13: ux staggered ratoon plantings, four over 15° o of the farm area and two 20% with planting in the dry* season starting on 15* November and continuing ov^' months to 15,h April; and
•      Option C: four staggered ratoon plantings each over 25% of the farm area with planting in the dry season starting on 1" December and continuing over four momfe to 1” March-
Results arc given in Annex B-1: Sugar Estate ( rop W ater Requirements, and summarised below. For an average year peak demand (duty) occurs in April, varying from 0.55 - 0.631/s/H Annual demand vanes from 015 mm io 922 mm
Table 3-31: Sugarcane Net Crop Wafer Requirements
Feb
Mar   1 Apr       Mav | Jun | Jul                 Aug         SC£         Oct    Nm
Option A- 5 ratoon planting*
in mm/day
in mm/month
3.0
9.3.1
3.5                 1     5.2  1     4.3 1       0.8             0            (1  1      0.4          2.0         4 979    | 131.10,2 1 154.9   1 134.7 |       22 6 |           0 |           0      | 12.8      1 603 | 1115
Total (mm)
in l/«/ha
918 mm
0.35 040 1 0.49 r 0.60 1 0.50 1 0.09 | 0 | 0 | 0.05 1 u.23
Option B; 6 ratoon plantings
in mm/day           32      L 3-S         4.2  L «•«             3.9 1     0.6 1            0 1           0           03           20  LJi in mm/month      110.4        991      129.3     143.7      120.3 1     193 1           0 1                     13.7                      li ■
0
Total (mm)          ____ ________  915 mm
in l/s/ha    _oJZj    0.41 J     0.48 |     0.55 |     0.45 | 0.07 1               0 |
Option C: 4 ratoon plantings
in mm/day           2-Hl       32          4.0         5.3         4a1 M 1 __0_]
0 I 0.05 1       0.24 |  (141
4      0.5 1       2.0 1
in mm/month Total (mm)
in l/5/ha
JT?]      90 6 |   1229
033 | 0.371 0.46 [
160.3     1401 |      23.4 1          of                oj    14 0 1      63.1 J   1214
922 mm
-n
0.63 |     0 52 f 0.09] of
jlL 0.05 f     024 J
(c)            Commercial Fanns
For die small / medium sized commercial farms thr proposed cropping pattern for various development options arc discussed tn Section 3.3.2. Crop water requirements for the sugarcat<r out-grower Option 2B would be similar to the sugar estate. For the opumised development Option 2A a range of crops are proposed including cereals (sorghum and maize seed;, oilseeds (groundnut, sesame and noug), pulses (soybean and chickpea), small vegetables 'pepper, etc) and citrus, sec ‘1 able 5 25.
Cropping of paddy rice was considered but discarded from the optimised modc| jn fcfrflCf for more cereals It » assumed that surface drainage wtU be effective to
L b J-4 Sr02b Agncullurc A J*bfining(2|
76
c\ 1
ImFrAnj/
p.iHtpw hrtfr**
rfWafrr & H*<p
P*r-*
For (he purposes of assessing crop water requirements two cropping patterns tor (he commercial firms have been considered The pattern on I l/viso Is includes for some citrus.
Table 3-32: Suggested Cropping Partem for Commercial Farms on Luviaofa
LSUJH
u iT’"b ■ .....................—-
Wet seaton (May - Sept)
Dry «jwn (Nov - March)
Nr
Crop*
Area
Planting
Harvesting
Area
Planting
Harvesting
Cereal*
1
Maize / Maize seed
62%
21 May
22 Sept
62%
29 Nov
2 Apr
Sub-totals
62%
62%
OOaeeda
2
Groundnut'
15%
3Miv
9 Scpr
3
Sesame / sunflower
15%
20 Nov
29 March
Sub-total*
13%
15%
Fruit crops
4
Cirrus
23%
pc rrnniil
23%
__ prirnnial
i
Sub-loud*
23%
23%
Totals
100%
Table 3-33. Suggested Cropping Pattern for Commercial Farms on Vertisol*
Wei season (Ma
J'
-SejH)
Dry season (Nov — March)
Nr
Crops
Area
Planting
Harvesting
Area
Planting
Harvesting
Cereals
1
So qgjwn
29%
20 May
10 Oct
Sub-totals
29%
Oilseeds
2
Sesame / tun (lower
50%
20 Nov
29 March
3
Noug (Niger veed)*
61%
25 .May
26 Sept
Sub-totala
61%
50%
Pulses
4
Soya bean/chickpea
24%
29 Nov
21 Feb
5
Haricot bear.
26%
23 Nov
1 April
Sub-routs
50%
Vegcubka
6
Small vcgcubk5
10%
15 June
17 Oct
Sub-lotal*
10%
Totals
100%
100%
4 Noln erf^ti ui-uut rr^uMiTi'-nit^ for fUkug sire ib&u^hs ftj be amiLir i» groundnut
Results ire given in Annex B-2: Commercial Firm Water Requirements, and summarised below. For an average year peak demand (dun) occurs in February both both cropping patterns considered, varying from 053 0.S6 l/s/ha Annual demand vane* from 412 mm to 492 mm
1 4 SrCiZb A^ncuJruru A PhisnL-ogf?)
77
16 l IFtd/ru!
Efbiapun i\'rJf /rngrtw MJDnataif Prvftff
Mim/fr) ofVatfr £*• F.irrjri
(d)            Smallholders Farms on Luvisoh
Smallholder cropping patterns on both LuvboIs and Vertisols is discussed in Section 3.4.3. Tc assess net crop water requirements (lie optimised cropping pattern associated until developmor Option 2A on Luvisoh is adopted, and tabulated below
Table 3-35:
Partem for Smallholder* on Luvisols
N
r
Crop*
Wet season (May - Sept)
Dry season (Nov - March
Area              Planting | Hanes ring              Area            Planting     J Harvra
1
Ce reals
Mure (grain/seed
11
37% 20 May i 21 Sept 16%
29 Nov ,           ’Ap
Sub-iotals
37%
16%
Oilseeds
Groundnut
2Mav
I   S"®
1 Noy
10 Abd
3       Sesame / sunflower
25 May 
—so*
20 Nov
29 Mud
4       Safflower / sunflower
_ U4 S
n
HOcr
Sub-totali
—1
Vegetables
5       Small vegetables 
15 Mas
10 Dec
6       Peppc£
10 Dec
Sub-totals
Pulses   /   Dry   Beam
llancor Dn Bean
Soybean
23 Nov
20 Mas
______  Sub-totals
29 Nov
Mf?--
21
9         Mango
L L° Pasture
jyrenniaj
perrnriui
Tomb
rrrnnial perennial
■ I
below For »ncnave u wge yc» |*
Results lie P'
demand is about 460 mm.
B i. Smallholder Farm Water Requirements and summarised
. dcrnind (duty) occurs in J ebruan and u 0 57 1/s/hsu Ao^*'
Ub 1’’4 StO2b Agriculture Ac Planning’?,
16-lun HAWr Irrr^irt^ tid Drutrrdge P^f.1
Table 3-36: Smallholder 1 -arm Net Crop Water
Requirements
7—
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
J"1
Au x
Oct
New
Dec
in nun/day in mm/month
Total (mm)
in L/l/ht
4.1
12”
0,47
4.9
139
2.7
83
0.6
17
04
13
0.
0
0
0
0
0
___ 0
1
04_
2
460 mm
0.57        031          Off?        0.05 |            0              0
0               001
05
15
— ------------
06
2.0
63
074
(c) Conclusion
Net crop water requirements arc dependent on the proportion ot crops in the cropping pattern with high water requirements, and particularly the area of sugarcane being cropped. Annual net water requirements van- about about 920 mm for sugarcane, but only about 480 mm for mu cd cropped by smallholder and / or commercial farms. Peak dunes for all Cropping pattern ; are about 0.55 0.61/r/ha and occur from about February- to April.
Given the uncertainty about cropping patterns, for example whether extensive outcropping may occur, it would be prudent tn design engineering infrastructure, both canal systems and any storage dams, for high end water requiremenls
1
f >. .T           J nrnpifra ft .
(a) Soils and Available Moisture Content
To assess irrigation scheduling options, mfnrraauon concerning rooting depth for the crop, and total and readily available moisture data arc needed.
I’hc sod surveys and studies measured rhe available water lor a range of soil types and the (loud) available water contents (AWCs) are tabulated below in Table 3-37 for rooting depths of 1.0 m and 0.6 m%
Table 3-37: Average AWC Measutemeftf by Soil Type
AWC, %
AWC. men
Soil type
iQpaoil
0J-M«
0.6-1.0 m
LOm
0.6 t»
—
rating
VPl
23.7
19,9
18 0
203
131
Jllflh
VP2
23.7
22-7
294
256
139
High
VP3
24.0
26.9
233
246
153
High
VHl
21,7
25.2
23.6
235
141
High
VH2
13.0
15 4
16 5
151
MS
Moderate
N
28.1
24.1
29.9
276
157
Hifth
R1
134
11.7
12-9
126
74
Moderate
R2
24.0
19.2
22.8
221
IM
H^h
O’
20.9
28.2
335
2«l
147
High
c ^uppleinmtajT report SR.QlAr Soils, J. And Uwe and Suitability
Lb H SnJ2b AgriculruTT & ]’knrtiu (2j
R
79
16-1 *fcn-11t fdrvl
fytbbt q] Fjhifffud, Mtm/fy tflTgffr c* Ewrg
Efnto/vj* .\7j? Jittwn and Dmtutf Prw.f
IxM)king at the top 1.0 m of soil, there is a range of AWC values from 12.6% (126 mm) to 28.1% (281 mm). This range represents a moderate or high AWC for all sods. Converting the AWC (%) to actual amounts of water (mm) to wet the top 0.6 m of sod from wilting point to field capacity shows a range of 66 to 16' mm.
The average AWC for the soil groups are tabulated below, Table 3 38 Table 3-38: Average AWC for soil groups
Soil Group
AWCi> mm    J AWC* 4 mm
•/.AWC..
Vertisols, V                                             218              1 jw Xiusols, N                                               276
Lunsols, R1. R2
60
.57 ' r------
102                              59
Huvisols. F. FX                                      278              J
CambUob, CV,P,B
216                              127
59
164                 ______ 59_______ ]
The A\X C for the vinous upland eLn soils (X, R1, R2, etc) sods to 1.0 m drpdi vanes from H co 2 8 mm. Die AWC for vertisols (V) to 1.0 m varies averages 218 mm Not all of the available a-ater will be readily extractable by plants. Readily available water ’R AW') is usually between half and two-thirds of the total AWC.
The concept of RAW u of limned relevance to Vertisol, Irrigation frequency normally arm* to replenish sod water when the RAW component has been used However, given the inherent vanabdiry and rrnprecision tn estimating RAW. held observation of both crop and sod condition is a far more reliable way to scheduJe irrigation
The results of an experiment to determine the amounts of water to saturate between 0.2 m and 0.6 m are summarised below in Section c
Vertisol to dep^5
To assess irrigation scheduling options on verusols and red clay sods lhe characteristics were adopted. I
following sod
I ’b H SrO2b Agnculrutv A Phnning(2)
16 Jun 11N f* fmr.tr.‘iifl .W f Wwgr F^r
r
Table >39; Adopted Soil Characteristic! co Assess CWR Schedulinj
Nr
----------------- —-
Soil Cbaracicrittic
Area 1 (vertisols)
Area 2 (red clays)
1
Readily Available Water (tnm/ffi)
200 mm/m
180 mm/m
Maximum rain infiltration rate (mm/d)
30 mm.'J
30 mm/d
3
Maximum rooting depth* (mm)
900 mm
?(J(J mni
4
Initial soil moisture (ai % AWC)
50%
50%
5
Initial available soil mnismrr (mm/m)
100 mm/m
90 mm /m
* Appropriate for sugarcane (less for shiilow rooted crops).
(b) Irrigation Scheduling and Crop Yields
Irrigation  scheduling  options  fie  irrigation  intervals  and  depths),  and  impact  on  crop  yields  were assessed to inform on-firm management practices.
Results are tabulated below for sugarcane on clays (vertisols) and for dry season maize and soybean on clayey loams for the following five irrigation scheduling options:
•      Option A: Optimum. ic irrigate at 100% depletion and refill to 100% of held capacity'.
•      Option B Ratnfcd. ic no irrigations are applied,
•      Options C, D. E, ic irrigations at intervals of 30. 60 and 90 days, refilling to GcW capacity
Table 3-40: Crop Scheduling Options and Yield■ for Selected Crops
Nr
Irrigation scheduling opooo (rec notes below}
A:
Optimum
B:
Ralnfed
C: 30
days
D: 60
day*
E: 90
iiayi
Sugarcane
1
Planting date
25* April
2
Harvesting dare
24* April
3
Soil tvpe
Black clav vertfsok
4
Nr of irrigationj (for irrigation
interval)
0
12
6
3
5
Nr of irrigations rcqiurrd in practice
4
0
6
3
2
6
Yield loti i* •)
0%
47%
0%
3%
16%
Maize
J
Planting dale
Jejune
10* December
Tl
3
Harvesting dare
13* April
Soil rype
Red elavey loama
4
Nr of lmgations (for irrigation
interval-
0
□
4
2
5
6
_Nt of LtrigitxKis required in practice
0
0
4
2
Yield Irjn (%)
0%
92%
9%
45%
Soya bean
1
2
Planting_datE
V December
Harvesting date
23 Febn ia n.
-
3_
a
Soil Type
Red clayey Irmni
Nr ot irrigations (for irrigation
interval';
4-5
0
2 3
1-2
Ub I’4 Sraa AgriculTuft &
8]
16 | un-1 |iFttfrnti DtnoiTu/ic R/pM. of Efhiofiw. Afixurry of IF off r & Eorr^i E thiopun Stit Irrvaftoo jrtd Prutojgt Prytit
Nr
Irrigation scheduling option (•ec notes below)
A:
Optimum
B.
Rainfed
C: 30
days
D:60
days
5
6
Nr of irrigations required in practice Yield loss (%)
4
0%
59% ]
-—
2*J
33%
Note. cn»p scheduling <»pn<ms
A Optimum. Impale at 100% depletion and refill In 100% of field capacity,
H Rain fed. No irrigation. ie rainfrd
C, D, IL Impale ai intervals of 30 / 60 / 90 days, refilling to field capacity
brom the results tabulated above and from experience at Wonp-Shoa, Metahara and Fmch» (refer SR-01B: Irrigation & Drainage report), the following is concluded for sugarcane
•      Supplementary irrigations are required depending on rainfall and as required at nrntef planting of the cane, and for young cane at 10-day intervals, applying 50 70 min with each irrigation; and
•      Dry season irrigations ar 3O-day intervals applying 130-200 mm with each irrigation.
The implications for mature dry season maize and for soya bean are that
•      Irrigations at about 20-day intervals arc required; and
•      Earlv soil wetung / prr-irngatjon is required to prevent stress during initial crop development stages.
w Irrigating Crops on Vertisols
Irrigation Water uill only penetrate Vertisols via the cracks, and once these close any addiboa irrigation will pond or runoff. The key to irrigating vertisols is therefore (i) to establish an irogation regime related to the drying cycle; and (it) to provide adequate surface drainage both to control and remove surplus water (rainfall or irrigation)
It is difficult to schedule routine irrigation on Vertisols because: :i) waler docs not enter or permeate the sod evenly water enters the sod only through the cracks, and (li) conventional theory of field capaati and AUG docs not apply well to Vertisols The objective is to irrigate when die cracks are opened to the full rooting depth (normally between 0.2 m and 0.6 m depending on the crop) and to then replenish the sod moisture quickly until (he cracks close- If unption is too gende or slow (espcoaUr Ekriy tn the cue of pressure imgauon: then the cneb wfl dose it the surface utth tnsuffioent water penetraung to depth If trrtgauon ts too rapid <x excesstve (opeaalJy on sloptng land or dong over-steep Arrows) then runoff will cause rhe
sods to erode
Practical experience on the Ozira scheme (for cotton) in Sudan indicated an optimum irrigation interval of 21 to 25 dap on Vertisols with between 100 mm and 140 mm of uatef , plied per application. [I-urt^t/rr. H. G. Sup^mtxtary Irriga/ton. Managtmm ofVtrtinb
6 M7|.
The Geara findings indicate dwt when the cracks „c fiUcd (bv rainfjl •
n? ' m of soil >s saturated, that is. having temporary waterlogging l(1j ° WlrrlRaQof>) 'he tof 0 ’
this the moisture contents never reach saturation There are ru ’nafto*)'c conditions. Belo* ^‘"’portant consequences of
Uh F4 Sr0?h Agneuhurv & Planrung(2)
R2
16-lun-llM'***-'
El ^^w Nr* I™**™' -*' D» *
< rjrrr £>^
l
this: ® there remains sufficient w below 0.2 m for plant! tn continue growth and (li) full irrigation as described above should only commence when seedling roou extend below 0.2 m« or the plants may drown. [Eurwr/A-r. H. fT. lP«j/rr Afar^w/i/Qp/w*/ w ft* Sudan Gr^n: -'1 Rhwik NR/. CAtfAaw, UK 1996>
Even under heavy and prolonged irrigation rhe amount of water passing below the s-oil is likely tu be very small because of the Vertisols' self regulating charactcnsdr-S that is, when eracks seal no further water passes through Evapotranspirauon removes all lhe water and cracks re-open. Drainage, therefore, is concerned with providing ditches to remove surplus rainfall and irrigation that would otherwise sit on ihc sod and prolong surface waterlogging and prevent or restrict cropping. Great care is needed in the design of drainage gradients to avoid erosion; grassed waterways- may be considered.
As part of the feasibility studies irrigation trials on vertisols have been carried out using a specially commissioned apparatus comprising ilOmby 2.0 m steel box O'm high sunk into
the Vertisol. A sliding duor allowed crack observation Vegetation was kept dosdy cropped Cycles of water application and crack formation to 0.6 m depth were observed-. Results arr documented in rhe JwZ land U« & Sutfabtuty supplementary report and summarised below in Table 3-41 and indicate that irrigations of (up to) about 210 mm ar 30 day intervals Or 167 mm at 21 day intervals arc likdy to be suitable for reasonably deep rooted crops (such as man ire sugarcane), while irrigations of (up to) about RS mm at about 10 dav intervals is more suitable for medium* 5 hallow rooted crops*.
Table 3-4 L Teat Reaula far Irrigation af Vertisols
Ta irrigate to 0,6, 0 J «mJ 0.2 m
■
Amount
Frequency
0.5   cm   track at depth of
Water intake. 1
{4 m-T
Water intake, l/h*
Water intake,
mm
Dcptenon,, days
0.6 m
"85
1.06 million
196
28
0.4 m
634
1-59 million
159
20
0.2 m
377
0.94 nulliun
94
11
HS mm appetn mthef high, bur perhaps  ibis  mdkaEro that if fnruucnt irriguruKii arc  required then emp water requtrementj. ^21 rubrtannally  increw, presumably  due ru rvaporatxjfi from die *«1 jurfare rather lbw from Cnip Use
b' b 1-4 SrtiJb Agriculture * l'Unniiig(2j
A3
1ftJen-3 1Vukml
Qji'Jftapu Minufry rfWtUrr & Euthq
Etbfopid* \tk                and OnafiJff Pntrd
(d) Conclusions and Recommendations
It is not practically possible on large irrigation schemes to provide exactly die right quantity ri water to c rops, or to apply small quantities on a daily basis. However it is important to apply roughly appropriate quantities at appropriate intervals
The challenge for Upper Belos will be to meet demands of such dispararc crops, from mature sugarcane on vertisols where irrigation intervals of 30 days are appropriate, through maize acJ soybean requiring irrigation* at about 20 day intervals, to vegetables where frequent irrigation of *7-J0 days are needed. Young cane and recently sown grain crops also need pre-wetting ami frequent irrigations until establishment
l ot large schemes rotational supply of irrigation water and fixed interval irrigations are appropriate. but to accommodate crop demands, tltree different irrigation intervals arc proposed as tabulated bekm The depths supple are those available to rhe crop. Supply K> farm field, wmdd be greater depending on appbeanon and conveyance effioenc.es
lih H SfOIb Xgnnilture A Planning?
16 -fun 11l-ftirrjf
AfZw//n af F^rr <*• Enrfgf
!*&*•* • *
a
/ tw««r P^f
Table 3-42: SuggeMed Net Irrigation Application* for Various Crop* in the Dn Season
Nr
Crop type / stage of growth
Day nf Month RoUhon
Days of dae Week
Ro or ion
Rotation
Period (days)
Depth
(ram)
Routkm
Period (day*)
Depth
(mm)
. 1
I'or recently sown gram crops and for shallow rooting crops such as vegr^ablrs grown on The upland (red) day i<_di
1
1 fl  days
4O-6O
7 days
50-45
|
2
For established pain crops such as raaiyc and soybean grown on I he upland red) day sods
20 days
70-110
14 dap
50 80
J
Foe young cine grown on fhe black cracking vertisols
10 days
50 70
7 days
35-60
4
Fur sugarcane grown on rhe black cracking vertisols
Mdays
150-210
28 days
140 200
During ihe wet season, irrigation would be supplementary and could probably be oil a srmi- demand basis
ARnruirunc Ac ?bnmnp:2
85
lujuu- ]r.
I
,1
1
f
Ih *T3
Ethrtf ^”       W^1'”      p™"1^r
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNFTIES
MJt/or Constraint.* to Afrfcuftwr*/ Production
The major rnnsiraints to agrjculruraJ production include the following:
j Present low productivity and yields: productivity will nerd to be addressed on all
fronts and the annual incremental yield increase with-project *’dl need to be moderately
high,
ii.        Shortage of improved agricultural inputs: in particular improved seeds leTtihscr and
crop chemicals: a complete up-grade of the input delivery will be necessary-
iii.        Pest infestation: due to less than optimal supply and use of crop protection
jv. Poor condition of roads connecting kebclrs and market centres- access can be very
bad particularly over vertisols in the rains
v. Draught power shortages: draught power for Land preparation is in short supply
(donkeys are also used because of the trypanosomiasis problem) and poorly distributed
between households.
vi         Labour   shortages:   labour   is   in   short   supply   and   expensive   during   peak   seasons;   this will tend io reduce the economic viability of the project.
vii.        Access   to   Extension   Services   the   ex   ten   mon   services   are   under-resourced   and   even utilh-project need technical and logistical support.
Viu         Access to Credit though the situation is improving through micro-finance„ farmers
will find it difficuli imnalhr co fund the incremental inputs required for irrigation,
including lhe cost of water
LX.           Unreliability  of  rainfall:  rainfall  is  uncertain  and  erratic  and  there  is  little  access  to stream and over (dry season; flows for assured irrigation.
OpporruntDei for Agnctihural Development
Opportunities for agricultural development are described below.
Agro-Climate; The agro-chmatic condition of the project area is suitable for most of the lowland crops and meat importantly the rainfall pattern is favourable for rtinfed agriculture. Jc gives the opportunity to practice supplementary irrigation agriculture with low cost due to less Water application during the rains- The area also has sufficient dry spell period for harvesting and Land preparation activities which 13 very important for irrigation agriculture.
Soil* and Land Suitability: plain land feature of rhe project area and differ ent types of soils witti reasonable good fertility rate provide the opportunity to improve crop prex] action. The
H SrOlb Apnc-jlcurc & Pbnnitigii;
8”
Ifi-lun 11s
Wmri                    fyvtic ofEthhpia. Mffa/rn ifir*fr d- E*f&
Ettefa* Nik Ir^g^t atd Dntna^t Prvtd
existence of vertic soil which is suitable for certain crops would have comparative adv^u
the establishment of sugar estate farm in the project area. 
Availability of irrigation water resource the project area is endowed with a number of mostly seasonal streams and rivers. However with the mter-basin transfer of water from Lu, Tana by the recently completed Tana -Bdes hydropower project, there is now a large under utilised perennial flow in the Main (Enat) Beles river allowing extensive development of season) irrigation m the project area
Famers’ experience: the farmers living m the lower part of the project area have good experience in cultivation of cash crops and perennial crops such as mango and citrus. The intervention of Tana-Bdes Integrated Development Project introduced new crops tn which farmers have developed their experience in growing of nee. mango, citrus, sov bean, and groundnut. As the result, most of the fanners could easily engagr in irrigation agriculture w* basic technical support.
Agricultural Support Services: the availability of an extension system in all project wercdai facilitate the development intervention to be implemented as scheduled Training and other capacity building intervention could be earned out through this governmental structure.
Crop Profitability: the area has a potential to grow high yielding crops under irrigation. Suitability of the area for sesame, soybean and sugarcane is an opportunity to grow these crop over large areas to generate a relatively high financial and economic return for the project
I^and availability: the vertic land has not so far been extensively exploited except for grazing and a link rice cultivation The availability of this resource gives an opportunity to establish large-scale sugarcane farm which is likely to be a profitable economic investment.
Marketing Opportunities the area has well organized crop marketing routes from Pa we and Jaui town (and accessible villages) to major market centres like Addis Ababa. Bahn Dar. Gondii, Mekde and Humeri. While wet season access is difficult in some arras it would not k difficult to address
**
Ub 14 Sr02b AgntuJlurr A Planning^
16 Jun-11AGRICULTURAL development planning
Jn/rodtfcoon
The proposed Upper Belt* Irrigation Project is physically large (the Project area is I3SJ5 ha) and complex in terms of hud use At prr*cni there ire over UH),(XX) people tn lhe project area, o f which about 80° <* are engaged in smallholder agriculture. most of which is rainfed. In addition there arc a <mall number of small and medium sized commercial farms- With-project, it is anticipated (under most of the considered development options) that a large commercial irrigated sugar estate will be established, small io medium sized commercial farms will increase and become mom effiaenr. and the present rural population should, if possible, be established on irrigated smallholder farms If land resources are sufficient in migrant smallholder households mav be admitted to the scheme.
l and suitability is complex. Only about 53% of the project area is suitable for irrigation. of which 73% is vertisols and the remaining 27% luvisoh and sods requiring spcoal measures for land conservation. There are other complexities to re insider, including the growth of population, resettlement practice lilies, the size of the land allocation to both irrigated and
rain fed smallholder farms, prioritizing lu vised* for smallholder farms, rhe need to reserve land for non-irrigation use (especially grazing, fuel wood, house plots, infrastructure and environmental protection), identification of land requiring soil corwervarion measures, and the area that will l>e designated for large scale sugarcane production Based on all this, project benefits have io be calculaled), taking into account thr ddtcrenc enterprise gross margins on smallholder farms (both rainfed and irrigated), small and medium commercial farms and the laige sugar estate The identification and quantification of these complexities is drsenbed in Section 5.3 to Section 5,5-
The development of scenarios for agricultural planning of this large and complex irrigation scheme has never hrrn eaiy. with the planning vision changing from a smallholder irrigation scheme with some commercial agriculture to a vision of large scale sugar production, accommodating whatever numbers of smallholders and small commercial farms lhaT might be practical and perhaps including sugarcane out-growers. The approach fci planning therefore has had to be objective, flexible and replicable. Optimisation modelling of land use using a Land Allocation Optimisation Model was always Use obvious methodology, allocating Lind use to land resources under constraint The procedure evoked to accomplish this is described ul Section 5.6 and results for ibe recommended development option (Option 2) are given in Section 5.6.4, The model out-turn is quite difficult to transfer to maps, mainly becausr of die fragmentation of land suiubility mapping units For example within one of rhe 15 Stage Development Area* (SDAxj for "iuvisols <5  a" (he model distinguishes only thr total area, of this suitability class On the land suitability map this area will be fragmented into many mapping units nf different sizes, some uf which may be tiny and/or very narrow in nhape and nor worth developing for irrigation.
In respect nfbcncfil estimation, Section* 3.2.5, 3.3.6 and 5.4 10(b) ot this report make estimate? of die vnih-projcct production from the sugar estate, commercial farms and smallholder farms respcctivelv, based on defined cropping patterns for each enterprise. This is the traditional approach, working up fturn cropping patterns derived on agronomic principle-?. Production
fl
U b l 4 Sri
r
'-h
A
16-J tin * I lDtwwn. RrfMt tfEtfafM. Miewrn of W ater & Ene^
EfNafdan Nib Irrtf Atjcn and DnntJit Projerf
may then be calculated using the areas and numbers of farms generated by rhe land optimisation   mode)   (sec   Tabic   3-28).   The   economic   feasibility   of   achieving   this   production checked and amended as described in Sections 57, 5.8 and 5.10. Projections arc made of
future demand for food in the local markets of the project area, and the likely expansion of regional food markets and export opportunities Then (with regard to total present and
expected future zone producnon) the anticipated market share of the with pro jeer scheme a estimated At (he same time the technical production capacity of farms with-projcct is
determined on the basis of gross margins which reflect the detailed agronomical calculation
and estimates made in Chapter 3. Finally a F arm Revenue Optimisation Model is used to maximise the sum of nei farm revenue per annum of all the farm production types (sugar e,^ commercial and four classes of smallholder Farms) on all land suitability classes, which is
achieved by producing for an identified share of future fcxxl markets within thr expected
technical farming capacity.
5.2 Objectives and Approach
In  respect  of  the  Upper  Bclcs  Irrigation  Project,  the  objectives  of  agricultural  development planning are:
i.     To  recommend  with-projcct  cultivated  areas,  including  cultivated  areas  allocated  to sugar estate, commercial farms and smallholder farms (irrigated and rainfed) on
different land suitability* types.
To determine (he requirements and distribution of non-irngated land use, including grazing areas, fuel wood plots, homestead plots, infrastructure (for irrigation, rainfed agriculture and public infrastructure) and, from consultations until others, thr environmental reserve.
11L
To provide a first estimate of the re-settlement requirements to achieve optimum distribution of smallholder farms (Le. to accommodate thr maximum number and iia of smallholders within thr land available to them in order to minimise rc-scttleracnt costs and allocate as great a proportion of households as possible on luvisols which arc easier for smallholders to manage).
iv. To calculate present, without-project future and with-project benefits from sugar estate, commercial and smallholder farms on land of different suitabilities).
Because of (he complexity of the project area in terms of present and uith-project land use also in terms of land suitability for different land use activities, a I-and Allocation Opumisatio0 Model has been developed to allocate land use to land suitability types which achieves the objectives l to iii. The formulation of the constraints under which this model is solved is described io Section 5.3 to Section 5.5. The details of the model itself are described in Section
5.6.
Objective ftv) is achiev ed using a Fann Revenue Opunusanon Model which maximises the su* of net farm revenue per annum of all the farm production types (estate, commercial and smallholder by land ,mobility class) which is achieved by produce for .denuHcd share of
present  and  whh-project  production  environment  is  described  m  Sections  5  7  and  5  H  The model and its ourputs arc described in Sectx>n 5.10.
14 SfO2b Agnculrurc & Planning(2)
90
16-Jun 11j
•fronre-E^
f ' >JWW*r
Present Jnrf Projected Pop u fa non*
f.JJ
^-2
PrrJtnt
As pari of the Baseline Survey, the rural population of the study was determined trurn kebele
136  in  number)  and  wtreda  (5  in  number  I  administration  statistics.  Over  an  area  of  3  10.802  ha the  rural  population  was  rsrimited  tr>  be  135,34“  and  the  number  of  household?  was  estimated to he 29 J 68
An estimate of the krbde level rural population of the project area of 138,157 ha was then
made on the basis of rhe proportion of the kebele area within rhe project area, the location of jetdrmenti and the distribution of cultivated land available from satellite imagery, Fhc 2010 rural population of the proper! are# is estimated tn be 80T72 people tn 1 R_382 households. It is straight forward to distribute this population between SDAs because the population distribution is known by kebele and the area of krbcles within each SDA is also known, so the population can be distributed proportional to SDA area, though with regard ro set dement and cultivation patterns.
The urban population of the project area is also an important statistic because of the impact of rural to urban migration. A significant proportion of the incremental protected rural population of the projecr arra will migrate tn local towns and take up secondary agricultural activities (crop and livestock product processing and marketing and tertian’ occupations (trading and services) as the rural economy grows The regional economy will grow at a significant^ faster pace with irrigation investment Following rhe 2007 Population Census, rhe urban population of the werrdas associated with the study area was 65,280, or 10% of the total pop ul> lion (3ncc again using die proportion of the total area of weredas in the project area and the kxatxsn of urban settlements on satellite imagery, an estimate of the urban population of the project area can be made ar 20,952 persons. or 21% of die tola] population of the prujecr area. This may appear high, but rhe 2UV” census estimates that die proportion of the urban population for Pawc Special XVcrcda alone was 29% of the lolaL The distribution of the urban population is known by wereda so it too can be distributed between SDAs with reference tn ihc locauon of major settkments.
Another import an! Ma us tic is the proportion of landless in the rural population. This proportion was estimated in the Baseline Survey as 8% overall, which is relatively high as expected in a recently settled area with good labour opportunities. The proportion of landless is important because the rights ol landless people are expected to be distinguished in any re
tet dement programme
Rt-utfleMenr Rttfiortmertr/Jor the Pnjent Pafudarioa
The best estimate of the 2010 population for the project area is shown by SDA in Fable 5-1. The population totals for die project area are the most important statistics Bearing in mind irrigation investment will create different opportunities between SDAs (depending on the various proportions ot land suitability classes, sec below') then with-project a substantial re 0t B tiisaLion of population distribution is expected
a
bbF4Sr02li ,
h l>bnnmg(2)
91
1 fi-JlLn-l 1Ftdfrul DaiHwfit Rtpubi*'■ tjlzfhiopta, Mtwb) of IT'aftr & Etrrp
Efbupitin A7> lmiuftM jrtrt Drubtaft Pwjfft
Initially however, and as recommended in the Resettlement Report (SR 03B) Chapter ” present (relatively small) population in SDAs IB (Right Bank; and IVB W (Left Bank)
re located to make way for large scale irrigated agriculture ILc report describes the re-
settlement process in detail.
The  present  population  from  the  recommended  dam  site  (207  households)  is  also  re-located  hj I A, so there is a small in-migration of about 892 rural people.
Table 5-1: Present and Post Re-settlement Population In SPA
Present
Poti re-aettlcmcm
SDA
landed rura
population
Total population
12,76
landed rural
population
9.674
Landlcsn
rural population
I Urban
population
1
IA
!
M   I             7.IU
IB E
Urban population
6.835
69
229
-
3.487
-1
IBM
Landless rural
population
474
289
302
87
618
391
264
M3
l57 l
Jf
IBS
-
III
5.455
3.328
3.469
9%
7,104
4,518)
3.033
4,400
1372
3.688
3.991
1,08 J
11.209
4.891
3,297
5,358
1,709
11,499
4.500
3.033
1.572
1,000
391
264
137
3.487
IVA
-
1VHI (N)
IVHW
575
2»|
-
IVBE (S)
JVC-N
15.063
Uio
98:
17.356
17,230
1,498
1.270
IVOR
5.349
465
1.058
6,872
5.349
465
1.058
IVC s
6.876
598
4,776 L
12.249
9,100
792
4.776*
V-N
7,207
627
1,606
9,440
73)7
627
1,6061
v-w
2JO3
200
505
3.000
2JO3|
3X1
-]
V-S
3.656
318
829
4,303
3.6561                 318
Total
744»
6.462
20.952
101.724
75,131 |              6333
8291
20,44/j
1
Source: CSA 2007 Population Crows and Wcirda and Kcbdc Statistic'
Note their may be minor tr-durnbutxra of rhe urban populate <1 ihitc has not been «ru<fio
It is important to realise that initial rc-settlcrncnt to make wav for large scale irrigated agriculture establishes the starting population of the project area, not the distribution at full development 77ic final (with-project) population distribution has to take into account growth of the existing population, in-migration, possible out migration and the re distnbunon of d * changing population between SDAs. according to the availability of both irngable land and non irrigable land for grazing, fuel wood production and other non arable uses (sec 5.3 3
below).
1
5.3.3 Popn/atitM PnytctoK
The population projection is important for agricultural planning. Although the protect is fa1 tracked for implementation its full development may take 10 yean, during which tunc the rui^ population will increase from natural fernhn and decrease due to migration to the towns. Th^ trends can be modelled using the CSA population growth projections shown in Table 5-2
I'b IM Sr02b Agnculrurc Ac Phnntngf?)
92
16 |ur> 11I
Eibiopii. .\U*utn a/ll c!* i:»rp
Yab|c 5-2: CSA Prtpuhlion Growth Rale*
CSA 5 Year Low Growth Variant
Rural
fertility
Urban fertility
and in-
migration
Urban
fertility
(assumed)
BIOS
12%
29%
9%
2010
15%
31%
I2 *
-
2015
11%
26%
8%
2020
9%
24%
6%
2025
B%
23%
6%
2030
7%
23%
5%
Ss™rce: CSA Pi ‘pullatiTHi ( »«iwlii EfUiinatcfl 2007
The 2007 Population Census suggeord that population has been increasing following CSA’s
‘low growth variant" projection prepared in the early part of this decade New projections based on the latrst census arc not yet available, so the low growth variant is used here. It is worth emphasising that the smaller the area to which one applies the projection rate, the more inaccurate the projection is likely to be.
Nolt that growth from "rural fertility" is positive bul the rate of growth is expected to decline. Urban population growth from urban fertility and in migration is very high and tht rate is expected to peak around 2010. Subsequently the rate of growth is expected to be slower, but nevertheless will soil involve the movement of a hngr and increasing number of people to the towns. ITc urban fertility rate has been assumed to be 75% of rural fertility: the urban birth rate is always relatively lower than the rural, By making ibis assumption the future number of migrants to towns in the project area can be calculated If it is assumed that immigration rn the project area is not permitted (m principle} then lhesc migrants must come from the present and projected project area rural population, This assumption somewhat relieves the tncteaaing pressure on land resources by a growing rural population The rural fertility rate could easily be increased to augment 'rural fertility" to 'rural fertility and in-migration" to account for any rural m rural immigration in tn the protect area. However, this is unnecessary because once the present population has been established in the projcti area then in-migration would be controlled by die allocation of land holdings of pre-de termined size.
Table 5-5 summaries die prevent 2010 population and projected population to 2020 and 2030, assuming no further uncontrolled in-migration
’■ L» Tm
A  Cl
^  dturc & Planning! Zt
9i
16-JWi-l IFrdfru/ Dfw Tufi.
t
c,‘ Efhtfpw. Mmiftn ot U'artr cu Ewry
EftiepJ* XtJe bnjptwf atui Drjrttarf Pryrrf
Tabic 5-3: Population Projection for the Project Area
Present 2010
2020
2030
SDA
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
1 Urban
IA
5.929
6,835
9,775
11,140
6.88i
J        16.831 |
1BE
3.617
69
-
IB W
3,770
229
-1
IBS
1.083
-
III
7 722
3,487
13,658
5,446
13,565
8.227
IVA
4,891
-
5,902
-
6,780
IVBF (N)
3.297
3,861
449
4,260
678 I
IVBU
4.782
575
-
-
1
IVBF. (S;
1.709
-
2,062
-1
2,369
tvc-n
16,373
982
22,081
1.983 J
24.592
199’
IVC-E
5.814
1.058
6,584
1.653 |
6.918
2,49’1
IVCS
7,473
4.776
9,99'
7.459 ]
8 t5’4 1
11.269 I
V-N
7.834
1.606
8.79'
2,509 ]
9,126
3,790 ]
VW
2,503
505
3.021
3.470
-
vs
3.973
829
4.456
1^95 /
4.614
1.957
Total
80,772
20,952
90,194
31,9341
91J501
48,248
54
5.4.1
a
anti I ff PtVflailMPttfl Jhc guidelines of thrs Prodamauon have been used on the assump^ that the same gindehnes ud) be apphed tn that pan of the pro.ee area in Bemshangal
In short these arc
. Hie arra required for irrigation infrastructure in a scheme udl be de 1 d proportionally from (he area of each holding as n 5|ooj pn C* UCfC
. Ihe numinum size of rural landholding that mar be acqured^V^'^r h and
Sourer Crmwhinti’ c«Bmjtr» based on (?SA grmrfh rare*
The projections arc interesting in that urban population is expected to grow from 21% of (he project area population in 2010 to 26% by 2020 and 35% bv 2030. while the present rural population grows by 12% to 2020. and onlv bv 13% from present to 2030. 77its is ex peered - the driver ot urbanisation is very strong even in wereda towns, and rhe increase in the rural population is absorbed by growing opportunities in urban areas.
With-projcct L*nd Allocation to Households
.•Ulouitton o{ l^iud for Cultnulwi
The rural popufadon pro,ecnon ,s the barb of an cstmutr of thr am()Un, of fuJtIvaWc JjtI,d tbit
util be required ur th-prefect for farming household. First though „ „ necessary to be kn<>« the allocation per household Hie pnnoples behind calculate land allocate are stated W Pnxbmanoo 13.V2OO6:Rmpn.l State Rural 1  „d Adm.nKrr.tt1,
0.11 ha (irrigated). 
• llic maximum allocations are 7 ha on high ground taken
H  ” °-25 (o«H an*1
project  area)  and  10  ha  on  low  ground  taken  to  rrw-j  ,  mC*n    ^unso^  m   r^c v «nisols in the project area/
IJh H Sr02b Agnojlrurr & Pbnnmg(2)
94
1£»-Jun-11rtbffpfM IfrWr,i*
I*W
7
In. respect ot development of large smallholder ungation development these guideline’’ have only bcm applied in Koga Dam Irrigation Scheme (about 8,0(Ml ha). Kop differs; sigtuficantly from die proposed t pper Boles scheme in that the command area was intensely settled before eons true Lion with a relatively strong local administration tn place. However. mi principle the guidelines remain valid I n apply them, an estimate of the frequency distribution nf holding size
is required.
p is possible to mike an cstimatr of prtsrnt cultivated land holding sizes from Baseline Survey data (in the project area, especially that pan in Amhari State, most land holdings have already been certified)-The Baseline Survey disunguashes between large holdings (> 2 ha) comprising
27* n of rural households with an as rrage holding of 3 2  ha. medium sized holdings 'l l — 2M 27° of households with an average bolding of 1.16 ha and small holdings (< 1.1 ha) 38° c- of household* with an average holding of 0.61 ha. landless arc about 8% of households- Using these statistics, the total area in holdings in the project area is about 26.000 hn. I-x a mining the starisrirs in more detail. reported told holding sizes arc almost entirely cultivated - smallholders obtain their grazing and fuel wood requirement* from unregistered communal land.
As comparative estimates. the Baseline Survey dua (based on reported crop areas, not reported turn size) suggest* 42,080 hi under crops in 2009/10 and the land use map prepared from the latest satellite imagery estimate! 4“4$5 ha of land under cultivation or recently cultivated. Because there is certainly cultivation outside reported land holding*, and because a proportion
ol cultivated land identified from the satellite imagery is likely to be fallow or abandoned, the two estimates tend to support each other. l)n rhe other hand, thr relatively small I arm sizes reported from the Baseline Survey suggest a smaller cultivated area, even allowing tor smallholders cultivating an area larger than their certified holding. The issue is important — if dir present larm size is relatively small, there is more opportunity tor in rrugratmn or allocating a greater area to large scale farming. If it » larger, these opportunities dimmish
The with project area allocated to irrigation infra* tnictLire in the design area has been carefuUv calculated and is reported elsewhere. it totals 6,571 ha The area thai falls on laud allocated to irrigated smallholdings muse be deducted proportionally from the prevent smallholder land size classes A large irrigated land holding would be 2-96 ha, a medium irrigated holding 1.06 ha and a small irrigated land holding 0.55 ha. It is assumed the future sues nt rainfrd holdings remain
as at present
It is possible to weight the size of irrigated land holdings according to whether they w situxird on luvi^'ds or verti$als, but this has not been done: holding size would const indy change depending on the proportion of vertisols that smallholder* must occupy under different scenarios for the area allocated fur large scale commercial agriculture This would lead to great confusion in interpreting returns to smallholder Finns. Besides, there is a good case for ignoring these hypothetical differences in productivity for any but the smallest irrigated land allocations (ice section 5 116).
1  io usehold 5 that are landless mav be entitled to receive a small cultivable holding Tins is desirable m irrigated SlJAs to get present landless to "buy into” water management The
l bKl-*02b AgrioJt™
<-• & 1’.„i i mnapj 2 J
16 Tun 11Werti/Dc**7urh RrptM. ofE/htipta. .Mwtn ofW'afrr c^Fawyj
£/An^j« Xr£ Imfar^n jnd Dnstjff Profit
nummum united allocation foreseen by Proclamation 133/2006 is 0 11 ha Modelling ($^ Section 5.6.4 below) suggests that landless will migrate to SD/\s with trngauon supply. any landless households remain tn SDAs allocated to ramfed agriculture then they may be entitled to recetve a minimum allocanon specified tn the Proclamation as 0 25 ha
Allocution ojLtindfor Fudwood. Grurw and Smallboldtr lnfrustnatyrr
As observed above, al present smallholders obtain most of their grazing and Riel wood requirements from common land, apart from the small amounts of wood and dry matter that can be obtained from agro-forestry (ven limited al present) and crop residues. However, uiL project die availability of communal land will reduce. In SDAs with relatively large propose, of irrigable land (particularly on the Right Bank which has less dissected terrain and a greater proportion of vertisols) communally held land is cxpcctrd to almost disappear For this rcauo an allocanon per household of land for fuel wood production and grazing has to be made |? 3 not the intention 10 make the project self-sufficient in cithrr commodity Although l>odi arc ven* low value and bulky, short hauls from surplus areas are possible. However, it is useful to estimate the rnagmtude of any shortfalls with-pro|ect In addition, wirh-project land allocate! nerds lo plan for household plots (i c the house plot and garden; and public infrastructure. Public infrastructure is an allocation only for public buildings and main communications, sme the area required for on-farm infrastructure is calculated separately (sec section 5 6.3 below).
Because household size is roughh equal in the project between four and six members ' the requirement for land for living and lurl will be roughly equal between households Ijuidless receiving land for these necessities should therefore receive roughly the same allocation as 1 Urge landed household. It is also assumed that landless allocations will include land for graze*
- fattening animals for sale is a common livelihood activity of landless households even al present I lowrver. tn SDAs where it is uneconomic to supph irrigation landless households u* allocated only the tainted minimum of 0.25 ha, from winch they will hare to obtain as much of their crop, dry maiter and wood requirements as possible Ir is possible to reduce the size of fuel wood plot on the Right Bank (non imgablc land is rclatn*e!y scarce) compared with rhe Left Bank (the convene) Die household allocations for net cultivated areas, furl wood plantation and grazing arc summarised below m Table 5 4
t.’b 1-4 SfO2b Vgncultufc A Pfenning.'?)
16 Jun UFbp-Wtr
d-L’w^
P7j^^ N>* f«Wto*
P^r
f Able 5-4: Household Land Allocations, ha
p
Vcnitol*
Um toll
Spec. Meat
ftafafcd
Nel culitvated area allocation
Miremum alln^rinn
0.11
0.11
0.11
055
Small Farms net cultivated
0.55
0,55
055
0 61
Medium farm* net cukrvaied
1.1)6
1.06
1.06
1 16
] jfge farms net cultivated
2.96
2.96
2.96
W
Communal grazing Allocation
Communal grazir^ (R^hi Banki
0.10
D. 10
0.10
0.20
Communal grazir£ (Left Bank’
0.15
0,15
0.15
0.20
Communal grazing minimal allocation
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
Fnelwood Allocation
Furhvopd allocation (RiiTf Hank
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.15
FlK-hyood alloljw?n Teh Bank)
0 15
0.15
0.15
0.15
l-Lielwood minimal allocation
o.m
0.10
OTO
UDO
Home tied and public infra uructurr
1 fomcslrad plot per farm
0.20
020
0.20
0.20
Public infrutnic tujc
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Toial Allocation per House hold
Minimum allocation
0.56
0.56
056
0.50
Smalt Farm* 
1
1.00
1-00
LOO
1 21
Medium farms
1.51
151
151
1.76
Large farms
Mil                  3.41
3.41
3 87
Source: ilonFulranrs' estonates, Net nilirrated irra dliKitiaift baierl on PracliriliOiffl 133/2006
Nure: LTnerahsid for the scheme. Nel eulftvarcd ares aJIreaikxi is bused cm present firm size and ealcubfcd by 
SLX\
The number of farm households in each size category can be estimated from the population projection (to 2020) from the post re-setdemcni population distribution using the frequency distribution obtained from the Baseline Survey data, as shown in Table 5-5. The estimate is reasonably consistent with the negatively skewed frequency distribution expected from a sample of rural landholdings; a large number of smaller holdings and relatively few larger onrs.
The tot J population accommodated by household land aUexattem* shown in Table 5-5 would accommodate 90.194 people ind 20,526 households, which is exactly equivaleni in the projected number of the present rural population (post re-settlement) of Hl >664 people and 1tt,5R-l households. It is now necessary to demonstrate the land resources available in rhe project area arc sufheient to accommodate them.
1 4'Srtl2b AfiriculTUTc & ['fanmngT)
9?
16-itfrj ] JWtntf  DtBtrvfK1   KpaMr  of  E/hufw.  Midi*)  rfVdtr  &  E*f& tzfhfopitM Nik I'n^ittG/r and DrtBWft Pra/rif
Table 5-5: Projected Number of Land Holding- by S ze
Population Projected to 2020
H
,ou ’eb‘,,^ProK^d^>
SDA
Minimum
allncadon
Small
farm HH
Medium
farm HH
Urge
farm HH
Minimurr
allocation
Small
farm HU
Medium
fannHij
1A
782
3,597
1,799
3,597
r«
819
T
S
405
IB E
-
-
-
lb vr
•
-
'S
1B-S
-
-
•
111
1,334
4,603
6.138
4.603
304
1,048
U97
1
IVA
472
2,172
1.629
1,629
107
494
371
1VBE (X)
309
1.421
1,066
1,066
70
323
243
ivbvt
-
-
-
-
IVBE (S)
165
759
569
569
38
173
130
IVC N
1,766
8.126
6,094
6,094
402
1.849
1.M7
IVC E
527
2,423
1,817
1.817
120
551
414
IVC S
8oo
3,679
2.759
2,759
182
83”
628
V-N
704
4.451
2,428
1,214
160
1.013
553
V-W
-
-
v s
356
2,255
1,230
615
81
513
280
Total
7,216
33,486
2.V29
23.964
1,642
7,621             5310
1
Source (.onyultantB* cirimatv based wn 'table S I and Tahir S 4
5.5 Land Clatses Inside and Outside Im^tdon Design Areas
l-and suitability statistics as derived from soils and ropograp/uc data arc quire complex and detailed and require simplification for land use modelling. Suitability classes (classified on the basis of vertisols, luvisols and special measure soils, sub divided by limiting factors including slope, erosion and depth, as reported elsewhere) were amalgamated into just right land class
units;
•      Vertisols 0-3% (1v, 2v)
•      Vertisols 3-6% (3v)
•      Luvisols 0-3® o (1r, 2r)
•      Luvisols 3 -6% (3r)
•      Special measures sods (Nl 1.2 and 3 v and r)
•      Marginally suitable (Nl 4 v and r)
•      Unsuitable (N2)
•      Towns and hills.
However, a fundamental distinction is lam irrigable ha (ic. including land required foi and land outside lrngauon design areas i6~ planned for land outside the the irrigation
breakdowns of each l
,
d ’rch*11 ltlf rn"* ‘,ln “Him irru ro.45l em*
l rb R Sr02b Agnrufrurc Ac PUnnmg{2)
16 /irn-11AV*                   tfW Pru^f PwS
T«Me_54i: l^nd Ctancs Within Irrigation Design Areas ha
VcniBob
Luriffola
SDA
0-3%
1-6%
0-3%
3-6%
Special
meaaum
Marginal
irri£abk
N2
Tnwm, hills
unclaadfed
Total
JA
4.401
R5«
2,621
23
114
613
ID
R.blB
its- r
5.9M
ro
618
156
to
10
■W2
2
7.424
IB U
6311
664
249
’8
-
300
w
(F
7,609
IB S
663
5’4
130
15
14
216
-
1.612
in
2,936
1 ,S»T
1.98?
U45
197
119
1.124
84
9,494
IVA
1.572
1,134
159
02
44
151
198
0
3JM0
ivBt . rx
_
-
-
-
-
IV BW
5 c26
r
927
ID
97
-
21
605
1
7,287
iVBh rs
..
-
-
-
iv< :-N
10.351
?W
4’5
160
er
1,144
59
15-256 |
IVCK
-
-
-
h ( -S
1 "25
43J
1457
681
454
78
668
43
5.926
V-N
272
120
WI2
559
538
69
357
8
2.726
V-W
IF7
|0A
18
16
-
14
80
26
1.140
V-S
_
-
-
-
-
J 'unt
4O,68t
’.653
10658
3.422
1.41«
672
5,706
241
70,451
Smatcc: I and Suitability f’1j-«*ificafi«ir! hsncri wh s*al and Irpihpnphir survey
Table 5-7i Land C1a*frr» Outside Irrigation Design Areas. ha
Vertisols
Ltrriwla
Special
measures
Marginal
irrigable
Tovm and
0-3%
0-3'/.
3-4%
N2
Total
JA
162
133
434
112
-
9
3.190
403
4.442
ih i:
162
19
13
1
□
0
1,048
2
1,245
IB AV
133
21
15
1
*
1.219
6
1,426
IB S
8
32
16
1
0
1
924
982
III
67
%
41
36
34
5
2^25
126
3.190
IVA
248
156
37
27
3
|9|
4J79
1351
6.390
1VHE-:
722
330
21
5
21
3.948
4.328
9,156 !
IA HU
339
131
31
48
12
5.681
43
6,284
l\ HI . S)
606
346
n
-
22
95
2,956
743
4.M9
IVC A’
266
124
46
16
1
22
7.237
89
7,800
ivc r
967
164
497
50
484
97
5.101
827
8,187
rvr.5
76
04
131
42
28
27
3.910
300
4598
VN
64
33
9
122
13
24
3,874
154
4,292
y u
*11
9
0
3
1.
1.043
4
1.102
vs
265 '
64
123
321
70
124
2,544
50
3.560
Ti*nJ
4,2lH
1.702
1.397
784 ;
654
627
49 908
8.426
67.703
NB Includes area uf hririronmcnlaJ Reserve which is subt-raeijcd before allocating ic fmuUhddn* agnculiiaTC
SiMjirc- 3 rmd Suiuhilint lassficalioti bo.<cd on snil And topr*graplik ^urs'ry
h m.i11 br evident that there arc areas inside (be irrigation design that arc unsuitable for irrigation — dus is for practical reasons described elsewhere The convene is also true; there are arras suitable for imgaoon outside ihc irrigation design- In some SDA there areas are quite extensive, but it is unpractical and/or uneconomic co supply water. However, the information on areas of land suitable for imganon outside design in Table >7 is very helpful - the vail majority of land classiHcd as suitable for imgauon is also suiriblc for rainlrd agriculture and should be used as
*uch in preference 10 N2; but bearing in mind that in SDAs with irrigation supply no ranted agriculture is permitted.
■4 J'rt’h Amidine fc j •|annmfi?z;.
99
16 |tin 11FfOtrui Dr*o.vvnc
.\lixLrtn dU Jltr d" Linrr^
EihofndH \tk Jrh^bon a*t Dttuqt Prvft.r
The areas in Table 5-6 arc gross, including infrastructure In order to allocate this land to
cropped area, then the area required for infrastructure must be deducted This was d^ **
reported elsewhere. It is a planning requirement that all net irrigable land is available for allocation to irrigated agriculture and py olher land use.
The areas in Table 5-7 need more processing to be useful Ihr areas designated as
environmental reserve, and the areas of towns and hills were subtracted lhe balance was
considered to be available for smallholder and commercial non-irrigation activity Thegmit irrigable (i e. also suitable for rainfed agriculture) is available; any net rainfed culnvadon arcn allocated to it must also add an allocation for on-farm infrastructure - 9°/c of gross rainfrd cultivation was used Rainfed cultivation is also allowed to lake place on N2 land, the siiiubfo
of which is not proven In SDAs to which irrigation is supplied the areas in Table 5-”
(excluding environmental reserve, towns and hills) arc allocated to grazing, fuel wood andfoj( plots. In SD/\s without irrigation supply the areas in Table 5 7 (excluding environmental
reserve. towns and hills) are allocated to rainfed agriculture and on-farm infrastructure, and associated requirements for grazing, fuel wood anti house plots
No  non-imgatcd  private  commercial  farms  arc  planned,  and  therefore  this  production  systuaii only permitted in SDA with irrigation supply.
6
5.6             The Land AUocthon Model
5.6.1 Mfthodoloff
The allocation process - land use to land classes — is done by optimisation . Relative values er assigned to the use of each of the cultivable land classes shown in Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 for smallholder and commercial cultivation The summed values for each SDA arc maximised under the constraints of (i) the area of each land class available and (ii) that each smallholder cultivated hectare has associated area requirements for grazing, fuel wood and house plots which must be taken from non-irngable land. Population is also an input to rhe model, and introduced as the starting population (post re settlement out of IB and IVBAV, and including the population for re-utdemenr from the dam site) projected to 2020 which is allocated to minimal, small, medium and large holdings (see Table 5-5). An important feature of rhe mcxld is that population can be transferred in and out of each SDA to achieve an optimum solution (re maximum use of irrigable land for irrigation subject to avubbihty of non -irrigable land for grazing, fuel wood and house plots, and (m SDAs without irrigation supph’i maximum use of bud most likely suitable for lainfed cultivation (irngable land with no irrigation supply) subjrf co availability of ocher bnd .which may include N’2) for associated non irngated land use-
Cft to SD.'b
A diagram may assist in understanding the process; sec Figure 5 I which refers t ^•elopmen. »cen«o (Opnon 2) for the devdopmenr of SDA 1A. Cdt hXhted «
a. modd. n. p», (.«■ > „ J,
ire input dita, red highlights arc constraints and blue font renresen,. ,a <. 
a >«•
d
* IF W,
4.0 4.0 Ijmlo System* Irx wa< urd, which h on tiled add m
' Rrbr.vr value* on lx- «ib*tirmcd uith “red’’ values with twfpur from rhe 1^ hlB per net cutavattd hectare)
Ifb H SfO2h Agriculture & J’Lnningp)
Model (farm n turn'1,1
100
16-lun HCcmratrciJ sugat is a mandatory area required far cane growing (see below) therefore it is nori’ adjustable (row 9). Commercial and *maUhnklcr nrt irritable areas ire solved by the model, under the constraint that the net irrigated cannot exceed the net irrigable in each land class (tow 5).
Gross area* ot land presumed to be suitable for rain fed cultivation and N2 land arc identified in yellow as inpul (from Table 5-7). However, it is important ro note that the Environmental Reserve is deducted from this Table before allocating to smallholder agriculture. Hence I he area of "non-irngable but cultivable" in Table 5-7 dor* nor apparently match Lhe areas used in the mndtL The cells in rows H and 15 and 20 and 21 ire non-ad run able -SDA I is planned to
have irrigation supply and therefore excludes rainfcd rultjvanon
The total area uuwide the imgabon design area is taken from Table 5-7. The difference between gross and net irngablc is added (4,442 ha + 759 hi); irrigation infrastructure is then subtracted in row 30. Non irrigable land use is then subtracted from this figure, these include environmental reserve, hills and towns (rows 34, 35 and 36), under the constraints that unallocated Land must Ise greater than or equal m zero (G40) and net irrigable must be greater than or equal to net irrigated (G41).
The maximisation process is dnvrn by assigning a (relative) value to each hectare of vertisols (Q- 3%, 3-6%). luvisoh (0-3%, 3-6%), special measures, and irrigable and N2 out of command brought into cultivarion- The model was ongmallv designed to prion use smallholders to luvisnls, so these get the highest values and are therefore used “first" by the model to maximise the value of Land used, N2 gel* the lowest value and is used unh* in the last resort, when cultivable land becomes limiting and remaining smallholders have nowhere: else ro go
Clearly there is a separate sheet for each SDA. The values arc summed within the sheet and between the sheets and the software will maxunur the grand total bv accumulating cultivated hectares of land classes with ever-decreasing vaJure, until they are ail allocated, or unallocated land becomes zero.
* SrU2b Agheulhjrc JL 1%nnin il;
ft
iniDuHcvutu R^kAr
Mnuftf •{&<*„ & Ew^>
f/
^ *®P*” _\'rA \rr,**f>** 
atH i Pr*^ Pv^r
Figure 5-1: Schematic of Land Allocation Model: Land Use: SDA I Option 2A
ll
1
Vermob
Laeisob
SM+Masfinai Non rmgakdc
0-5%             5-6%             0-3%             5-4% 
>N2 
but cultivable
Total ,
I
4.401
4,0)2
ASM
669
1521
2,455
23
no
660
15*0
55
1.905
15
213
0
u
0
n
0
25B
614
555
5
447
X Land «ae
iW««k®
11 Total wva owtwdc cks<n ♦ <T^u»«n nfraMTuenm
’A Net rr^ablc out of command iJtn Mid as ramfed
">   Nrt N2 cutavattd as ranfrd
10    Infrastructure for trngaird cuhvitsin
1!     Infranructore for runted cutavatson
>2   Common graxa^; on smallholder farms
15     l^orcMH' and burhaood on wnaJBwdtcr fnerns
14    Emm»nmentai Rrsene
«S    11dh and rock outcrops
16     I'laiatinp towns outasdc design arvas
17                   Infrastructure
S* Smallholder srnlrmcr* and tomposaida
39 Subtotal
44HC’rufiooxd must be >— to rcro
41 \C\dcrviSrd unyablr. <= nd sutabk triable_______________
>IB Model \nput* and output* ^te (or example i*hDm*"”*
iV* fn«rf»* *'•* Vrwtw Pm?
j j /VAor/MtJ HtfMffC C&w ,%W^rj- «rW z!mv & SDAj
The model a* described 943 far is sufficient to characterise land use by SDA. but in would also be useful to know something about rhe land men' farms - in particular lheir number and size- And besides, how are the required areas for fud wood, grazing and settlement shown in lows 32. 33. 3" and 38 calculated? Figure 5-2 shows bow this is done
Cell* B2..B5 input the starring population of rhe SDA by farm size (Table 5-5). The stirring population is the present population post re-setdement projected to 2020. Adjustable cells allow transfers of the population of each farni size group (B7 Bl 4). The cells may or may not he constrained by a value related to rhe starring population (C7..D14)tn limit the movement of populanon between SDAs, for example if there were re-settlement implications. However, this is not expected Given the prelected farming populanon and a designed scheme, involuntary re settlement would not be an issue and (public) re-senlemenr costs would nor be incurred.
It is nrcessiry to constrain the finishing pupuhuon by ij) the (optimised) cuitrvaied area selected by rhe model murine described in section 5.6.2 and (li) the projected population (assuming no in migration to the scheme). The second » easier, see cells G2.J20. The final population in each Lind holding group (summed through all SDAs) must equal the projected population (plus any permitted in-migration), as constrained in G2l. J2l A bne of adjustable cells is inserted in G19..J19. Here thr population equrvalrnr of farm numbers in anr land holding group which rannor be accommodated in the scheme because of land shortage is identified In the example in Figure 5-2 about 661 households would have to leave the scheme This is because the land allocations per household are quite high (compare Table 5-4 with
E25.I29).
Identifying the first constraint is harder and requires identifying the land requirements of each land holding group; that is irrigating holdings cm vertnoh. luvisols and special measures, and tainted farms- Figure 5-2 shows only the characterisation of minimum allocation. small, medium and large holdings on vertisols The range E25..I29 (highlighted in yellow) ts taken straight from the information provided m Table S-4  The number of people per household (B25) is required to convert populirion lo households and so number? of holdings, 'rhe model uses the scheme average of 4.39 people per household throughout - (he accuracy of the population data does not warrant diffcrenuanng between SDAs and land holding groups.
The model returns value? m the adjustable cells B33..B36.  rhcse arc the numbers of holdings in
1
r
each holding class which, when multiplied by holding dais area and summed (E37) gives an a*ca equal to the cultivated area of the land class selected by the model - in this case the cultivated area of verriiols tn the adjustable cells B‘ +C7 tn Figure 5-1-
r
d laitd allocatiuni an? cakul-i&J bv SDA, io nrr culovaied Irra per fami ante diffris slightly bt-Twvcri SI JAw
i
L b l-j ’Sj-ri‘ fv
103
16-Jun tlFfdtrvi DwOTtffr.' KrfitrMt •{Etbttfua. Mik fir) tiWjtrr Lnf*p Ethiopia* Nik Irnjpa&t </*W D Jipjfr Pnyrrf
r
PM p^-
rrin *11 «
FteMpepm
tow! (am*
Rrai pop In
mrikun* (am*
Mf^po
lap lam*
'L>UX’UlVM F.JLM ITHVLsnON SKxiALLFARM R>W,-LAHOS
MMFJlIVM t MLM R1PJ1 uhk
sIlam . i. rytv n >rt i.im >x
<Jrnr\i, fopclmixtn is rac
7|M(A 1 MINIMUM 1 AMM H HX.LAWN IN SMAIJ FKBM NirviJ^TMX IX
XMOXT MIBHUFA1M FOPU1-MU)X IN lOpUOVE LUU.l l-.UIM * nt uvrmN IN
lll.UOVL MINIMI'll IAMM rOHJi-\IT< >N QVI IJplOVF. SMM I I SWMRlH I.AHDN OVT
d' moVF. MFOn'M FAMM NHVT-VnoS OUT
I   <fUOVL   LAM.I.   KULM   FnrVLVnOX   OUT b y-M---I-S--’-l-M---V-'•-M—- J AJl\| M M--- M-- -JIS
16 ’•a LU J. I‘ UIM MMM KS n;  MFIHLU I VMM \T\im Ks
IA
i.it:;
«,M4
IJIlV
M
mt
r»
•»
m<
-------------------5
0
0
in s
11
0
n
------------------ i
in
ior
4.U6
6,552
___________
IVA
♦M
to*
«*7
rvn r k
VM»
1.421
1 ,066
IP**
0
n
o'
o
rxx«
t m» 1 '
IO
’SI
*69
M*»
rv'C s
n
fc.ST’
i>09
*JW
ivr f
sr
UB
i.nr
IIP
1VC S
I.H>
7.M’
5JI«
*JW>
VN
i.ii*
M22
MM
I/O
Vu
0
n
4                         °
vs
M4
ZJM
IJM
u>
CM o< atirmr
CAI
i
L.fGE I AKM SUMWiBS________
11 *
i -
jo
21
AMAUJKH DFBS ON Vl'NTIWLS IN 1OA I
7.21*
W»4R
J1.7R5
2’PM
Pniprv«l pip
7 JU
O.4M
25529
2A.964 1
I* •»<•«»•»
J UH
2JO7
1,«W» I
C*6P*rm
CraM/1 IM, I Fwfrrad/1 | i               In/raMrurtM**/
miiii
H5.6 J 
^’* "*'p™**f
iTic two constraints air sufficient to ensure thar the model does not exceed the use ot the rultivablr land available and allocates land for the households represented by the projected population. The adjustable cells in G19..J19 identify households in any holding class which ire
t  accommodated in the solution. The model a ho identifies households that can move into
the scheme if land resources exceed those required by the projected population. This can be achieved simplv by substituting the total in the model must be greater than nr equal to the total tn the projection into G19. J19, GI7.J.J7 will then return positive or negative of household movement at scheme level. The need to do rhe appeared due io smaD/medium commercial farms losing favour as a with-project land use, md present larm sizes being revised downwards.
The model always prioritise* the settlement of large farms before medium, medium before small etc. This means that if land availability is a “light" constraint (population to be alhxaied land exceeds land available) households eligible for the minimum allocation will be unsatisfied first, which is convenient as in most re-sriilrmcnt programme5 the rights of existing
landowners would be given priority over landless
The Lack of close model integration nw lead tn a "lumpy"' distribution of holdings on a given land class. For example, in rhe example tn Figure 5-2 only small and Urge sized farms have been selected for vertisols, However, in the SDA as a whole a mix of farm sizes can be modelled by a constraint to set the farm size distribution within a defined tolerance of starting farm size
dis inbutiuii.
Lan J I if e aitd Srtf&rttrti in fhr Prvfrd zJnrd
(a) Development Assumptions
The optimised model returns the areas of rhe following land uses by SDA:
l. I hc net impaled area cultivated under sugar rstate. commercial farms and
smallholders.
ii. The net rain fed area cultivated by stnalllwldcrs on suitable Land (for irrigation) and N2 111.    The area under on-farm in&astrucrurc (on farm imgaied, oc-farm rainfed)
tv.       The area required for grazing, fuel wexid, house plots and public infrastructure.
v.        The environmental reserve area and hills.
vi.         Un allocated land.
I he land resources data (arras under land suitability classes] input to the model can be
4
considered as fixed' . However, the arras of all these land uses (except environmental reserve
=ind hills) changes depending on I hr development assumptions made lor the project area. which arc reflected in data input to the model- Assumptions can be made about
1           The area required for large scale irrigated sugarcane production.
u -      The am required for commercial farms (most of which arc poor performers at present).
lu  The population projection^ in particular whether m-migiatton to the scheme is permuied or not
' '’^d fur
irrigation, Imic
if pressure unp bon i< mirrxhia.d IN Btea of land Miirahh fx pressure ungauufi 13 prater
’*Uit Thm
Taklr 5_7
suitable f g ^
<ir    raV)t
infrasEriKrure tcquifeiiKTiM art- le**, brith ihc anil net suilabtr arras tnerra^r Str
a,| d Option 2C hrssm*. diMTL&xod inSH-OG sectim t
' ' ^cu]i'irr & PhnniuR^1
105
1 ti-Juii-] 1F
c
R/tM: tfEtbtyu. Mitufr) gfVatrr&E*^
r.fartw* Nlf          and Dwqff Pryrt
iv. 1-and alkxraaon co households, that is net cultnablc area anrf |j grazing, fuel wood and house plots.
V
The extent of resettlement permitted i.e. the |xrnussibk mov from their present location.
^bon
Cni °f
The protect has been particularly concerned with the size of area that is appropnate to
to hrgc sole irrigated sugarcane. AU the development options considered are desenkd/ Section 3 1. Of there, three options were considered in detail (three are better than two,t
trends in results are more clearly seen) as shown tn Table 5-8.
The net irugible area  for pressure (sprinkler) irrigation in IVB \V is also  shown,  1,290^ hectares are gained The prospective sugar cane areas have been mapped,  so  the dcuikdln: suitability data is known. This has been summarised for rhe Land Allocation Model as da^ in Section 5.5. For brevity a breakdown by land class is omitted from 1'able 5-8.
Table 5-8: Three Options for Sugar Estate Area (net cultivated ha)
Option 1:
Opuoo J. Con
Minimum Sugar
Option 2A: Core
Sugar Estate
Sugar Eitilc pa
Expansion Ara
6,853
6,966
IVBE (N)
aw
IX^BK (S)
IVC-N
ACE
6.853
6.966
1.410
0
2.154
Option 2C:
Pressure
Irrigation in
1VB-W
________ 4J13_
6.853 6.966
To La!
Sourer Dmaoo of imp rum d<mgr. Wc, c
37,515
r
ICVrn* »<« *nd prrtrnt tocanon of
L'b F4 Sf02» .Agntu/rurc A: l*Unmng 2)
106
16 Jun 11KrtM, rfErirtffa. .V/tato 4/R—
FjfapM \'r/f
p^f
(b) Results: Inc rasing thr Area Reserved for Large Scale Cane
['he u-ith-proicct area Land use is summarised in Table 5-9. The recommended Option 2A. with a cofc sugar estate of 36,225 ha has been selected tn show detailed Land use hy 5DA. The totals only are given for Option 0 (no estate)  Option I (the minimum estate area). Option 3 (the core
t
ar ca plus extensions), and Option 5 (all estate). The Table shows that
•      The net irrigable area (col 1), the areas of suitable (col 5) and N2 (col. 6) land and the areas of environmental reserve and hills (coL 9} do not change between the scenarios; these are fixed by Lhe land suitability data;
•      The total irngalrd and runted net cultivated areas also do not change, fiirthrr the net irrigated area equals the net irrigable area, ibe net cultivated rainfed area is greater than the ara of land suitable for irrigation outside the irrigation design area (and therefore rainfed cultivation), all of which suggests thai cultivable land resources arc fully committed.
•      The net cultivated area of the sugar estate increases initially mostly at the expense of the small/medium ccjnimcraal agriculture area, and only later the area of smallholder irrigation (smallholder land ts ranked more valuable tn the model than small/medium commercial land) projected present smallholders arc beginning to lose entitlement
to irngable land, and somewhere between Option 3 and the hill cstitc area there is a nci loss of projected households from the project area,
■ Land allocated 10 settlement and infrastructure, grazing, fuel wood and house phts declines from Option I, indicating that smallholder non irrigated requirements arc declining;
•      I’nallocaird land (Le. unused land not in command) increases from Option I — the sugar estate has no need of land not in command, there is insufficient culrivjble land for smallholders, and the declining number of smallholders in die scheme have less need for land not in command for non irrignird land use, and
•       fhr rainfed net cultivated irra docs not change this is because migration into rainfed SDA is not permitted.
rb '‘+’'^AKl cultUl
.
lre  PltonmgfZ)
107
] G Jun-1 1FMmw’ Dr»».-ntfr X/p*«4.
lithium Nfk irrtqM&t
Miwtry t Wttrr f
bwM
T»bk 5-9 With-prokct Land Ute Aa.uming Sujrar Estate Core Area <!>“>
IVB H 5
61X1
In
6R/>45
134-14 [ 1
i»B14>
Mi'-kl
1 M<-del«»»iquit ]
61J*1
It           1 W ITIIrtl
—-- ---------
:ij*o
JV*»
I\M4
9J&3
W
22733
13 72J
%44J9
14,144
t*f?9
34 Ml
M.M4
3juo
1,M0
—iai
1,135
10.’$!
12.n»
63X1
63X1
5,074
$074
MI/M5
»*;m$
116.145
HR 145
V»1
22JH
VII
1(1.422
3,JUo
1^33
14,663
43,671
S ..?4
**;u$
1 UI.145
|l tptain >C«WT • lUrm*
*»/•!
4n,r«
22.723
VI *
10,413
34.4*3
'.MO
1.135
u.»n
63,766
3p’4
66*41
IM 145
l
]' V"*- i • '*
4WI
W
-
2VH
•3<#1
2.O2B
34,<*1
3^
24.1U
L '•l/’l
5X4
66,945
IM.145
|x«i rwiw^mitl ftrwnt
iW
st mo
y>,«9
•>.?63
22,723
9,031
12.124
54/1*3
3
1,072
l\M!
51,749
1.095
52*44
136,145
Iwvl h tumble l«»e intcw* but nuttuk amcMiOT d««<n wrx l| n oinrmed 1n be tumble for rmnfrd ailtivatwn S2Und t* umwmNr ft rtengatv* utd «utndr axnftiwd wrx It mi) c*m» not be tumble fc<< rwded culhMDun
fwbtvAd* »*m of the dxa in tbrw dilumnt tee tperadtkcxtpZ‘^s'/r,^j’" '
p ar^Pn!>M
t  in reflects the situation described above, but gives more information on the dictation of land
'      _^  land holding group,. The ourpui ihowv
n
7
bC  • With no sngat c^^tc, 50,927 households can be accommodated m the scheme (about 10,000 households more than rhe projected present number), in iddinon 30,58" ha is allocated io small/medium commercial farming (sec Table 5-9);
With Option 2. 1.563 additional households can be accommodated in the scheme;
About 1° -i of the irrigable land would be allocated to landless households, who constitute 8% of all households tn the project whereas 15% of the irrigahic land would be allocated to small landholding households (38% of all households), medium and larger landholding households (2 % and 27% of all households) would be entitled to 23% and 62% of the area of irrigable land respectively;
• With Option 2, because of insufficient land (rirher bekt/ungabk land M irrigable SDA) or lark of land out of command for non-irrigable land use (III. IVC N) imgabk SDAs uc “full" in respect of the number of smallholdings they can accommodate. If there is excess imgabk land ill anv SDA (III. and FVC N), then small/medium commercial farms arc taken in, w-hich do not require non-irrigable land, and
■ Note that an adopted model constraint prevents households from being resettled from irrigable SDAs to non irrigable SDAs. so although all rainfcd SDA have both available rain fed land and land available their population         remains the same in all of the scenarios considered
Be Phnmflg(2}
1CK)
16-jun*llr^trui D"*waft -
t
t^E/htfna. Minim •fW.tTrr rT E*rr&
f               Nik Im^teint ,trd Dm^^r Prntitxx **      Dfl°*
Optimisation modelling gives the population movement required to achieve an optimum distribution of smallholders to remaining irrigable and non imgablc land resources after allocation of irrigable land for the sugar estate and small/medium commercial farms It is assumed that this movement will take place over a long time period (e g the proposed implementation period of nine years) and that the movement will not incur public rr settlement
costs
Given that in Option 2A about 1.563 in migrant households will move into the scheme, only about 1.996 households of the present population and their progeny would have to move between SDAs to achieve an opnmum distributaon of smallholder' to maximise the use of irrigable and non irrigable land resources. This is no more than 11% of the present number of households in (he schemr Illis “voluntary ” re-srtdement is summarised in Table 5-11.
These new in migrant households can be accommodated with the irrigation land holding* allocations proposed (about 9° © of the present number of households, and 7% of the projected present number of households The project area is experiencing substantial growth of population from in-migration now, and it would be unrealistic to expect that the future population can be ’’frozen” al 2010 levels, rven with allowance for their progeny
Table 5-1L Involuntary (2010) and Voluntary Re-aetllement (2010-2020) (Option 2A)
5DA
Present
household*
2010
Households
post re-
■ettkment 2010
Projected final
bouaeholda,
2020
Movement of
houicbokl*
2010-2020
IA
1,349
2393
2.530
137
IB -H
821
0
0
B W
858
0
0
IB-5
246
0
0
III
1.757
1414
3.896
482
IVA
1.113
LIB
578
-535
IV>E -N)
750
750 :
879
128
jyw
389
0
a
0
JVBE ft}
l.OM
389
469
80
IVCN
3,726
4.262
4236
-26
I VC E
1,323
1323
1.498
175
IVC S
1,701
2^53
4386
2,1 JJ
i V-N
1,783
1.783
2,635
B52
y-n-
570
0
1,116
1,118
J-S _
904
904
1.037
133
——__ ___ Taial
16382
18384
23363
J'4 SriDR i
&A BncuJni«* Pfennig
111
ifi-jun-HI.
(c)  Results: Eliminating Commercial Farming
n. fast point however begs the question of why smallholders tn SDAs without
supph donot migrate to SDAs wtth supply. The model can simulate this movement b,
Lth the value of land used by commercial farms and the value of ramfed cultivanon to
and removing «)' constraints on the maximum number of households re settled
SDAs. As a result commercial farming disappears and all households migrate to impted holdings leasing the SDAs without irrigation supply almost completely de populated Sina
„ a scenano which favours smallholders over commercial farming, the input data fromC^
1 is used and the results can be inspected in the last line of Table 5-9 and Table 5-10 Ik a not a scenario that would be contemplated unless Upper Bcles was specifically planned for smallholder development. 12,122 ha of imgablc land would be un used, and the amount o? unallocated land uses to 17,Ml ha. The unallocated irrigable land would be in SDA III inc IVC-N where the availabditv of non-imgablc land for smallholder grazing and woodJou m constraint to the number of households that can be settled About 5.829 m-nugrant housed could be iccommodated
5 " Market Pull: The Demand for Scheme Production
Mu hod of
(a) General
I uturc markets arc the environment where with-projcct incremental production uill be disposed of h « necessary to predict their form, to check that projected uith-projccr sdienc production is congruent, Le market opportunities are not missed and markets arc not over- supplied.
market
nQDUtewMbjisc
d on:
of people hvmg m and
demand for food
fnarfcct' (i.e. the estimated future food con5ump°l'fl P roKc< area), based on the present and project
O* expected growth l7Zld^™U,tt]On pr°'eCnon-
fmm the project area, based on h' °PpOrTUn,t’<‘s al regional and national level
Possible export opportunities to 
P r°ducnon and market supph". and
d *c pro’ea "e* (both physical 2             T^"1 Cr°P’’ bil'ed °n con’Paratne advantage c< cd in land suitability, and locational).
The protect ares will always have a locational advantage tn providing a supply of,oO<J ‘ local population. Baseline Survey data suggest that al present of the total volume of produced tn the project area (about 60.000 tons), some 60% is consumed directlv by the
1-
family. Smallholder families save the transaction costs of marketing, which are ven b* ’  “ [, internalise the nsk of food supply futures. On die debit side tbe costs of home storage ’’ (small volumes and big losses from pests and general deienorationj and tbe value added < marketed produce (the margins accruing to trader, and food processors) is lost. NcW*d,ek*’ there is much inward local trade in foodstuff, which grow well at higher altitudes, such ,e' ' wheat, faba bean, lend, and high qualtty nee Convenely. with the project area's low alB^ poMtxrn. it has a eomparattve advantage tn the production of sesame groundnuts arid m^f which comprise about 70%  f the project area's estimated marketed production of about
o
I *b M 5fO2b Agnrulruir A Pbnmngi 2j
16 Jun     It.
ef f'Jh&pta, MfMJfry tTrfA-r <* Exrp
fuWT""
cd
1
s
year respectively- Ihr core sugar estate would generate an additional (rural) population in (he project urea equivalent to about 12.000 people annually Commercial farms would also generate an additional population but if the sugar estate is large this would be comparatively small- The estimate suggests that the rural population (pre-resettlement) of B0,“72 in 2010 would grow to 107,000 (including migrant labour) by 2030. The big lever in the local demand lor food will be the growth of the urban population, which is expected to double in size from 20^952 people in 2010 to 42.500 by 2030,
It is possible to estimate the food demand of both the present and projected rural and urban population. The present per capita dietary requirements for Ethiopia are available Lrom bA( IStat for 2006 The future dietary requirements have to be adjusted by coclTKients reflecting the elasticity of demand for food. These art available (see for example Rjh Vilkg Ukc  fain Master Plan Ancei C ERAClM, MoWE. 2010) and can be applied after some
22,000  r<MW  M°*c    *  rradcd   to   rhc    Highlands.  but  IS  much  a5    25%  of  the  prujen  ue>s  W)lu| market surplus of sesame (up to 5.000 tons) is sometimes caponed faformally) to Sudan
The present market trade is encouraging. However, smallholders will not become more market onented through irrigation investment Production for home consumption will continue until national food market performance improves and consistent surpluses are achieved which can tj£ stored effiarntly by traders and food processors. This requires i substantial urban market, smallholder production io be transformed into commercial production with its associated benefits °f sc^  *°  investment in food processing to manage surpluses. Without this
economic development, the surplus production possible from imgibon will only depress food markets further - The logK’al consequence of that » a rettenchmeru bv irrigators to production for home consumption and a missed opportunity to obtain the production benefits from the irrigation scheme. At feasibility’ study level it is necessity to assess the risk of thus happening by an examination o± market data. At feasibility level it is also important to compare the magnitude of expected incremental production with rhe sue of future regional commodity markets, to assess the likely impact on price. 17us is particularly important in a large imgarion like Upper Bcles, which, uiTh-projrct would be expected to make in important contribution io commodity market $ ai regional level-
(b) Demand from Local Markets
The present and projected rural and urban population* were cstimaied in section 5 I. To the rural projection should be added the permanent and seasonal labour requirements of the Large *caJc sugar estate; assumed to be about t ,000 and 7,000 per 10 000 ha for 100% ind 33% of the
3
rnodifications to reflect local dietary characteristics.
Based on a present resident rural population of 80.772 that is expected to grow to about
>07.000 by 2030, and a present urban population of 20,952 which is expected to grow i<> 44,000
b >’ 2030, the prescnt and Rimrf f(X)d consumpu
„  can be esnmated as shown in Tabic 5-12
o
4
^”rc that urban consumption rises from 23  » of volume requirement in 2010 to 34% of
Hi •
——
1 m*dtetaW* product f(tm
’VCfliJcd .
m e„„, of mwif
, apaow  r.l wwJd .hereto depeeo !r
3
!hr "‘ld be
life J,4
* Un
^Rriciihur,. & Planning
«>ptinn.
1£t jun-11
113Fd^. DvMTtftf Rrfwv. afE/hrtpU, Mwtn 9t ITaftr c'* F.frfr^
EltapMir Fitit        ats Dwtag Pratt.1
volume requirement by 2035. In value terms the share of urban cornu higher.
Food Demand in the
ti
Rural
Urban
______
2010
2030
2010
2030
2010
OllQ toral
a
—^4
Cereals
14,091
19,085
3.58?
6,338
17.677
Pukes
1,129
2.023
358
962
1.48?
*
Oikecds
76
172
94
.347
17(1
Vegetables
2.870
7358
776
4.075
3.645
Roots
3,538
6.418
1,106
3,051
4 644
Banana
255
653
71
183
326
Fnnt
169
434
"1
183
240
Meat
434
1,027
252
428
686
Mhk lixi dur.
4,463
8317
772
2,30"
5,235
•
Effii
28
97
13
28
41
•>ugar and honev
94
262
811
1,491
905
fish
«
12
4
7
.
12
N<iCr Demand it* cimsumptxin. thus excluding Imws in pnduchon Jinl prncc*«n|*
Scarce    1      .anwltanli*    population    prniefuon    ind    ehtfxity    of    food    danind    coefficients,    and    l‘.AC    >Star    I Gmsumpnor. per Dat tn (train* for h’thinpu
The cstKmie also has t 1 i
demand s.nuVd by 
m '° ‘’C™nd 'atu6rd by local pntdwtton and
'hown in Tihlr 5-B F
r   h,m € scu’bere, and Josses have to lx-addrd m 7be estimate»
e^ununng production
24.000 tons of cereals
“* Bascllnc SQrVCy d*'a ®
wd )3 WK) P * p,°l<XI area has a net tradm£ surplus of abouf
commodities The project area ha ’ °>hccds, and a net trading debar in all other
i» an encouraging result. Ininbon
SUfP*us *l*wr 25.000 tons of produce Tht*
reducing or even reversing trade d fir tB1Cnt COu^ nu^  a substantial contribution co
c
Producers in thr project area art I l' 'QnVT>,M,nic,s such as fruit, vegetables and pulse*
Ksdr
‘ m"kc! on^ced and habiruaflv produce surpluses for
T-bkj-U: e. .„. .<T„
a
i£j
rre|„.,
Ccrrali
Pukei
< >lL«crd*
Vegetables
Roots
Haruru
Frun
[Total tonnage of produce |
Required for
cotuuxnpcion,
looa
_______ 17,677
1,48-
______________170
3,645
___________ 4,1,44
326
240
28 189
fo , 
— 2010
Reqmrrd for
c °n»umpi»oQ ♦
lottci, ton
-1M45
1.636
187
Scheme
Production,
lorn
43,827
482
13.232
155
250
Net tradcdj£^
_ 
5.468
_ 5.108
489
360
32.692
Sourer CorwiAanU’ rtORUn b»rd no lAOStw Hudjrrt. and HimW Sl
58,121
Survey dnu
------ --------- jjji -------- ---------- Tjo --------- 5^
Lib 1-4 SrO2b Agriculture A. I*bnninf 2)
114Uiiu"9
&Lvv
jm
i Droi»« W
-n,  ctinute is based on food ‘baskets" (e g generic cereals) which must be duaggrepted to
c
afic cr,lP'' othcn*lse a protection of future production bv crop for scheme level
^sumpnon cannot be nude An estimate of the total present scheme product™ and home consumption by crop exists, from wluch it is possible to identify the present preference tn the rural household diet in thc composition of crop baskets. For example the home consumption o f scheme produced cereals is 40% millet. 2"% sorghum. 39% mace and 5% nee A similar calculation can be made for the composition of generic oilseeds. Assuming this consumption
reference holds in the future fit will not of course; tastes will change) it is possible to disaggreg*te 'he projected consumption from rhe food baskets shown in Table 5 13 to specific crops, as shown in Table 5-14, which includes the estimate of the total present scheme production and home consumption by crop made from the Baseline Sunn’ data
Table 5-14: Eatimatr of Production for Projected Consumption
Crop
Production for
present rural plus
urban consumption
(FAOStat data),
tons
Production for
pmcni rural
consumption
(Baseline Survey
data), tons
Production for
future urban
plus rural
consumption,
tons
miDet
1.945
13,258
2,796
wr^lium
1.945
8.859
2,796
maize
15,556
9.621
22/72
sesame
71
305
228
gout
99
425
303
±±£
1
3
6
pqiper
0
0
0
nee
901
1545
1/96
my a
0
69
0
leff
29
50
42
other crops
6/44
482
13.699
vegetables
5,468
0
17,149
other oLbccds
11
48
34
brut
849
0
XI81
UHUijopnjg. of produce
33,619
34.666
6X903
^urcr
Su .„ 
n
j54^
b
^nmatio  problems will immediately be apparent Production for present rural consumption
n
^^CroP ^calculated from Baseline Survey data) is greater than the rural plus urban consumption
Parti madC b> haSkct U5lng thc h AOSut
consumption estimate in Table >13. This is
rr KHe *U$C
t)le ru |3n H *  * k
dietary difference as well as interrogating the Basehnc Survey data tor
S    b    IO ®*VC’ Nevertheless thc total ronnage of food reported as consumed by P°pufanun is tn the same order of magnitude to thc total tonnage estimated tor
c °nsum^t'<>n UllJun ’*** project area, and we may be reasonably sure that local fond
,Cc°Unt^
over that estimate by an overall 50% Further, the estimate
goods   <   n    ^F^ted   increase   in   value   of   food   consumed   through   a   change   in   -h ' 4 s*>2b              ^cd: frU|t and vegetables will be a greater proportion of the daily diet.
U,,Un * 1,bnn«>g(2}
16Jun II
115rc^.' Dt'”*ran>
v L jtd Draw# fyj"*
5.72
DtwJ far Rqiona/ and Naftorra/ Markets
If is reasonably straightforward to make an estimate of present crop p regional and local markets, which is simplv production minus consume UCn°n (see above; minus the requirement for feed and seed, Tabic 5-15 <hou, . * ,Uire^ production is about 40%.
Tabk MS; Estimate of Present ProductiooforRyional and Local Marlgu
f
mule:
lorghan
maze
seume
Ignut
Estimated
total present
production,
tons
15,077
12,06!
14,545
5,330
6,018
Produced for
present local
markets tQpl
13,258
8.859
9.621
305
425
noot                                            5                                     3
Present
marketed
surplus,
tons
1,619
3,074
4.771
4,818
5.418
32
*•«
U/*r
pepper
nee
sori__________
33
2,094
Seed and
feed, tons
199.7
127.7
 153.7
206.9
1 “5.5
JJ.
0.1
1,545
11-6  I              538
___69                              69                         43
trff________                                50                             50
1.9
other i:nps
732
vegetables                                          122
other oilseeds
Frwt
|Tot£ produce, tons
1,812
58.123
482
48
11.6
0.1
| - __
250
122_
53.8 J 1,76£
2ZL
34,666
—22AWJ
Sourer Biwirnr Survey 2010 >nd Table 5-11
product* *7^° CMmU'C lhe maritctcd surplus as a proportion of regional marketed
oy crop ire not yet available lnuM,1 
Conder and Metekel (« all „f u|uchth ProduCU°" ”“
„T 7*
&
'»■ CT
s
stK’ for Wot
proem oop products ln
°1 ea. The results are shown in J able 3-16.
f
The Table dc«l  shows that onh- odseeds
y
C in particular sesamej are crops grown * 
Aurt-N0^
*>
fV<’
,
ue.  usth  a  cgnif.cant  .hare  of  reponal  production  An  increase  in  product  of
result of unprion mvestment u™Jd «niinly have „ 
<)n rcg)onaJ pDces. At P“f
project area produce. ooh- (ven „>ughlv; 6% of pr<lducuon of • , „,osnIuent V**
assunw a «tav«d area of afx.u. 44.000 ha. accounts for about 4» . of the zones’ arex The protect area .. abeadv rdattvdv produce pet u.ut area cultwatcd; 1.5 <°°*
product,™ per ha compued w,th ooh- 0 85 tom of prrxhlctlon „ 
ut3  as »
t’b F4 JirO2b Agnrulfure A. Phuuung'2;
116
H■ D1C J-Jvy
AmaJ product ion SlatntJc*. four nsd 2000a
Fn>jeo am pro«*uci*«*», kmib
Wen Gcj—»
Awi
IMariJi Gc^r
Mi tehr t
BG
T«ri
project
pnhlnrttfm
re gw nil
produrtwib
Fnltart prafan
pnlurcidvi
{DpfMwZ)
%of
W gioful
froHfuciMM
~
JW.,712
J7S>W5
45511
l\KT
4 V .
724J51
F.
i h ^j-ii 1
.
HjJl
fi.rfly
U74
Mia5
11232
Vhf «
375ft-
or-
<1 iirlnim
3,4%
n.'j'j?
IW1.T2*
25,114
1W.SM
litfcl
4JF*
tt.iw
r-
1 nkTi nut:
r
nu J*t3
IMlI
M57
M ■iwr Kict
2fl7 Ml
r
Win
I3.4M
31545
3 2*.
.W |
tii.
nn dm
2JJM
7 JI 1?
frit jrwin’ ‘■‘i
nr. Jm
Gjau
71 4
'iciWTW
■I.TM
L±L
1 UM
5jwi
47.lT-
IJ.W7
L5r’
Sljrlfl nWLT
rfciJnb
flit
< afft it
rr- din
Tifi
*>n
< jthrr l\J*o
M2fl
67,111
______
ii&.m
M2:
IM" ■
11
EF,
I l.irw >r brat
Mill
| ill<
ISUTi
iC-5"
3.475
13
HIT-
19.177*
52 r
VuifTtshics
475.8'J
244 V.
I.H7 M
Wii*r
2^jQ
1 —
IR%
25.724
1CW ■
Su¥d l"< in
J in
5JI2
i h-rL
i7T¥t
23*)
M.wr
r«i
14.175
[|
IlfF ■
3JJ17
r-
■ j---------------- —i
1 Vppci
W1P7
1 IM
4.M
«Vi
1 IM
.11
15 “*
i2-r
I2AMI
9715
1AM
kjjtui
1
Mt
2JJU
T*
fl- r. ift
I9.1M
H'JU
11
67 71.1
I'
QxT-
i>
rr.
TrWdfa
■ui.f.K
■rrVHj
!T.M6
6-.
IWiJlta
3I’p
Soured EASE (CSA) and OotufanrV eirimarrt fawn Rasctac Survey
l"he fund a men (a) question is by how much it can be assumed that the project area ran increase its production in die zonal context without distorting markets It must be remrmbered that the zonal production statistics arc dated, and the markets for lowland crops in the Amhara Highlands arr big, accessible and growing, so quite significant production increases may be possible.
table 5-16 also shows the expected volume produced bv crop uith-pr<>|cct under Option 2, comprising about 22,8” 2 ha of smallholder cultnaboo. 4.773 ha in small/medium commercial farms and a sugar estate of 36.225 ha The expected future volume of production from the project is also given as a percentage of present regional production. The crops for which pioducbon increases arc expected to be ven* high arc sesame, vegetables, haricot bean and pepper
Sesame is an up coming crop with excellent export prospects even to Sudan (which is a larger Mrsamc exporter than Ethiopia). ECX has recently become invoked in marketing sesame at national level. rhe project area has high comparative advantage for sesame, ind yields under
lr ngautin arc expected to increase by over three nines It has an attractive gross margin of wound FTB l 600 per quintal and is popular with farmers. However, if the project is successful
s
feting die target for sesame production some pnee reduction in the market might be
e *pected. Such adjustments are normally made tn the financial analysis based on standard dclfiand ind supply curves.
^<gctah]e production is usually under-reported because of measurement difficulties and both
project area anj ^
t
c ZQnc ueas probably have much higher production than suggested m
^blc 5~ 1 r it-.
«• inc target for vegetable production in the project area is fixed according to the
1 1 Srf1211 J^ ^1rutr t
n
PlannttiEfS)
117
16 |io-FttM Df*\-jz.            of Erbtopta, Mnrfn of Kkfrr .'~ F.wjp
ErtMC»JK Nik IfngafiM and Dnana^t Pryta
expected demand (both urban and rural) for vegetables in the project area only
there should be no leakage into regional markets and no adverse effect
' ‘e'l,c|^
*vvl <;n rCgjQQj] d
The Baseline Survey reports very little hancot bean and pepper grown in the . 
'
present and the areas may  be under estimated The same comments made abou V',lt
also  be applied to  both crops,  which also  have lugh gross margins and moderate C,,IT*  *
irrigation. 
rf ’PQfl^
573
The Table also suggests that with-pro|cct the project area would account for 21% of thc7nni present production. This is not high because at full development (in 2020) zonal production t’ also have nsen due to increases in the yields of riinfed crops and the expansion of the cultivated area
Export Opportuniliti
The project area already exports (informally) up to 1 ,000 tons of sesame to Sudan in pan vie production is low over the border. Small amounts of maize and sorghurn also cross (he bedo. Ethiopia already expons (formally) an annual average of soya (24 tons), haricot bean (20 Ktt and chickpea 2 tons) to Sudan, though the trade volumes are very small and variable. With increased production and improved communications this trade is expected to increase, but dr tonnigc is expected to remain smaD - exports from the project area will sail have to pi* through central Ethiopian markets The amounts assumed are given m Table 5-17.
/Wifcfroic IT’i/A-pnyft?
Production wiH be dmded between local markets to satisfy food demand in the pn’i«' ,f“ f (whether or not it u actually traded), production for regional and national markets and • volume tor exports. With project, the relative shares are 32%. 65% and 3% The mac,s' * total production by volume ls expected io be 238%. The production targets by crop are sb^T
■n > x > 1 These can be broken down between the Left and Right Bank in proportion to
about 40% to Rrgbt Bank and 60% m
'
*7 (“dUdlnB "" W CM‘) '«* ^e of Option 2. this pn>P°rt’°n ’
Blnk
partly deperm
smaller ueas fo, smallholder and nnva. 
P'°duCD°n
f ’rOduCDOn A
. ID
m Section xIO below
L’b I'4 Sr€2h \gnru.’furr At Planning f 2
UH
I6-Jun-1^fr*'*
Imptw
Prytrf
ti, A 17- Upper Bclcs Present and With- project Production Estimate
Produced for
future local
consumption,
tons
Target for
future
domestic
market,
ions
Target for
future
Sudanese
ex pons.
Total
future
production
toua
Total
present
production, 
tom
Existing crop* ------------ ----------------------
2,796
4,85"
7,653
15,077
sorghum                  ,
2.796
6.148
1.782
10.726
1X06!
m a,7C
---------
22,372
28.624
205
51201
14.545
ac same
228
28.90"
3.531
32.667
5330
enut
303
16253
16,556
6.018
HUOg
6
6
3
ptTPcf
•
10JOO
10300
33
ncc
1296
8.065
9359
2.094
sova
-
-
69
icff
42
-
42
50
other crops
13.699
250
13.949
482
vegetables
17.149
17,149
122
other Olbecds
34
10.583
10,618
1,812
Irurt
2,181
2,100
428!
no data
New croj>s
llancor bean
9,000
49
9.019
0
Chickpea
1,500
5
1305
0
Total tons of produce
62,903
126.7B5
53’2
195260
57.696
Share of total r»roductx>r.
32%
65%
3%
Increase in total production
238*.
Sourvr Ovi'uJunts* esnmalc*
Production Push: Productivity’ Increases Smallholder and Commercial Varm Gtvsj Mary!**
nroductnre
b>
-As well is expanded market opportunities, farmer' will also  ^^ “   of
d unproved u$e
potential with-project Irrigation allows double cropping an m inputs which arc reflected in higher crop gross margins.
Enterprise gross margins arc lite gross value
variable costs of production, expressed per unit irea o for all the main enterprises (crops and livestock) presen new crops for consideration with-project
Gr
r °*' maiptn
from die enterprise nuiw' the
° f P UC activity Gi®»» "’rfe prq>i,Ct
wn m die project area, and
' nallh |j
o
*re srnal] P °d
cr  UCfC PrcParcd f°r smallholder farms The land allocations for the main
f     Ucl>on systems envisaged for the project arc described in section 5.6.3; these
^lilies Th **      ^     md large farms, plus a * ‘minimum allocation” to landless
fnC<   Um
• 
^      cs between enterprise gross margins of these production systems ire;
crcnc
e  of hired labour — large farm* 
use more than small ones, particuhdy tor land
l
*Sf(nk
T»&
^P^t
ion, weeding and harvesting.
Jfc-jun-ll
'®    ulr       p.
n<
Ure A
' ’anniripi'2;
119. Benefits of scale on larger holdings lead to slightly higher yields; and
. Intensification of labour input on smaller holdings may also lead io higher
for commercial farms These differ from smallM^
Gross margins were also prepared
in that
•     Libour is hired;
•     Some mechanisation is available for land preparation; the use of mechanisation
increases with project,
•     With project, input use is greater; and
•     Yields are higher due io benefits of scale.
!   also   prepared   distinguishing   between   luvisols   plus   land   requino^ Gross margins were
special measures i.
and vertisols 'l*hc differences arc as follows:
Labour requirement for land preparation and harvesting is greater (parth due ro ih< workability of the land and partly due to die increased timeliness required lor
vertisols);
Machinery costs are greater in terms of lime (4 ha of luvisols can be ploughed per dr compared with only 3 ha of vertisols) and cost per day (operations on vertisols cojt
110% of those on luvisols); and
¥>dds may differ, although vertisols are inherently more ferule, harvest losses lugh if timing is poor and vertisols are too wet or too drv
Gross margins of crops presently grown tn the project area were prepared for rainfed condmon. (present, future without-pmject and future wnh-project tn SDAs without in^! ’upjv, and —gated conditions (future with-project) In the latter case, a four year i,luW *-•" 'oMIpotenuilwasmodeUcd
Livestock gross margins were prepared for darn- cows and beef fattening aniniaJs. -.bout protect, on madder farms. No bvestock enterpnscs are engaged f<« cornn*^
production svsicim. 
The number of cross
by rauifed and irrigated condmoT’uI'i
r
---------- — c
’       ‘ to 160 gross nurgm estimates) so some simpi^* " "
Cf °P en,etPt’scs by 4 production s» stem
40
required
h is turned that (eacept for.
hnisoli md  land  requiring  spre^j Pfclcnt smallholder rainfed  culuvanon  IS °n
vermoU but it u bniJtcd
poii
^uro - dierr is smallholder cultivation ofl ™                »««», „ „p«„d „ be _
„ p.n.1'
,o          h*h"       B“°kbon       and       reduced       „P"tOce          ,hr           former       may       be       hlgh« 
^im-t.emnn-hUd.ngs^ea^
im*1
fUTO';
Small stock eote^^
-Ration ispiinr. and chxkens
”“"*** f,ce same gross margins as « ^o.„
contnbute much to farm budget. fompMtd ^^^d '^gratn but neither
IJh 1-4 SrO2b \gnciilruft A 11»nning(2)
120<" 'J,,r ■■"'?
w
expected from minor oilseeds, cotton and cluck pea. Perennial trees arc expected to do ven well with-project and show the biggest difference between the present and the with-project situation.
•       J jvcsiock enreqirisc gross margins (per head) are not expected to ray between smallholder farms,
•      Crop gross margins arc prepared excluding the com of water but including the cost
of in-field labour for irrigation activities System operational costs will be idcnttfinl separately in the cost benefit uulvw A water charge to fanners « then ^h’htrd
based on some proportion of system operation costs which (as a ratable cost)11 should br deducted fmm crop gross margins; and
• The gross margins of perennial crops have been prepared from irutul planting with prelect {including in ter-cropping in the first three yoLriJi present areas of perennials are ven’ small and the gross margins have not been prepared in detail
FinanaaJ gross margins for enterprises on different land types. and production sysirms are shown in Table 5-18. Details on physical input requirements -labour (family and hired by operation), traction (ox and mechanised), seed and chemical inputs) and pnees (hired labour, traction. seeds, fertiliser, chemicals) Arc not given here However ir is worth mentioning that in the financial gross margins family labour and ox power arc costed as zero and hired labour is costed at ETB 23 per day. w hich is the average pocr of hired labour for all opcraooni at all seasons derived from the Baseline Survey In the economic gross margins both tanuR and hired labour is costed at ETB 23 per day adjusted by the shadow’ pner (opportunity cost) of labour.
The change in gross margins between rhe present and future wilh-projcci situation are reasonable. For the main held crops, good responses to irrigation are expected from maize (181%), wer season nee (200%). groundnuts (119%) and sesame (236%). while sorghum and millet are expected to be less responsive Vegetables show a good increase. For the minor field cropi (which will only have a comparatively small impact on the value of scheme productivity) haricot bran, seed maize and peppers art expected to perform very  clL Ltvwcr responses arcf Mhw Def^rvti:                          lithnptj. M/ai/tiy •/ VTjtn fcw»j»
ht^c-Ji/MT Nf/f Mr^rtea P^jjajK Pr^erf
Table 5-18. Enterprise- Grow Mar
gin* in Financial ETBjper ha and ETB per h
ead
I Av
erage
Verti
sol.
cot
IU. 7781
large
10,8361
=□
•retail change
%
[Luvwok md Special
Me—urea)
(VerfianW)
medium"!
[
9.127
66* . ]
p - nufiei
13,791
13.871
1 3,042
3,570
9,883
I 5,1 74|
15,0941
16,0911
8,971
9317
14554]
7351
im%
200*.
Stat—
>unflnuCT
25.212
1^924
23,900
8,624
24.126]
9.082
25.20*
iu>%
£/round 
nut*
U,M26|
24.126
I 5.498
13,565
25,812
25,835
4332
77%|
I    ianrol
bon
7337
47327
6 HOP
5 3 67
350%
V, g uMr’
61.090
9379
<902
64.0461
66.167
61.637
48.671
6.517
5,060
284" .
46%
19021
85*
M1
29,033
M>380|
30,8031
27.9001
68R? J
!Ti ' '
24,191
253501
25,*47
22,979
60,905
32.145
4,648
24,191
Matfc MXii
25.345,
25,711
22,820]
187“ J
Cerui
62.961
29.500
30.925
32,1451
M—«
241* a
780%
C'ottnn
5.095
4,264
43%
Suurcr < >imptbn<ins of Haseknc Survey ct»u. fieldwork md
current Ethiopian practice
4.019
2.953
1.061
2.017
2,9S3| 1.061
8%
96*1 45’.
,1. Xr> Irrt^UoJt tad l>rw^
^••vbp,rfl
j^t/gr ScaJe Sugar Cart Pnufartto/t
"*l««i«- »«»“”' » »P«™<I «■ * . ~w ..«! „p»„„,
*«!,__
,„„„„,
.. ™,c«„g s,„... U,ge rale
piod„n„n lmn J /
S ""“ 5.6.4. ,„ -vl.,,.,.
„* ,„p, „,,„ „
1O
p%
»
,1,. „„p.l* ««. A. th. ^"l „„ „ „ blg „ „1Kl| h> i[ms
.m-Jurmw mere.™ «pecml f„m  b
 , „c t„,w,|v
•
« .1...
.a he hdfan, „<,
’
performance nf irrigated sugarcane is well known in lithwpia.
Table 3-3 (above) shows the theoretical production of cane likeh- from a core estate area
(described in Option 2A of Sccoon 5.6.4) of .36.225 ha within the Upper Belrs The
assumptions behind rhe estimate are described in Section 3 2.5.
These  assumptions  lead  tu  an  estimated  2.4  million  tonnes  nf  cane  harvested  per  annum.  with an overall yield of 73 tonnes per planted hectare of cane
Gross margins have been estimated Tor (partially) mechanised cane production as shown in Table 5-19. Note that the yield is in quintals pct planted cane ha (l e. the area of plant cane plus the area of ratoon cane), not per harvested cane hectare. Producuon costs on verosob arc slightly higher, but no yield difference has been assumed between vertisols and luvisols. No price difference is assumed between plan! cane and ratoon cane The pnre of cut cane has been assumed m be ETB ZtXI/'ton. bur rhe value of csuic ls only relevant for ihr farm budgets of out- gruwers
Table 5-19:
Crop
Lad
Labour
ETB
Medtukal
openhnns ETB
------- ■—
Inpui com
ETB
Total ami
ETB
ETB/q
Grau rtruru
ETB
Nel Rim ETB
YrM
q/pUatrdha
Hun! QJr
VcrasaJs
W
2,4M
♦pro
7.957
20
27.RBS
19,929
1,4»
Rjstot in cafy.
Vcruok
9®
1523
4jiM
20
14,255
9j652
731
Thru cine
Lwrsck
M9i
l.W
♦ 63ft
7539
20
2?,M5
2D>S
1,4W
Kiftaon. |-JQT
LuVliLiL
897
1235
yia
♦,442
14,255
VI3
731
u* r ComuJnna rittmatn bx«*d on currmi Echiopon prarocr
r
5.9
^omparfson ofAgwoomic and Mofkrf Esttattet ofWiih-pro/cet Production
Tabb 3-3, Table 3-12 and Table 3 28 estimate the production possibilities of the scheme based °n agronomic potential, while Table 5-17 identifies production possibilities based on market ^formation The comparison (shown m Table 5-20} is interesting, because the two estimates Were made independently. The agronomic production possibilities of sorghum and millet a higher than the market estimate while maize and dee show the converse Hus is intuitively reasonable: one would expect the markets for maize and rice, which are prrlt cred cerea
^sutute,. :o expand motc Tapldly than the traditional bwbnd grains sorghum and millet The nurkc* opportunities for sesame, groundnuts and haricot bean arc also strong, and the high
margtns suggest that farmers will prefer these crops and ptace them in the cropping P»»ttn wherever possible, live agronomic possibles of duckpea. vegetables, pepper, maize
'«cd. noo
R wd cuni)n aie C(jn5|di;n:
d bc lughct than (he market possibility The
genual mav be over-estimated for crops such improved maize seed [enough for over 30 ,W.
^gnculiufe * Phnning(2)
i- .
123
I Mull-11Ferffilit
RjpjMr P/’ Ljhjofvir. iXIrwfn erf If \rfrr c.'*’ I :'). f' fy
JV/S* Irttgafia* find r>ruMj$r Pnpk/
hal    However    the    point    of    the    Table    js      to    show    that    a    reasoned    rceoneji production can be made, which will lead to greater confidence in bc-nefi
Table 5-20; Comparison of Wi«h-project Production Esrimarcs
New
Agrononu
Estimate,
tons
1 Option 2
c 1 Market
! Estimate, |
cons
J OiFfcTeirM ) Agronott
ovc?r
M -trkef estimate]
Sorghum
20,7] ifj                     10,7681
192'
Ftstger millet
8,57( J                       7.653/                            1 12’
Maize
3631*J[                51.2011
71*
Rier
7,796 |                   9,359)
83*
C * round nufe
14.840 1                  16.556/                               90°
Sesame
23.137                32.6671                               71*
Sunflower
2,KO2f
2,6OOl
1Q8a4
Sa J ] kisi’TT
2.9061                   2,600
1 I27i
Haricot bean
9.1 591
lilial
V egctabki
9.049/
2OJ5OJ                     17.149
1 19°J1
Sou bean
C-IlLM-k jwr-a
1 1,6221                    10.623]                     IQQ’/oj
roragi:                                                                                                     T
2^06*                        i JO5|                     186 ** J
M-lEljrLJ
.
3,4 12                         20,0001
5,216
4,281 J
|7%1
I22°i]
Sugarcane
Mechanised s
Pepper
iMaj^r seed
C.min
Xioog
C a iron
Total ian> of prodtM?Dcin 
Tons of pfuductMin letdudtr^ aajicj | 
400.238;
2.515.66?
1.70!
_______  I             3J~ ~
1-
st>2 J 36
Si iurtcb. Table 3-3, Table 3 12, Tabic 3-.2f£ «»d Tahir 5 ] 7
2,515.667
10,500
500
1.500
2. QUO
200
2,726 J 78 210,7] 1
1007
2<J0l>^
6?9C
1 1 37 
27J® 292- c
<Ib f-«* SrO2b \prjrtiJ(u c A J'J5mrw»£(Z)
f
124U STH"***
F^rtn /fe^i11^ Mode/: Moxim/si/t^ Wjth~pr&ject Scheme Production under Constrain rs
Fann model* m financial prices xre the buis for estimating scheme productivity and it rhe same rime examining the feasibility of the project from the perspective of farmers, There is no point
m modelling a high level nf scheme production if for example the farmers with ihe smallest holdings c annot make a Irving from the resources assigned to Lhcm This m tuition cm hr tested bv optimisation, al lowing crop selection for model farms under constraints.
jhr following inputs fo a Farm Revrnur Optimisation Model ire already available:
•      Numbers and area* of production systems by SDA (minimum alkx-itions, small medium and large farms, commercial farms and large scale sugar (see Section 5.6.4) which are congruent with the land use opportunities under the constraints applied in that model population (Section 5.1), land allocation (Section 5 4) and land suitability (Section 5 5);
•      Production targets congruent with agronomic potential (see Section 3) and market opportunities (see Section 5.7);
•      Enterprise gross margin* for smallholder and commercial farms (see Section 5.B. 1); and
•      Theoretical production of sugar cane for three sugar estate sizes (see Section 5 8 2).
A model was then constructed to maximise net farm crop revenue (lc. the sum of crop gross margin multiplied by area cropped) In F'igurr >3 |ust one production system is considered; small farms on luvisols. Yellow highlight indicates input data, red highlight indicates constraints, and blur font denotes adjustable cells.
The number and total net cultivated area of small farms on luvuols in all SDAs is obtained from the Land Allocation Optimisation Model. The farm net cultivated area should obviously equal the area allocated to small farms on luvisols in Section 5.4.1. Net revenue per cropped hectare is obtained from the with-project gross margins calculated l or small farms on luvisols. For simplicity, dry season gross margins are assumed to be the same as wet season tor each crop Yield is known for small farm* on luvaols from the crop grot* margins and this is also a data input.
Planni.ng(2}
IG-lun-ltE '?**** N,/f J^Jf^ mJ OfMa^r p^itf
uVEthiopia.           ofTsier & Emr^
C oH5 train is arc specified for smaD farm J on luvtwls u follows!
•
Ilic irrigated area cannot exceed the net cultivable arra either in the dry season or the
wet season (F45 and G45);
•
The maximum cropping intensity permitted » 200% (147);
•
The f arm must produce a minimum tonnagr of grain for home cunsumpiionj this is
fixed according to household size and the appropriate mix of grains for home
consumption consumed by households fanning on luvisols (farms with access to
vertisols may grnw nee part of which mar also be for domestic consumption, and a
minimum proportion should be maize to allow for changing ta^tr in food grains)
(14B. 140}
•      A forage requirement of 0-4 ha is forced into rhe cropping pattern (152);
•      The minimum break crop area during the year (i.c a non grain crop grown for crop rotation reasons) is specified as 30% (153j;
•      A minimum legume crop during rhe year is specified as 10%, also for crop rotation reasons (154);
•      Sugarcane and maize seed are not permitted crops for ibis production svstem |D33 and D35) (smallholder our growers are not considered for this option, and maize seed production is specified only for large farms, which arc likely to have more capital to undertake this enrerpnsc which has relatively high input costs}. A
•      Noog and cotton are nor permitted crops either, they perform belter on vertisols and are permitted on appropriately sued production systems (D37 and D38).
Finally, the arras of crops arc made adjustable, while maximising the total net farm revenue (U40) - the iarm revalue multiplied by the number of farms m rhr production system, in this case 2^67 (C5).
There is obviously a sheet for each prcxluction type (22 in ail, including commercial farms and a ihrrt for rhe arra o| core sugar estate on luvisols, core estate on vertisols and core estate on
special measures l“he cr
opp  g partem constraints vary between production types as shown on
m
Figure 5-4 and arc based on agronomic suitability. They air easily changed if needed. The
following general points can be made:
Following land suitability classification, vertisols arc unsuitable for many crops, particularly m the wet season (when vm’ good drainage and timeliness of opera bon a is required) though they may be cultivated in the dry season: key crops for vertisol* art nooog, cotton, nee and sorghum;
No dry season cropping is permitted on rainfed farms except for mango (perean tal
crop);
Th c sugar estate must grow enough food for labour; the types of food crop arc limbed.
No cut-grower sugar is modelled in this Option, though it is in Option 2B Out-
gtowers;
Seed maize a mostly confined to culm aiion by commcrcui farms on luvisols in the dry' ^ason, but may also be grown by smallholder large fauns,
Irn gated forage is forced in on irrigated smallholder farms - being an mlermrdiaic Product it has no meaningful gross margin;
^nisuls ure considered unsuitable for perennial I rust; and
l|u,t  * PlaniiingiT
127
Ifc-Jun 11DnfMf                  4Ethiafaa Mtavfn tf Wafer dr Enerj^ Ertiifae Nik t'rv&M ari Dnaea^e Pryeif
a
• Oilseeds, lentils and vegetables arc suitable for vertisols only i ‘
■ '^^
pepper can be grown on vertisols tn both the dr}- and wet seasons
I
I
!<
Ub  F4 St02b Apricultun & PJano«n 2i
r
12H
Kt-Jun 1JFigure
r/
to Cropping Pinero by Producrion Type
IRRIGATED
LUUSOLS * SPECIAL MEASURES                           VERTISOLS ISmaBwidrn    Commercial   Sugar Estate  Smallhukkr*  Commercial     Sugar Estate 1 wet     drv      wet      dry      wet       dn       wer      dry       wet J   dry      wet      dry
RAIN FED                        I
LUXTSOLS & SMl   VERTISOLS 1
Smdlhkldct*           SmalThoklerv 1
■wet
drv
Wtt '|    dry |
/Sorghum
| LOT
LOO
LOT
LOT
I OT
LOO
LOT
LOO
1.00
LOU
LOTI
| Linger millet                    LOT
1.00
LOT
LOO
LOT
LOT
jlUra
1.00
LOT
LOT
LOO
LOO
LOT
1 00
LOT
LOT
LOT
----- ^‘1.
LOT
LOT
Rxx                                     LOT
LOO
LOO
1 00
LOO
LOT
1 1.0
Groundnuts
LOT
LOT
! lM>
LOT
LOT
I (KI
100
LOO
100
LOT
Sesame
1.00
LOT
LOO
LOT
LOT
LOO
LOT
Sunflower
1.00
LOT
LOT
LOO
LOT
LOT
LOT
Safflower
LOO
LOT
100
LOT
LOT
1 00
LOT
Hancot bean
LOO
LOT
1.00
LOT
LOT
LOT
LOT
LOT
LOT
Vegetable*
LOT
LOU
LOT
LOT
LOT
LOT
1 DIJ
bean
LOO
LOO
LOT
100
LOT
LOT
LOT
Chick pea
LOO
LOT
LOT
LOO
LOT
100
1 iX>
Forage
lot 1
L00
1,00
Mingo
LOT
1.00
LOT
0.00
11)1)
1.00
Sugarcane
LOO
1.00
LOT
1.00
LOO
1.00
1 00
1.00
MeehanMed vugarexnr
1.00
1.00
LOO       pw
Pepper
i on
h" l.OT
1 00
LOT
1.00
LOT
LOT
LOU
LOT
Miitt H-cd
LOO
Curu*
1.00
1.00
LOT
1.00
NiHlg
LOO
LOT
LOT
! LOT
LOT
1 OT
Garton
LOU
1 00
LOT
LOO
LOO
1 IX
KEY
LOO Permitted
Not permitted
Prrcrasul dry              fixed im optmuctl tn wet snwn
LQONot permitted m th- teemrn.)________________________ .________ ____ _____________________ _______.________ —
Ub H4 StOSb Agnrulwc & T%nft*g(2J
129
Lt-Jwi-llFtdtfd DtJmrufh RjpMe of Ethiopia, Miwfp of VTaler C*" L'rrr. 
Etiioptfo St Jr I'ntvtoo mJ Dna^r Pnp.i
Inhere is a final and important constraint. Production must be either canal ,
t
•
i ua* io or exceed«l
tonnages specified in Table 5-17 and Table 3-3 as being appropriate for marketin
opportunities. Several approaches can be made to this:
• The tonnages can be solved for exactly and
0  If  there  is  enough  land  to  produce  the  targets,  then  some  land  will  beu^ 0     If there is not enough land (eg. because the sugar estate has a high allocs
or the target is too high for the scheme to achieve) then the targets have lobe reduced, other by crop or by a factor to reduce die targets of all crops« *
same proportion
• If there is sufficient land resources, the targets can be allowed to float upwards by i permitted amount either by
O Allowing the model to “choose” die crops with the highest gross margm tn allocate to the spare area, or by
O Raising targets proportional to their tonnage by a factor until al! span* lines
allocated
to pnxJ
2'njmuins A pemuwmn factor" provides a eonroairird ause&w
high    for    crops    for    wtuch^k^.    4^    '°f     <>Utpur     77ie      permission    factors   are    set    rditM
pepp« for example is unlikdy to f^"'t” 
" a few hundred additional torn of
then   seeks   out   the   m™   r   li    001    e    rcKR>nal   mirket   for   pepper   bv   much   The   model
P
die Table The production of minimum term use uh tk
unused.
» .It-™ .he
■^lc ^crease over the minimum target is spea6edv
*°r
increases by 36%. The increases over the
* C ,>nd ls the va^u* of production is maximised No ted*
7hc objective function - the sum of net farm crop revenues - is solved to a s
billion. This excludes die value of fodder, which as an intermediate product us farm is included in the incremental value of livestock produced Sugarcane is >1$° an intermediate product but is sold off farm for processing, lhe objective function °
the production cost of sugar cane grown on die estale - the value added by processing export (sec Section 5.11 6 and 'fable 3-3).
Solutions can be more difficult to find when production on the Left Bank and th* has io be solved for separately Due to the difference tn land siutabilitv and the nun’ *' farmr of different type*, the permisaion factors may not be common to both banks
f l*7f^ *
,jf
..
15
(’b F4 Sr02b Agnculture & Pbrawi|t(2)
BOTtble 5-21: Farm Net Revenue Opttmisatinn Model: Constraints to Production (Option
2 *1.
Required
w> linage
Achkrrd
Ifl BULlfgC
PrmutlnH
factor
rruwinwuiB
Pc rwvfticd K-
luCrtaac tun required tonnage
Dual value far Rc^umd
ElTl / Ion
Dual d laluit ! AtihicvtiJ
KTB/tnn
Nil Model tBptrfi And outpmii are kir rtaniplf nnly
Uh K4 Mr02b AgncidnirD de Hanningt?)
IG-Jun-lFtdml Drumtuft; K^UtMrr
Hrh^TJ* A'/k
Alwj/nr of U 'afrr «>
rf<-/ nr-^r^j^e Pnpnf
Tabic 5-21  also  shows "dual valuci'*  for die constraiiics fixing  die nucumu
majxjjnnL'Liiii (achieved by  granting  permission to  increase) production levels
dual value tor the constraint on the rniBiirnutTi pmciiicrioin of a  crop j$  the <
objective function incurred by 
one extra ion 'J'lie dual value for tl
maximum      production      is      the      additional      value      that      would      be      added      to      the      ol one more ton of thuT crop was growtt-
fot vegetables,  the model lias solved for 17,14-9  tonnes which reaches the i production,  'tlic dual value indicated that were the constraint relaxed to  all< vegetables to  be grown,  then the objective function would increase by  ETU
value     of     one     ton     of     vegetables     used     in     the     model     is     ItTTS
3 O<JIO
t
so     !>v     rcalkx
?n      addinoual      ton      of      vegetables      implies      a      foregone      opportunity      to      grow      r^rht Nevirthrk^S the objective fumetion is still improvcil as a result
Oir rhe other hand,  onh' the minimum rcquiremtut nt millet is grouii.  .The < that the opportu.ru.rv  cost of rhe Land to  grow the last tonne cd millet ts T"-TT5 occupied by  growing  miller could be pur to  altcmatjvr uses the most ptrxiuc generate an increase in rhe objective funcrion of 17113  9,H42  —  much more tJ- vilue of millet fETB 2,500  per tonne).  hJevenheless,  the required tonnage oi
retained as it has its place in ruroJ Hirr^ and farmer* will probably corthnuc re
The same comment could be midc in re Apeci of’ rhe dual valuer of oilseeds a could be replaced by  msuLze seed or and vegetables I knvever,  markeing  thesi crops may br diffcaculi if the rcc]uirrd tonnage is exceeded by much.
Some cn»p5 -mechanised cane and pepper — have no dual values, 7 he rorinag
neither the rmtiLmiun recjuircd nor the maximum permitted. The model adloca
hccia_rcs of land available (within the model rfwistramt*) to l!ic prtMJiiruori <_>t
niaxijrtuise die value of scheme’ producoon.
In       order       to       improve       die-       probtability       of       die       project,       the       model       output       suggests improvement       by       growing       tm>re       vegetables       and       maize       seed,       'Fins       may       n<»r       he       pr truly       be       problems       in       selling       Urge       vahmes.      500      tonne?      of      mai^c       seed       is      sufficier 25,000      ha.      1      lie      model      plans      only      R,OCMJ      ha      of      muze      for      the      project      area      Piauruj incrrssed       output       of       vegetables       muj       hownex       be       leaj.ibk’;       the       first       step       wotlM       be the      market      data      to      ser-      if      an      increment      «_c>uJd      be      sold.      F.rpanuon      of      sorghum      an production       would       al»o       be       profitable       for       the       idirme       —       both       these       crops       have       an niATgina      and      can      be      grown      on      vertisols      in      the      wet      season*      winch      give*      dirru      a      ec advantage in pn>dur.uon,
L’b I’M SrOZb Agm '■*
ilrure * PIjj ir>taff Z)
13Zo f (hr net lrngnblr area).
Note that the number of farm families accommodated exceeds the protected present number of tinn families by 1,563 - these would be in-migrants to the scheme that would appear post re settlement. The model could be formulated to accommodate only the protected present population If all the net irrigable area is to be developed then this would result in a greater area of small/medium commercial farms and a greater amount of unallocated (non imgable) land However, the performance of private commercial farms has been generally poor in the past
The details of land tenure under Opnon 2A are shown in Table 5-22 and Table 5-23. Note that when the Land Allocation Optimisation Model sokes for zero hectares of a firm enterprise type on a land suitability type (c.g. commercial farms on luvwols) the Farm Revenue Optimisation Model must “force in” a small area (tn this example 50 ha) to avoid error values
R-Jun II/ txifrut I)c*r*iutK Rff+Wi »f
EthtfHJn XrJir
A£/«rfr) ft* IF</Z/r <*- E/mjJ
and I)»Prffr,t
-Option 2A}
Tabic 5-22: Uitb-projcct Number* and Arraanl
,f Farm8 and Entatea
and Net Returns.
return* I*’
U.n
nh c»*r
fcT7,Mj
41 -rrw.4»»
niiC.lV’
ft MMI 161
r,3*. 404
46.159,735
i« r.;yw-
-?■»
109 491 !•>
izjq* ■
17,
■iM 19.187
t<vJ .020,644
I
12X914,5 >2
.wou.vr 3 7*, 744
1AV75UW.
46.iv.v5
r>4,n3'
.    |.,_„ Revenue Aliocatiun Model
Tnd..pc, 1,0. -
f dn„ u lu.ced m «■ P— «- ' J““ ” 
'
NB Vtbrn /cm h* U a firm cntwjw occur* *
T-d. ,Z> WKK-^r-. N-b... -nd A....
.nd K...... .nd N.. »«...« I-Mta-
T «"' (OP'*""
Net Block
rettiraa
29i mi
l,4«i’251
\ 1.127541
tslA^Ven -rvto^M vA > Hrm vntvrpwK occur*. c*n allnA
VtV<- . *¥>»■»*w9J
,*~M.#fi*** "" <“" "
rch£^
f.ff.2 c crabscj wo
pp ng pattern for the scheme is shown by production system in Table i-24.
t
lhe l^Lgarcinc dominates rhe scheme cropping pattern at 50%. Of other crops, oilseeds ire (  led to be equally important as grains, 14% in the wet season ind 12% in the dry season,
21% m the wet season and 7% dr)' season Rice is a wet season crop, 2J% of the wet UnJ " ~r.intr pattern Deans and nulses are expected to occupy 14% in the dn season,
season cwpp“*fi t
'.
, i5 an important high value crop. 4% in the wet teason *nd 4 5% m the dn season.
Hj^h^r value crops including perennial trees and vegetables occupy .mail areas.
|lw final column of the Table *hows the cropping panem for (be design area of 63*371 ha Irrigated cropping intensity is expected to be 100% tn both rhe wet and dry season. Ram fed cropping intensity will be 100% in the wet season and onh 4% in the dry season (accounted for perennial crops), thus reducing the dry season cropping intensity in the scheme area to only 93%
n,
lhe  cropping  patterns  shown  are  outputs  from  the  modelling  process* completeness, rhe detailed cropping partem is shown in Table 5 25.
nor inputs. For
Ifi-lun-ltE/tafjj* Nflr JrnpftM jr?                   ProfitL'b F4 SrrtZb AjcrHulrun." A; rUnrrin^fZ)
lG-Jun-11itarvi f^thTufr. R/r of&toopM. Minify of Water c** Fnerg,
Erfaput Xtk           and Dr*up Pryea
5.11.) FamBni/pt
(a) Financial Returns W'ith-projcct
The farm crop budgets and net cultivated areas reported in Table 5-22 and Table 5.3 summarised tn Table 5 26 to calculate a crop return per farm net cultivated area ln~_
crop return? per ha between rainfed and irrigated production are ven satisfactory The
for this are firstly that irrigation effectively doubles the net cultivated area and crop yicfc. increase by about two or three times so production can increase by four to six tunes Ser<^ the production of necessary lower value crops (ro meet rotation and food security requirements) can be achieved on a smaller area, leaving a greater area for higher value cre* For example, on rainfed minimum allocation farms it is necessary ro commit the entire fine area (0.25 ha) to growing food grains in die wet season for household consumption, while cn the equivalent ungated farm of 0.1 ha that requirement can lx satisfied with only 0 07 hi a the dry season, leaving the balance of the cultivated area in the dry season and all the wet seisx available for a high value oilseed such as sesame.
Vertisols usually yield a lower crop rerum per unit area than luvisols Partly this is do wtrh increased labour and machinery costs, but mostly it is because of rhe more limited range . crops that can be grown Vegetables are confined to the dr)’ season, perennial trees arr nix recommended Commercial farms on vertisols do particularly poorfy.’ nee and noog allocated bv the model in the wet season, neither has a good gross margin
me lmgitrj |
lJ
^_  J15clAures This is due to a
lfm returns pci M
* P Ppcr, which account fn
c
i
hccUrr ve VCQ’ high. e.g. medium fams co 03500 croPptng pancm which includes 18% vtgcaWrs
Ul "Uni Th,s “ « typted problem  L"T1 70"'“ ofthef*'™ net crop return of ETB 48,W ?
a
•ffonoauc and nurfcCQng opponu ° mociel fann •PP'o»ch which tends to idealise the
7^°— kcoU0i
>mn>cn
511ratrK smtU prf)porjjon
However, medium f^nion
• of rhe scheme oct cultivated area and conmbutei
f       5      0,1      ,bn      ^WPy    gives    nCf      retUmS      11      ‘Chanc      levcl      «eighttng 
of lhe corunhuuon of mode!
rhe    farm    net    cmf
hect^ b*,ed<
£^7 
*'»' KhZi0^ rrtUm’ ha on “W'd farms (ETB 32.^
Ther^ °"
™ 4.600^
ne
t culmnttd
ISHlLJCh
rmupm is E^°n '         B’3°° P«           buf”
P “ **) md pr<xe5 ?** °° ,hc «U'e is valued at production cost uc yet to be tddaj (icc Secoon 5 j , 6).
IndudW rhe cane area is
t’h F4 SrOlb .Agriculture de Plmnwg'J*
16-Jun >’Mtmffr) eflTaffr j:Wf&
fti ,\W              *** Vf***? Prw<?
5-26: Crop Rentrns, ETB/nct fann cultivated ha (Option 2A)
I
a*“- or-^--zz   - -------                        I iVr-e*:r-t-is.1-olIst
—J—i     Luvis. locl__s
_____ >* Spec. Meas.
1     - .
Ram fed
jjci ctop rctnmjj»er_         farm, ETB
Minimum JlociDoji
3.485
4,538
4,538
943
Small Fjrni5_____________
17,581
18,402
19.663
2,702
Medium farms
42336
<301
67,990
5486
[ atgc faults
90,764
64.453
86,772
13,407
Comtflcrciil
73,484,632
4.B29J46
39,056.10?
Sinjar estate
23.456,955
2.W>2,(.]5
3,790,744
Net cultivated area per farm, ha
Minimum allocation
Oil
an
0.11
025
Small Farms
0.46
052
0.55
0.61
Medium firms
0.97
1.04
1.06
l.|7
Lirpc larLDS
171
2.71
263
295
Commercial
3332
81
1,410
Sugar estate
31,055
7 7^7
2,899
Crop returns ETB per farm net cultivated ha
Minimum aDc> cation
31.6Bt.
41.256
41.256
3,771
Small Farms
3B.197
35.672
35,947
4+45
Medium farms
43,991
46389
64.422
4j59O
Large farm*
53,454
23,784
33.011
4.537
Commercial
22,052
59,466
27,701
Supir estate
755
1,304
1,304
N<»ic- nci rulnviired area* per 5rm are ciimljred by ShA ijiefwrm urhsch ?hr pnipurnim cifriie tfiipabk au fcLjuifn! (hr infraatrurftire differs) su the net cultivated area per fam is no< nccesianly ctjuinlCTil tn ihc aJJ^Xackna Cl ibk- 5-1;
Table 5-27: Crop Returns ETB/ Net Scheme Cultivated ha (Option 2A)
Net cultivated ha
Crop returns ETB per oct cultivated ha
Scheme
irrigated
Rainfed
Scheme area
Inigated area
Rainfcd area
207
130
77
19332
40317
3.rt
Srrul] Farms
4J47
3398
949
2^411
35251
<445
iJEiLiJ?farm,
6,511
5.265
J 246
38.068
47,266
4.690
f                             ——
16,881
14>J’9
2JW3
23.884
2B.U88
4,537
L^meicial
4,823
4.823
0
22,928
22,928
36225
36225
0
763
763
68,99^
63,921
5 t074
nLlisduit
Lf est'jrr
13288
1*U51
^nrL-:
occluding '•ugat estate
27,133
31.894
4,546 ,
rr
Qr fL hJcns
.
ire weighted by the area they <*«up* on ihflricni mmI types +dianc cn«p ftriT11 * art farm rchums by fh<r area they cjCnpy within the Khcmc
s tO2|j a ,
Itjufbl 1
1J9Ftirru,                 VjpnK. efh'btfpia. Mnirty of Water r*° L:aer^, I tstyun Mr Irrqafw* and Dwa^r Prvftrt
M Use of Labour With-projcct
.rd tacd bbou. ,«|«»enK"> '»' '”h
— «m»bd to.
Ibis.-.. thenwmtbW » to tam bmlptt «> o»l*.n.tWr<<
”X,,„ Kq.u.e~n,. pe. t«m. d.-nn|~''h .g b«w«n «op ...d Mock ™. «,
u
T
ncr farm and the total labour requirement k summarised m Table >»
. Iron JLu. d.
r
, P- - capped „U) Tb. kto,
(
nonbe o< to. -to. f<» **- f“"
( “b ’ ‘nJ
obtained from the Baseline Survey This enables an estimate of household labour avadibilin assuming farm workers arc available for farm work for 120 days per annum (col. 11). The of lhe time would easily be filled with tertiary farm activities (off-farm labour, marketng, processing, religious events etc). This enables a calculation of the percentage of bousehnlc effort required for the cultivation of crops (col 12).
Labour requirements per net cropped hectare on smallholder rain fed farms are about 4^ din per annum, but irrigated labour requirements per net cropped het tare on irrigated farm* w about 191 days per annum and so about 308% higher. labour requirements for commcraai farms (83 days per annum per net cropped hectare) are aB hired (even management, though ihi is a fixed cost and not included in the gross margins). Labour use is less per hectare than on smallholder farms because some field operations are mechanised
f ’«cka ,
f h<thousch()Wson
^
uncrnP*f<'ment is much worse < Pct  ha  on  irnga  d  minimum  1!
(c
1492 of these land allocations
Un<^crcinP,o.rc^» this « expected However th IUIUniU,n   a^<KaD<Jn  farms,  even  though  the  net  fann  rt«
“ iub5^titd]y higher (see Table 5-26). Aboa
^ VC^1O<><3 Wunt)* is available to f ni*d. and it is important to ensure that with-projec^ °pporturutv is farm labour on th  mUhokjcr group One obnous employment
csl>,c and small/medrum commercul farms
si
csU!e ?commeraal enterpnses f u
^imamcd in 5.5 Thc'
l’e about 11.4 
3a ^our* ^^ngwshing between smaJlholda 1 •’ 411(3 ^bour. and crops and livestock 7hc tot* *
bbouf tcquirement unth-project is ecpcCtri'
f " fc”ock “ ’■» »"*> » to lto« v: °f                          —d
■“
commerce farm labour ,              1 
,OUl *ncuJrural ,abour rcquKon™'
requirement 11 H ‘ apCacd ,o *cco“nt for 17% of the total agricultural labour
35% wD be on vn^lho^ZT^o^
LUT
^. ! - '«on commercial farms and 53% on the core sug*
bbOUr
***
IH> IM SrO2b Aenculnne A rUnning'2)
l«i' hKL‘,n ***
figure
cU |(iir^l labour Requirement With-project, labour Day* per annum
-------
With-projcct labour Days per annum
■ SH l-'anuh tropi
■ SH Hired crept
■ SH Famih 5lock
• Commercial II ire Jen ips
■ Eilatc Hired crops
The total rural population of the with project scheme is expected to be about 110,400 (97 J 00 residents and 13,300 migrant labourers). Assume 80® » of the resident population is fit for farm work. All of the migrants will be available. If both residents and migrants arc available for 120 days per annum, then the total agricultural labour force will Iw 122 nulbon days per annum, compared with 11.4 million days estimated This equivalence, though ven- approximate suggest* thai thoc will be sufficient work opportunities in the agricultural sector alone for labour associated with minimum allocation farms
herr is a problem of dutancr tn travel to work for the resident labour force This could be
v cd by some individuals. from smallholder farms who are surplus to labour requirement* ^^ckmg longer term accommodation on commercial farms along with migrant labour flus
' happens llierc may also be a problem of seasonality which is nor considered in these
estimate^ TTi’ " u                                      1
J
-is impbes that dir labour requirement expressed in terms of number of labourers
l,Urt
’M h «i g(2}
J
nn
141
Ki Jiln-I IF'drml     Utwittu     Rrpt,Mi.     tf     F.rhnpfj,     Mivrtry     •’     H     jtff     r**   Fwnp F.lbt^ja Ki/e Im^ioon tinJ VhtKiidtf
Table 5-M. Ettimate of Wick-project Labour Requirement: Crop* (Option 2A)
To»«l
Total*?'
Hiird !•*••»
U3.45I
uy
[ 11*179]
,14
IS2™1
yn.x»7] 449.671 I UU.4I5
B/Z3 9«7<»V
16,428 2464X3] 122,421 t<43X|
77,6*1 125.95"
IBM?
JVM 291.4*2
2S,M3 157,273 224.44’
”5.M9
31.232 492J44O
*NmM I uma
Mrdwn (arena
[I -n-Of< [arena
R/Z.3
•IM ’<11
149.4*
,M 2’j6
£222111 i/asril
MT.4w|
3AO7^U]
T9.49? | MV* 2920X3]
1.422,311] ! •Hl.t S’1
I 47.4X61 ?9R,4G,»
WAIHo 292,933
l,4XrUl] <6*7,972 v.v.,zr
611 IM
2M3 697I 24X-<Rt |
?Tj67t I25J57|
"I
r.m TUI 44*1
Tbr,17
693.329
W,* !
1ff'
' j Returns per Family Labour Day
c
Phc cost of lured latent has alread}- been budgeted in the gross margins (at the present rale of plU 23 per dav) so &dbi the attractive gross margin* finable 5-lfl) it is dear ihat hired labour is
ffordabk The financial incentive m family labour can also be coiraaicd.
T)ir lemm per family labour day is the net farm rerum divided by the number of days of family labour engaged in production. It is important that thus exceeds the local daily wage rate, or the farm would not be viable Table 5-29 shows the expected returns per famjy labour day by farm, divided by farm rypc and dmmpushmg between crops, stock and the whole farm budget In ill cases the rrium io family labour is substantially greater thin the runt] wage rite, thus providing the incentive to smallholders to hire labour and commit their own family labour
Table 5-29: With-project Farm Family Return*. ETB/family labour day
Rerum pec
family Labour day to crops
Return per
family labour
day io crock
Rerun per .
family labour
day io farm
enterprise
Rainfrd Farm*
Msnimum allocation
102
1 63
61
Small Farm1!
101
63
■ 68
1 Medium fjriris*
115
58
' 69
Lifgc fauiM
109
60
77
Irrigated on luvisols
Minimum location
257
64
84
Smi]J Firms
208
M
120
Mcdiiim fajiTUi
204
61
127
Jjcge Fumi
243
62
140
.legated on SM
.Minimum allocation
257
64
84
, jrrudj Firms
228
64
127
-^itdiun, flmn
337
61
178
-i’jgefenn,
306
62
172
i^gated on VertUoU
159
-------------------------1 64
74
173
64
110
r^-Shnns
165
--- =--------            T 61
111
--
285
62
169
div^'b"        bb°Ur            (Crops)            “n            bc            weightcdtytbc            ™mbcr        of            di>4“PtcxJucfxjn
tr
(jp st               “hc 'otal "umber of family days upended duruiS theto get an average return by
per famih
I *hinu
1,1
cntcIPr*5cs’ * he results ire given in Table 5-30. Irrigated crop returns 108% higher Lhan ram fed family retumH per day. Irrigated and r unfed stock
bt sumlilr With project th*16 ul11 KrtWnK “d a«ro f°reiCI? 1D,a*m'c'
- °A winds expected to yield benefits which will give 'imtlsi stcdi returns
143
l6jull-l IFe&ruJ DtmiTtjft..  Uftoepift, A/wy/n ^’ir'u/W rl"Hwirjj
I:,9u(fp-jjfr jV/Xr 1rn^Liti0* and Drauiagr
throughout the scheme The overall return to ETB 130 per family day.
family labour for the scheme is CXp
Table 5-30: Return* to 
F^fndy Labour, ETB/dav
Crap enterprises
Stock enterprises
AU fam
Ram fed farms
109
60
Irrigated harms
227
62
J ■
AU Farm?
220
62
1?
3- f 1.4 i lonJrhoJff Foflrf Setwrity
1   tie   socio   economic   s
urvey   reported   that   I   5  c   to 
O/
8
ty-<.
of
the
househol
ds   in
16 
sur
arc    considered    to    be
food    msrctixe.    VC'idi-project
th
e    foo
d
secur
ity    situ
ation
is
expt
improve.    As    shown    in
Table.    5-31    with-project    ther
e
will
be
no 
serious
issues
oi
ho
securin' on smalt medium and large irrigated farms However, farms with rhe mmii allocation and small ram led holdings will be unable to  nwrt basic h< >usehoid food c these farms represent about 12?'d of rhe project area  projected population On rlu> i appears to  be a  case for increasing  slightly  rhe size of rhe cultivated area  on small ra though in tact over 80° o  of household food energy  rcTtjuiremerits will be satisfied bi production.
Table 5-3Ij Household Food Security Budgets (Option 2AJ
Crop
production
mKcik pj
I Lire*lock
HH food /% of energy
energy
ttajpfed Famu
Mirririmm j&HJtkjn
NmJ Form*
Midum farms
1 JFj?r frnn*
Irrigaicd on iuviEok
INftfamum ylki catkin
Small Funi«
Frrtgaird op SM
5Ijram   jru   aSoopon
SmuJt I j rm >_______
production |reqiMremrnt
mJCeaJu pa | mKali pa
J
ai% 107*. J $M’ u
7«‘%
222“ •
If.62?
Medium farms
1J jg
I
1-nr Ijrm*
l.on
d
~27q ir
12I*T/
■M cd mm La rm >___
t.jjyr ikrmi
2 J2J ■
5 JO* a
I mg-j I rd on VtfTlinl*
Mnwnun ifliKjnan
SfliJ J'arrns
'Medkirn frrmt
lfC-_d
1 farm*
47-56,
2FH* p
11H «rp«r fam.
from rhe
............... fc
7.W d
A-1J
p    Ub.« M.nmc.
rtpu
,n
f.d  ak«Un.
c
ra .
^ ivcJ f
srJ
Ub J-M SrOZb Agtieuliwtr A- f'Lnningi 2.
r
1
I6h«’
IJ 'ir ^
lic fooj cnejgy produced from liveMock ramtrn low, even wdi profco, but suffice™ m 1                   20% f,f food <-ncrgy n‘tTuxrmcnt-' llf£cf 'mgitcd Eunn. if the homchoH consumed
JUi «**gy11 p£nd,,ccd £rom llvcs,od(
f
ft"***9"
' ' F^miied with project production by crop for smallholders, commercial estate* and rhe
proposed sugar estate are shown Tabic 5-32 The estimates refer to Option I the core Sugar
L state with die extension areas occupied by small/medium commercial firms.
full development, the project area is expected to produce about 25 million ton? of sugar cane per annum, 05U tons of maize seed and cotton, 20,000 tons of fodder and 225.820 tons of food crops. 92* a °f the rani tonnage will be prodiKcd by the sugar estate in cane, commercial farms will produce 1% and smallholders will produce 7%. The sugar estate will produce 100% of the cane, no out-growers arc envisaged in this scenario. All fodder will be pioduccd by smallholders; commercial fams and the sugar estate arc not expected to hive limtodt enterprises ”9% of die ronnage of food crops will be produced by smallholders, I5 « on commercial farms and 5% on the sugar estate to supply food for hired labour’2.
Areas and yields are also shown in Table 5-32. It can be seen that the assumptions for with project yidds are modest for irrigated production. Smallholder yields of maize we 6.4 tons per ha the estate should achieve 7 tons per ha due to bene bis of scale. With-projeet sorghum and millet yields arc lower, being not so responsive to irrigation The sugar estate's cane yield i< in tons of cane per planted hectare^ and therefore adjusted for the proportion of plant and muon, cane and the difference in harvesting interval
The percentage of production of different crops by the three main fanning systems is also shown in Table 5-32. The barm Revenue Optimisation Model generally gives an intuinvdy reasonable distribution of crops between enterprises. Note that 70% of rhe commcrcul farm
ca has been surd on vertisols (Table 5-22) what rainy season cropping is fcstncted, while h 32% of thr ungared smallholder area is on vertisols.
fl
tnt  k rc4UiremcnT uf the mignuil labour force of 12/100 people »
63 n»H»H kufc 
_
for ^00d <TOP’ PrOlll,Crd lKc Wla« “ ib°Ut 33
kaJS '3 1UlWr>flMl
U| >h<
c4 ^2h a ■
16-J m II
* Planning)
H5hedwa.' fyvbh; tf Siimthy tfV*rf? E»r^
Ef6up« Nlfc Impfett wi*^ P'jujpe PnytiTrhr must b< ad Jed die value added by sugar processing, The tons of cine harvested each
A factory gate pnee of sugar of ETB ^,894 per ton has been used11, and the gross value of sugar production at the factory gate will therefore be ETB IT4 billion per annum The net value of sugar (to be added to the value of production in Table 5-31) is the gross value of sugar production at the factory gate, less the production and processing The de tads of the production cost can be found in Supplementary Report SR-06. in short they total ETB 3,395 per ion of sugar, of which ETR 1,136 per ton of sugar is accounted for by estate production costs and the balance bv factory processing. I deducting depreciation, the net value of sugar at the factor) gare is therefore ETB 3.832 per ten of sugar, totalling ETB 843 million.
rhe value of livestock production is also added; multiplying the with-prnjeer gross margins by ihc number of animals expected with project by smallholder farm type The livestock Development Supplementary Report (SR-02C) estimates rhe future capaaty of the scheme ut 161,000 head of cattle (based on dry matter availability) but only 144.000 head of cattle (58% dairy cows and followers and 42% beef) has hern included in the farm budget There are two reasons tor taking only 90% of dry mailer rapacity. Firstly improved management requires better quality' feed which is still likely to be in short supply in rhe project area Secondly,
h -usehold labour is insufficient to minapc more cartie ar the level of labour input assumed in
^’suies a 1 
between the proportion of their land on luvisok, venisob. spretd area. Livestock and sugar processing benefits are identified scparjidj
16 hm-11
147FfOerui
ej Ef^apu. Miwtr> afW'afrr & E
Etfapwi Nik Irn&ficK and Druiita^ PryM
^.,s that smallholders contribute 42% to the total with-project finawul^ XXl'XfH f««" >rnJ»»kkH. •rig.ton ™„.ri»...e ■>-. and nu„M
()f the tot
The
jnd 5% „ conrributcd by commercial farms In th» so^
CO ® _ aut<> hj? 57% of thc ncl irrigated area, commeraa) farm,
(core sugar estate            upr
and irrigating smallho 
most productive fami cn‘C,p™ 
from livestock production and much higher
flnancul
irrigating smallholders art whlch 1S unsurprising gn en the iihx adfaj
f Ubour unit area However, the wk
added  from  sugar  processing  raises  the  proportion  of  benefits  attributable  tn  thc  sugir enterprise  substantially
l*he contribute »n to net value of production (of crop production on thr net irrigable arei oak made by luviwls is 30%, vertisols contribute 51% and special measures 16%. Luvisols tie ooh 20% of the net irrigable area, vertisols 68% and special measures 15° t The output suggests dur luvisols are twice as productive (tn financial terms) than vertisols, and special measure soils sir more productive by 1.8 times This is a reflection not only of lower production costs on luvans and special measures, but the under range of crops that can be grown giving cppominine* fcci higher proportion of higher value crops (within the production constraints of rhe model/1^- gives smallholders a distinct advantage in terms of land suitability, 47% of their irrigated u on luvisols. compared with only 1% of commercial farms’ and 6% ot thc sugar estate
01 >wnc calculation is repeatrd on value of crop production only on the
Sinalllioldos net irrigated area, a lower productmtv ratio is obtained - luvisols are onh
pr uc0'c as vemsols This is a major benefit of (he Farm Revenue Optimisation Mo*1 * **
k UmC 00 a^TOn<,rruc grounds dierc is a productivity difference between the two snih model seeks out a distribution of crops which optimises rota! farm income and alk*af
crops co smallholders on vemsols in which they have a comparative advantage The case fox ng a larger farm sue to smallholders on vertisols 0 therefore much reduced,
espeoafly considering that farm net cropped area returns for small, medium and large smallholdings are all suffioent to sustain an adequate livelihood with no food sec^’ '*** (see Sections 5.11 3 and 5.11.4).
UbHSiOZb
Sgnculrure A I’bnntn^
148
I6 |un IJMimrtn t‘ » jrfrd-Evwp.
V.j, PWrt**Ur* /X***3'
F&“ 5-6: Scheme N« VaIuc of Pmduc^ ETb miw
of '•»'-> <0ptI0n2A)
~~f
•Grams
■O'lweAindpulw, (
■ Fnu,*T*'w««aM
ej
>s ugircanc
■ Other indusfml^
® Durr
■ Beef
11 SuS3'ptocrumg
Vilur Of f|haniJ|
■ Vallie of pour: ,aj„
f
I
Bhcus
PUnn«ng(2)
!
16-Jun-llFDtMrferaft.*
Abai.’frj «/ IT .^rr t* E«r»X>
E/bop/jn Nim ImpftM DfiURJ^r Pn»M
Table 5-33: Whb>projcct Value of Production (Option 2A)
rmdunuM tc««
IMM
i«w
rw»wil
4 IV
Mg
IO.M>51» I
iviwt
7*,M1
•»#V
pt!
Ttl«
:ys=t|
’ l-e
t,IM-
vhitm ■» i
t?,w
J'J'L
i\ew in-h»
>A,a
LM»
J                 !.Mi
ll’J«5L4M_
ISJA -rr
L»™
■u ! ■•■ >U
l»»»■" «••»’»
1LU1
•jw.m
I > ^> KI
KM’km
l»
It
—
0
l>
----------------- 1
■
•1
0
(
2
0 111-120
12* bUMH
II W.MI
t
0
?MT ,M3
___________
”1
21
0
ii
0
—T i wV^n
/>
II
Hl »0S]
7.0*1.***
nJ
0
Ml CM
■21
•
n,M4 .’*0
0
•i
0
0
1
0p
0
-
•
1J
—
-
T5 4M.M!
noMjnrx
l.'.Bl.MlS
110.10* MJ
li-SK.U*
MJ?U 4’5
H«ni’v
L
xnji.n
2325U iw.
I
MH|
1
H) >*:
-*
T■
jT
1
r*|           Jin.U
4. ’* IM -1
J        VJ.tofcjrrn
.
1 «-’W
IP.|I»«
'       14.Mn.1J
*           M.VU 47F                     ^jcrri
2J2J41 <*asl/0
.project interventions and cost estimates
jHten'ronons will lx required to up-grade stakeholder benefieunei. particularly smallholder
t '2wer 'kills and resources and enable the switch from largely rainfed to irrigated cropping. Paring project implementation, the proposed interventions mar be vaned. mixed and matched according to specific needs of farmers in the command area, and after discussions with farmers md other stakeholders The main purpose of packaging interventions as sub-protects is to provide structure and cost to this aspect of project design.
Enhancement ofSoil Fertility (CP-1)
Subsistence farming is characterized by low yield and low use of inputs. In most parts of the project area which have already been intensively cultivated, the decline of jofl fertility has been identified as the main constraint to increased productivity Therefore the improvement and maintenance of soil fertility will be an important intervention This proposed sub-project will address the danger of a long term decline in soil fertility by promoting increased use of organic and chemical fertilisers ITie activities of the sub-project include
•      Promotion of the use of the recommended amounts of organic and chemical fertilisers.
•      Adequate and timely supply of chemical fertilisers through the service cooperatives and private dealers,
•      Promotion of the distribution of chemical fertilisers through private dealers;
•      Supply of good quality fertilisers through the construction ind/or rehabilitation of warehouses (belonging to service co operatives) as well as quality control,
•      Introduction and promotion of appropriate crop husbandry* practices, including crop rotations with leguminous crops;
•      Promotion of integrated nutrient management, including the production of compost, and
•      Promotion of access to credit allowing smallholders to purchase fertilisers and to invest in the development of their crop land.
creaseef^uppf\ of Imnrnmi
/CP-21
piunioaon or rnc use or
.
tD «»ot>on  of  seed  multiplication  for  major  crops  through  contracted  inner*  in
Project aica;
■ AdcHu«e and tunelv suppty of unproved seeds through the service co-operatn« and Pnv>* dealers.
151Fttimf               RjpMc                 Abnirtn IFafer cv Erter#
Si/f ltyrt^ot ii*rt Drwxj^t Pnye.f
•      Improve the warehouse capacity by construction/ or rehabilitate Farmers' cooper alive’s warehouse; and
1  ^ruor’
6.4
•      Promotion of access to credit to allow farmers to purchase improved seed
Promotion of Effective Pest Control, CP-3
Potential  crop  production  will  not  be  fully  achieved  unless
reduced. These crop losses include: currenrcr<,plosscsarc<]Rrufia^
•      High crop losses caused by weeds, pests and plant diseases;
•      Storage losses caused by rodents, insects and fungi; and
•      Use of traditional storage facilities.
The proposed activities of the sub-project include
•      Improvement of farmers* knowledge of prevention and control of weeds, pe«b ni plant diseases,
•      Introduction and promotion of improved crop husbandry practices to present w: problems, including crop rotation as well as intercropping and alley cropping-
•      Promotion of correct and safe use of agro-chemicals.
•      Introduction and promotion of integrated pest management (1PM);
•      Adequate and timely supply of agro-chemicals through the service coopers private dealers together with advice on safe and appropriate use;
•      Introduction and promotion of improved storage facibnes at household level using locally available materials.
•      Promotion of treatment of stored crops with safe agro chemicals (o PrC rodents, insects and/or fungi, where appropriate, and
•      Provision of access to credit allowing farmers to procure agro * c construction of improved on-farm storage fadbties
rhe
6.5            ^prO''et,Agn^.n]Mark
Project arc, u not onJ m
R-uth area, bu, tht
se5 J'"™’ ^do, identified by .Amlunt Sure - >
rhc ncu sc’>me and hanc.iU^^ WWch '"PP1^
'h/ouRh rhe EdUOpUn COIWjJm ...
"
<o contribute to the improvement of n. 1 (
rcccnth’ become an adopted o
regional and expo"
network that has been established
’ R°O<J opportunity for the prujecr ,frl
gronen The agncuJtural marketuu,
markCIU1g sv«retn However. sesame has W* much r^"' to be done to reerwt con"*1
eo
JW|
OIlMinU:                                                                          ‘-cm tn .he project Poor condition or lack of  U  „ .
nadesjuate means of transport; ' Wutun Project area;
Uck of markenn;. mformatio„’for f 1 nee fluctuations for most crop,
C nu,krt prices, traders, market olide«)'
I l|» ! 4 SrtCb Arncvlrufc A r'LannjrmfJ}
;
J 52under rhe project (proposed infrastructure works are detailed in the engmeenny
report), through a partnership between the government and the villagers,
e Introduction of marketing information system (fc. marker paces, dealers, outlets)
through rhe service co operatives and union, DAs ind/or kebde coutiak based on
regular market sunk’s earned out by ARD wereda staff;
•        Promotion   collective   marketing   of   crops   directly   to   wholesalers,   retailers   and/or agro processing industries (through service co operatives and union);
« Strengthening of the marketing capacity of service co-operatives and their union,
« Promotion of contract farming and establishment of linkages between farmers md
agro processing/marketing companies (value chain);
•        Improvement   of   marketing   infrastructure   in   the   command   area   (at   kebde   lever;, including the construction of covered market stands and small warehouses,
•        Improvement  of  storage  facibues  through  the  construction  and/or  rehabilitation  of warehouses  (including  cold  storage  of  vegetable  and  fruit  crops)  a$  well  as  quality control, and
•        Improvement  of  sound  marketing  practices,  including  a  reliable  determination  wd control  of  the  quality  of  agricultural  producr  as  well  as  the  enforcement  of  standard weights and measures.
Strengthened Agncukurat Extension Services and Research Acrrvjues, CPS
Agricultural extension and research should be connected to provide coherent and effective support to tanners, whatever the size of holding and management level. The Upper Beks project area has a good track record particularly through the activities of PARC. Nevertheless,
services and
I i’ll adc
cropp  J
s
ro   C tec^lnJc^  ^l® and knowledge of extension staff with respect to lrngaird
•
Ucuun
k .„k ,^ ^ ^
k        rrmt t< as aOp sto^je and niukemg.) M DoMratH tyttw o' Elbiofu, A hautr) of V aftr c  E
;
u
i f/rctw* Xia lmpfioo anti Dnsnjft /’wr
The activities of the sub-pro|ect will include:
Establish demonstration
the agricultural office
sites in different part of the project area in coUabont*^
Conduct on-farm farmer training for the new agricultural technologies Establishment of intensive and effective linkages between agricultural rrx and the extension staff in the ARD offices at regional and ucreda level;
• Provision of essential facilities fi e reference books, training materials, took
r  CATCf; f
equipment) and sufficient budget to the DAs to ensure rhe execution of the rzeejq- fanners’ training courses, trials and demonstrations; and
•      Provision of regular in-service training for all extension staff ar u creda and kebelc lev* in order to enhance and update their necessary technical and extension skills
6.7             Irrigation Agronomy and On-Farm Water Management, CP-6
Although small areas of irrigation do exist in the project area, irrigated crop production is expected to be widely practiced in the future. Cropping intensities arc expected to increase around 2110®» and about 16,000 smallholder farms are expected to be involved in irrigate • vast majonty of smallholders lack the necessary knowledge and skills to practice irrigated agnculturr, particularly with regard to irrigated crop requirements and on-farm water management techniques Tliis sub project will therefore address this constraint The a
lhe sub project will include
elopment ol appropriate irrigation extension packages aimed at appropriate arm water management (OFWM) and lmgabon agronomy;
Tion of in-service training in OFWM, imgation agronomy' and modem trng* - technology to extension staff at wereda and krbeJe lev el fie DAs);
revision of sufficient budget 10 DAs to provide farmers’ training courses in irng*06 ma >gemmt and irrigation agronomy, and
al
0
n
Provision of demon str anons and fanners’ training courses in the field of ODO* irrigation agronomy al krbeie level
6.8           Improved Acceas to Fam Credit, CP-7
I jek of farm credit facility is one of the major constrains of crop production.
proj^1
Thi*
areas only eight SCAs are established out of 37 project krbclcs to support the         flCjjines implies that the farmers in lhe project area do not have adequate access to c            faflncr* tf1 sub project would have an important role to enhance the financial capacity o
engage in modern agricultural farming and promote sustainable development in proposed activities of the sub-project are
•     Formation and training of one or more savings and credit assoua in the command area with the support of respective Regional Saving Association Cooperative*.
in (*»
,
n**5’
• Supph of farm inputs and implements on credit through the service co-^P0
•     Facilitation of the supply of short, medium and long term Joans to house Regional SCACO by providing seed capital
( Tb H S*G2b AgOOlhwr A running
]6jun 11
IS4^ rrr *Ew*>'
vctneBts to Pout harvest Technology, CP-S
(.9
project c,""L'a^5 dcnKM”UatI,1R W«>v«i lhr«hin£ techniques, bagging and packing *nd stora«C
i!e                  Thr esnrnai’-" cosr lot the suggested sub-projects ire sumnumed in Tiblr 6 1. These costs ludc ronsulianey support costs. Many of the subprojects will be implrmcnTrd in each of the
el^cn krHdes within or partially within the project area
Table 6-1
: Cost Estimate for proposed Sub-projects
Annual Cott
Sub-Project
CP-1: Maintain and Enbanceiiient of Soil FertiEcy
Trials   demonstration,   craining   and   insOtunonal strengthening
(ETB)
No. of Total Cost
Yearn (ETB)
150.000
sub total__________ _________ _____________________________________ CP-2: Increased supply of improved seed and agricultural equiptarflit
Trials, demons* ration, training and insnruTiofial
5 750.000 I
750,000
strengthening
Strengthening of implementing ins ntu Horn including cooperatives and saving and credit
1 issocarions iiih-toul
] 95.000                   5
r 5,000
1,000,000
1,975,000
CP»Jj Promotion of Effective peat control Trials, demonstration, training and insHtuttoruJ strengthening
Jub-totaJ
75,0M                   5
375,000 37W0
CP-4. Improved Agricultural Marketing System Irajnmgand extension
on sBrucijon of market ifi tmsLrucTure
ixurc ICl equipment to establish information Cntre in ill project kcbeics
ju^tatal
50,DOO                 5
250,000 4.925.0W
250.000
3 75O,lX»
5525,000
» t^ngthened A^gnculturaLl Extension Services and Research Activities
uTr:                                               tools for D.U
tnu,UnK
sues 
150.000
250,000
5                 750.000 5
^STE&r—____________ _________ _____ ___  -
^nati j b<Hl %onomy in<j On-farm Water Management
2 -^_ £ h :^5Lnit,On- ^^g and instinirmnaJ
nf
t
to F,rtn c,edit
c^Cs,ind (^e
i’ ^fon
r
ind m *
fresco 2
Wl OOO              5
* *'ce
r
a
< -c*>pcr .„ rttenance nr wurchouwc
J Sd PoM-haree,, Technology
7,600.000 15,000,003
Total
A
16Jun-H
* M,IUrc & Planningp)f f.rtf*"
iJST OF ANNEXES
^>'tX A TABLES
TabfcAl L*' oi -
Tible A2: Tiblf A3
< r Df Recommended Crop Varieties
Seed Requirtmfnr for SmlJlholder Farming
SrajOnil RcquirdTH-rtts of Fertilizers for Smallholder Farming
i 'nc U ScisothJ Agro-chemical* Costs for Smallholder Firming
Tabk-
Dble A5 Crop Area and Production in Pawc Wcrrdas
Tiblc A6 Crop Area and Production in Dangur W’eredlS
Title AT- Crop -Area and Production in Jawi Wercdas
ANNEXB- crop water requirements
ANNEX C: SUBPROJECT PROFILES
CP- F Enhincement of Scil Fertility
CP-2 Increased Supply of improved Seed
CP 3: Promotion of Effective Pest Control
UP -5 Improved Agricultural Marketing
IP-5: Stirngihened Agricultural Rjiension Services and Research Activities
• ■ Irrigation Agronomy and On-farm Water Management c? 7 Improved Acres to Farm Credit
p s Promotion of Effective Post-han est Technologies
D: CROP AREA BY SDA AND ESTIMATED PRODUCTION
^ 3b
56 |i3i 11Att/urfn of IFafrr d* Hwtij E/fapis* NiJe Jrr^atw/r i/fl Y Pw/iusv- Pj^t.7
(
L Jh I 1 Sri _'Ti A^u'-ilmn- *t J'bnnrnR _ .
u. ru-
J 11fa* Ms               yffmrfry of ir'gtfr Porrp
ANNEX A: TABLES
Table Al - List of Recommended Crop Vane ties
Table A2:: Seed Rcqinrrmcm fnr Smallholder Farming
Table A3 Seasonal Requircmcnis of Fertilizers for Smallholder Farming Table A4 Seasonal Agro chemicals Costs fnr Smallholder Farming Table A 5: Crop Area and Production in Pau-e VC'ercdas
Table At Crop Area md Production tn Dangur VC crcdas Table A? Crop Area and Production in Jiwi WeredasFtd/ru! Dfmtkntn, RpM* of Efhtoptd, Mtmjtry of Water Hnrrg, Ethn^fi Mr I'^afiM nd Drmnag Prwea
L'b J-4 SrO2b Agriculture 4 Plannmgr'Zt
2a „M.✓£***'
T bk Al' nf Recommended Crop Varieties
Variefv
McJkiiy   -J   _ Xfdtow II
BH-I40-
BH2*L_____
PBH 3253 
J3HQ?—
90 100
100-120
130 145
130 145
Haricot bwn
76 T1 23
Serdo
t-jnahuy 
lad esse
Pa det
Baruda
Pawe I
NERCA-3
NERCA 4
NBRCA 4
Supenca-1 Aunh  me  Ik  a Nasir
Roba I
Argrnc
75 1UU
8S 90
Dibc
-Vera
Bekaa 95
110 115
105-135
134A6D
120
Awasa
Sova millennium
jhiilamiiF
_Roba_
J-ore
155 140
150
130
103-120
B5-90
90-100
100 115
Shimbu l
- _ Me tide I 1350
4 p lwouiE(2)
I-
V'ttM Drwwwflz RrpjftVi of Ethiopia. Minify ofWjtn En<rg Ethiopia* Nik Imp/ioo anti Dranqf f Prv*rt
16 K
H
I lb 1*4 SrO2b Agncultmc A. i*Uiining(2
2
if »*'y
 £V^TWrt'
Mmr/m MW cu
** flT^v' Pw’*r p^r
d Kcquifemcnt fot Smallholder Farming
sa-
r>quirw jutting
Aiiiuj mi requfrmmt
CNrtPfX-
Gipuntfwjl__________
Scqi~btin/              5-
fon^arwr*
Sdrficwe'____________ _
Repper _ 
fon^o
OrtlOiH
ptton
i--/-iff
MjhE1-
Cjtrm
Trtll
-
1**913
85EBC
W5W
M1732. 1*4923]
cm
512535
A; .,.
v ** rfannuift'2:
1 (>J UU.-31
3:
Ptdmi Dfotoaum faptbbf rfErfapta. Mim/tn of Wafer r  Energy
u
tifhcpm Nik Iftrate* itfui Drvna^f Pr^a
Table A3: Seasonal Requirements of Fertilizers for SniaOhoider Farmin
Wet st
tason
Dry season
Crops
Area (  )-J
DAP
ha
Urea
la!L
Total
(q<)
Area
('••9
DAP
—W
T~u^T
ling
1         Aa    j
niU
. (q«)
j Total
1
(m )
Maize
3221
3221
3221
6441
1074
1074
1074
214?
4294
Maize seed
215
215
215
429
215
Sorghum
2561
4226
2561
6 78“
2817
4649
4649
9297
J-
8875
Finger millet
1921
2113
1249
3362
2305
2536
1648
4184
!     4649
i—
Rice
2561
2561
2561
5122
|      2561
Groundout
1288
1288
1288
1074
1074
1(FM |
2362
Hancot
liean/ S.
lean
1074
1074
1074
1396
1396
j
1396 1
2469
—1 1
Pepper
2784
2784
2784
5567
3420
3420
3420 1
6840 [
6204 1
Oil
Tomato
1074
1074
1074
2147 1
1074
in
Onion
1074
2147
1074
3221 |
2147 ]
1(T4
Conor.
384
768
384
1153
384
768
384
1     153“ 1
"a
Total
15793
18034
12759
30793
14831
18350
13536 i
30734 |
36385
J6W]
_ Table A4: Seasonal Agro-chemical* Costs for Smallholder^arming
Crops
Mure
Maize seed
Vjrghum
J-uip-r miller
fUe
Chickpea
Sesame
Groundnut
Hvx   ot   bean
Suntlawcr
Safflower
Pepper
Tomato
(Mirm
vuCoitiutonn
Forage
Mang<»
Citrus
Wei season
total cost (40%
infestation)
204896
115260
256120
122937.6
289845
103056
128820
Da season
total cost (40%
infes ta d on)
150290
3OO5fi
2253856
138300,
Ann i tai cost
60H60J
30058)
.A«a1A
1.6 253S60J
*766(#£
389690
214700
85880
167466
32205
42940
47884*)
150290
193230
21620
53785.2
89M2
75145
._30058
2310125
2063217
437334JJ
l’bF4S«O2b \gnculnjfr A Planning. 2)
ll
4,                K^*^' *f‘&A"P ' A/wzfrt
a
r>
V* W Dn"^
T*blc AS-^Cm
anti Production in Pawe Wcreda
2007
2008
2009
production,
qt
yield,
qt/ha
area,
ha
production,
<P
yield,
ana,
ha
production,
V
qr/faa
39,230
21.5
1,840
M.773
45.0
2,081
130,549
62 7
2.348
37J13
15.9
2.689
58.146
21.6
2.021
40.021
198
55,818
18.0
2.9401
44,467
15.1 ,
3.48"
53.914
__
J<xc_._
Su^rntd
r is.s
3 424
108
320
912
19
402
K44O
21.6]
135.785
r.9
7.789
186,208
J
239
7,991
232,924
29.1
Puh« _ Chidr p<*
30
240
a.o
60
600
10.0
36
288
B.D
331
5.536
16.7
785
12,441
15.8
i 688
1X660
18.4
Hiricnl lwin
Sub- rural
361
5.776
16.0
845
13,041
151
724
12,948
1.7.9
Odwcd
Stiamc
2.839
12.011
4.2
2.632
15,176
5.8
2.S2J
15.176
6.0
Gsuuodnuc
2,169
26.022
12.0
2438
17.438
7»
2,504
20.137
BO
 Naug
93
294
3.2
90
360
4.0
ioT
432
4.0
Sub-tutfli!
5,101
38.327
7.5
4,06(1
32.974
66
5.135
35,745
7.0
Vegrubka
_ Pepper
44
392
89
57 j
412 1
72
92
620
67
Swccr pcjijtp
hub-total
5,700
6.112
7>X'
8.120FtfM Dfwtraf!,- RpMc 9*'Effort. Mimitr,     Wafer cw F.ffg
rJhtwx yiiie Irripf** anti Drwujge Projerf
Table A6: Crop Area and Production in Dangur Wereda
2007
2008 ~
Crops
area, ha
production,
q<
peld,
qt/lw
area, b.
a  j products
«»T yield, qt/ha
Cereals
wheat
2.732
19.524
J 2J
2,44
6                   22.704 1                of!
Maize
5,069
122.951
243
5,251
162.13
o                 30,9
Sorghum
3.531
67.936
19.2
3.75:
>                10937
5                 29. H
Millet
1.605
18.355
11.4
1,63!
25.57
5 J              15.6 1
Bark)’
163
1.914
11.7
13(
U                    1.57
6 11.6
Rice
81
810
10.0
87
MS
0                 15.5
Sub-total
13.181
231.490
17.6
13,309
322.7K
}                242
■1
i.
Pubes
Chick pea
157
1.099
7.0
218
1,304
6.0
Sop bran
46
690
15.0
55
1.375
25j0
Haricot bean
367
3.000
8.2
498
5.994
12.0j
field pea
210
2.180
10.4
103
t.ir
10.8 ' <   ——-———t
_ 
Sub-iotal
780
6.969
8 9
874
9.790
. 
112 1
i
J
Oil seed
|2*£*a,nc
3.260
19,860
6.1
4.238
34.961
8.2 I
[Groundnut
1,792
24.144
13.5
2.555
37,075
14.5,
Imserd
37
185
50
40
240
6.0
Sub total
5,089
44,189
8.7
6833
72476
10.6
_____
.Vegetables
J
Prpp*'
173
1.275
7.4
208
2.578 1
JZ4J
onion
7
450
64.3
12
72oT
gsrkc
8
645
80 6
30
l.iwsT
JJjTJ.
pumpkin
50
7.000
140.0
73 1
104201
140.0 J
Sub-total
238
9370
39.4
323 T
15463 f
474J
_________
—
PcrrnoLal < mps
L
Banana
4
120
30.0
4
150
| Papaya
14
560
40.0
6
228 1
400 I
(.on (Xi
28
228
8.1
26
208 j
Sugarcane
------------ --
12
345 J
30.pl
8.0 1
Sub-rot aJ
46
908
19.7
48
931T
19.5J
Grand total
J?434
292,926
152
21487
421,070 ]
19.7J
l.’b 1*4 SrO2b AgnoiJiurc & J’LanningfZ.
1 (•-?»*>7*
T*bk ‘ A7lcL°J
Area and Production in Jawi Wereda
Mti, hi
area, ha
yield,
qt/ha
yield,
qt/ha
ytfthUfi*. ——’
RK<L-
hib«_ Sib-ro<d
-.085
899 __________________
*        2007
production,
4.495_
227,150 _
176,502
22.021
10.6
47.4
30.0
249
24.5
2008 production,
q<
4.201 292,632 671,508 237,993
28,442 1.234.776
2"026 
_ 
W ^09
532
8.613
22379
7.498
916
39.938
29.619
29.619
5.061
Placed _
Sesame Groundnut Safflower
18.192
200.112
3.8^9
__ 9
2.165
62JT9
15,007
2.651
128.518
40.574
110
Sub-tool
24.245
15.158
277,459
1,906
17.728
19.564
186.820
veteran ic»
.  fpper
?
202
1.620
8.0
412
6.275
152
Sweetpotato
188
16301
86.7
36
6.408
1780
pub total
390
17.921
46.0
448
12,683
283
Cotton
10
83
8.1
Gpod total
52,958
1,170391
22.1
60.357
1,439340
23.8
Ifijult-l 1
Pl *ning(2)
7Wrrx'Pw.Tun.                   tfEthupia, Mirnffn cf Water and hwrg; Ejfap&i W Im^afrcr mJ Dnrt^f Prye.~W t*#*" "JDnfav hfa
ANNEX B
CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS
Annex B-l. Sugar Estate Crop Water Requirements Annex B-2: CommcrciaJ Fann Crop Waler Requirements
.Annex B-3. Smallholder F arm Crop Water Requirements
p1s-ia>
16-JtiaE/b*fi** Mr
axi Dra**r Pr*"T
L’b F4 Srt>2b Aflticulfurr * Hanntng(2J
2ANNEX B-l
SUGAR ESTATE CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS
Opnnn A five siagg«ed raioon plantings each over 20" o of the farm area with planting in the dry season jiMtingoa 15* November and continuing over five months to 15* March;
Option B mx staggered ratoon plantings, four over 15% of the farm area and (wo ova 20® • with planting in the div season starting on 15* November and continuing over six months to i 5* Apnt and
Option C faux staggered ratoon plantings each over 25% of the farm area with planting in the dry season ituting on 1* December and continuing over four months to 1   March.
HFtdcmi Dt/Bixrnfi; fafmbh; 9f Ethiopia. Mt mi try ofW j' tr and Ener^ F.thffftjn Nut Irnptiof and Dnanaff PrortaOPTION A f5 RATOON CROP PLANTINGS) NET CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS
L'b 1*4 SriJZh Agnculnitt: dk naamngfZ}
1Frdmr/ OaftmifK R&aHi.
Sbmfn *f FMfr <** Hw*p
L'/^yv^v A‘/i
*ih1 I^rwo^r P**f.l
OPTION B (« RATOON CROP PUWMTJNGS) NET CROP WATER REQUIREMENTSOPTION C (4 RATOON CROP PLANTINGS} NET CROP WATER R£QU1 REMENTS
Bi
aol*-
Vb t 4 StOTb Agrie ukrucc Al Pliomn^Z)
r
16 |un 11I f^ra!
y Iifhfiphi Miti/fiy f‘ V,w              fc'iwig)
EthitfKM .\’r> Irrr^nan anJ Drjrr^r PryraE^pwr AW /'W'”” ■®»l’'MU(r Prair.r
ANNEX B-2
COMMERCIAL FARM CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS
OPTION A; COMMERCIAL FARM CROPPING ON LUVISOLS OPTION B COMAfERf IAL FARM CROPPING ON VERTISOLS
’“"W.
]C-|unDr# Erhiapia, Murfar? #*' lP2tfrr an J E rr^
EMufniif NiJr Im&fwr atuJ Dncnagr PnytrfUb IM SrtJZb Agriculture & PUniun^j
1
!6-|un-l IDim taitf, «• r!p^t
s/Dnif
OHIONBCOMMEKCIALFARMCROPPINGON VERTISOLSPfW(Ji^rf
v .^ Impnvr       ^n®lV
Mrvitn pf CT*r & f.;^
ANNEX B-3
SMALLHOLDER FARM CROP WATER REQUIREMENTSEthjiM Nik Imftnoi mJ Dnsn^r Pnfttf
IJb F4 SrO2b Agriculture & Pl*nomg(2)
2JVkJ- Ararrr*w —, k /.Ari a<y X^**i r
5M4ZJL JJCJKDER FARM CROPPfNG ON LtrVISOLS
Ub F4 SrtiZb ApjtkultUM i Pta»Mjc(2)
I
lb-pun-| |Dm*,
5ri ^Dnuip P/ww
.Mwfrr # IF^ £ W. CfM*-J
ANNEX C
SUB-PROJECT PROFILES
'"Mungpj
1
IS-itui tlM*ut? y BW <J- £■ wp
EAy*_ NA /mJ Dwg' P^i
Ub H4 SrOCZb Agflculrurr & PhnnmgG?)
2. 
tfVMtr         Ewfgf
CCPP ^1:EEnnhahnacnecmemeentnt of Sot] Fertility
Subsistence farming characterized tn- low yxjd and low improved input utilwaunn u the n»|or production system of the project area. In mow pant of the project area deterioration of soil fertility has hecn identified as the main constraint to improved crop
productivity
According  to  the land suitability  and sod inalyui rnula  of the project area, the luvuot soil tvpe has been exhaustively  utilized bv  firmen due to  high concentration of populaaon and frequent cultivation. rhe sod fertility  starus of the surveyed area  ls ringing from mode rare to poor due to natural and human induced sod nutrient mimn?
’1’hc proposed intensive agricultural production system requires sustainabie soil nurner.t management which is not currently part of the production mtem.
•         Promote sustainable sod nutrient management
•          Increase the supply of ferdizers through cooperatives ind private dealers
•         Promote improved cultural practices
•         Maintain sod lerubrv to attain optimum yields
4. Description                           The activities of the sub-project include.
•       Promotion of the use of recommended amounts of organic ind chemical fertilisers;
•       Adequate and timely supply of cherracaJ fertilisers through the senice co operatives and private dealers;
•       Promotion of the distribution of chemical fertilisers Through prmte dealers;
warehouses (belonging to service co operatives) as well as quality control;
• Introduction and promotion of appropriate crop hushsndrr practices, including crop rotations with leguminous crops;
fertilisers; and
• Promotion of access to credit allowing smallholders to purchase fertilisers ind to invest in the development of their crop land
^hc sub-project will be implemented in the first five vean from the fine impiernen ration
year Technical staff of agricultural offices will cany out demonstration and train bnnen inject office in collabonnon with farmers’ cooperatives snd ponce traders will be
skxDs of the farmers on utilization of ferahzer utilization
Introduction of new technologies
* Promote low cost and cmironmenralK friendly soil tiutnent ^>P
c 5»i             - -iqdconsuniera.
-°»ts for jnals, demonstration-., trairur.£ and_insntuOOfi>l srrrn£tb£L_^
16>Jun-tt
I• 
Er ^S^^'^DnK^P^
1. Title
‘f Vl,tTe'E'K'p
E
8.     Implementing
*Scn€V
9.    Monitoring performance
CP 1; Enhancement of Soil Fertility__---------------- -—--------
T^jT^uted cost is ETB 150,000 for conseeuttvr five years
Total estimated cosjwtll be 750,000   DL--------- ------------ —----------- ------ __ ------ ^-^^T^ltural and Rural Development (Ifficc
. Kebele administration and development agent
. Fanneo^ooperamxsand un«on--------------------------------------------- --- _ _ _ pTv’eiopment agents util conduct field visit and organize on farm tninngp^
(Th F4 SrO2b Apnculrurc Ac Planning
2\jTitt--
3fw;/n
V* A’TT-^*                Pnjrfrf
CP 2: I ncrc a*cd Supply' of Improved Sccd^ Improved seed is an essential ignoring .npUI prop0Jtd m
7KJ“ot”1
to I£Wt
t
«
j Objectives
development project. All proposed crops rapure hrgh r-ddmg 
the desired yield- However, the farmer, m the project „„ havt
tn rhe use of improved seeds. Some of the comtnum, tn reived to improved wxtl
utilization arc;
Short supply of improved seeds by cooperatives, agnculejnd office and PARC Low level of uw of unproved seed varieties,
I jek of access TO si wide range of improved seed varieties; Irouffiacnr and untimely supply of improved sredi.
Lack of knowledge on iced multiplication technologies Improve the supply of improved seeds
4. Description
[faicourage the fanners fn become involved in seed muhjpfaciTiiin and supply
system
Improve farmers' skills cm improved seed pruduennn and ducribuBan
The proposed sub project activities include:
•
•
Introduction and promotion of the use of improved seed varieties,
Promotion of seed mukipbation □£major crops tn ronlractuil bam,
•
Adequate and timely supply of improved seeds ihrough farmers' semee co
operatives and private dealers,
•
Improve the warehouse capacity by constructing / or rrhabihtatk^n nf L’nions
And FarriKfs* cooperative's warehouse
5. Lmpkmcnlabon
‘^benefit,
^arie.
and
< Jn-farm framing is taken as the major tnni for jinplcfnentanon of the sub-project Potential farmers will be involved in seed fnulnpbcatJDn activities md adequate (ethnical support will Ik given from wrrrdji agncultural of&ce and restored seed
agency
Strengthen  the  capacity  of  farmers*  cooperatives  and  Unions  by  construcung warehouses Ln selected kebeles.
Enhance skills of the farmers on utihia^on of improved seeds
Increase crop production
‘fhe farmers will be self-reliant in improved seed iupply 
The   community   based   institutions'   capacity   wiU   be   improved members and lunouridings
Major Benehciarics: Farmers, traders and consumert m the region
Cost, for trials, demotutntion, training ind institutions! rrefif?h«un». Annual estimated cost is ETB 195,000 far consccutrvc five ve*n Sub-total estimated cost will lx 975,000 F’TB
Strengthening of implementing inscmtM^s including co F*
*
Ctydtt associations
_  --------- —— 
16 ’iM-H
3Frrkftr/Drawee
of.Etkiopta,
ofW'aier e* 4*
lifoitpiax Nik irh/tinon iiJtd r>rorna^e P/yetr
1, Tide
CP 2: Increased Supply of Improved Seeds Sub total cost of 1 000.000 ETB
T
Total Sub-projcd Cost is 1,975.000
8, Impkoicflunp
agency
Regional and wcreda Saving and Credit Promotion Office
Promonon (>fficcs
Wercda Agricultural and Rural Development Office Kcbele administration and development agent
Farmers* cooperatives and union
9. Monitoring and                          Development agents will conduct field visit and organize on farm training* addition the coopera oat promoters will involve in momronngand foDw tap of ra> project Lmplemcnters.
Ub f 4 Sr02b Agrieutrurr & T'UnnjngfZ)
4CP 3* Promotion Effective Peat Control
pest infw&noa i» a major constraint of crop production :rt the project area.
Potential crop production Bill not be fully ichie-xd unless current crop lo,XJ
significantly reduced These crop losses include:
■ High crop losses caused by weeds, pests ind pls nt diseases;
9 Slotigt losses caused by rodents, insects and fungi, md
Use of traditional storage facilities.
'I* *hc proposed crop production development has a pickage comprising agn cbcrrucab to control pest damage Thus as a component of agncukuraJ inputs of the project this sub-project will contribute to the effective application of agro-chemicals
Integrated pest management (I PM) is one of the most er.wonmennQy  acceptable pett control measures. It mainly  relies on plant origin pesticides and other tradmcMui
manageable  practice  Ihe  farmers  would  have  the  opportunity  to  use  organic  based pesticides if they acquire sufficient training on preparation of homemade pesticides
•
Increase production per unit area of annual and perennial crops
•
Promote effective pest control measures
•
Improve the accessibility of essencal agro-chemicals through cooperatives
_• Reduce production cost by using locally available efficient nutcruls
live proposed a cum ues of rhe sub-prqieci include:
•       Improvement of farmers* knowledge on prevention and control of weeds. pesrt and plant diseases;
•       Introduction and promotion of improved crop husbandry practices to prevent wired problems;
•       Promotion of correct and safe use of agro chemicals,
•       Introduction and promotion of integrated pest nunugement ;TFM).
•       Adequate and timely supply of agro-chemicals through the icnnce cooperatives
and private dealers Together with advice on safe and ippropeute use.
•       Introduction and promotion of improved storage facilities »x household ind
kebele level using locally available marmali,
•        Promotion of treatment of stored crops with safe tgrochenurals to prevent
attacks by rodents, insects and/or fungi, where appropriate, and
* Intensive ■n Krnce training! will be had bv technical jaff to pn-note environmentally tnendlv pest control tneuures ind umihrfy in parallel training
^b-proicct will be implemented from the first proiect year. Intensive training b squired for Ute farmer, Lh«c will involve tn the project. Then the development
^velopencnt agents will be the mir. focal person f« the sub protect st grasi rot
level.
16 Jun 11
5Enhm! ntmcntic fjpxbh: of Efitofoa. Aliourr) of Wattr c** Em/p
Elhrfwi NH Im&th' ornt Dnuo^t PnyttT
1 1. Tide
CP 3: Promotion of Effective Pest Control
-
6. Main benefits and beneficiaries
•      Reduce the crop loss caused bv pests                          - ---- ’——
•      Increase crop productivity
•      Improve the accessibility of agro chemicals to app|v as rnjulR(j
Main beneficiaries of the sub protect arc seed producer, surrounding ‘jfrr drug dealers.
7. Project com
Annual cost
75.000 ETB
Costs estimated for five years is 375.000 ETB
8. Implementing
IgCDO
• Regional, zonal and wereda Agricultural and Rural Development O&T
•      Kebele development centre
9. Mo nil oring and
performance
Wereda agricultural office staff and developnirnr agmrs will monitor andproride technical support du ant implementation
UbF4SfO?b XfcrttuJfurc Ac rUnninffT)
6( pi rmjwved AgricuJni»i Marketing________________________ ________ —
Th<   project   area   «   one   of   the   cwh   crop   co^lon   that   current:,-   supply   sub,tsntai amount    of    -cu.w    to    load    and    enport    markeu.    The    no.    Rllme     Jnd     htaco( marketing   nerwork   that   has   been   esmblshed   through   the   Ethiopian   Commorfrry Exchange    (ECX)    is    a    gnud    oppomioiry    for    the    prvjfci    na    1o      significuitle contribute  to  the  improvement  of  the  crop  HU  Atting  tritem.  However  this  rvrtttn is  found  at  immature  stage  and  it  is  foamed  on  a  limited  number  of  crops  Despite all  these  efforts  still  the  agricultural  marketing  system  mil  face?  cnbtu  problems  to support rhe crop production development in the project i/«.
Marketing constraint ro be addressed by the project include;
•        Poor condition nr [ack nf ill-weather roads within project irrx;
•        Inadequate mean.1; nf transport;
•        I .ack of marketing iniomrurion for farmers (i.e marker prices, traders, market outlets);
•        Trice llucruauons for most crops;
■ Inadequate murker infrastructure and
» Improve the agricultural iuuketing system
iaabnes_______________
•        Develop reliable storage capaaiy for perishable crop products
•       Establish viable value chain linkage with agro-processing factories
•         Enhance  the  capacity  of  community  based  argamzinon  in  actively  ptfhopalt in marketing system
_____ * * Increase the protil of the agricultural products The acuvttirs of rhe sub-project include:
__________ ___ __
•           Supporting maintenance and gradual cite  mi cm of the all leather rrud network built  under  thr  project,  through  a  partnership  between  the  goremjTscnl  and  the villagers;
•          Inirodiicticm of marketing information system (kr. mariftT prices, dcaleri, outlets) through the service cooperatives md uraon, DAs end/or kebete councils based! on regular market surveys earned out by ARD wtreda stall; Strengthening of the marketing capacity ol service cd ciperatni’cs and their
union;
Promotion of contract farming and rstabbshment nt knkiges between farmers and agro processing/marketing companies;
Improvement of marketing infrastructure in die. command uc* 1st kchele level), including the construction of covered market stands and small warehouses; Improvement of storage facifcnra through the const roc tion ird/<*
fe habibtation of warehouses (including cold storage of vegetable and JWt cropt) as as quality control; and
Improvement of sound marketing practices, including a reliable determination ’nd control of the quality of agricultural produce as well as the enforcement o:
- ----- —weights and measures________________________ - -
------- ------ ------------ ■/
training component will be earned for first consecutive five yean; whereas the IC1 ^tirk could be completed within three years.
Servji
j£££QcperaDyc~s wj] cans t met I he warehouses ridM
--
8(2)
[6'JuH'll
7CP 5: SwngtbMcd Agricultural Ex lent ion Service* * lad Rmritrh Actiritira The agricultural rupport rervKd include rhe eatcnt.or
x~
j. Ronttf*1
arc     performing     unsattslactonly     m     reaped     of     rfc     n^,     of        (lnj]en
ntenuon scmce staff requires continuous up-gering laics I agricultural rcthnologlrs.
(o copf jp
4 h ^n
pix?Q
ITic    arcs   has   a   gpod   comparative   advantages   m   obtain   reliable   agnculrurif technologies  could  be  released  from  PARC  There  tore  impriwing  the  capadrv  of rhe  research  centre  would  have  comideohle  impacts  on  rhe  irngatnir,  rgntulrjrr development.  SimuhancowF^  rhe  rusting  weak  tgnrulrurai  extension  semcc  ha* (n  be  enhanced  to  address  rhe  main  production  constraints,  to  al  tun  optimum outputs,   The   rosin   constraints   encounter   the   research   and   exreniion   service which need to he addressed are:
•     Weak linkage* between agncuJrun! research and ntlenicon services;
•       Foor  ficilirsr*   and   hudget   for  DA*   to  provide  m   improved   ind   fffixtrvr extension services; and
•     Inadequate technical skills and knowledge of extension staff with respect io irrigated crop production, production of high value crop!, as well as crop
slorage and marketing.
•       Shortage  of  budget  rci  undertake  research  actrvitKa  on  farmers'  turd  (eg adoption   trials)   and   to   promote   community   based   partictparnry   research programs
•     Lack of training iaciljUra to disseminate the released crap varieties
Strengthen agricultural cxrrnsicn service
Support (hr agricultural research activities.
Improve the linkage between relevant uutihraons
Jniprovc (hr IrchmcaJ knowledge of wcreda and kebrir technical stall
wetivines of the suh-profret include:
•         I "he research centre utli establish trial arid demonstration sues in different parrs of the project area tn tnUaboraboa with ignculrural office
•       Conduct on farm farmer * mining on new agocufruraJ technologiei
•       Improve thr linkages txrween agricultural research centres and the provider offices;
•        Provision of essential fadljtics (ie. reference lioak>. training mi.cms, _ and equipment) and sufficient budget to the DAs io ensure the
the necessary farmers' training courses, trials and demar-straoons;
•        Provision of regular in service training for «dl euenuofl staff
xle level in order to enhance ind update their nccemry rechruol ini
4
eniion, skill*.
--------------~
rc< ^ agricultural offices will conduct on-site demonstranon periodical tr-Jiungs for 'he tanticn
u Llhaverespo^to^'^
The regional and wcreda technical stall would
ccr ^cd dcv^f,Pfnent actore
components of the sub-projcct. Provide «riining? or con
____ _
3^d farmers
II
94
Ffiirru.' Df**rufi, Rjpnt>ar tf Ethhpit, .\h>ujfr) tf JT'afrr e - Energy
Lifirtpije NUr impio/t andDfutnaty Prvrrrt
L Tide
CP 5: Strengthened Agricultural Extension Services
6.   Main   benefits   and beneficiaries
--------------------------- — ftgafch A ctn ■•
•       Enhance effectiveness of rhe extension service
•       L’p grade the capacity of the extension provider institution
•       Increase the crop productivity due to efficient technical support
•       Improve the capacity of Pawe research centre
•       Create opportunity to adopt different technologies under project vu u
Major Beneficiaries wereda and kebcle agriculturalists. Farmers, research -t
staff.
(
7. Project coat
Books, training materials and tools for 17as___________  150.000 ETB
Workshops. training 
700.000 ETB (annually 140,000',
Establishment  of  trial  and  demonstration  sites  _  1.25O.0IX)  E  I’D  (annually  25G,  0  for five years
Sub-protect total
2, 100, 000 ETB
- ------------------------------------------------ 8. Implementing
agency
j--
-——I
•       Wereda .Agricultural and Rural Development Office
•       Pawe .Agricultural Research Centre
•       Kebelr administration and development agent
» Farmers' cooperatives and union ___ —_——------------
9. Monitoring and
performance
Joint Management Committee of Extension and research office will m
performance
Regional agncultural office regularly monitor the implementation
L’b F4 SrtVb Agriculture A Planning ?)
10v"00*'
- L-
lObfe^h**
4 Dcvcnption
k baplemenixtino
CP 6: Irngatirm Agronomy and On-Farm Water Management
Currently, there «e 5011,1  lrc»5  of negation currenth utilising  cater from the nvers and streams, irrigated crop production will be widely practiced in the fuiure u-ith protect situation and cropping  intensities are expected to  increase to  2W"/. However, rhe vast maiontv  of smallholders lack the necessary  knowledge and dulli to practice irrigated agriculture, particularly  with regard to  irrigated crop requirements and on farm water management techniques. This tub-project will therefore address this constraint
• Improve the skills of the beneficiaries on irrigation agronomy
e Promote effective on-farm water nurugemen!
The activibet of the sub project will include:
•       Development of appropriate irrigation extension packages aimed at appropriate on-farm water management f( )FWM) and imganon agronomy;
•       Provision of in-service training in OFWM, irrigation agronomy ird modem irrigation technology to extension staff at werrda and kcbdc level (te. DAs);
•       Provision of sufficient budget to DA* to provide finnen’ training counc% tn irrigation management and irrigation agronomy; and
•       Provision of demonstrations and farmers' training courses tn rhe field of OFWM and irrigation agronomy at kcbclc level.
Wereda agricultural of decs will conduct on-stre demons cranon trainings for the farmers Irrigation agronomist at wercda level would arrange consutent or.-tirm trainings to introduce the proposed irrigation technology and maintenance of field level structure.
^Mambeoefiti and “di cunei
•
Improve irrigation efficiency
•
Enhance the skills of farmers
•
Increase crop productivity
Major    Bencfictanes    fanners    and    wereda    and    technical    staff    in    commercial enterprises, kcbclc agriculturalists,
Tnalj.  dcmonitranon.  training  And  iniatutional  strengthening  total  cost—  5J  ,5d” Era (annually 67,000 ETB)
Sereda Agricultural and Rural Development Office
Project office
Kebcle administration and dcvdc^imcnt agent
jjgnera’ cooperatives andumon________________________________ _____ _ Pto 'ec' management office and wereda agnculmral office hive responsibility to
r R larlv monitor the implementation
u
Ujufl-K
11Fttkral DtnocntJiPjpMtdjcofEtbtoptii, Mttujfr, of Wjftr & Ertcrg, E:ho&j* Nik l'H^if.ieft j*d Dmmqgt Prwt.l
LTitk
2, Rational
CP 7: Improved Access to Farm Credit
Uck of farm cred.! ftcility is one of the major constrains ofcrapp^^
«t a«« onh eight SC As are established out of 37 project kebefav.^^ farmers This implies that the farmers in the project area do no. hm access to credit facilities
to      -<*• 
*"*»
3. objectivea
X* =f to <—" '»
su^able^leyclopm^Lm^^ea
Up-grade the institutional capacity of the credit institutions to provide idr^^
financial support
Increase the accessibility of farm credits
Build  big  warehouses  to  store  marketable  grains  and  farm  implements  in  ireied
sites
I
4. Description
5. Implements don
The proposed activities of the sub project arc:
I  ormafion  and  training  of  one  or  more  savings  and  credit  association  r  >  J kebcles in the command area with the support of respective Regional .Mwigin:1 Credit .Association Cooperatives.
Supply  of  farm  inputs  and  implements  to  rhe  farmers  on  credit  baut  rhnw^htar ^nnce co-operatives; and
Joans *o houidxte
Valuation   of   the   supply   of   short,   medium   and   lcxig   term
through Regonaj SCACO by prundjng seed capital_______________
he  Regional  SCACC  >  will  involve  fhcilitatifq;  credit  provision  and  branch  otfivow
amxn cooperatives will work together in lending and collection of Ioan
I
offices ^-dj haveconsiderable involvement in rhe—-
will have adequate cap**? f
errd,tsWefn
™ ««P«»UvCT
- Major
<
~ rrdl! pfTnuTxTa j j^tage socul groups, and potential 6umen_______________________ ——
and ,
C2pl1^ for institution*__________________________ 7,600.000 & ff------------ —_________ __ ___________ ______________ 2W,tW^
7. Proven cost
'S.OOO.OOO KTH ^mentnct °f^hoUie, for service cooperatives----------------------------------
" _ -■ 22.850,000 "
Regional SCAC() and other Micro finance insnrunons
| 9. Motuionng and
perfonnaixc
L
a £ 4fmCfS Service cooperatives and Unions
~-------------ggjLCooperadve promotion office_________________________ n rnanagCTnrnr office and wrreda agricultural office have respo°’
rrRUhd’ moni,or 'he «*pl«nenUIlor,
nibibp' ro
t^’un 11
t »b 1-4SrO’b Agnmlrurr A Nannm^
I?.r S^Ir^'
_______________________
—J ~p g. promotion of Effective Post-harveit Technologies________ _____
I
I
I
Crop loss at different stages ha< been appeared because uf nalura] cilxrryirs and human induced factors- After harvesting  the grains could be affected by  peso  or can Lie lost due to  poor handling. Due to  low attentions of the lirtnrrt to  pott-huvert privities like threshing, transportation, handling  packing  and si unng, ngruficant proportion <>f the harvested products were Jw.
Unavailability   of   effiaeni   threshing   technology   rh*r    reduce   the   grain   fan   m   quanntr and   quality   the   farmers   unable   to   obtain   optimum   benefit   tmm   their   tarns.   For instance   rice   production   Joss   is   found   higher   because   of   umvailibuirv   effective   rice polishing   machine   and   therefore   in   Ethiopia   the   producer   codd   nor   suppk   good marketable   nee   for   local   marker   Almost   ail   proposed   craps   tor   crop   production development    in    Upper    Belts    project    do    have    the    lame    problem    nath    different intensity
fkscnptioQ
Thus by  promoting  efficient post harvest Eechnclogi«  far the smallholder the rvrr usable agricultural products could be achievable that in mm enhance the livelihood of the beneficiaries.
Reduce rhe crop loss caused by poor pou -harvest mamgement
Introduce new and approprurc post-harvest icdinolugiei
1
Encfiurap  rhe tamers to use the technologies
The proposed activities of the tub project include
Improvement   of   farmers'   knowledge   on   post-harvest   technologies;
Introduction and promotion of improved pos^harvew management;
I-jhuurage   cooperanvcs   and   orher   cnmmurutv   l»<ed   orgaruzatiom   red   private investors to involve in rental service of [be technolcgiei.
Support the regional and Pave rrsearch centres to  develop effective technologies Promotion of improved storage tacihiien which are potential to  reduce agricultural products Loss.
Provide    intensive    trainings    on    proper    handling    and    packing    of    ignculninl Products for better quality'.
More emphasis will be given to rhe perishable products to gain high fttum and facilitate credit provision to purchase or rent the available effective post-west machineries.
I
I
I
Sub-project could be implemented at the camp«£D adequate time for training Farmers' training centers promotion of the technologies. Moreover po® h»rvcs 15 the main part of Farmers' in-service training Sample* of post-harvest technologies including 
f
stage of commictkwit° ha^t
local institute
will be included
polisher, pilling
Inteativt training n
and packing marenals will be displayed m selected k -fhen d* deydpP* ^___________ -
1
for the farmers tho« 
~
niiiupj
l&Jun-l 1
15FhM Dtmcrrtr K/pn/v: tf Elhopta. Mim/try cf'ITjfrr c  Ewrgy
u
EffaC*** Xilf Irritftoit J*tDntltf>f PfVffif
1. Title
CP 8: Promotion of Effective PoHt-harvcst ---- -----------------------
agents as per required organize trurung session for ’he t'am^/^'-------------------------
6. Main benefits and beneficiaries
•       Introduction of new. appropriate and manageable
• Reduce the crop loss due to poor post -harvest nunagemwT” *'
•       Improve rhe quality of agricultural products
•       Enhance household income
-
Main  benefioancs  of  the  sub  project  are  farmers,  cooperatives,  private  tcchvJog suppliers and business communities.
7. Project coat
Annual Training cost
100.000 ETB
Purchasing post-harvest technologies for training (6 FTQ                            **50,000 ETB
Costs estimated for five years is
1. 300.000 ETB
8. Implementing
agency
• Regional, Zonal and ^X’ereda Agricultural anil Rural Development OfBce
•       KebeJc development centre
9. Monitoring and
performance
Wcrcda agricultural office staff and development agents will monitor and provide
technical support during implementation.
_______ —-------------
1*b E4 SrOZb AgncJiurv A Pbnotngf?
14ANNEX D
CROP AREA BY SDA AND ESTIMATED PRODUCTIONMatty
Eti^fun Xih Imgoa al Dntap Ptytt
11R SrtKb 'tinmlrure k Phrn^p)
ie J«“ "
3£
^knex d=
D* CROP AREA BY SO A AND E STI MAI ED PRODUCTION
SDA
^WgELi!"
for SPA M: Art. II17M
Dry Sea■s1on
___________________
Wet Season
Crop «roi ■fhtrtwdor ind
It Ar
Seiwn
ProdtKdion,
Production,
1 34 2
173 863
Production,
5368
173 1794 |
W3 2
Products 6182
P 294
rod Lido 2.061
Annual Production.
8.243
0
.
59
265
265
794.11
1 431
736
1.325
2756
35J2I
707
2M
589
1295
rguidprt- - ■
SkH.^__________
294 1
589
383
765
1 354
0
147
353
353
0
-
147
353
153
432Lib
824
236
471
1295
2.109
4 793
2,300
575
13 802
£roy Jtfti dltrliwyon md production on v+rtlcioli for 3 DA 1A Am 1M> ha
2 109
4,793
4 601
1.150
23.016
C
-
147
3738
3.238
C
-
w
7.360
7 360
147 3
3.533
147
3533
7.066
58 II
883
59
m
1 766
2944
14,149
2.944
21 197
35 346
n
Crop «tm dkrtHburwfl and production on vtrDueii lor 30A
11 Aroi 1701M
Wei Season
Dry Season
Ana, hi
Production, tonnes
Area, ha
Production. tonnes
Annual 1
Production*
tonnes
■n
- - i ■'
MSB
J7Q
mil In
1 109
407
1.220
2,328 j
340.4
374         1,123
2 145
277
?-a Nsjfc-
610
333
732
1.342
255 J
562
674
1236
__ 370 185
1.478
370
1 478
1 109
340 4
1 362
-
-
1.362
370
739
314
499
,
’591 898
|70 L
340
340
981
1 021
277
222
277
399
314
277
255 3
255
28$
284
545
Su               -
56
92
M 845
204 74
36B
255
460
g7l
67
2.624
6 934
55
92
1 848
67
2 624
6.194
133
5248
13128
51 Db
51
51
61
123;
l$.l
2.417
B5
2.417
4 834
1707
6 386
1702
5 705
12 091 1
[ 1 *minR(2)
1
16Jur>41FnM
Erh^puft NUe Im^M anti Dma? Pnfnt
Harer & E"&
Crop ary drttnbuOon and production on Lumols for SPA V4i; Area 1238 ha
Wet Season
Dry Season
Area, ha
Product*)
n, tonnes
Area, ha
Product*)
n. tonnes
Annual
Production.
tonnes
Mint
3714
2.600
124
867
3 466
607 «
MirzcKcd irr gated
0
25
111
111
XS3K
334.26
602
310
557
1.159
Gnxmdnut
141.56
297
124
248
545
Hancot ban/S bear.
123 1
246
161
322
569
Sunfleetr
0
-
62
149
149
mIDowu
0
•
62
149
149
173 32
347
99
198
545
232
0
(I
325 m'
Tumaw
0
•
62
1 362
1 362
Omen
0
-
124
3 095
3,095
nwit^
61 9
1 436
62
1.486
2.971
CltDB
24 76
371
25
371
743
Total
1231
5 950
1.238
8.914
14,863 |
Creo ir»i dlftnbucon and production on vertksoli for SPA V-N Area 1220 ha
Crop araa dlstntution and proftxltot ■ .<•■ •, 5 Am JOUta
Crop
Wet Season
Dry Season
Area, ha
Productio
n. tonnes
Area, ha
Productio
n. tonnes
Annual
Production,
formes
Sorxhum
244
732
268
805
1.537
finger millet
113
403
220
483
886
Rkc
244
976
976
Pcppa
122
244
244
488
732
Noue
113
183
207
207
390
CTiicipei
146 4
264
183
329
593
Colton
366
44
37
44
88
Forage
61
1732
61
1 732
3465
Tail
1220
4 577
1 220
4,089
8 667
Ub F4 Sr’.’ib Agriculture &. Plinrung(2;
2fytff*** ‘
,
for $M IVC-N Af 2131 ha
CMjp •*« ttobufcn and protfuctof cm U/viwti far l£M NA;
Arts 221 ha
mrwl p^-di^LEH
. triMjw22!x£-^---------------
^rSS^22—
df
VMSeutt
DryStaw,
Product
Atm.ha
Pnxfcicfo n tames
P
Ana. ha
roduction, tanrsfi
i‘ - ’■■
Annual Prod’Xter,
tans
8&-
4,492
617
40*
23
160
641
Q
.
5
21
21
2,002
6113
ir
57
103
214
r.4*
55
23
46
101
219
46
30
60
105
0
11
27
27
257
342
0
*
11
27
27
32 Ob
54
18
371
101
2,353
2 353
3
-
11
252
252'
5 348
5 346
0
-
23
573
573
2 567
5*34
II 15
Z75
11
275
550
1213
<51
69
5
69
m
2,139
'5 40’
25 661
a»    1 101
229
1 849
£749
>^rof• >nMi idlaErtbuPOH Jp,a piadUE.tikw an ’rtrtie.Mil'a Fd^ SO*. IVC^i Aral 1744 ha
Crop mi Mtata end pradurton oh wrttacii ta SO* NA;
Art* 571 hi
7
WetSeaw
Dry Season
Area, ha
Produdn fr, tanned
Atm. ha
Products
fi‘. tarns.
Annual
Produdm
tonnes
RfflHI
Area, ha
Produdo
n.tannes
Ma, ha
Productor. taws
Mnl
Prodjacn.
tonnes
^Tfhtfn
?49.fr
2.249
925
2.474
4.722
1012
316
116
347
«3
lx<CT tdki
5*2.2
1.237
675
1.444
2.721
71.9
174
95
208
382
her
749.6
2,996
.
.
2.998
1052
421
-
-
421
Fqwr
QMpa
”41
hllli
750
750
1 499
2.249
<16
105
105
21C
316
5622
562
637
637
1 ’99
no
79
99
39
166
I Man
449.76
aio
562
1 012
1822
61 1]
114
79
M2
256
11144
^117 4
135
5.322
112
187
135
5 322
270
1C644
15.74
19
16
19
30
261
747
16
747 ]             1 4%4ofTjifr
Xi* 1™*" J*d D™*#
Seasonal summary of area and production
Crop
------------ Wet Season Total
Dry Season Total
Total area, ha
Total production,
tonnes
Total     area, ha
Total prodi
Maize
3237.9
22665
1.079
7.555
Maize wd
0
-
216
971
Sesame
2914.11
5,245
2.698
4.857
Groundnut
1295 16
2,590
1.079
2.159
Annual Pr °<luctlQn
—
■----------------- 971 --------------- JJIJ02
4 749
Haricot
1079.3
2,159
1,403
2.606
4 965
Sunflower
0
-
540
1.295
12951
Safflower
0
-
540
1.295
1 295
Pepper
1511.02
3,022
863
1.727
4.749
1 ornate
0
-
540
11.872
11 872
Onion
0
•
1.079
26 983
26.983
Mango
539.65
12,952
540
12,952
25 903 I
Citrus
215.86
3238
216
3 238
6 476
Total
10793
51,871
10,793
77,710
129.581
Seasonal summary of area and production_____________________
- Wet SeasWoent TSoetaasl on Total
| Dry Season Total
PHrorodduuctcion,
Production
Area, ha tonnes
Area, ha
, tonnes
Sorghum
2415.8
7.247
2,65?
7 972
Finger
181 I 85
millet
3 986
2,174
Rice
24I5 8
9.663
Pepper
Chickpea
Cotton
1207.9
2,416
2.416
1 812
2 053
2 609
362.37
603.9$,
435
17.152
1.812
362
604
2,053 3.261
435
Forage
Total
17,152
12079
45,320
12,079
40,489
Ubl'4 5,02b Agnculwr,
<■ *■ JlMmmgfZ;.
4Federal  Democratic  Republic  of
Ethiopia
Jh
Ministry of Water and Energy
World Bank Financed Ethiopian Nile Irrigation and Drainage Project
Feasibility Studies of about 80,000 ha net Irrigation and Drainage Schemes
Feasibility Study Final Report
UPPER BELES IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SCHEME
R-02C: Livestock Development ”011
Halcrow
in association with
Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants
o-rHalcruw Group Limited and
GweratxM  la  teg  rated  Rural  Development  (GlftD)  CoiKU* f*0 Box 102175 Comet Budcfcng (5th Hoof)
Ha*aGebresei«Bie Road. Add* Ababa Ethiopia
Tal*2lM  (0)116  63  09  92  Fax  *251-1  (0)116  63  09   91 WWW hakrow com
T
Thli Report ha* been prepared m accordance w<b
1Itw. insUVCbO^5 ot
Govemmant of Ethiopia, Matrstry qI Water and Energy H* *** um Any other persons who use any information contained he<*n n*x
spac^c * ^r pw^
C
°
2011
0«>up LinPMo pnd Opnaradon loipgr^d Ru«' Op'*'*""*Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Ministry of Water and Energy
World Bank Financed Ethiopian Nile Irrigation and Drainage Project Feasibility Studies of about 90,000 ha net Irrigation and Drainage Schemes Feasibility Study Final Report
UPPER BELES IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SCHEME
SR-02C: Livestock Development May 2011
Hiktow Group Loniird and
Gtucrxuon Intcgraied Rur*l De-r* krpmCT' (GIRD) ContuJ PO Box 102175, Comet Building (5th Floor)
^1" GebresaUxaie Rood, AddW Ababa. EW«opia
T **215-1 (0) 11663 **w hafcrow com
Fax *251 -1 (0) 116 63 0® 91
Thia Raoul has bean prepared in accordance **h V*
„     j rfl0»“     *
njC1 O
iafed  al
^^rnment o( Ethiopia. MinWH of
Er *9* '* 
« W * **
u ’° Amr other persona who use any nformaton cortai
dak
20l^CrOW Group L‘mlted and Generation tntoflr**1 Ru™'Frier* Dr**nft; K/ptMc of Ethiopia M/fartr) of Voter and Eonp lifitopjt Xiit iryateo #ri r>raxqf PnfttfA>*           j»/ Ururntff P^,f
FEASIBILITY study final report UPPER BELES IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SCHEME
SR-02C: LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT
contents
I [PRODUCTION
f.J Lm^ OtyfMtVJ
t.2      Apprwh a*d MftMofog
1.21 Data collection
1
/
r
i
i
1.2.2   Survey
1.2.3  Data AnaJirsis
i
f.
J J"Ci 7fl’JAr/Zj//rJ
,
ff
1
2
/K/^fT J/rar.-JW/p
2 POLICIES AND GUlDELrNES
2 J     Ptf Zw>
2-1.1 Agricultural DeveJopmcn t Policy
2.1.2    livestock Resources Policy
5
5
5
5
2.2 Gwdfhrt/f
2.2_1 Livestock Resources Strategy
2.2.2    Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
223 Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development tn Eradicate Paver rr
(PASDEP). 2005/06 -2009/10
2.2.4 Growth and Transformation Plan (G 1 P) 2010/11-2014/15
3
PRESENT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
3 fJ
-. Liteifak PopufalitM
11.1
312
11 3
3.14
115
3.1.6
3.1.7
Types of Livestock and Breeds
Ranking of livestock types
Importance of livestock
Livestock Population Density
livestock Density ind Holdings
Animal Management
A2                 Division of Labour
1 JWittKk Fred Rr
3.21
---- fwiwrj
322
3.23
3.2.4
3.25
3.26
Livestock Feed Types
Natural Feed Composition
Fodder Conservation
Feed Shortage
Livestock Feed Production Diy Matter Requirement
d
6
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
11
13
13
15
16
16
17
18
19
19
21fvdr* Da**RrtM- yErfapu, Miwrry o/Wafrr fflrd XrJr JTijJfiiw mJ I>siMjr PnWiT
jj
5,2.7    Livestock Feed Balance
j j 1 Sources of Water for Livestock 53.2       Water Requirement*
5.33 Water Shortages
14 Anima/1 itatih
3.4.1   Livestock Diseases of Economic Importance
3.4.2   Animal Health Infrastructure and Services
J.f Dwritat ftwfcW} aW Pro^Mrir
3.5.1   Livestock Productivity
3.5.2   Livestock Products
3.5.3   Draught Power
3.5.4   Milk Production
3.5.5   Meal Production
3.5.6    Egg Production
3.5.7    Hide and Skin Production
3.5.8   Manure Production
3 5.9 Household Consumption and Sales
3 6 Lnwtock Mafaty
3 6.1 Reasons for Sale of Livestock and Livestock Products 3.6.2   Livestock Market Infrastructure
3.6.3   Livestock Market Days and Volume of Sales 3 6.4 Markci Accessibility
3.63 LK estockMarket Pnces
r
4
3 6.6 Sources of Credit
3.6. i* 1 uvesrock Marketing Constraints
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN PROJECT
4. I .M^or Cowj/rwik/r to Lnfftock ProdNifiax
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
<15
4.1.6
4.2
Shortages of Livestock Feed
Inadequate Supply  f Improved Breeding Stock
o
Poor X etennary Services and Animal I lealrh Problems of Market Facilities and Market Price Information
Poor Access to Credit for Livestock Purchase Po «Livett«i Extension Sptem
4.2.1
4.2.2 ^bduyofDp Mlttcr
4.2.3
414
415
Sources
o
f tx'atcr for Livestock
AcCe*» to Credit
Attt» to Markets
5
4.26    ^p,ovedBr*<i«g Stock and FaaliUcs Extend Services
FUTURE I
^ocKnEVELO
■■■
LftT.
-"**•'* BmrAHippie
M * E*™
s ^^"“'"'D”*r,“'
5 J J Type# Improved Breeds
5j 2 Breeding Programme
; ; Ui^^~efJ
- 7 ] With-project Dry Matter Production
5 2.2 Communal Grazing
5 2-3 Riverine Area
574 Crop Residues. By-products and Industrial Feeds [Smallholder'! 5 2 5 Crop Residues, By-products and Industrial Feeds (Commerce:
5 2-6 By-products and Industrial Feeds (Sugar Estate)
5.2 " Improved Forage Production
5.2.8    Settlements (Homesteads)
5.2.9     Fodder from Ram-fed Cultivation
5.2.10  Dry Matter Production and Livestock Population
5.2.11   Implications for With-project Carrie Population
5.2.12  I jt estock Water Supply
x J dnW1 /rj2t/j J*™*/
> 4 LwfjjW
5.4.1    General
5-4.2 Enhanced Market and Transport Facilities
5.4.3    M arket Management and Market Information Svs terns 5.4.4     Improved Market Accessibility and Marketing Channels
5.5 /Iffiwr fo t jtdrt
$6   Lives fa k FMwng anh 
Pn?J*iTr
5.6.1    Introduction
5.6.2  Value Added Products
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
43
43
4.3
43
44
46
46
47
47
47
47
47
44
4/
45
40
5.6           3 Expansion of Livestock Processing Facilities                                                                            49
6  SUB-PROJECT interventions and cost estimates
A'dtou/ Gnwj-Zsjjf/
and UMffak Feed
6 *       //Hp7vW£/ Jm#uW              IWiArtwr
'
d Brwdi^ IF^iAtes
j
mTiYJ
& # ^J*p.n5frr^
^CLUSIONS
Maank/ftig jwti Craft/ RreWJio*
of Uve/torit Prvdu.V
Costs
51
J/
H
52
52
52
52
55
55
55
*^EXa-
SL ‘^PROJECT PROFILESFfdrrvJ Drwwrflh;           cf EtNofna, Mtnihy »f Water and Energ
litfafitiM Niir               and DniMff Pryta
LIST OF TABLES
Tabic 3-1: Ranking of Livestock by Importance
Table 3-2 Livestock Population, numbers
Table 3-3: Iuvestock Population, TLU
Table 3-4 Livestock Density by Area (TLU/hi) and Holding (TLU/1LH) Tabic 3-5 Livestock Feed Sources
Table 3-6: Dry Matter Production (tonnes)
Tabic 3-7 Livestock Feed Requirement (tonnes)
Tabic 3-8: Livestock Feed Balance (tonnes)
Table 3-9 Livestock Water Sources
Table 3-10 Livestock Water Requirements (nJ)
Table 3-11: Livestock Diseases of Economic Importance .
Table 3-12 Livestock Productivity Performance Indicators
Table 3 13: Potential Draft Power, Pairs of Oxen and Area Cultivated Table 3-14 Potential Milk Production (tonnes)
Table 3-15 Potential Meat Production (tonnes)
Tabic 3-16. Potential Egg Production...—.
Table 3 17: Potential ILdes and Skins Production (number) Table 3 18 Potential Manure Production (tonnes)-
Tabic 3 19 livestock Markets in the Project Area-
Table 3-20: livestock Market Prices for Selected Markets
Table 51 Dry Matter Production from With-project Land Use.
Table 5-2 Accessible Dry Matter and TLU Sustained-....................... Table 6-1: Cost Estimates for Livestock Projects (KTB)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1  Project Area  and Administrative Boundaries Figure 1-2  Stage Development Areas (SDAs) Figure 3-1: Threshing  Crop Using  Oxen Figure 3 2 Mule Cart
Figure
3-3             Aftermath             Grazing             s„
Figure 3 4 Cattle Feeding on Crop Residues ........................... Figure          3          5          Natural          Pasture          Land..- Figure 3-6 Livestock Grazing on Natural Pastures- Figure          3-7          (xmserved          Sorghum          Stalk—..
Figure 3-8 Conserved Hay (background;....................................... Figure 3-9  Pond as Source of Water (Week Mcda) Figure 3-10: Animal Health Service Bangui Wereda
...J „_4
JO
JO
.... I4
...I7
,J8
...I*
...... „ ....27
I6
rvMimrrn,                 p,
-w
' U /'■***’’ W nn**tcr Pnfnr
ff^‘
^vtA-rio™ AND
; ?/
 Mnhara Credit and Service Institute Agnculmral and Rural Development
}<  Development Agrnr
qD  Focus Group Discussion
<      Geography Information System hectares
household
squire kilometre Lumpy Skin Disease
Litres
cubic meter
Neuvisdc Disease Tropic*] Livestock L’nn
Ethiopian Bin
• SUge Developmental
VOoMcratic K&M: ttf Efhtxfxa. Mixittn of Watrr anH Lvtp Izibicpim NUt Irr^gQao mH Drunker Pr^ftT, rrtRooi'cr,oN .
W* Mt'""
PT1 JI)""’-*
^it^k StV' hvcMOck component of the feasibility study lie co (f describe and assess
;
obroVf’ °‘ '!* ,^’nd productivity of livestock m the protect area. (n) idendfv
lbt current’«atOS ^ trcxluction potential, and (lii) identify interventions that will contribute
'onstrttnt* fo ’^^p^xluctivity as Part of an ”vcn11
t0 incrrt'l^
project’^-
development plan for the
Appro** *“*
The study me‘h” ” <>P
collection, survey and analysts of the existing condtbnns
>nd idcnnfiCation and preparation of a livestock development
sources, constraints. po 
p]»n and interventions, which 1
of              0vcnjj ^npted agnculture development
project
(Via rvlkctbn
Dau collected include published, unpublished and other relevant sources from Federal. Regional, Zone, VC cred a and Peasant Association levels.
Household surveys were conducted m the study area to collect pnman data from fanners >nd local stakeholders on agro-socio-economic characteristics, including livestock acrmbcs Surveys '.me by structured household questionnaire, thematic focus group discussions (FGDs) ind transect walks in two kebcles. Additional livestock data were collected at kcbcle level using a livestock check list to guide open discussions
Data AhoJj jij
ata collected was analysed both qualitatively (for non-structured data from foe example the group discussions) and quantitatively for the household surveys collected using a
H^esbonnuxc
Ihe characteristics of different livestock production systems in the study uc
feed and water. livestock numbers, animal health, Itvestock marketing and bvestoa Pfoducts such M                  mea( hides and sluns wcre mvcsngated Furthermore, the Integra
C «ock irrigated crop agriculture was studied. Constraints and opportunities or allowing the formulation of a livestock development plan and interventions
t                             Coatufarioa
g llus report, the following institutions were consulted
AdmuUilf»tK. s fd,
n  0      CICSpCCXn
.eWeie as ntheptoiec'“
dl
rt '
L
'gncultural Jnd Rurjd Devdopment (ARD) Offices at zone and we
In'^CCUVC     ^
cvc o
' Prncnl     Agents   Centres   at   kebelc   level,
p ^dua) farmers and livestock owners;
0 Institute of Agricultural Research Centre; and P^Use kebcles in the project area.
H-Mn 1!
1F'dtrj'
Elbnfu* \'ik Irr^tM,, Dm# Prorf
Mnirfy JV**
The project area extends over 138,157 ha and covers pans of four wcredas Region Stale and two in Beneshangul-Gumuz, see Figure 1-1.
To facilitate planning the area was divided into five Stage Development Areas rl composes Hyma and is outside the Upper Bdcs project area SDAs I & jf j bank of the Upper Bdcs river, and SDAs IV and V arc on the left bant SDAs .
4 o 
Figure 1 -2.
**
A,f
c
4 VC5ho*not3
L4 Report Structure
Following this Introductory Chapter, relevant policies and guidelines arc presented in Chapter 2. The current livestock production system is discussed in Chapter 3 including (i) livestock population; (li) livestock feed resources; (lii) water resources; (iv) animal health, (v) livestock products and productivity; and (vi) livestock marketing. Chapter 4 presents the major constraints to livestock production and opportunities for livestock development In Chapter S future lives lock development is discussed, and covers the following: (i) improved lives rock breeds; (u) livestock feed; (lii) animal health services; (iv) livestock marketing, and (v) aeons to credit; and (vi) livestock fattening and processing of livestock products Sub-pro|ccr interventions formulated to give structure to the proposed livestock development arc summarized along with associated costs in Chapter 6 and the details arc presented in Anoci A Chapter 7 presents the livestock study conclusions.
C’b F4 SrO2< lavcstoch (2'■^s<
- - 'Si?
r Au 
4/
I/
"Vv i     c ■ * Jr
Z f        x        *
X/dl)
■ k S »"            1    / h_V^S
)____ >
I
I } II
I11!
ii
IU
v 
fc)
M 411PnM Pfmwnin.-
Mrwfn 4            <**
Er fat* & Nt If Im&twt J*d L^j/ttjft Pr^ff cf
I
» ■*. V* V~»V». %•--
. , ,'^UC-ESANDGUroBLlNES
7 > f-j/ ptl f' tyM'Mf Pffcy
z Jjrn^-
AF*"". jafl Agncxl^1 Development Policies md Strjiepcj «e long-renn ^tmcpci, *-1^
Thf FH^ m achieve fasrer growth and economic transformation. The 5Wegy ™nly fwU5R
' TidturJ and <ural t5cvdoPmcnl w,th m’iot ob’ccnvc' ’tTOpbenmg uf humin
c ’n ,eflCJ'fa ify jnd its effective utilization, endunng prudent allocation ind me of editing
pI tlt-velopHicnt path compatible with diffeicnt agro ecnlopul Z0no
a li7S»tion divcisificiitiori and commercialization of agricultural production; integrating 7vclopfnt‘ ’t activincs with other sectors and establishment of effective agricultunl twktting
,
system
rhe Government will largely restrict itself to playing as icrermcdunfig role, where there arc
gaps Areas where the Governmcnr would have a comparative advantage include, setting rhe rrgdflTorv framework And standards, financing infrastructure ^specially rads uni die rural
rDl J5 and transport program) and small-scale irrigation primarily focusing an water harvesting
jit the household level, helping farmers build medium-scale irrigation on a cost recovery basis
and construction of some inuln- purpose dams rhar would support laigrr-scaJc urgatkeu. In
some cases, the Government may help with the acquisition of technology from outside the
ccuninr.
The national strategics and policies for all sectors directly apply to regional states, zones and wcrctia rural development programs. Based on the national policies regional states liavc
developed strategic management plans, which arc tailored to focus on rhe sped fir development problems within their respective regions. Similarly, zones and wesedas have formulated zonal
■ MPs and wrreda SMPs, which focus on the particular development issues within their
fE spectivr administrative areas.
Rrjoirnrj Pa/ity
°hiecti 1OC^ ^cvclopmeni Policy' was prepared as parr of the AgncuhuraJ  Police. The mxn
CQ ntrib .
inclujp.
cstoc^ resources in a better and productive manner so chai it will sr, cial and economic development of the country. The specific: objectives
*     Id r
*     Satisf Conserve and develop the livestock types ad feed resources of (he country
. and increase dir tood requirement and increase the income source of the
P astOr^lists. through the development of the productiofi producth in ot
*     I’tcd
*     ^pr
r3Vb rtliltCT a
' J i*  quality and susiainable manner to satisfy the local industry
1
’nd  c  °te*Rn    me  change  earnings  by  improve  mem  of  livestock  market  tirganuaoon ProdL               trough improvement of ihr conditions that are detrimental1,1 K^ttxk
r *'“™™,ct to,„st.
]l
5ifiirv.
tflz/fapa. Mnuiy * Wafer & H»fr^
1'jfaCM* A7* IrrtftifKK jn<! Drjritarf Prvrf
22
22./
Guidelines
Ijtiffak Rfjomtj Strjftg
The livestock policy and strategy incorporates all relevant sub-sector* and productivity and feed resource development;
- Milk resources development,
Meat resources development;
Poultry resources development;
Fishery resources development:
Bee resources development and conservation;
Equine resources development and conservation;
Camel resources development conservation;
Feed resources development.
Other animal resources development, winch include: rabbit,
crocodiles.
Pastoral area livestock resources development; 1 jvrstock marketing.
Hides and skins, and
Animal health.
* Sl,e' ’ndud^
Ostrich. OVet^
2.22
Mdknwm PfHtojwitf Goa/j (MDGs)
11k Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) arc a culmination of several consultations that hate bcm made since the middle 1990s on several international forums regarding global poverty and human deprivation I’hc declaration has mainstreamed a set of inter connected and mutually reinforcing development goals and targets into a global agenda Most ot the farm
by the Millennium Declaration were not new. They have been derived from the global conferences of 1990s and form the body of internatx>nal conventions that have been codtb•>> over the past half-ccntun
I he Millennium Deri*
among 
oc lcr DnnMrv
|
ccn <«s on democracy. peace, human nghts and poverty irduc00r
•        Endi   r-   °
"P™  ’challenges
00
and   eight   ma^or   goal*   namely.
. ^"^emePoveny and Hunger.
. p'^^^Pnnmr Eduction;
•    rT* rtend"   E‘)Ujllt>   and    F-mpower   Women; ^wccOiddMoruhty;
Improve Maternal Health,
•     Ens bat|A1DS' A,aJlni1 and othcr Diseases;
. n" T               V'’’W’CntaJSu’,“’a^^and
" " "P ’ Globd P^cnhip for Development
these targets
set across the eight goals and more than 45 indK'a,or‘
ZZJ
to SDf’Rp The
-//W          10 uP
. -asartaw*^.-*** 1                . poVcCrfty (PA:>1                «.(<*
The Plan for Accelerated anti Sustained Development to E t,o0’s <>'   ^
*
Str
-------- mam objective of PASDEP is to de One the n»<‘°
IT) P4SrtjJc Ijvcnock <2)
6for a period of fivC yCart’ C° liyOUf dlrectiQnS Bthiopu wants to tike with the
c             ,nent ,0r^of ertdkating poverty; and to outline the mifor programs and pobcic m
d vdoP
j tar vear period Lc. 2005/06 -2009/10, and had the following eight
suppOf
^ gjX » -
S   u  inc|QS vc
'   *mPlemcnU“>D
*
♦
At «kra>ed economic growth;
c ating a bilmcc between economic development and population growth, UnlMhing the potential of Ethiopia's women.
Slrengthcntng the infrastructure backbone of the country. Strengthening human resources development. Managing ask and volatility; and
Creating employment opportunities
Beciusc livestock contributes to direct food supply and/or cash income improving livestock production playa a significant role in fulfilling the objectives of PASDEP. A major point of
entry is to strengthen animal health services
To improve overall livestock production special attention is given lo the sedentary production system. In areas characterized by high human population pressure, fragmented land holding, land degradation and and climate, the attention is towards small ruminants and poultry production. At the end of the plan period, increases in the production of meat (43%), milk IBS oi eggs (80%), honey (157%), hides 3c skins (19%. fish (2757%) and silk were expected
As In dihoods of pastoralist are based on livestock, attention was made to foster spedalizatnon rcn             p uction and marketing. Accordingly the areas of intervention were mairdv on
e? tock quality, expansion of animal health, watering points, feed production, breed IBCnt and development of market infrastructure
^GTT
20l0/,h20r4/15
September 2010 ^arC<^ the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) in
„ .
its irnplei^ i ° Counl«y 5 tong term vision, achx^cmrnt of PASDEP and lessons drawn ^n Plaxj h WCfe lbc basis for conceiving (his five year Growth and
_j growth Ovcrnding development agenda of GTP is to sustain rapid and
P^th witnessed during the past several years »nd eventually end poverty.
Ute
F -*Pand and 51 811 avrrig  real GDP growth rate of 11% and meet the GDGs;
c
m
CnSUrC thc
of education and health services, thereby achieving the
rr
t ^ ^’xiraQC _i conditions for sustainable state budding through thc creation ot
En ^ BroxXi dCVd°p,ncnt*1 “istitutions; and
miQt* °aorrr
c
SUSUUubUity by realizing all thc above objectives within a sdbk:I
R^M.
Mim ofVd/rr C Entff.
Effaptf* Nr* /rn<a*r«< m* DruiMgt fapt
•      Sustain faster and rquitablc economic growth;
•      Maintaining agriculture as a major source of economic growth
•      Enhancing expansion and quality of infrastructure development
•      Enhancing expansion and qualm of social development.
•      lludding capacity and deepen good governance; and
•      Promote women and youth empowerment and equitable benefit.
In relanon to agriculture and rural development, the fundamental policy directions that tins development sector focuses on arc (i) scaling-up productivity of labour on land, (ii) use of different strategies for different agm-ccolopcal zones, and (iii) a focus on specialization and diversification; and (xv) a strengthened agricultural marketing system
’Hie broad objective of the agricultural and rural development in rhe next five years is to ichinc accelerated and sustained growth that contributes to poverty reduction on thr basis of outstanding results and experiences gained from the implementation of rhe programme hnhern as well as paving thr way to attain thr MDGs by 2015.
Livestock resources development will be earned out as part of the scaling up strategy The focus will be on an expansion of:
•      I’anening and dairy resources technology’;
•      Honey production technology; and
•      Poultry resources technology.
pasture development and animal health services.
L'b 1*4 Sr02c lavcftuck (2)
8K***'**’
M* .''T**** "^D'***' P'**-'
«fWMrT £
PRESENT LIVESTOCK  ^ODlTCTiO]^
p
lJrrttock Popuhaon
r,prJ 
and BrTfdj
Unlock production is an important agricultural activity. (ftosd ,
nprs of Irmtock in I ppcr Belts hngatwn project area 'ind^ J°’°P p,oo'**>n Th, donkeyt. mules, poultry and bee colonies. According to ker info01"*’
kcbde development agents, the livestock are mainly of lazhgerjo^'’ nr, are found in the wild and honey is harvested from ^e wdd 1^7” 
h °n°-
fapeCTn'
“ *** pr°*n
followed  is  traditional,  where  only  few  farmeis  keep  local  hn-CJ   •  *  ’’’’“g"’*’”  ’VM«n
ponloy (pullets and cockerels) distributed by agricultural and
pullers and cockerels are the only unproved animals in the stud ^ ° ®
<dP
**
enf oft** These
respective wereda and kcbelc key informants and famers he ' ACTOr<lin8to «•* of the area, presence of tsetse and tnpanosom^ lick of.
pnecs. no interest and for some lack of adequa.e hoUslng
effoutock fyfxf
°f
«™ene,5
M
The community in the project area keeps livestock for a number of reasons This depends on the individual interest and for what purpose the animal is needed or the emTrocmentil condition that suits the particular animal Though there is individual preference and merest, Inrstock owners in general place livestock species in order of importance or rank The criena for ranking livestock include adaptability to the locality, affordability, vcrsanlity of use, the purpose needed by the individual household, market value, ease of management, etc. Accordingly, as can be seen in T able 3-1, discussants in the kebdes visited have placed livestock m the order indicated.
______ —_____________ Kebck
_ Kcble 23/45
Keble 49
Ankasba Burii          Wobo Mariam
— _ 1"
3*
1"
1*
1-
5d.
6*
2*
4*
4*
3-
3*
_____  -6 th
2-
2-
5*
____ 2«*
3-
7*
6*
5th
6*
5*
4*
L_ _ 7*
7*
4*
7*
■mo                                     »
*ith Cofununines tn the Respective Kcbdrs n Ae Pricer Am
hav
ethc (o
livestock spears have different placing in
j
*** f° As ^es As d1e
fCs uJt it is m
fcst
w traditional and mostly wild type, no attcntxxi n is
^f|iv ’
C
,T ulk (liquid r
deferent agn ^Orrn
^stocjj
converted into many other products like butter ’c&vities (threshing, transporung. etc), income (sales
meat, hides (for market and making household items).
11W-I1
9pHietv.' Dnwran. K/r*pc. •fEflvdjrw. Mint'try of ITafrr & fiw%
.\;,if Jnr/iH.w jm L)nx»j^f Pwt
manure (fertilizer and house plastering), horns (making cups, sp<M(Ils ctt ,
(e  g.  wedding  arrangements,  butter  for  the  groom  to  put  it on his head and  s]  tUd"lnn*1  v>l>
infertile cow for weddings, wakes and at the end of crop harvesting). Figure 3-1: Threshing Crop Vising Oxen
" R TfnnR *"
Mule: transport of harvest to die house, draught power, riding, lure (a cart can earn up to live quintals kTB 10-15 per quintal and could make up to 4 tups j>er day; a smglr mule can am only one quintal at a time if not attached to a cart and used alone) The market value of a muic is about ETB 3,000— F.rB 4,(XXJ. Despite its importance. the project area is not conduct** t". rearing mules. They purchase them from localities outside of the project area.
Figure 3-2: Mule Cart
SfcceP me» JUedfofn*«i>ci
' 1‘ *'Vrvcr ,hetp IJS. . “ Inferred ,h(. aaJ » P'eterred in taste. llir pace m »h"ur /:7B
°°r COn-'unjncj<d/nfOr
{ e                '^ln> ^ast growth and simple tnanigr^f'1’ r3 lOotiaJ reasons, also the yield is small rhe
surplus beyond the kid's requirement is very small
(’ll J'4 Sr02c I jvouci 2
10, but management is more difficult; meat is les, preferred, the market Cx ,,u >«“* ’ fS Can damage backyard crop, I lower goats can be converted to C1}h
prK' »  ’
k  Wet n-.nure is go™1 for backyard «ops (mat milk « generally not consumed „ the
Lih- *I,d [hC n”n j„  d is small due to the low grade of forage available. Goats withstand
ce
on ,ibdity of women (generating income for minor expenses), poultry provide poultry: ,h^r prc,siting to guests, and eggs The market values are eggs @ ETB I 50 pa
.uiublc  ^‘
r
( TB 6f) pc- bird ( hsckens are fast to grow, easv to manage and provide
fgp. chicken                     backyard crops The income from poultry coven mans of the
DoaJcey: transport grain (one quintal per head), provide draught power (as a pair of donkeys; and can withstand trypanosomiasis Donkeys plough a large area fast with (he use of a special vnkc They are a source of income, rhe price pci head is ETB I.DOO to ETB 1.500 and for 1
gc-xi donkey the pace could be as high as ETB 2,000. Attached to a cart the donkey could pull three quintals, cam @ F l’B 10-15 per trip and could make three mps per dav Toe community n such does nol raise donkeys, but buys them from other kebdes outside the wcreda. They give diverse services to society in agriculture (land preparation, threshing transporting ere.) and ai other areas of rural life
Bee colonics: the problem with bee-keeping is that the bees abscond tiom the hive (the colony ‘tap in the hive only for one harvest) and need special attention and management Bets can itiack humans and livestock Income on the sale of bee-colonies is I*. I B 50 per hrve per season
Jnc - and wax have medicinal value Special areas are required to keep hives as some scents ffritete rhe bees
h
Po^lafion Denjj^
lot ^ numb eSt  .JC^ Population of the project areas is indicated in Tabic 3-2 Accordingly, the
° f UVWtock u 260111
cattle, 8,230 sheep. 12.117 goats, 46 horses, 2.809
Populations TnU^CS* ** ’^33 poultry and 8,039 bee-colonies. The sheep, hone and mule ^eis. This            lati'ely low in general terms and even non-existent in some development
SUlHkl!^0^ ,rUC fOf h0r5C5» are none in SDA I. Ill uid V Thu is attributed to l »wta-l dim.de coHdiw,,.f-rdm Dnaocmrir Kjpaffa »f FJbnfua. SthurfT) oflT'airr & Har*^> fj/wpUM Nwk                j«j Dmnutf Prattit
Table 3-2: Live stock
SDA
--------------------- ------------- - ----- Livestock P<>
Cattle
Sheep
Goats
Horae
D°nkeyt
LA
1,750
342
809
IB
4,384
893
1.852
Sub total
6.134
1.235
2.661
in
6452
1.U5
1.261
808
1J54
4,414
r±
.1142
5,8r
Right Bank Total
12.386
2,043
IVA
 M35
3430
265
(>44
3
IVB
9.515
363
2.709
1
IVC
24.151
2,937
3.202
Subtotal
36,896
3466
6455
4
V
1,094             121
10.958
2,621
1,148
24425
Left Bank Total
10'           9.667
47,854
6,187
7,702
4
279
1474
Project Total
34J9J
60440
8,2.30
12,117
4
2.809
_____ _ ___ , 47,611
228
250
Source: Reipccnvc Uercda AgncuhvraJ and Rural Development Officer and Dcvelofwnrni Centre*. 2U10
The total livestock population expressed m TLU is calculated to be 51,114 (Table 3-3) A* cm be seen in the Table, cattle comprise 46,98” TLU or 92% of the livestock population. Thu is followed by donkeys 1,404 (2.7%), goats 1,212 (2.4%) and sheep 823 (1 6%) The rest of the livestock w less than one per cent each of the livestock population
1A
IB
Table 3-3: Livestock
Cattle
1465
3.420
Population, TLU
Sub-total________
Ill_____________ _
jigbi Bank Total
4,7fl5
4,877
9,661
IVA
2419
IVB_____
iyc
Subtotal
V
 7,421
18,838
28.779
8,548
Source* 1 oerjpufed frum Tabic 3-2 uiJ C« »ovcr*ii m 1‘actnca
Al c*n9401b1eU Onb^’
constitute. 11,174 TLU (21.9%) thek('^C.
° pmeDt 'Ugc basis, SDA IV has the highest share 2*.
ll-'**”
lib F4 SrO2c 1 jve*r«k f2}
12. CWE*T
, 01..ofl’'"''"’up p HI""1'
4 pf"^ J"‘i
II mulanon The remaining 30.9® o is more or less cqmllv shirrd
fof |hc project area is calculated to be 59.2 TLU/knP, which (SDA I) and 59.5 TLL’/km  (SDA V). There arc more Inrntock
2
,ht b“k
,jty by Arca ( 1 ILdLL/^*0
SDA
Area
(km 2)
Livestock
population (TLU)
Demin*
(TLU/knr)
Ln-euock holding
(TLU/ Person)
----------- -------------
98.4
1574
16.0
0.4
. ~1
1.6
186.0
4.296
23.1
0.6
24
IP_______________________
284 4
5,869
20.6
05
21
nt
141.7
5305
37.5
0.7
25
Right Bank Average
426.1
11.174
26.2
0-6
23
IVA
99.8
2.876
28.8
0.6
3.4
IVB
182.3
7.421
43.6
1.0
5.7
IVC
439.2
18.838
45.3
07
W|
iub-tonl
721.2
28.779
42.6
08
V
155.3
9,236
59-5
0.6
rJ
23
Left Baok Average
876.5
39,940
456
0.7
Pmjec r Average
1302.6
51,114
39 Jl
0-7
Ml
S<ii«c» Computed frum Tabk 3-3 and GIS, 2010
Ai can be seen in Tabic 3-4, the average livestock holding* for <he whole project emulated to be 0.7 TLU/ Person and 19 TLU/Household. The livestock holding c® < hank 15 slightly higher than on die right bank
c *ding to the focus group discussions, the community gives attention <0 all L - ’^nrduig to capacity- of individual households As indicated earber, cattle get ptt ^lln among cattle farmers in general and livestock owners tn parocu^. .
b
ou ^ l°OX^ ^ cows with respect to management HerdingJcedwfr
a
C1 1
11
rn Poiuihii **
b
d ^rccding arc the management points taken into consideration
1  toc^ 5lay most of the time out in the communal grazing «  ‘»’-. of ™* «f»i. th. add Th,-
1 j r w\«illv it is the
*
O’O f
I0(n                       Of b>- B herder indnrduihi or in group. According io dm:u»» “' ) in the morning until late in the afternoon.
n
K" "* t’«?'
' M,*»O|| ryru '
“'*«■>>“> >ou.eer of f«d f« ■» 
“ '"Oleil in the loulml put of *. coonm. th. ™ “ ounth meted. Aeeorimgh-. .„.n hm -
F“
”k
'7S.
J! Mar-11
13O J-C/ •/ Efhrthi. A Hh^N^'^’"**^DrJ'"< " '‘
r
11 Vater           1 ’ nfr&
production There is a saying, one holds milk with the left hand and food indicating the importance of the relationship. As pari of the attention o W,°' ** ^hl’. supplemented with crop residues According to the discussants, most attenj^ ' * die cultivation period At this time, oxen arc fed with whatever for,™ ,
to the held At the beginning of the rainy season, oxen arc u<ed mainlv tn
stay m the Geld from 7 to 10 am before they break for the rest of die day
time, oxen arc in the field normally from " am to 2 pm. In some localities '
area, oxen also work in tile field from 4 pin to 5 pm after which they arc tree pu '
< ,"1 “ pVt’1 Ourw
period, oxen arc handled like the rest of the livestock Gencrallv, they leave for tlie^
early in the morning and return to the homestead late in the afternoon Addition^ fodder^ given only if available
I tgnrc 3-4: Cattle Feeding on
Crop Residues
C °U,^dUa. 
—— ________
prc P’ration
U h '7c ^iled 'naJe.<7'C’ AI'Tlt^c ^So,ghum'
u ' P°' c f' rj[
frU <^ ' a
5 r ^al fo^ow, special mention X"^
P^uction. A cow is used *r
J ' p„„lc ^/op
Ub 1*4 SfQ2c livestock (2)i**""
/ir afC prodded in addition to the natural pastures. Dry cows ire treated like the
beer w»»‘  ''
c
-pe attention accorded is minimal and they normally leave for the grazing
fC <t of  '
b   64
< five*
, . |i e  ock eadv in the morning and return late in the tftemoon or eadv
'■J
V  St
bnd * 
\ddmonal fodder is given only if it is available
the evening
1 restock are watered at least once a day, nornuDv at midday in the dry season ^atenng- c ccjai|y where water is nearby, the watering could be up to three tunes i day. No
> c,mcnnlC
ittennon is given uurn g
' jnrini? rhe wet season as water is available everywhere
H dth care the health of the livestock is a major concern to the farmer In as much as
tiblc they try io keep the animals in a healthy condioon For this purpose, all animal are
^ccinated regubdy and prophylactic treatments are earned out every three months as the area p rsrtse infested and trypanosomiasis is a big threat When animals get sick, they arc immediateh taken to the nearest clinic or animal health post. Because of the tiypanou »mnsi* influence, treatments arc given by animal health personnel and fanners themselves To this effect, farmers have indicated that they keep the necessan syringes and drugs to hand In situations where animals come across sudden sickness, fanners consult the local healers before going to rhe clinic and anima! health posts, in order to save die lives of the animals
Housing: three systems are used by way of sheltering livestock. These are night enclosure, sharing nf the house and separate shed. The first type is the most common practxc. Most valued (milking cows and oxen) and young animals share the same house as the livestock owner. Some farmers, who can afford to construct a separate shed adjacent to the house or
•'inywhere in die prrmiscs to protect them from rain and against predators The construction of he shed is also dependent on the number of livestock under possession. If there are few
animals, the above system is followed. On the other hand, for large livestock numbers a simple <v is made in the compound This is mainly for protection.
sr udy ^arur*l breeding using local bulls is the common practice for ill livestock in the ’he field bre ^CCt’On Ca^cs pbcc and as both male and female animals stay together in
Office has               Can ta^C bidiscnnunatch- any time Since last year the wereda ARD
^hrooen
^lis
hcd a cross-br
eeding program, bu
t has
served no
an
imals due io lack ol liquid
i.
r
• ^men.
transport and
lack of awareness
he vnttfC f^j
lT<c   ’ndxvidua]
’  *  COmnuHcd
’be  well-being  of
the
livestock
in
the  household  possession
^^ent bvcsin^                   ^°Uc'r1, ^ias specific duties to perform in the management of the
hou5cj u
cl *ted activities. Almost all Ines rock related activities are executed by the
t
,,,a nirmk.___ _ 
Husband
__ ^ ullcs each family member cames are uid>catrd as ioDows:
n
Li?!:hcrdm*    8°^    ancc,    feed    conservation,    watering.    marketing    ot ^’ife (51^.. rUnun^ (5, mdking (sometimes;, shed construction;
an   n
Of   dauy  ProddCMUn8    °f   b,m’  milkin8-  processing  of  milk,  lnrstock  feeding.  marketing ^>1 (3 hrs' UCt8' CRg5’
ousch'y*”" h°USchold bcad- Erding. *•>'««?. marketing «nh uwnucnon ot rs )‘ »s'Ca^ °r accomP  P R grown-ups; and
• housewife, marketing of dairy and poultrv products
15
tl-Mar-Ilf-rt^rvi   Dfim.rarii   R/pMc   of   EtikpH,   Afiiusfr)   oflV'atfr   &
N/if lmivfron and Drurmtrf P^r.f
J.2            Livestock Feed Resources
3 2.1        I Jrrffak 1 :trd Typer
The major sources of feed for livestock include: natural pastures (gra
trees), crop residues (millet straw, maize stock), luy, salt, aftermath wa7 bU'hc,/’hn,b» to)
fartdi) from those who have prepared fr/h. Table 3-5: Livestock Feed Sources
* an^ ^°cal beer
SDA
Livestock feed source (percental
------ —- ----- .
Natural
pastures
Crop
residues
Aftermath
grazing
Industrial bv-products
Thinning/ weeds
I
70
15
15
0
Improved
- fonfr
n
111
66
18
D
6
0
8
-—'I
IV
87
9
3
1
1
3
o
I'l
V
85
10
!'X
2.5
1.25
1.25
0
Average
77
13
6
1
2
1
in
Sourer Rrspcxtivr XVrrcda Agncul rural and Rural I>cvc1<ipmrnt < > friers and Dcvckiptncni Centres, 2DW
As can be seen in Table 3-5, the proportion of the different feed sources are ? ° •, 13%.6’s 1%, 2°c and 1% for natural pastures, crop residues. aftermath grazing, industrial by•ptuducl. thinning/weeds and unproved forage, respectively. The feed sourer* for poultry inthcprojcc area arc mainly grains, crop rejects and household left-overs
7
t’b F4 SrO2c Lrvcsr«<lc ’2)on Natural Pastures
Not all animals get supplementary feed According to farmers and key informants. pnnnrv u pven tn oxen and milking cows. If there is any feed left over, calves and hefen get the chance In arras where donkeys arc used as draught animals, tlicv also ge? supplementary teed for iddiuonal energy*.
An insignificant number of individuals own private grazing land in the respective kebcles, most dl nt what is available is held commonly. Ibc private grazing land, which is not more than 0 25 ha ipcr farm) is available alongside the crop land. The land m the study area is vast rnd the Restock of the community stay together. Even the aftermath grazing from the prime crop
i' tree to all once rhe crop is harvested. As the grazing land is a property’ for all, it hat been that no care is given by the community. There is constant encroachment by
p«hir lnefn^crs ant^ individual investors into the grazing land especially that designated as rc ’Ponub?d !^C <k^Uncr 1 ana Bclcs Project In some areas the relevant kebde Councils are
>r tnanag,ng the use of the communal grazing land.
natural feed
Crj nwn<>n Di °urces arc found in the forms of grasses, bushes/shrubs and trees. The tno't P  nts include:
a
u,.
Bu.k
’
^°'ch Sar' AmAfa. Str*. SnMf. Ytbfrt Sar (important)’
Stmra
rUb,:C'W,r^.
Kan/tr, K/rkni, Yra*fKob, KtrMfrr, Gan bi io,
Hi.
JfcA /kIT’
’ "Wo. J,£(
CImjtj
SffaFtdtrul Dfnt**vtic H/furM. oj                 Mtnishr) of U afrr c?" I: wgi
l‘thof^rt Nt it
anti Drutftap Prottd
V the grazmg 
” diff,CU,t‘° PtCPMC A ™ fWmrn
.    . in L Lound die pnvate farm and from land dtat is outside of the comnillni|
C n residues from the estimated land are the principal feed tapes that are com^ v farmers engaged tn crop production. ITiesc are reserved as a supplement for lhe dty to ccosovee, rthtehefefeededrerqeuqtueitrneemnetsntats attimtiems eofs ofteefdeesdhorshtoragetage
l0
Figure 3-8: Conserved Hay (background)
,n some k k_i
e** ucjes traditj aQ
c
crop rcud 
C rCMnctcrf for a certain
vou aOd bar C°nscn’cd
n K tninuls 
dclincatcs a certain area as standing hay. *•* ° f Thc landing hay is for all livestock.
d suPplcnwntan feed for oxen. W donkcvS' W
Vb J-4 Sr02c IuvcMtick (2;
1ftt jCC
c a decline m rhe availability of feed mainly during the drr season The
TheCOIIMJW,U^ ronounced in the month* of February to Miv Q'lW/to G«^ uxi Much
j nH“ ** ** 
l
n
o
ttl June
^rigation me
tmd tingef
number. u*<
Sometimes it could extend up to Jew, and the run axnn The followed include: use of crop residues [maue Milk and groundnut residues
conserve*l fodder by some. Some indnriduils reduce the livestock pvcnuorul feed sources (tree leaves), move livestock to over banks and in
purchase iwviv
X, „ iw ■«,o p"“'
There are no reports of extreme drought, where livestock in the
W          annual total dry matter production in the protect area is calculated to be 296.F9 tonnet As
^iTscen 111 Table * 6
g* ”!^ produces 81,540 tonnes (275%), followed by
3
irately culnvnted land 76.0B4 tonnes (25.6%). grassland with scattered irec 53,IF tonnes (17 9%) and woodland 29.684 tonnes (10.0%)- The rest is obtained from the remaining land enver
The dry matter obtained from die tight and left banks is calculated to be IO8J072 tonnes and IB8.7Q7 tonnes respectively. These are 36% and 64% of the overall producucn. On the right bank, the dry matter from IB is 53,127 tonnes, which is 49.2% ot the right bank production, hram the same bank. LA and 111 share more of less in equal proportion die remaining production. Similarly, on the left hank |VB and TVC produce 59.61 fl tonnes (31 6%) and 84,408 tonnes (44.7%), respectively.
n-May-H
19fur uot/plfuq
a,"'d -? J! /• Xv//M/n - rKfafKjj* W** 
i fr^^z
Af^9
t
io     P   r Ddc5 legation Project «ea need about 115,454 lmjj)c, qf
W   Lr
T** ^CSt< uaJ mam'«uflCe £Tabk 1*7J- 17,0
™ the nght wd left bank of d™
fof t*"^ i?1 tonflcs and 00,284 tonnes, respectively Th™ correspond to 78% for the left f<?qlJX for right banks. The highest feed requirement is for IV on the left bank, which * Ild v to 69 446 tonflcS ‘wd arfOUnB for aboul of 'h* OTC“11 requirement He
is shared among the livestock in the rest of the development luges.
[Ut n a           —- -jj---------------- ----------- B---------------- £-------------------------- -
Dry Matter Requirement (terwes)
_
T,t*tZU£2
Cartie
Sheep
Goan
Horae*
Donkrys
Kluka
SDA
Total Dry
matter
j Rrquirc&cftt
%
IX
3,112
78
184
0
166
7
3.548
3
IB
7,797
204
422
0
1J71
9.699
R
Sub-total
10,909
282
607
0
1,437
400
D
198
13
22
13247
11
m
11.119
184
11.923
10
[St
WitfhT Biok Total
22,027
466
f 006
Q
1,636
35
25,171
10
5.744
60
147
59
453
60
6,523
6 1
16,921
83
618
18
347
27
lS.rtl?
16 j
JVC
42.951
670
730
6
447
106
44.909
39
Sub-todl
65,615
813
1,494
83
193
69,446
60
v
;.
19.488
598
262
I
319
170
20.837
18
J-cft Bink Tool
85,104
^TESlTotal
107,131
,
1,876
1 411
1,756
84
1,566
343
90.284
IS
2,763 |
M
3,202
398
115,454
100
LJl^EOrjon %
92.8
1.6 ,
2 4
0.1
IB
03
100.0
_
**nputcd frrHTi j jtdr 3-3 and Convmian h Arturs, 2010 is foE               critic need KPJ31 tonnes per uwuni
u
ne *d less d CC^ f^e re<1 *
rcineots for donkey*, goats
n ne per cent each of the total requirement.Ffdrru/ DtnoxTtfK R/poidtr of Ethiopia, Mt nt try of ITatrr and Eoff^y F.tfaptan Nik Irnfi^too and Dmnagt Phj*t
12.7
Livt/l^k F"d Balanct
The livestock feed production, requirement and balance in Upper Bdes I
presented in Table 3-8. As can lx seen in the Table, the overall feed bala
SDA are positive and in excess of the requirement. There is over 18] ooo t—
matter for the total project area. *ftie surplus for the nght and left banks arc Kia
tonnes respectively.
—■'*Dd9«,(|&,
Table 3-8: IJveatock Feed Balance (tonnes)
SDA
Feed Production
(tonnes)
Feed Requirement
(tonnes)
p eed Surplus
t
IA
28 046
3,548
____ yonne )
24 40H
IB
53,12?
9.699
43 42?
111—
26.899
11.923
14 975
Right Bank Total
108,072
25,171
.
82 901
IVA
23,181
6.523
,
16.658
IVB
59,618
18,015
41.603
IVC
84,408
44.909
39.499
V
21,501
20,837
664
Left Bank Total
188,707
90,284
9M23
Project Total
296,779
115,454
181*325
Sources: Computrd from Table 3-6 and Table 3-7
The positive iced balance is attributed to abundant dry matter production from the vast area and diffcreni land covers. As indicated earlier, lhe area is located in the lowland and i infested with tsetse and trypanosomiasis. Though lhe lowland condition may not be i p the latter is the major obstacle for the survival of livestock. Thus, the existing livestock not consume all the potential dry matter produced. Due also to the harsh en
condition, the human population is sparse along with it the livestock population
Though the data show abundant feed, the community report that there is
foddtf
especially during the dry season. This is mainly due to the fact that
the
available nearby. The fast growth and early maturing nature of the iorage
not
chance for livestock to utilize fodder at the right time. In some situations accessible Furthermore, the recent development is the encroachment o investors into the grazing land Thus, the above mentioned feed shortage high potential
desp!C
lib F4 Sr02c livestock 2*Jj 1-p
.f^nv fft^a/erfor LuvMh*
fevers  are  the  main  sources  of  wafer  in  Upper  Bole,  I pnng , wells and ponds (Table 3-9). The
S
S
«*«,
Chanter, Ketcm, 3 eshrwonz, 7'csfadi, BeJes, z
n :h)t ^estoefc frct)u<, .
G»H.ck »..l K»ta Tl, „ m™ ,„ „„j
t
b lJir )fc " " ’ -'tofo,
“ "'
K«.en, Ch„lut
Iaka,,xk- i.
^„td
’*'•* —XT
pans ^rivers
„ lejf
Table 3-9: Livestock Water Sources
2UIL
-
SDA
Uveafocit Water Source*
River
s   ri
p "g
Well
Pond
1
X
X
X
rn
X
X
X
IV
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
X
X
5c~rrr Rerpccmre Wcrvda Agricultural and Rural Ikvclupncn- (Jffkc*. I V.D and Devth^wnoif Cratm, 2010
Their are very* few springs that the community use as source of water for Inre&tocic I lies e are available only up to January (Ttf/war}, thereafter the volume dwindle? and is the dn reason progresses they finally dry up.FttM Dtvntic Rtptbfc of Efhtpia, Mi w fry <* ITattr j<r/ /•_ w/r;
Etfapwit Nib 
J3.2
and Dnanay Pr+trf
Wattr Rff*"*0'"
W.ter in *e pt°Fcl W” *’
.mount of "«ded °! .ks u cilcuhted
_ d for muntenw^ » 
« P^ducUon According, tht
k „ calculated to be 600,421 tn' (Table 5-10), to be 131,189 m’ (22%) and 4 ,-).23;
(                m,
needed for n8h’
Ki.pan.cd-ay  coversnab» out W«“ »      ””       orolll           „crf           to.       i*»«k»       *<
u for Restock tn SDAIV of the left bank, whch » 3W,W
m
On livestock speaes basis, water for cattle is 549,691 m\ which is about 91.6% of the
overt
livestock water requirement. This is followed by goats (22,113 np), sheep (15,020 nP)
and
donkeys (12,302 m').
J J, J       IFj/er 5 borfagr
In general, discussants have indicated that the respective kebeles do not face water shomgu Some communities that arc located further away from the water sources (mainly men) face scarcity of water in the dry’ season. Water is critically short and become problematic in the months of March and April (Megabit and Mia^a), but could begin as early as January (Tw) mi extend up to June (Jew).
The common mitigation systems followed to overcome the water shortages include
•     Take livestock to further away watering points;
•     Transport water for sick animals, small ruminants and young animals;
•      In situations where wells are the main sources of water the depth of well is inatiwi.
•     Dig shallow wells along dry over beds;
•     Make use of water harvesting techniques, collecting, conserving and rationing wia last longer, and
•     Watering livestock every other day
t’b F4 StO2c Livestock (2)
24W*fer Rt<[uirrrnmt (m*|
Annual Waler \ Petteiaia<e \
/               SXM
/        Cart/c
J       Sheep
1      Go ata
i 1       Howe
Donkeys
Mules
Monthly 'Water ( Requirement .
(«*)             'l
Requirement I
inCj L
/ ZA
J                   624
T               1.476
0
639
20 |
1,561 |
ib?z2_L
4,160 1
4W+ 1
4
/ /B
1             40,005
|               1.630
1  J .w
t
1
»
4 883
J.J
/ SubjotjJ
1             55.973
]               Z254
1              4,856
0
5,523
M
5.720
68.641 1
/ fH
/               57.050
1.475
1              3.200
0
762
61
5.212
62,543
wl
J Ri#hr Bank Total
I             JU.025 J
V»
8,056
0
6,285
96
10.932
|                   131,189
22 |
1 IVA
29.971 [
484
1 175
141
1.741
165
2265
33.176
Tl
| HU
S6.B22 [
663
4,944
44
1335
75
7,824
93.884
■
JVC
220381
5.360
5.843
M
1,718
290
19.467
Z3J.6V6
39
Sub-io til
336,673
6,507
11.962
199
4,794
530
30.055
360,665
61
V
99,995
4,784
2.095
2
1,224
467
9 ,"47
tQBJ57
18
Left Bank Total
434.669
11*291
14,057
201
6,1MB
997
39303
469,232
78
Project Total
549,691
15.020
22,113
201
12302
1,094
50,035
600,421
MM
Proportion %
91.6
2.5
3.7
0.0
2,0
M
100.0
Snuiw CurapiUrd front "I abk 3 3 and Cnnverwoti f irlon. 3010
:
LI b IM StCHt iJvntncls (2)
25
11 May-11l tdrrv! Dtmotronc R/pablii of Efbiopta, Mi trit fry of W'atrr aatf Entty
:
EthopM Nik and DnxMfr Profit
3.4 34.1
Animal Health
Ljiestock Diseases of Economic Importance
The major livestock diseases include anthrax, trypanosomiasis, blackleg ,•
sudden death Diseases of economic importance arc presented in Table 1
Table 3-11: Livestock Diseases of Economic Importance
Live______  stock I -
*1*
Type of disease
77
r__
Frequent
Occurrence i
Sometime!
Carrie
Poultry
Anthrax
Pastrurolosis
Trypan* isomiasis
Blackleg
Bahisiosis
Lump)' Skin
Disease (LSD)
Internal parasites
External parasites
Pastrurolosis
Trypanosomiasis
Pneumonia
Internal parasites
PPR
Internal parasites
New Castle
Disease (NCD)
Coddiows
Source Respective wrreda Agricultural and Rural Dcvrkpment < Ifficcs, Devekpmetit Ceo •
, bv the conMnun^®1
1
Trypanosomiasis affects mainly cattle. Asa result, it has been report
is difficult to maintain animals in the project area for a long bh * withou assistance. Generally, the number of equines in the project area is ins donkeys. There are no animal health reports related to equines due l° especially horses
34.2 Animal I icalth lnfrustrucfitn and Services
There arc three possibilities to obtain animal health services. rhc
health posts at kebelc level and private sources. As the former are
the respective kebdes, livestock owners usually take sick animal ne€C$$ary reported that each animal health post is normally facilitated wit technician and gives service to three kebdes In some localities
sell veterinary drugs at relatively higher paces. In extreme ca?,es’^ ovnj, by accessible, the last resort for the farmer is to treat sick animals srtJflgc f°r necessary drugs from the open market. Farmers keep at least
last practice is not advisable as it creates drug resistance an diseases, especially tryponosomiasis.
ejerp11 popubtH”1
■ jrJ^ uT fcd*
ctse$ far
It h»*
th*
private
^c prob
I  b F4 Sr02c I jvestock (2)
r
26Werrda
« 3-l0:
fig'11
f’
In areas where there are animal health posts, normal routine services hke vacctnitions and treatments are rrndered T"he service provided bv traditional healers is important in the situation where thr ease is acurr and die other services could not be reached
3 j         Livestock Productivity aoc/ Products
U.l Ln*jfa:k l^ndifi,tinty
The livestock productivity for the different species under differed indicators is shown in Table 1-12. The age to sexual maturity for all livestock type’ 15 hmg; 4R md 43 months for tarde and 14 and 13 months for small rurnmantx (sheep and goats)- Ilus is attributed to gencralh poor uurugement systems and rhe unimproved gcnecc tnakc-up The effect of the unimproved
li'eHock conditions is low productivity and low production.
T pk^iUy«toek Productivity
peffoemaoce
Perform ante Indicator*
Livestock jvp?
indicator
Unit
Cattle
\ Sexual tnanirV-v
V*!^engf__
month*
Months
Respective w«h Xt-ncuhun* U'J Rllrtl lhe productive Me is rhe penod lh»> *he “'‘Vti-dMi the nine from firs' cahW 
t-ninanu when young. «P<^
uO dct
vutn»l» delJ'
cO ns«v' (cC^ Vue t‘>1
‘     lVle p^', L*
p *r^tIS
^noJO'hCCi,CO
'^"•orune the actual productive life-An           MW enod between
Md.
and gons) Copied tn this report » the p
tbMipH
27^*7=
FkM P^wA.
ofElhi^. Mwrty <IFar/r <"d E^
Ni/r                  and Drmtap Pn/tcf
j 5.2 Livutock Pnstets
The major types of product? expected from the livestock m the nm^
1
P "jeci area inri u
power,  milk  meat,  eggs  and  manure.  These  outputs  arc  mainly  from  the  Incal  driMr anticipated production is very low. Accordingly, the quantities expected are d
following sections.
X5J          Dnut^hf Power
SiCtl *n l}*
Crop cultivation in the study area is undertaken using mainly oxen, but in some local donkeys are also used on light soils and where there is no major cultivation From the livestock population, the potential draught power in the project area is estimated at 13^4^ of oxen At the rate of 2 98 ha per year per pair of oxen, these are expected tocufovatc 40,301 ha of crop land (Table 3-13). There are 2,781 and 10,743 pairs of oxen in the r^Jit and left bank of the project area respectively.
Table 3-13: Potential Draft Power, Pairs of Oxen and Area Cultivated
SDA
Pair* of Oxen (no.)
Area Cultivated (ha)
LA
393
l.ri
IB
984
2.933
Sub-total
1,377
4.104
III
1.404
4.183
Right Bank Total
2,781
8,286
IVA
725
2,161
1VB
2,136
6365
IVC
5.422
16.15“ 1
Sub total
8,283
24.684J
V
2,460
7J31 _
Left Bank Total
10,743
32,013.
Project Total
13,524
j030l_
Source: Calculated fawn Table 3-2 and Conversion Factors
According to the land use map derived from satellite imagery, the annua) estimated at 48,000 ha. Making allowance for hand cultivation, the oxe same order of magnitude as die land prepared.
3.5.4         Milk Production
Except for die very few cross-bred cows, local animals arc the main ^pll5 Belts project area It has also been indicated that it is not custonian to There are however individuals who have their origin from areas w
pop
o f jnJk m
g ven
who  reported  the  milking  of  goats.  The  amount  of  milk  produced  f  pfO|cct  >reS  1   r.
Therefore, the total amount of milk expected from the local catdr estimated to be about 5,259 tonnes (Table 3-14). 'rhe milk production banks is estimated at 1,081 tonnes and 4,178 tonnes respectively
ngh  gpd
1
UbF4SrO2c livestock (2)
28j_fJ             fWwr/wrt
Meat is expected from Cattle, sheep, goats and poultry The community consumes different meat types on die various annual and religious festivals and cultural occasions 1'hey mriy kill livestock merely for household use. ‘iTierefore, the total potential meat production in the study nea irom the different sources is calculated to be 651 tonnes (Table 3-15). The meat production from the nght and left banks are estimated at 146 tonnes and 504 tonnes, respectively
T r!?!til5lPotentiaJ Meat Production
i               SDA
Meat production (forme*)
K——ZZ
I®___________________
, Suh-tpul
Cattle
Sheep
Goat*
Poultry
Trrtal
(lamies)
15.43
1 28
354
13
21.56
38 6”
335
a.i
3.08
532
Ijll
54.1
4.63
1164
4-58
74.75,
55.14
■---- - J^ight Bank Tota
Uva
u?
MB
7.67
5.6
71.45
l
_            109.24
7.66
1931
9.98
1463
28.49
0.99
282
1.16
33-45
live
E3.9Z
136
11.85
2.94 j
lfti.M
213.01
- -------------- 11.01
1401
14.11
mis
325.42
1337
2868
1821
385 68
%65
9.83
502
7.18
11868
_____ 422.07
23J
33.7
253?
5MJ6
3537
650-56
'Eonirin a 
ftlc *n Fftblu
.
531.32
30-86
53.01
____ 81.67
4-74
8.15
544]
100
FactorsFuM DtutocrvlU Rrtuba. Elhiopu, Nttuifr) oflFater J/tti Enrrry EffnpioH Nilf Imrafrri u»d Dnawgt hvffd
bk 34 5 meat &*" cattle amounts to 531 tonnes and contig, As can be seen in the    a 
mC ai QUtpul „ from
(53 tonnes)
(i
81 .7% of the total P10** _ |& (iom hccp
,
. 30.9 tonnes The lowland dmuttc mnd^n,
poultry (35.4 tonnes)-T
ivhich vs less 5Ui
3 5 6 Eg Production
coombuttt to the low mutton production
The sources of eggs in the project area are from local poultry. Accordingly, die total , eggs produced is estimated to be 556 thousand (25.0 tonnes) (Table 3-16) The eggptod^ from the right and left banks are estimated at 157 thousand (4 0 tonnes) and 399 (5.1 totw,,' respectively
Table 3-16: Potential Egg Production
SDA
Egg (*000
number)
E gg
(tonne*)
1A
21
0.9
IB
48
2.2
Sub- total
69
3.1
111
88
4
Right Bank Total
157
4
IVA
18
0.8
IVB
46
2.1
IVC
222
10
Sub total
286
12.9
V
113
Left Bank Total
399
-y
5.1
Project Total
556
25
Source Calculated Gum Table 3-2 and Conversion Factors
The egg sizes produced from local birds are small They do not exceed 40 grams and usings convene factor the total production is calculated to be 25 tonnes
Ub F4 StO2c Livestock (2)
30f-jidr W ’
j
fr
orn cattle and »kins tom sheep and goat,. Accordingly, the potential
Hides ire expC^
ub|t( d to
.
be 2.530 and 4,026 hides and skin, respectively (Table M7). Jlido
pr( >di«cQO,) '^iicUfin from the nght bank is odmaied at 520 hides and 1,295 ,1^. Skndartv,
and .kins pr 1
the^1^
ban)t estlIIiaiej at 2,010 md 2,'3l tcspecm-rh
_ 
- ■ Hides and Sldas Production (number)
SDA
Hide*
production
(no.)
___________
Sheep »kui« production (do.)
_________
Goal ilcuu production (no.)
T«al
Sld»
75
62
170
231
LA--------- ----- -------
1S4
161
389
550
IB____ .- — —-----------------
$ b-tD<»l _  _--------------
u
|TT
258
222
559
781
263
145
368
514
. -------------- ------ -—
IVA
Right Bank Total
520
368
927
1.295
156
48
135
183
IVH
400
65
569
634
[VC
1014
529
672
1201
Sub-local
1,550
642
U76
2,010
V
460
472
241
IB
Left Bank Total
2,010
1,114
h617
2.751
Project Total
2330
MM
2445
4,026
Proportion %
37
63
100
tjloJatrd frrxi, Tibk 3-2 and Coovmion Fact™
hepnxiqcts from those animals killed in the project area arc used by the contruunny for tnt purposes; the rest is delivered along with the animals as they art sold bvnFtdmii Dtmocmtic Kttnbh; ofEthiopia. Msmrtn of Water and E <r^
E/ftoptan Site IrrifafaM and Dnanqt Prytit
j 5 g Manun Products
.Ml livestock in the project area produce dung, which sen es various purples f curomunuv On the b.»is of the estimated livestock population, the total amount expected in the project area >s estimated at 50.044 tonnes ( Table 3-18). Th, production for the right and left bank is estimated at 10,851 tonnes and 39,195 respectively.
Table 3-18: Potential Manure Production
Manure production (tonn,.i                    --------
SDA
Cattle
Sheep
Goat
Equine
Large
niminanti
Small
IA
1,365
24
57
76
1 441
IB
3,420
_ _           Si
63
131
560
3.980
Sub-total
4.785
87
188
_jr
636
5,421
____ JW 2?$
111
4.877
57
124
97
4,973
111
in
«k
Right Bank Total
9.661
145
313
733
10394
45?
IX’A
2.519
19
46
251
2,770
------------ 7
15
IVB
7.421
26
192
173
7,594
211
W
IVC
18.838
208
22”
245
19,083
433
Sub-total
28,779
252
464
668
29,44'
?1?
it
V
8,548
186
81
215
8.762
Left Bank Total
37326
438
545
883
383)9
w
Project Toial
46,987
583
858
1,616
43,603
Proportion %
94
1
2
2_
__________ 97 j
Source: Calculated from Table 3-2 and Cimversion Factors
The production from large and small ruminants is calculated to be 48.603 1,441 tonnes (3%). respectively
3.5.9       I iousthoid Consumption and Saits
household5 m d)C
1 jvc stock and livestock products arc a major source ofcash income               consu^P01*'
r
project area. The different livestock products mentioned above are b»r market and for other uses Milk is primarily f°  home consumption
informants, this is due to milk shortage, cultural taboo, absence o 
and processing of the nulk into other by-products. They has e also
increase in the production they will have the chance to offer to the
ro faiu*n
o (ddtJ^
that if 0
•en dar They l*he community has the tradition of consuming meat, but not e* 
reasons for killing animals, normally small ruminants. The main and ceremonies like weddings and funerals.
ni000
j
sufnp0On,M^^
The eggs in the project area have three outlets, namely home con^^ market. About 70 % of the production (Socio-economic Sun c.
|( |inn
Ill P4 SrC2r Livestock 2)
327' -Li
-w**-*' f
I
,_  consumes, flic rest of the eggs are sold to purchase household
r
mon of t>lC Potcnt,aJ hldcs lnti ,tin* Pf”d,lc,,cln «e not for iood use is the
iTi* oiajo' P’ .
(   wcight busts Whatever cattle ire killed at home, rhe bide « mjtnh- foe o fsnrm^s 15household items ate nude. The skms (sheep usd gout; „t
home use r>
rMinJy for
processing is by pegging it on the ground to dry under the sun. Thus.
Ijry ]5 ififEfl'Of-
produced is uscd IO fertilize lhc MOP bind Aj wood « "or a pioHem. the
.T i|p in Jfl.n i re pI'Uk
1                             r J., tn tv d-ilce for fuel is very small Some of it is also used ic planter the Houk, products ol dunP
I*"** P/13^
There is no tradition of raising livestock for market, except for those uumiL under fittcfuag programmes. As farmers consider Inxsiock as an asset stock sue not offered for market unless there is the need for money' to cover some expense. Among rhe manv, the mam reasons for pul ting up livestock for sales include:
need for cash ro cover social commitments
to purchase replacement animals and oxen for crop production requirement of monev for some investment
to cover some family health care costs
to purchase agricultural inputs (fertilizer, pesticides and other chanicaJs;
J
*
a
0
tn offset problems associated with poor crop harvest to start petty trade in the locality
settle loans
processing of dairy products
to buy land in town for the construction of residence
house construction
P^  bank account in Chigni town.
^7
i Jic Ln-j-c * i
markets that the conununities in the project area lttcnd are listed in Table A-l*1 : -^^!*gSL^«-keu in the Project Area
Location
Type
Distance
(M
Purpose
Secondary
11/2
3-4
Saturday
Siturday
Buy and site
Primary
But
Primary
-Secondary
Primary
Primary
jecpndLaxy
Secondary
5
n.x
n-4.
n.a.
n.a.
Wednesday and Satarthy But
SiMghy 
— -
Saturday_____ __ ____
Sunday____
-
Xaiuriiiy___________
Monday, rhundiyancl
Saturday  -----
Bl~ and. iiJc
Buy «od >*k
Buy and mIe
Buy jndMk
Buy and 1*1*
11 Miy-U
33federal  DfWirufi/  RrT-Mr  9>f  Efht^na,  M  tasty  of  Vater  and  Energ Ethiopian Nilt Irngafton and Drattaff
Market
Location
(wereda)
Typ«
Distance
to
Maksrgrut
South
Ache (er
Primary
n.a.
D
Tuesday
Mambuk
Dangur
Primary
n.a.
Saturday
Burge
Dangur
Primary
n.a.
Sunday
Source- Respective wereda Agricultural and Rural Development (Jfhecs EGD and D I
—
°pn)ent Centra 20ir
3.6.3
ljvcjfotk Markfl Dtyj and I 'olamt of Sa/tj
A» can be seen in Table 3-19, markets in the respective weredas and kebeles are
once a week In other markets like Work Meda and Dangla (outside of the nm,,
•
i a 
.
..
r , ''
project area i ntvxet
days uc two and three times a week respectively. Livestock products and/or live animals m
also sold on daily basis in urban centres, such as lendika, Wcrk Meda and Pawc as ueU w Maksegmt and D.2 Village T Individuals from the rural arras converge dunng the market div. to buy as well as sell Some livestock owners, especially those individuals who have fattened animals come to the market to gather price information and make the necessary deosaxu
During normal days, the number of animals and livestock products coming to the market is tew. This is mainly due to the remoteness of the area and feu- major towns and settlements. Tur number of animals coming to the market, however, increases a feu’ weeks before and after annual hobdap According to key informants, these occasions arc New’ Year, Easter and Meskel. Price incentives and the high demand for livestock are the main basis for the large livestock turnout.
The household survey shows that livestock owners, consumers, middle men and local are die main purchasers of livestock products, whereas other livestock owners, cons middlemen arc the mam purchaser of live animal* (Soao-cconomic Survey. 201(
3.6.4         Markfl AtvusiMf)
According to discussants, the kveatock markets that the community in the stu are accessible throughout the year on hoof The livestock output from the p small it is not necessary’ to use trucks even in areas where there is cxcc-
t riders arc not accustomed to using trucks.
anfTxh
U b H SrO2c Ltveitock (2)
34U*’** ‘ rk« infonmoo  were collected from .eieaed market, m the
0
!>*»«*“ Pr
r
om le(e and there are gap, in the record. The figure, for wmeofthe
P
indicated m Table 5-20.
^ket, *rC inu
.. Livc«iockM-rket P»cc» fof Selected Market.
Kcbelc
Ox
Cow
Prict* for rekcted kcbeki
Donkeys
A,ech NkUun
2763
K-.vj Aly __
2,717
3,077
3.473
Wobo Manam
Simula Feint
3.056
3.894
Adis W<iyn
3241
Alu Kurxfid
3,262
3,492
4.456
3.583
4,005
Ankas ha Burg
’itfl
Ivma GehrcaJ
5668
2,833
2.873
2,483
Source Respective wereda Agricultural and Rural Development Office* FGD and Drvekpmeal Ontm, 2010
Aj diwus»cd tn Sccnon 2.5.9 ’I louM?hnld Consumption and Sales’, mmt livestock products art for home cixiiuniptioni. The quantities rraching the market ate ven small Intormanim from the resperuvt Apneuifunl and Rural Development Offices indicate that due to the small raienl and irregulintr of delivery, nolnmtrxk products Jari arc collected from the designated •study markers
*     ^*htj 9f CnJtt
^■mg and credit associations and relatives arc the mam sources of credit for communities in P Kxr area In tnost areas, the former is the main short-tenn source of finance The
(  Credit and Savings Institute (ACSI) and the Benins hangulGumuz Micro-Finance
u
^ panv arc Mentioned as the main ones. The former has branch offict tn Fendika town and
in pXe                kcbdcs of Jawi Sereda. The Beninshangui Gumuz Micro-Finance Company is the P^chT^ and °pcra6onal 19 of the 20 kebeles of Pawn Wereda Both give bans for extreme ex aRlniak (ox^n. sheep and goats) al the rate of 18.5% per year interest In
furriers get loan from traditional money lenders it high intacst rates.
PU<
*  ^g 
d        kvcvock owners face marketing problems en-route io the niadet or at the market
•     Inar IUlctlOn’ Some of the major problems include:
rhe
during the wet season: some of the markets could not be
somc 1^eaS°n 35 access roads become impassable, there is a lack of bndges and in *               d dOn$ are prolonged floods
batJZ                tO lhc rcsP<^tnx markets there are few markets in rhe study ara ^hcult               C^Crent pans uc forced to travel long distances It is e\en m
u cn transporting livestock products and livestock on hoof
1!-Mk H
35Frdrm/ DmmMr                  afMitp*. SUniitn afVattr and Izwtjq E&taptav jX’zir Jrngarw* and Dnan^r Pnftrt
Nlaikets are not fenced: livestock trading is hindered due i<>
The  livestock  markets  in  the  project  areas  (except  Pawe)  We   n   7^'  °f   nfri’l*UeUl trading more difficult as pace arc set through physical and nsuL^^
Pi we. the fenced area is small and not conducive to undertake livestock There arc also cases where individuals are attacked by
^vtnfa,
congestion   of  the   market  place.   This  is  especially  more  pronouncwLu  '° and during the main holidays when sales arc higher.
Municipal tax the livestock holders complain of paying tax even when th livestock, though the receipt could serve for two market days The iv 
kfa*
not ^
ETB 2 for large ruminants and ETB 1 for small ruminants Taxw equines, as the>’ stay outside the fence.
c> "c fto< levied fa
**
1 jick of market pace information: farmers and livestock owners do not have n knowledge of livestock paces. They know about the market pnees bv going to the market or through individuals, who have visited the market recently. As a result of this they arc left to the mercy of the traders
Low market prices: in general terms, prices for livestock and livestock products are low This is associated with the remote location of the project area and lack of accessibility Livestock traders arc not encouraged to come to the project area to purchase livestock because of the difficult environment.
Transport problem: as the project area is far from the major towns and the road network is not well developed, there arc few transport services. Livestock move frac the farm to the market and vice versa on hoof This results in animals losing woght
and fetching low market paces
Pace fluctuations: there arc constant livestock price changes I hesc are the approach of annual holidays and demand for oxen at the ume of crop
.
n^4’
Vb H SrO2c lavcstnck 2)
365i
-  W 
«uSTRA,,sn
_caNd     OPPORTUNITIES        WITHIN        PROJECT        AREA
I
Sb##1 »J
o |     rock on both banks of rhe project area are natural purines and crop
f  Bf5
The cmin
nstimtc about 77% and 13% respectively of the tun] feed xxiroes The rot is
d     f]oprTlCIir Seasonal/penodic feed shortages typically occur tn the dry swron
tejiduc*- wh*^ g^jng, industrial by-products and weeds/thinning. Ir has been untested «hat from aft«»,n’ shortage (both in quantity and quality) is a major constraint to livestock scasond t«  ^.
producnon                      months of February to Mav (Yfkatit to GinJvf} and March to lune aQ d partKU^'
rM#/*"TO
j^iurr
ofinrproi^ BrHdw Slock
Livestock in the study area are mainly indigenous types. Though these ltumals ire Typically hardy withstanding drought years and shortage of (quality) feed better than some improved btecd* ind « we 11 a* usually being more resistant against diseases, they are, however. low in productivity. Only an insignificant number of individuals own improved heifers, pullers and cockerels, which thev obtain from their own resources. Due to the fan dui the protect area is in the tsetse and trypanosomiasis belt, the survival of improved animals is minima] without high prophylactic measures. So, farmers are deterred from introducing cross-bred heifers and bulls For others, who could afford the maintenance with respect to health, there u a shortage in the supply of improved animals resulting in high prices. High maintenance costs and lack of mirrors s are also obstacles in their use. A fun her constraint to fumen investing tn improved breeding stock is lack of assured feed supply and poor extension and retennary services
P.J
Pw I 'Utmtary Streets
p nitJtm]
r »ceiin Car^Cr' ^Vcs^oc^ ^
SciSes (infccncjus, parasitic and nutritional) ire common
cc onomjc loxsrc ~n
111 stk|dy area. These result in high mortality and morbidrnr rates iod ugmficirn
*
Tl Uzuir
adequate Co properly serve the existing livestock population in rhe area (2.91
F*tfonm
>nd 39 24 Tl IT/L t
ncc
U Lm D
/   ) Routine vaconanon programs arc not earned out on tunc and
bj
il                 C ^etcruuary services (equipment and staffing) and availability of
Restock owne °° treatments of common livestock ailments are poor. Firmer? and lnTr*timcs tr j ^^icaitd that diseases are not properly identified and all diseases arc
Wcd « txypanosomia^
Markit
_^Bs Tie
^ ets MC *Oca^cd long distances away from the community in the major fences / ^^rkcij in the rural areas hive poor infrastructure. which include:
t^pc
TC
° ^ P  duci3 ^^koriing for different animals, animal water supply, and storage for
to
to die latter rn*kc trading difficult to both trader and Livestock owners and
of ptjj^ ir^ct5 arc further constrained with lack of price intormahon and
Pccially fOr those coming from the rind area*Wmil
faNopj* Xik Im&noft and Dw< Pntf.t
MiaufV * *'*"
4.1.5         Poor.'law to Cnditfor I Jit stock Pimhasr
The banking services are available tn urban centres and do not well sen
is due to distances to banks, lack of awareness of banking services anT/
if loans arc not settled on time. The nearest bank is located in Chagni, wh h
away. As a result, farmers in need of money get credit through informal ch '* ,b<’U'100 lenders at high interest rates. The Amliara Credit & Saving Institute (A( Sfij
Gumuz Micro-Finance Company have branch offices tn Fcndika and P,w *" '5c,Uns!ai1^-
’ ttto' "hi
C °n^'-<r^
As both are under construction and therefore with limited servi™ .k„ 
t0Wns "spectivtl,
with time they could overcome the problem of access to credit.
4.1.6
Poor Livestock Extensiofi System
The protect area is remote, where access and infrastructure arc not fully extended The
between the respective weredas and the regions is loose. As a result the extension
general and that of livestock in particular are poor in staffing and other support semen The
situation is more pronounced in respect of livestock as the services are more biased to crop
production
4.2
4.2.1
Opporrun/nrs for Lavrs rock Development
Avmiabiht) of Dry Matter
Dry manor production for livestock feed with-project is expected to change from theprrscr
availability described in Section 3.2. Under present land use and vegetation cover. Table 31
estimates a total annual dr)’ matter productxm of about 300,000 tonnes. At a consumption of
2.28 tonnes pa per I’LL’ this is sufficient to support about 131,600 TLC, but due ro conitnstf’
on palatabtlity, seasonality and accessibility (in addition to other constraints on the livestock
population including disease and water supply) the present livestock population m the Pftxr
area is estimated to be only 51,115 TLL’ (Table 3-3).
VTith-project, land use and vegetation cover is expected to change dramatically
ha of grassland and wooded grassland on irrigable vertisols will be converted
Similarly, the woodland and wooded grassland remaining on irngable luVls^                        mean that
irrigated. Conservation requirements in the '’environmental reserve (34, it is desirable to limit grazing in these areas, chough realistically this can encouraging the production of adequate dr)' matter and good quality smallholder settlements.
However, despite a marked decline in ’‘natural” grazing resources, increase in managed drv matter production which will include on fa forestry. A notional grazing area of 0.15 ha per smallholder farm h* ^ Supplementary Report SR-02B) which will give a total grazing area 
,heje*J]l’ *
and
gjjocated (***
die
^1 k>ts >
lC hicvcd by
o eaibt
e <:On’P<O',tl0f
5
area. Dry matte: production per unit area is expected to increase in                 household T*
where cut and carry can be practiced. Agro-forestry will be earned ha) and areas designated to settlement and infrastructure (6,5*71 h biological productivity per unit area as a result of irrigation
be ii»cfr
fb F4 SrO2r Urotock (21d production of dn matter in the project arc with proKCt u
T abk
The
JO piprr than double from about 300,000 tonnes pa now t
o about 661,
$  I  It  is
‘■ ^    .          ail  of  this  vrdl be  accessible.  For  example,  there
,
wO eri  not
wW  be  Lmrut^
tonne* 
residues available for smallholder griming on tommcro
il firm and the
section 6
Aanfuaft SottntJ oj \X’aier far L/wfock
The mam sources of wafer for livestock arc rivers. Other less important sources tndude springs, wells and ponds The volume of water from these sources decreases during the dry season but docs not completely drv up \Xhen the output from one decreases herders movr toother
sdpcenr sites and use different mitigation systems including moving livestock io more distant pliers, but within the kcbele. Il is envisaged that the establishment of the proposed project would ensure conveniently located and reliable supplies of water for livestock
/Iwj ft Graft
C ,Cr acxcss by farmers to credit would sunnorr efforts tn nurchase and own improved
denied
5    OUtld rnaxkct>ng of animals and animal products to major markets by track This to he  J
ky* 0) unproved marketing infrastructure in the study area, 1A  P ** J nkages with (private sector) buyers.
11
11-Mrptl
39Frtfrm/ / Iwirttn.- ftytbbc of Ethiopia. Mimstry of VTairr anti E nrrjp Efhroptax NtJt Imfigron anti Dmt^t P*vftJ
■ —W Rmdinjt, Stock. a»d Vaabtits
4 2.S
’rhe current livestock population comprises about 51.114 TLU made up  f «
o      ttle
canines (horse, mule and donkeys) and poultry fTable 3-3). These are numly of
types with low productivity, but well adapted to survival in the local environment n*7“ .
periodic feed and water shortages and diseases.
To make the most of the expected increase in reliable and quality feed and water wpply
improved breeding stock should be introduced so that the proportion of the more prod^
breeds increases along with a general increase in livestock numbers As the area u within the
tsetse belt, trypanosomiasis is a rnapr obstacle to the use of improved dairy animals, at least m
the near future. Instead unproved sheep and goats would be introduced as alternate source, nf
milk for the community.
Improved facilities such as purpose designed shelters would also support pmductmty
426
==x“S~=-—-
I'**"** ot the F""
Ae Abg Rivcr would facilitate the contact bemec
40
LT,F4S«O2<
2)fj&W* jWZ*£>^
ltd Jimp
future livestock development
/fTJ/^Ved J^yr9/"C/C
To nuke the most of the expected increase m rehxbic and ^proved breeding stock should be introduced «, thlf
along wth a general ln^ „ 
«d w>,„ , -
a  |r
P^D
?
77,e types of improved animals envisaged are improved                 „ proved pullets and codeends and lmproVfd k
(*eep
aoirads is not recommended at this «aoe A ,
„ jmik TOU7J^ “7'’„r
bf ™y M>.
flrw^nf Pnxru*rmt
d
8 ’"^tKUon „r ^ ''
l ,'»pW»lc and
Namnl breeding using local animals dominates current livestock breeding activity in the <tudv
im The selection of a breeding bull is pracnced by only a very few fanners. Currently in
breeding is extensive and results in poor productivity and production.
To improve breeding requires the use of improved animals (with exotic blood). At this stage unproved sheep and goats arc recommended.
Lhrsrock Feed 
^ithpnjtcl Dry Matter Pro<i*rtxo*
The present sources of livestock teed inc c- xnd tHnnmg/weeds wub the fonn« being 
___
iiTmut
pasture*, crop reside aftermath h ha, Ixen indicated th* * Piwcn
ate the «!«
natural  pastures  supph'  livestock  throughout  c  y  uinEc  vnll  reduce  the  unport10^  01
provider during the dry season With- project, Van us
fodder and crop residues
natural  pastures  as  a  feed  source  and  shift  the  emphasis  in  Tabk  S-l produced on-firm and on communally managed areas, as              ^^<4; ixngitcd fonge and possible interventions tn livestock feed Lc. natural pasture,     P
fodder from other sites are discussed.
Lowwaaa/
communally grazed natural pastures will continue to he an imp ^n^cvci. to ptevent
iimajrtag* voufcc of innud
JU gb th€ Wouk* decrease a$ is converted to irrigated crop
manogenKnt of
degradation as livestock numbers increase imp
to ixnptmx
^tnmu
nal lands is essential. This will include (i)
(fl    nmund
cCt
-d l
egume composition and to increase drven^on ofHc
™  ULa. „ ngk..
al                  vcmf
°
*fuch
Cl eROn
'       «>mpnses communal gn»ng ^d.
fetn these
*       ^lWl          tO          201888          ha          CVlb'C          S          iy          WWM“l           of       L       ovcnll^P’^
«*ner n ,
** 
208 87(l toOna
-            ’ whKh con"WeS “ \ he ivuhbte,
w
‘“ntm
'”                However, only about 50° » of
u
Uc bon
b.
o f about W4 438 tonnes.Fttirra!
* Etheria, Mwrtry ef Vater and Energy
IWe-’^
.r
C **CUl**<1'<>
5
Ethrnpan Xth Irritate* and Dnnnqe Pnrt.l
5.2.5         Riverine Artj
Tins is land along the drainage corridor, which will be left undisturbed
will be planting with trees that demarcate the drainage corridors and th comprises about 34,683 ba. The amount of dr)’ matter expected from thh
be 156,073 tonnes annually Table 5 1). However, the area is cxpeaed environmental reserve and it would be undesirable to strip out all dry
year, in order to allow accumulation of woody biomass A reduction ,n Plo<^Uct>on resource can only be achieved if the quality and quantity of feed produccd^ ^ communal areas is largely sufficient for die future numbers of Tl I* envisaged matter extraction per annum is assumed (Table 5-2) giving an expected annual 31,215 tonnes.
5.2.4 Crop Residues. By-peoduds and Industrial Feeds (Smallholder>
P^coon of
A total of net 22.8*72 ha (less 693 ha of irrigated forage) will be under irrigated crops grown b smallholder farmers The cropping intensities of the smallholder farms arc expected mineral from about 95%% to about 200%, rather more on luvisols than vertisols (sec Supplcmcnur? Report SR-02B). The result is that crop residues and aftermath grazing will increase tn (purity and importance. The total dry matter production from crops in the smallholder irrigated land ts estimated at 102,923 tonnes (Table 5-1) and all of this would be available as dry matter feed (Table 5-2). To improve the intake and digestibility, different crop residues treatment techniques would be introduced.
5.2.5         Crop Residues, By-produds and Industrial Feeds (Commensal)
According to the land use optimization model, a net 4,*”’3 ha will be used by private inse n under commercial farms The cropping pattern shows that these areas will be p t
with cash crops. If commercial farms arc recruited as out-growers to the sugar e'ta’ commercial cropping pattern will include sugar cane fhe total dry’ matter expec tonnes per annum (Table 5-1). Il is normal practice for commercial iarmers t ^but® owners to practice aftermath grazing in return for the manure benefit or or practice much is likely to be inaccessible to grazing if (as planned) comme irrLg,ry»o ^
v
concentrated in SDA III Furthermore, the increase in cropping inten i
reduce the intervalbetween crops, and therefore the period available f ^^oldcn Table 5-2 assumes that only about 20% of crop residues will be av ail
that no livestock enterprises have been allocated to commercial tann
gyiziflg
5.2.6         By-pvoduds and Industrial Feeds (Sugar Fa fate)
^fterm1^
The  large  scale  sugar  estate  is  expected  to  comprise  36,225  ha  As  o^$$es  AhcflTU^
cut cane, additional livestock feed sources may include bagasse a opportunities on cane lands arc less frequent than on lands put t by the sugar factory as source of energy and molasses can be potential dry miner from the sugar estate may be quite low. • 55 production  will  be  used  as  animal  feed,  only  11,411  tonnes  jx (Table 5-1 and Table 5-2).
crop5
jq % of
^ cCn &
L’b F4 Sr02c I jvcsrrck 2)
42fifuuAf/ctid if
-ill be grown under irrigation and an average of 0 (M ha per jmaUholder farm iZp^fortB^  The  benefit  of  the  intervention  is  twofold,  firstly  it  wtf  anpmve  the  quahtv has   beef   a5,0r”d     secondly   it   **   1     ^v'"i6eat>on   within   the   cropping   puttmi.   To   this
o
f In?”0** e                        ha b propO5ed as part of the irrigated cropping pattern. For more dry
effect, » t°ul °             j positive results, perennial and high yielding forage cropi like Elephant Grass will be used The annual dry matter production is estimated to be
(Iras’ *°d
jqrfiOtonnesd^’-^
e n all of which would be available to smallholders as livestock feed
12 S a 
fl         l area comprises 1ha on n^hl hank 10(1 3’140
™ kit bank It u
-phe
r
urUlC             vcj
$omc improved forage in the back yards of about 50*4 of the settlements, Holding forage crops like Elephant Grass and Rhodes Grass. Sliver
and Pigeon Pea are recommended At an average race of 5 tonnes/ha/pi, a
lotil of 23 300 tonnes is expected overall from this land (the yield per unit area sown » 10 fonnes per hi pa bur obviously not all the homestead area would be committed to forage i. A total of 22,089 tonnes drv matter is expected from this land
JJJ      Fa/drrfrom Raixjfd Cniinwlto*
Riuifed cultivation will be practiced in SDAs: IVB- E (N). IVB-E (S), IVC-E and VS, see Figure 1 2 These arc SDAs which have land suitable for cultivation but where trngioon should not be pracnced, cither because it is impractical to deliver water or because the soils ire umuiubk As a result, land suitable for rainfed cropping will be utilized as such but no irngatmn will be practiced. The cultivated area will also produce crop residues and other
^gncultural by-products. The total area, which is located on the left bank, is estimated to be 4 ha The total amount of dry matter expected from this land is about 22,835 tonnes
nuaDy (Table 5*1), all of which would be available as livestock feed.
Q/0
^ZZZZ" “J Lm“°rt
^•176 tonnes (fa^***** 
? StOck P°Pulation
u «hmated at about 296,779 tonnes, with
frOm VanOUS °f B™5
Tlbk
P raaU
•ona'     115’454       ,onn«     (Table     11U       1X115       ($CC       Tlbk       V3)       “d       ft       228       tOG13CT'rrLU/P
r                          Table 3-g)
^ Us rcPrcscnts a surplus dry matter production of 181,325
Ptci^^   PCno<kc   shortages^UlCS     5^°w     positive   dry   matter   production,   finners   have
^7 Matter resour
arc limited b
The
^^tivek CS> IOj 929 UCU°n
lcasofl* 50 ir can be assumed that over 60% of the “ inaccessible or unpalatable - or not required as
lbCr Constraint5 such as disease and water availability.
is tabulated in Table 5-1 and totals about
' ^his u an in tOQncs and 469,774 tonnes coming horn the nghr and left banks, * * The deiai] ^  ^ ’^ onnc$ (123%) over present dry matter production
lc
534       |
froj^
( hc different sources arc presented m Table 5-1, which is S,aic» “on-inigated land use and riverine areas p2°'«)
p-\br11
43Ffdtr-j/ Dewnfir Rjp»^r
Mt tuff) of IT'alrr and Izoffgy
Ethiopian Niir Im&tion and Drma^t Prvtrf
Adopting a livestock feed requirement of 2.28 tonncs/TJ.U/n .
matter would sustain a livestock population of about 290,221 TLV Tk PrOduc,1°n of
240,107 TLU (470%) over the present population of about 51,114 TUh ****•*<#
comparatively large proportion of this increment will be unavailable o d IoWevcr. a
iny) of by-product from the sugar estate and crop residues from con^nc ’ k"1 * * **"*1                             & available for livestock feed, not all non irrigated land use will be f□ Ik, fMnM *^be
grazing may be restricted tn wood lots), and it is undesirable to hcasily”"^
Also, inaccessibly and early matunng of vegetation will lead to imh.i demand, though these imbalances are expected to be less than m
5-2, the net tonnage of dry matter available as livestock feed is expected to be
ennt »fUi.
. PP'
317,678 tonnes per annum (48% of dry matter production). This Ls very similar t'
of present gross dry matter production but we have seen, due to accessibility and"
tJlC t4,Bn,lr
|
constraints of the supply and possibly other constraints including disease and uitJrT
about 40% of this is actually consumed as feed. The proposed project is therefore expert t/ more than double the total accessible dry matter produced in the project area. It will alm introduce the possibility of increasing dry matter consumption from the present 115.4>4 tomn pa co 317,678 tonnes pa.
5.2.11       Imp A cations for \V'ith project Cattle Population
The estimate of incremental net dry matter availability provides a basis for estimating the number of cattle in the project area with-project. Cattle are important because thev cnmpnsc 92% of TLU in the project area and will provide an even greater share of with-project benefit* because small ruminants do not benefit as much as cattle from irrigation. If consumable dry matter is 317,678 tonnes then this will be sufficient for 139,333 TLU, compared uith 51.114 TLU at present. If it is assumed that with-project 92% of TLU are catlie fi e. the same is present) and one head of cattle is equivalent to 0.78 TLU this is equivalent to 164.400 cattle with-project. It is estimated there arc 60,240 head at present (Table 3-2) so it
(hat with-project cattle numbers could increase by 173% - if other constraints o such as disease and water availability can be relaxed- lhis is a useful guide tc project cattle numbers that can be introduced into the financial and ccononu
m <r'npU'P"**’
UmhCT
,
,,O< ,O C’^rd
^ccinie Tv ’ Plan,,<^ -
f
^nodl. h V
*' m>non, ;• h,,USch<1,d
better
fhaf thc number of ante wirh-pwef ■
to farmers u.U men nx.tr
* *
fOf
‘
Cd dr7 nuhrr avad_
«n rbc "
I b P4 Sr02r Livestock 2)
V protect
44R-yffat IB jnlc
Crripptng J >idd
JnfcWJfy | (fonnn
Area (ha)
Ciopping
Intro tin
-■
/ frrigafed Smallholder
200%
38,229
200%
14,461
57.70H
Cultivation
22.872 '
105,93.
i Commerua/ Cufovation
3755
19.343
20V7i
Jl.562
1.018
200%
4,773 I 12
,927
i Sug-4f Eitafr Cultivated Area
190%
60.930
16.882
190%
36.225
j Rain fed Smallholder
22,835
• Cutavatian
5.074
5,074
114,110 22,835 1
Irrigated   borage
438
12.648
Infrastructure
1126
1086
0
0
Settlements ihorncarcAd areas)
Riverine Arei .Mong Rivers
1.278
4,332
6.426
19,495
3 J 40
16,83”
30,351
4.418
34.683
23.263
156,073
Grazing Pairurr Including Fuel
48.079
157,864
wood and unalLcx-Hcd tend
205.943
Total
46,316
191.861
16.070
92.522
469.014
20,888
138.838
660.876
LWJ%
Smucc: Computed from ] ,arvd Use OptrrnizatlDC Mtmlel and land Uic/Cruvcr Report. GTS and CtMlVeraiun Factor*
i lh m -sr&2c Uvctiuck (2)
4S
i-Mir-i:ErJtrw'              Kff'nka: ctf ElbtoUi. Miaul?) rfIFater mJ Entfgy Eifafta* Nik Im&tM Mti Dnaitqv Pnyetl
Table 5-2: Acceoiblc Dry Matter and TLU Sumained
Potential
DM
Source of Dry Matter
Production
Accessible
tonnes
Production
(tonnes)
Irrigated Smallholder Cultivation
Commercial Cultivation
102,923
15.036
114,110
j 02,923
3.007
Sugar Estate Cultivated Area
Rain fed Smallholder Cultivation
11.411
22.835
Irrigated Forage
22.835
19760
100%
20%
100%
100%
Infrastructure
0
Settlements (homestead areas
Rjvconc Area Along Riven
22,089
156 073
22.089
31715
Grazing Pasture Including Fuel
wood and unallocated land
208.876
Total
661.703
104,438
317,678
Source: Table 5-1 and Consultants’ Estimate*
$.2.12 ljiwtock Watrr Sitppfy
Existing water supply sources will continue to be used, but shortage of nearby supplies in drought years when wells / rivers dry- up may be avoided by providing pumped water from the irrigation canal system to livestock watering points.
53           Anted HeM Services
estock extension service faces a number of problems mainly tn shortage of technical taff, shortage of budget, lack of transport, etc. for smooth operation of the services Simihr^
lAe tock productivity and production, including adoption of improved breeds, is constmor^^ livestock diseases, which are poorly identified and treated The problem in the introduce 01 improved stock is further exacerbated due to the ptesence of tsetse and trypanowmra51* Tk animal health services >rc poor and constrained by poor infrastructure, shortly of'cten^ equipment and medicaments, transport and budget constraints and lack of training- Establishment of additional animal health posts and strengthening of the extrnM°fl
services arc the proposed interventions
Similarly, both services (extension and veterinary’) would need to be supported finance and provision of training programs for farmers as well as technical livestock production, animal feed, health, breeding and marketing
port
Ub E4 SrO2c Livestock (2)j^nng 
(o ck m«kcts are characterized by poor fadlnies foe orderly tradmg Lo^ dt5tlr„ roarkets outside the wcreda are also problems that hinder ptopa bvHtotk
locanon ^ubfehrng new livestock markets is not recommended, but cunent
leather access roads to and within rhe study area constructed by the projea tnH
^marketing and need to be complemented with (1) improved marketing mnasmxruK ^h^'tudy area, (ii) availability of livestock pace information to tarmcn, rnd fni) linkages mth
private sector) buyers.
j.j.Awaf Afur*// and Tiranrfiort Faahtiti
Kicibnei al existing markets in or close io the project area should be improved. Market infrastructure improvements would include (i) penmeter fencing and partitions to segregate different types of livestock, (li) loading ramps Co facilitate loading to trucks; (hi) livestock viler supply; and (nr) a small office building Co facilitate data and tax collection and tlso dissemination of livestock prices to farmers and traders (sec Section 5.4.3)
Improved all weather access roads to and within the project area will enable truck movements and marketing of livestock to more distant markets, including export to the markets outside of the project area, banners’ Cooperative Unions could be involved tn unproved marketing It ts envisaged that at least one farmers’ union would be supported under the project in marketing and transport of livestock.
j
ant
Information Systems
ITiarkct information is not available at markets in and dose to the project area, take livestock to market without knowing current livestock prices, and often fill to
inform PnCc- Hie respective wcreda Agricultural Development Offices collect market
^ rom selected markets These collected data are however not very reliable and not “"“"d » taw. ...
T ° ^elop and
should be l ^courage livestock trading, systematic data collection on livestock paces *°d data e»w u l >nc^ <^ls$Cfnifuted to farmers and traders. These could ibo be published
°~" '“table „w,kcteo,„,
b
l4ve*Ock mark
C^wZr
,    f°ddcx     su
tOUtCS      I?01      trally   have   poor   facilities   for   transported   livestock.   Resting
^’^k conditio^ de
Proj^Qi ^Ou^d
P (,lnts an<^ quarantine facilities are generally inadequate. Therefore cnorates accompanied by loss in weigh l
*’ * OllrUmu^Uld aWircness of marketing channels to farmers tn the study »«. and
P °vidc facilities so that livestock trucked horn the study area are
r
hvo ”Cd IrnPrOv^ au •weather road access to and within the study area will
^(2)
47hftfrnd LtownWh'
Mifuttry cfW jtcr anti E*rry
hrlMtua Nik Irrr^ifict m2 !>m<^r Profit
5.5
Xcce^s cn Cred/f
bv farmers to credit would support efforts to increase die r.umi
Xk in L study «». As put of
development project, pmvuinonU"; _
b  Cr0f
o        ^p,nved!
rovided by firmer saving and credit associations (slready existing) that would lend fliers wishing to invest in unproved bvestock
• J®°*Tfc
5. 6        Livestock Fattening and Processing of Livestock Products
5.6. / Intnuiuttios
Fanners keep livestock mainly for draught power and other benefits are s
tradition of fattening animals for market Once an animal finishes its ?cn^°ndln rht'ei’no cases as it is. The rate at which animals are replaced is hastened with the ’ " “ trypanosomiasis. The sale of Irvestock without upgrading then conditions
and therefore low puces.
Fattening of livestock and processing of livestock products and products results in: (1)
“ ®°«
improving the physical states of livestock; (11) extending shelf-life of processed products facilitating storage and / or transportation, and (iif) added value With the envisaged addition^ production of dry matter and other interventions, there is likely to be an increase in the number
of animals fattened and more honey produced, which require establishment of more prnccsnnf centres.
5.6.2 I 'ate Addtd Pnutefj
The  project  may  support  processing  of  dairy  products,  hides  and  skins,  honey  and  fattening  f animals
Milk from a local dairy may be processed for longer shelf-life products such as yoghurt b,rrt
and white cheese (ayr£). The final by-product of milk /butter could be used as an animal free supplement.
□n Th£ Currently, hides and skins are dried by pegging them to the ground under the
final product is inferior and fetches a low price compared Co properly cur Improved hides and skins processing facilities will be established at hou.
quality* products will be obtained.
e
tho*’
Honey is presently produced using local hives and is processed in th
pniketmg15
end product is suitable for making local beer (ftj) but is not app*°pr
th*1
honey  standard,  iionev  handling  and  processing  centres  will  be  set  P suitable for bee-keeping.
77,cre
h,, ^h‘ol* Vi.cnfer.
ne
d    Som^PUe90loni> ofln e}IIOck
.
C1 'h' ,iUan8 1,nJe COn"r ‘ C m*r,tct a"d most livestock are sold rvhen
c P °)ect ■/-, tOC^ °**>Cni who f 2Qon
r
livestock condition and market pncti
^ °^ ^rris
rr
C ^r°|en m]] SUf>o^
*ddc  03 c*por d vtaloxe uesnwto ithtpclivceushtzoccd k frratutuekcnino gouannd^cc0n1n^°n^-
17b F4 SrG2c Livestock (2)
4Rf-^njH)* tfljwlock Pnnsrm^ FanJitiu
The project would support establishment Ind exp^,^ . in/oev to the project area, including provision ofnecesJ " option These facilities would be linked to large-, »j’
c
7 in up material, t~.1
>, K4 '
... of-ir Jtff-
pn#frt
&                     interventions and cost estimates
lP t^ ^
u
^prop' - J^gated agricultural activities Thw will bung »bout u mcrov inunited
a L. per Belts hngiiion and Dranigr Projwt will cre«e rab^
3
foe m l"ar,SC]^ ^Jth » change in the cropping mtcnjity ringing from 95% up to 200%. The
l^d 10 tfl.S81 ’
mtiap|ed C
h(|Vc posits impact on the livestock annitrea m the project wn. The m  .Jij. production of livestock feed usomied wiib drvautie pmdw&Do
nuw   /orce^J
fic dl
ftom udE’^
|     tengated   forige   product*™,   fodder   from   grazing   kind.   nm   fed   culnntjon, hv .Droducis from the sugar estate The dry nutter output from tht .bore
* £ttlcro nn afl aJdjurmaJ livestock population of 89239 TLL, in mtiit of |?51i Not
'^[hcf<_ bc a change tn the livestock population, it is also antiopted that there would
rtl ^ ige u> the livestock management from the traditional system to an tmpswrd one atn
^usc of improved stocks and flocks. The resulting effect is that there would be i posinvc
dungc in the productivity and production of livestock.
The proposed interventions for the development of the livestock sub tenor arc:
•      Na rural Grassland Management and Livestock Feed, LS-!
•      Improved Irrigated Forage Production. IS-2
•      Improved Breeding Stock and Facilities, LS-3
•      Improved Vclcrinaxy Services, LS-4
•      Improved 1jveslock Marketing and Credit Provision, LS—5
•      Processing of I .rvestock Products, LS-5
ilirsc proposals address die constraints and opportunities outlined id Chapter 4 and art
romiitent with the vision of Future agricultural development presented in Chapter 5. Details of
e anticipated livestock sub-projects are presented Annex A
<l=,^pCvjh  'eCl   imP^Erncnratiori  these  sub-projects  roar  be  varied,  mixed  and  matched  according withold  J^Cd*  f   rarfncrs  in  die  command  area  and  after  discussions  wiA  firmers  and  other
iC ^ir  j
P
purpose of packaging interventions as sub-projccts is to provide d  “> aspect of protect design
crural p>5tu
and Livestock Feed
J 'Cr gazing aHd                 K1^355bnd tn the project area already show signs of deterioration due to
iQc|
tnanagcment Natural pasture feed includes grasses, legumes, bushes,
\Tr
these communal Lands is poor / absent ind they aie gradually
tiut  ** natural h^tock population set to increase with die project, there is a red lrj j Carc Thij , ^s:,sfuies W! be irrevocably damaged without improved ramagemcfic
theh biodi
Su PpOit (i) measures io prevent decline in the natural pastures
^ °ducti
r
Dtl    q _v 
u
era *t5r'  (“)  improved  use  and  value  of  crop  residues  for  animal  iced.  »<3 h livestock feed from within settlement areas.ptikrai Pnwjfir
* ErAr^if. Miiuitr, rf W'aftr J*d Enrg)
ElInpM Nik Im^fi <«J Drmft^r Proper
improved Breeding Stock And Factlidcn
possible. As in alternative, an attempt will be made t<> upgrade the management of the local'
animals so that the productivity and production util increase Improved sheep and goiijwflbc
promoted for milk and meat production. Improved pullets and cockerels are other flocks to be distributed m the project area.
6.5 Improved Vererxbjuy Services
Improved livestock breeds will maximize the livestock productivity gain accompanying the
expected increase in livestock population in the project area I lowever, farmers are onfrliWyto
invest in improved breeds if their susceptibility to disease and parasites is checked by improved livestock  extension  and  veterinary  services.  Further  potential  livestock  production  gun*  could be offset by widespread disease and parasites among livestock. Strengthening veterinary *nJ
livestock extension services is therefore an essential part of the livestock development for the project arra and is supported by this subproject
X                         »X-P^ii-leinn
UbF4SfO2c Ijvrstock (2)
527^ ‘
*
cessing of IJvr8tock Products
T^turc of most livestock products require them to be disposed of or wed
The f<tl5hJ'b ‘ dts tn deterioration of quality and low pnee, Fanners’ trading
quickly DcL,'a‘j proCessmg systems are basic. Improved processuig of livestock products earn ^^n-ation an ^taung slofagc and / or transportation. (ii) add value, and will be
££-1 * *■*
£ $ub-prvjcCt9 C°* *
r
it
cd costs of rhe proposed sub-projects are presented in Tible 6 I The tool cost of
lhc  eswn*1
0* iix fub-proF*' -
23.4 million Details in- given tn Annex A.
1
Table b-lL00!’ - "
rs
,n - _ -
- ------ ---------- 1-------- ^1
Subproject
Investineni
cost
Operanocul
cost
Toul
________________________________ Grassland Management and Livestock Feed
1^89.000
2,027.000
3.6I6JXD
1 ^improved Imgated Forage Production                       ----------
722,000
2.0F.OOO
2,749400 1
LS-3 Improved Breeding Stock and Facilities
1.876,000
3.098.000
4,T’4.000
LS-4: Improved Vctcnnac, Services
___
2035,000
150’.&»
4,742,000
[5 5: Improved Uvestock Marketing and Crcdir Provision
1,241.000
2,077,000
U1M00
15 6. Improved Processing of I jvestock Products
1,999.000
2»or.ooo
4,026,000
Total coat of sub-projccii
9.662,000
13,7634)00
23.425,000=-,5;
■P^
elusions
«l
CO!*1
TaV 3^ jilTip^11
I   ]  m smallholder agricultural based livelihoods in the L'pner
fO c
>e$ io<k P1*?  T| irc fln integral part of crop production.  pnmdir^ tj^on fof
pjei Prt’irfl K including  land preparation,  threshing  and hauling  of fail products The
f
j ■
■ ■
^iculn^1
fertilizer Other advantages that livestock bnng to the contm^ty „c
^snurc is uJ
cC ially important animal protein} and cultural value.
f >shmg frKx) ("P
cct is expec red rn introduce? the possibility of increasing diy matter
The propc?cd^ J present 11 5,454 tonnes pa to 517,678 tonnes pa, sufficient for 140,000
coRSiimptit^
Uf, compared^
j ti l: a| present, i potential increase of 39.186 TLUs (175%).
f rhe increase (in the order of 90%) will be accounted for by cattle It is estimated there
*0 240 head of cattle at present (Table 3-2) and with project cattle cumbers could increase
by 175% if other constraints on population such as disease and water availability can be
Jdrrsscd Further. without measures to support the smallholder livestock sector the
overwhelming proportion of increased cattle numbers will be tn traditional livestock vancces
with poor productivity.
The with-profect situation requires the introduction of lmprovemem programmes to increase livestock productivity These will (indirectly) increase the incomes of the rural farming
comm unity, and ultimately lead to an improvement m the standard of living.
Ba*cd on the identified constrains and opportunities a number of interventions have been
•denrified The proposed livestock subprojects would cost about ETB 23.4 milbon and
romprise?
Natural Grassland Management and livestock Feed, LS-!
Imgatcd Forage Production. LS-2
' Improved Breeding Stock and Facilities. LS-3
, mProv«-d Veterinary Services, LS-4
. lproved I jvcitock Marketing and Credit Provision. !h-5
of Live™* Products, LS-S.
The implementation schedule for the sub-projects dep jjun Rjehp;.orovet Srualpl?^irtipl®140'-311''"
cn ’efl
schedule for the project as a whole, which is described
Kc pon SR-06.
1]
55Fttirml              KtpMt tfErhnpfd. Mini** c< ITafrr and F.iwgi Eifapu* Ntlt Ifrig*** and Dnan^e Proff-J
Ub F4 SrO2c 1 Jwuock (2)Ft+rd Dtwmtu VapMc y Ethupia, Mail fry •( Vatrr awl Ewtq EthMfiaa Nth Irnjaf*a aad Dn*»agf Pfj*tnl
——Graialand Managemcol and Livestock Feed
—
iijj-i' •
_,—.—■        -          —
”™      — -
(llf3j pastures are the main sources of livestock feed m rhe ttuchr area. To «me eqrar fesiduc^  and  aftermath  (stubble)  grazing  and  in  very  <n»ll  ouantbet  tW^Setdi
fldp
Isutisfy r*rt
. 
f rhe feed requirement- This means that livestock reh heirJr cm the nan.nl
p ,jnires throughout they™.
, ^..elands in the project area include the communal goztng landi and u^)  Ten
J
^aFurs  g** ~
C
amount around the settlements lhe current sue of rhe natural gmtknd n otitnued 5  ] 44" ha. with frequent encroachment by the community and ifivrstoa mpgrd tn crop'
, Juction. Part of the existing natural
land will abn he under imgared lgocukurr
in the imptemenUiicrn of rhe irrigation project- Some of die current cmplind not sictibk for irrigation «11 be converted to grazing land.
< Mt problem with rhr existing grassland u lhe infestation with n mines weedj locally known as "Fx&w Tf*a "and YfJkfvhe Am" The weeds suppress grass growth ir.d it*k "o the hair of the animals, so it is somr times necosarv io dock the tads.
The existing livestock population is about 51J 14a TLUs and is in rrogh balance with the available feed.  Feed shortage is not as such a  problem in the project area.  There u, however, decline m availability during the dry season and ifi years with advene mr-fiU shortages.
• 1th The project cropping intcnsjtics will mcrosc (mm about 95% Io up Id 21X1% due m irrigation.  The  large  increase  in  crop  residues  and  itubbk  gnang,  supplenMBrd  be improved (irrigated) forage and weeding is expected to support a summable tncreisr in tix livestock, population to about 140,000 TLUi, an increase of 1"5 % over current numbers
The natural pasture and grassland in the itudv area already diorw signs <ff drtenocanoG dur tttismanagefrient and infestation of noxious weeds. Natural pucurt teed includes
13
K   es, buahes, *hnjbi and trees- Manageeiient of these ennunumi Lirxh is poor / absent
I               *** grtidually being encroached on. With the Imuock pvpubtwn set <° increase
A.ith the project There ls a nr-nj dsrigcr that rhe na rural pasrurei will be idcvodbh'
dai,uB*d withDllt
io 
r
^Proved
improved management and cart- Thu iFubprojcct nipfxxt u) P^vcnL decline in the naniral pastures and rnhanee tbcir bodnWT. ®
—'
~ “------------------- - /
l
Sc in^ ^lue of crop residues for animal Teed, and inf production ot quitey
1COck feed from
within settlement
I ’'r,“bPralre
,obi „„,
I       are;
^ful^c dhe
o
q USLjj^.  f ^rop residues as a ijourcc ol aiuinal terd
chieve a  sustainable improvement of the rutunJ piirmri ttx bwritodi gmiing-
T the qualify and production of feed from, within senlement liras, and
t
t
’  hifestadfjn of noxious weeds-
1
thMic41IbM. RipaMr Ethitp* Minty of V ater nd Errrp Elbuetaa Niif Impf"' and Druff^ W
Tide
Sub protect
Dcscnpoon
Activities
LS-1: Natural Gras gland Management and Livestock Feed
The subproject has the following linked components
. conservation and improvement of natural pasture, /
grazing;
•      improvement to poor quality fodder / crop rescues throu h
•      promotion of quality forage from within the settlement (bo 'TWtn>Cn''
•      eradication of noxious weeds;
•      awareness and support services
The subproject will be implemented by the community and creation of opportunities and danger, posed by a large increase in the
necessan-, following by explaining the support and component, of thn lnd subprojects. 
^s;
“
***
Activities to  support  the conservation  and  improvement of natural pastures /
will include: (i) discussions and agreement to community management plans (or thru grazing lands under communal holding; (ii) provision of forage seeds, seedling and fa tools to interested groups, (iii) provision of (electric) fencing if desired It u anticipatedth* about 80% of the land set aside as natural pasture / grassland will be treated under the tub
project
Phe second best source of livestock feed arc crop residues and sumclimes hay 11*
qualities of these feed sources are poor and bv themselves will not satisfy the nutmne requirements of livestock. In order to improve quality and intake, poor quality foddw
be chemically treated or mixed with feed supplements. The subproject wiL demooatrai farmer groups how to mix / add chemicals and teed supplements It is antidpted
• o of livestock farmers will participate in the program.
.          • [jjiJcvardi it.
Ihe third subproject component will be impicmcnicd within homestead areas Interested farmers will participate in the program 1 include planting of forage tree legumes in and around farms! providing seeds and seedlings.
>o Jd
Anent. To ibis effec-.
Eradication of noxious weeds will be the ocher project comp
will be provided with the necessary tools. Programs will also be participate in joint removal ventures.
Sub-project support services would include awareness. 
<4 rciaNishment ot a supply of farm tools, seeds and other inputs an
co mn*u’,tJ
capso^ 1
on e »
n-mcn in the respective protect Wcrcdas. 
5 years
Sub-protect
Implementation
The sub-project will be implemented over a period implementation  modalities  include:  (i)  trials  and  demo extension and training. 
fu) pre
-
tl-M«!11
IT) 1-4 Sr02c Livestock (2;
2rhe main beneficiaries of rhe sub protect would be ‘
[tndcrs^cK._______________________ _______________ ,Odt OTmfn- I»vntaei feed
- -
foie financial cost of the project u estimated at ETB 3 fiiMo/ ~ Lvwtmem and f“f? 2.027.000 as recurrHit£o L
,
|Tbe main implementing agencies involved ui rfj
project institutions including projecT consultants
~ —_____ - - _
' W,th                  I.SM.Oft) „
~------- ------ '— 
i’cpnicd Pensioner Shirring
fr’irnnental 3*3 rd
the respective wercda office staff concerned with inrsfock and C'xnmiaurr development
the respective Kebelc level DAi concerned with bvettock and commurutv development
service    cooperatives
farmers and farmer groups
The performance of the sub-project will be monitored in accordance with the fnlkra*jig| indicators:
•     number/proportion of farmers treating crop residues / using feed supplements.
•     devrlupmcnr and adoption of community management plans for natural pastures / grass lands
•     extent of planting and condition of natural pastures / grass ands
•     area freed from noxious weeds
•     establishment of a forage nursery in / dose to the ?r irct irra                       ________ The sub-project should prevent environmental degradation by conserving ind rnhirxzng natural pastures / grasslands. ____________________________________________________ J
Anticipated mk and uncertainties include:
• 
• 
short supply of forage seeds and seedlings
commurutv ability to manage commurutv paring lands and entire comnuinitv
—L_ 
raanagemrnt plans___________________________________________—--------- -
3
IT May II..   if J f er
1>2 : ^proved l^.ed ForU^^o._________________________
fp^nirt’ art the maw sources of livrstock feed m the itudt wa. To wx altn,
N>tU^5]duf< and aftermath (stubHe) grazing and tn very !m£l cujnbna r-unwg/ucrd,
]
of the feed requirement Thw meant that hvcitock rd, h«anj  on the natuo]
0^
satisfy P«11
T
^‘Project Rationale
Xrrv„
pastures throughout the year.
NaturJ grasslands ,n thc PrQ,c<:T **” include thecommunal gazing lands and some very I
K  amount around the settlements The current size of the natural grusland eitsnattd
lt  51 44" ha. with frequent encroached by the commuiury and airwtan engaged m crop
p  .duction. Part of the existing natural grazing land will also be under irrigated igneuirurv
tl
in rhe implementation of the irrigation project Same of thc current crop 'and not suitable for irrigation will be converted to grazing land
Ihr existing livestock population is about 51,114 TLUs and excess dry nutter a available,
f eed shortage is not as such a problem in the project area. There a, however. dcdxnr si availability during the dry season and in years with advene rainfall shortages
Uith rhe protect cropping intensities will increase from about 95% to up to 3Xf • due to
jii.’-inon Thc large increase in crop residues and stubble K^u‘-g. mpplrmcrrcc tw improved (irrigated) forage and weeding is expected to support a nistamaUe increase in thc livestock populupon to about 140.000 TLUs. an increase of PS* p over current numbers Over reliance on unimproved natural grazing as the only source of anima! feed mav lead to nutrient deficiency particularly as feed supplements mav be expensive > in short supply Introduction of improved forage into ibe irrigated cropping partem would address this by providing quality livestock feed.___________________________________________________
Hie sub project objective is to achieve an improved supple of quabtr feed fot Invstod fading to increased livestock productivity and pruducoon.
Th' sub-proje^ h„ foUow ng
,
components:
irrigated forage development
• provision of support services
hc  nibproject will suppon introduction of at least 692 ha of irrigated forage into ®e
ptrnT ^>3ttCrn t^rou
plants
1
f^  interested farmers allocating part of the land holding to foogc Subproject will introduce and evaluate alternative high yielding tnoge
other* PrOV>dlnB  forage *«ds. seedlings and farm tools with tarmen providing labour and
Ptuduc 5
5U kpcoiccl ^so support establishment of fonge seed and seedanp tt^aenei tn the respective project weredas.
S7 X
^^Proicct
tu Pplv  Of f SUPPOn lerviccs Wyald include awareness,  training  and cipctv  builds
•Xlrxenr             to°ls. seeds and other inputs and establishment of at least nor fora^ lnihcP^ectaxe .
a
~ " - - _      ^<X| be implemented over a pmod of about 5 yean widixn protect arv
\ - *"
5
11 May 11FrAru/RfpHrt. tfElhnpia. Mtwny ofW aier aifi li^rrg)
F.tbiacij^ Ntir Impno* j*4 Dnun^t Pryrf
Title
LS-2: Improved Irrigated Forage Production                                             ———■ .
Implementation
The main implementation modalities lfidudc: (i) trialTa^d                  ---------------
provision of extension and training 
dc nionstfatujf^^^<^
Main Benefits and Benefiaancs
The num beneficiaries of the sub project would be livestock ou/ ----------------------
Subproject Costs
The  financial  cost  of  the  project  is  estimated  at  ETB2J49000 investment and ETB 2.027,000 as recurrent cost
Wlth ,£TB 722,000 u
Implementing
\ grades
1-he main implementing agenaes involved tn the implemem^ o
tndude: cnc ro®1*oject
•      project institutions including project consultants
. the respective wereda office staff concerned wnh livestock and con,
.
development
. the respective Kcbele level DA. concerned with hvestock and ctMWWv
development
•      sendee cooperatives
•      farmers and farmer groups
murutT
Subproject
Performance Monitoring
llie performance of the sub project will be monitored in accordance with the foUou^ mdicarun:
•     areas of forage crops introduced into cropping pattern
•    establishment of a forage nurseries in / close to the project area
Environmental
Impact
Ebe sub project should prevent environmental degradation, preventing overgranng h providing alternative source of feed for livestock
Risks and
Uncertainties
Anticipated nsk and uncertainties include:
•      shon supply initial forage seeds
•      reluctance of individuals to give up land from crop agriculture to pamepatr m thr
subproject
_____________________ -—■------------
I Th F4 SiO2c Livestock <’2j
6LS-J: Improved Breeding Stock and F«cilitief
The current livestock population & he study
t
-
in  3 Co
| f ««Je. sheep, goats, equine (hone. mule
O
Jnt j donkey,}^
I
(indigenous types with low productivity. but environment manifested by poor rmrugemeni and drver, 
ire of
" rht
Katurtl   breeding   using   local   animals   dominates   current   livestock   Ceding   m    tfcf
study area The selection of a breeding bull u practiced by only j Terv fe, 
?
Currently in breeding is extensive and results tn poor productinty and pradunwn. In past the government has introduced unproved stocks and flnciu, namely heifers bdls pullers and cockerels to some farmers High prices for improved anuml, and brief XW arencsi are «nme of rhe constraints for most farmers to consider
A further constraint to farmers investing in improved breeding Slock is lads of assured
quduy feed supply, l^cal breeds are fvp.cally hardy, 
j(MIUgc of (q^j f„d
^••iprowrr Rationale
better than some improved breeds, as well as usually being mure retimmagamu d™,
Tu make the most of the expected increase in rehabfe rod quality feed, unproved breed™ stock should he introduced so that the propomon of rhe nxxe products breeds tncreaaa dong with the general increase in livestock nomben.
Improved facilities would also support pfoduttrvitv, njeb as animal »bdrm and acteii to tfw pumped irrigation water alon^ the canals bv conujucbon of water points,______________ J < imgatinn and drainage projecr by assured uriganon water suppJy, drznugc and flood
protection provides an enabling environment for an increase in cropping iniemina irocn about 95% to up to 200%. The resulting increase in crop residua will support an increase 11 livestock population from about 51,114 TL-Ui to about 140,000 TLUs, an mcuir of
o. % iLhoiit measures to improve breeding stuck the laq*e proportion of this increase
J  in  tradition  lives  lock  varieties  with  poor  productrviry  chaiacrcmutJ-  The  subproject
~
prove br tre>ed| rineg esltienxkg stork
_
Irv  ^Ptoicct   objectives  axe  a  substantial  increase  m  the  proporaori  of  improved
—kf^^yjAithin the project area, leachrig to increased pfnduL-w.-.ty._______________
51 s %
7
ihNfiy 41
w Mib-project components axe:
UT| P 3Vement ot Livestock and flock bv tirmding programs
n
Pr«viM
OTlofwpportscMw
*Hie type, r •
Cro«  bred  h  trnpr”Vcd   kv'itock  breeds  envisaged  arc  dairy  cam  (improved  local  com  nd ap’t-ulnjj  ^Crs   ^  improved  breeding  bulk,  improved  pullets  and  cockerel^  improved
thrtMigb ihe bCCS
** 5UPPrjrlc^- Improving poultry breeds is to be sehiefiri: -Auction of improved pullers and cockerel*.
UUv,tlci Ml indud
e;
- _ _ • 
^ VCaEock breeding practices through awareness creation ind trairarg
~X
'1 >tTjprf'VfJ hives 
__ —— ■—■-- --Fmwx/
dEUxty* Mimitiy ofW jtrt and E
h/Anpwa Nri Jrn^anci and Dnanqt Prytrf
Title                L
5-3: Improved Breeding Stock and Facilities                                               —
•       distribution of improved pullels and cockerel. ,7.        ~~~~~~~—
' at a ratio of 5.1 •>.            "----- _
serves two purposes: (i) unprove egg productton; and fa u
'
poultry through cross (weeding.
• support for improved livestock facilities, particularly f t|,
or      e
“PP^hng of |(<Jj
such as fl) anunal she 1 ten; and (u) access to the pumped                   ‘mpr°Ved br^h,
canals by construction of water points.
lrn Rat,on witer
1
Prices for improved animals and other assistance will be subsidised as app
^ub  project  support  services  would  include  awareness,  training  and  capacitv supply of improved breeds and other inputs.
Sub project Implementation
The sub project will be implemented over a period of about 5 years
The  num  implementation  modalities  include:  (i)  provision  of  improved  bceedt  it subsidized pnees; and (u) awareness, extension and training.
Main Brnefits and Bcncfidancs
The main bene fie lanes of the sub-project are livestock owners
Sub-protect Coss
The  financial  cost  of  the  project  is  estimated  at  ETB  4,974,000  with  I-7TB  1,876,000as investment and ETB 3.098.000 as recurrent cost
Implementing
Agencies
The  main  implementing  agencies  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  sub  protect include:
•       project institutions including project consultants
•       the respective were da office staff concerned with livestock and cornmumn
development
•       the respective Kebelc level DAs concerned with livestock ind commumw
development
•       service cooperatives
•       fanners and farmer groups
~2T }
IW
Subproject
Performance
Monitoring
__________________
The performance of the sub project will be monitored in accordance
indicators
•     number/proportion of improved breeds m project area
•     watering facilities along the irrigation canals
.
•     livestock productivity 
----------------------
Environmental
Impact
__
The subproject should not have any impact on the environmen^__________________ _
Rj'ks and
Uncertainties
Anticipated ruk and uncertainties include;
•       short supply of improved breeds
•      poor veterinary services and vulnerability of imp
diseases and parasites
•      reluctance of individuals to participate^. ———
breeds to
-
ll-M*’-'1
1 lb F4 SrO2e livestock (2j
834
rf*|P>lrr
|ft ve
,
---------- —
d Vetennary Services
ire various infectious and parasiric dneues in the itudr area leufa* t0 TbCr' v *nd morbidity rates and significant economy losses. Green the current ^^tock holdings of 2.91 TLU/HH; 59 2 TLU/W. and increase expected undo the ,   tvetennary services (equipment and luffing) and avadabdity of medtcamCTt,
pf< '£
inadcqu» -
lc
programmes for vaccination againit communicable Aseues, trarnwi of
turnmo'1 *
jecordx-
livestock ailments and protection against parasites have poor pertnmance
Sd>wcject Rihonidc
Anun*l heilrh services »re provided by wereda veieomry chnxi ind inunxi hoJth posts.
Ox current services are poor and constrained by poor mtrastructurr ihonap of vtrennan equipment and medicaments, transport and budget constraints and bek of training
Existing extension services toe us more on crop production thin on livestock cofutrunn
Research and delivery of livestock extension services are considered more difficult with
slower benefit accruing. Further changes in the livestock extenoon ippraach have
negatively affected livestock development / extension work.
Livestock produenvuv and production, including adopaon of unproved breech. is
constrained by livestock diseases which are pood;, idcnabcd and treated._____________________ I*he proposed project and increased crop residues and improvement in gniiland vili
support an increase in the livestock population from about 51,114 TLL’i to about 140.000
TI.Us. an increase of 175 % Improved livestock breeds will tnaxamsc the irreruck
productivity gain accompanying this increase m livestock population However, linnm are
only likely to invest in improved breeds if their susceptibility to disease and panutes is
checked by improved livestock extension and veterinary services. Further potential
livestock production gains could be offset by widespread disease and panstes among
livestock. Strengthening vetennary’ and livestock extension services is, therefore, an
S^SP^al_pari j)t (he livestock development strategy for the preset.’ area_____________ __  —
^he sub-project objective is an improvement in livestock health in the protect area
duced mortality and morbidity) while supporting efforts for improved breeds, so that productivity levels are achieved____________________ ____ _______ ____ _
u hproicct has the following linked components:
^^blishmenr of additional animal health posts tn the protect area strengthening of livestock extension and vetemiry senncei.
^cr the subproject seven additional animal health posts complete with tunushing and
e M^pmcnr will h.
constructed in, or near to, the project area
h '<rv’Ccs may be strengthened by improved infrastructure, equipfHnfc
fc* tr,n
Prr>
RUm ~
and P°m veterinary materials and necemrr mcdxa^/s.
POn ,nclu<i
MUUI1R p*nrovi R psrionoviosfionmotoformcotydoresc/ydbiecsyc/ bleiscycanlo esimanpd*-i-m--p--*i--n--al-or--i-or--‘-c- f--------------
" - I^arketin F 
11 wcll as technical staff covering animal health, breeding a
9Fnieru.' Dtn+rutL RjpuHr cf Iithfifiia, StiMJtn »J Itaffr an/f E*f9Q tirfapwK NiJt IrriptHit jnd Drmiuff Piqta
Title                 I
5-4: Improved Veterinary Services
_         -     __
Sub proiect Implementation
rhe suit-project will be implemented over a penndofab^T---------------------------____________ rhe   main   implementation   modalmes   include:   (i)   communion   of
i
:omplete with furnishing and equipment; (u) support f    |   „
Or  ive  (xk
Pou,
deluding   equipment,   supplies   and   transport;   (ui)   support   for   v        ' ’  °     *  ’tti
a
Ott T  M  n        en
’iv) provision of extension and training.
00 ^rr^rvnmci
Main Benefits and Bencfidane*
Benefits truing from improved extension and verennarTwKes will
health with increasing proportions of improved brreds leadin »  *
'—
o
product.™.
The mam beneficiaries of the sub project would be livestock «^-ncn
R                         P”'^^
Subproject Costs
The financial cost of the protect is estimated at F.TB 4,742,000 utthETB ^Lsoo,------------------------- investment and ETB 2,507,000 as recurrent cost.
Implementing
Agencies
The main implementing  agencies involved tn rhe implementation of the >ul>.pr„|fcI
include:
•       project institutions including proiect consultants
•       livestock health extension and veterinary staff tn respective project Weredis
Subpm|cct
Performance
Monitoring
I~hc performance of the sub-pro|ect will be monitored in accordance with the following
indicators:
•     functional animal health clinics animal health post in the protect area
•     training programs implemented for farmers as weE as technical staff townnt animal health, breeding and marketing.
•     animal health including mortality rates
------- - ----- ------
Environmental Impact
The project wall hinder the spread ot diseases and livestock parasites, and should ha advene impact on the environment
Risks and
L’nccrtainnes
Anticipated risk and uncertainties include:
•       identification of specific sites within the respective kcbeles for
clinics
•       recruitment / identification of motivated extension / veterin .
•       farmer willingness to vaccinate livestock-------------- --------------- ■
___
Ub F4 StOlc iJvmock (2)
10, . ttf Water and E wp
LS-5:
Livestock m
-
,ved Uvcatock Marketing and Credit Provision
umben decline is feed becomes short ind iaimil, d„ use, arc Sixt 15 jr-r-vn--c--L---- J for home consumpoon ind to mike up tor shortige, ffl f(xxJ ffWj
In this way livestock act is a buffer ip™ «lrfanon fw
< ,lf
slaughtered
other crops
ruQI p°pubt)oni.
Pitmen   sen   livestock   when   tn   need   of   cash,   and   wthout coosrfeanonofp^^^ Currently, transport of livestock within and from ,he
feck of alJ weather roads
VCa a
due to
Livestock market infrastructure is poor in the study are*, wnhout ferscit^ lrarn£ ,v
supply, storage for livestock products and pnee information Funhem™, T”
-
,       ..
ji. -
.
^rax>rr, tne maHro
not    organized    and    buying    and    selling    is    through    ngoroui    negotiations    pn£e information is not available
Thcrr is high demand for livestock and products, milk, meat, eggs ere m the nujer towns in and around the project area
There is no banking service in the prefect Area. Due to this tact, the run] sector, ind most farmers' access credit through informal channels and money lenders larrutabons on uic of linking include distances to banks (nearest in Chagm 130 km away), lack of iwarerjcss of banking services and tear of the consequences if loam arc not settled on time
^•project Rationale
The proposed project and increased crop residues ind other forage interver.
support an increase in the livestock population from about 51,114 TLUs to about ITUs. an increase of 160 %. Furthermore, the abihtv to pump water nault ki irxre
consistent production of animal feed from crop residues ind irrigated forage, ndping the livestock sector to be more independent of rainfall. The increased numben of Inrs
be far more than needed for local consumption use-
(The protect will construct all-weather access
round marketing of animals and animal products t 1°
Addressing other marketing constraints, inchMlu< (i) or near the study area; (li) price tn formation, and (o) knkig- (will  facilitate  the  sale  of  livestock  and  livestock  produc (improved breeds and quality livestock.
l mproved access by farmers to credit would support e , bhe study area Provision of teed capital could be uonsi
nurkcts by truck,
^xd rnirv W infruinxrx't
■jxjvatt sector) M*0
^renen to tovest m
:n
l
_ to impnist'x^*
°
w J credit
vnih^10 inV€$
j *ociadons  set  up  in  the  project  area,  who  would  lend  n> improved livestock.
u
11
n-Miy r.Ftdrrti! Drnocrafi. RrpeMr ot Ethafna, Minify afW'attr and Erterg) Ethoptax Niit Imgitw. jfid Dnet^f Pfytrt
Title
LS-5: Improved Livestock Marketing and Credit Provfai
Subproject
Objectives
bieenves arc for. ® improved livestock market infrastructure; Qi) lTwlaWlI> (Sub proicc' otj1 nce ^formation to fanners and hvestock traders; fa)
o
f op to date           J* P
ind
, mproved access to credit by livot^
^linkages with
|he
o f the livestock sector in the project unv* „
P^«‘*“ P
n
rOVedbKWlS‘
Subproject
Description /
Activities
The subproject has the following linked components:
improvement of existing markets infrastructure, facilities and transpomhoe, establishment of a livestock market information system with up to date hvntnd prices for transparent dealing;
improvement in linkages with (pnvate) sector buyers;
improved access to credit
Marker infrastructure improvements to markets in / close to the project area would include: (i) fencing to segregate different livestock as well as perimeter fencu^ (u) loading ramps to facilitate loading to trucks, (ui) livestock water supply; and (tv) small office
building to facilitate data and tax collection and also dissemination of livestock prices to farmers and traders (see below)
Improved all-weather access roads to and within the study area will enable truck
movements and markenng of livestock to more distant markets, sometimes cxirside the project area. Farmers’ cooperative unions could be involved in improved nuikctinj It is envisaged that at least one farmer’s union would Ik- supported under the protect ir. marketing and transport of livestock.
l ^i nvensetocn k tmakearkeltivemfstockT?^!”   "°'   ’V"UUc     *'   ,TUr‘tc,s     «   »”d   dose   to   the   study   sm even   to   secure   a   pace   without   knowing   current   livestock   prices,   and   often   £u
. lhe Protect area collect
' rrsPech'T 'gncul rural and Rural Development Offices ts
These    data    arc    howeve    U1^DmUnoa      trnm      '^cc^rd    markets    dunng    market    days
bvestock traders To de
livestock pnc h
not Uic^ • disseminated io farmers or
cncoufl6e livestock trading, sptematic dsa coUecuoa cn
to farmers and traders. As wrll «•
marker centres, they may also be broadcast on local radio
land would fac h
b<JlJd aw*renos of marketing channels tn farmers tn the »rud>
credit would
^nkagej with (private) sector buyers Improved access by 1
heed   capita   U^X>n    C^orts    ,o     mprovc   breeding   stocks   in   the   study   area   Pro**"*31
Sub-project
Implementation
ar
|TbcBub '
The main
C<)°^crc^ r<l fanner saving and credit associations set up »°
lend money to farmers wishing to invest ^ rn^CTTlcntcd OVrr * period of about □ yv—
**  01011 tahon modalities include: (i) construction of im
12
11 May 11
IT> F4 SrC2c I rvestock (2)] upff^d Livc»wk MarktlinS “d C/n)" Provision
Ti*
uucture »r up r° fnur r™(kct’ wi,h'rt 1 clo<t » ’•* 
sod dis^mmauofl of market infonnibooand jwm, |jjj)
«n; fa) ivp™ fa,
i,^
^T   .nvupJ   of   Estock   owners   in   the   protect   irw   and   (pnruc)   terror   hupm.   md   fa
hctWC®*1 e1 ‘ E
'*
.;^5,s
J
C*3*15
rpttnntW Ljccri
support
vrd marketing and credit availability provides an ma Wing ermronmerj for monjed
I tTip^- * L
Ipxstodc production in the project area, sumuiaiing adoption of improved breeds and proved livestock practices.
fhc main beneficaries of rhe suh-project would be livestock ownen.
1 he financiid cc«t of the project is esrimaied ar ETB 3318,000 with ETB U IJXB u mvcsmienr and ETB 2,077.000 u recurrent cost
The  main  implementing  agencies  involved  in  rhe  unpkmcntatirxi  of  the  lub-praject include:
six 
fof and provision of wed capital ro farmer wings and credit uwaata^
*
*
project  lnitiniuons  including  project  consultanw  and  ippciinred  contnctorfij  for uifras tnicniTE works
private sector enterprises trading in livestock and livestock products
the respective were da office staff concerned with bveunck and corranumry development
the  respective  Kcbele  level  DAs  concerned  with  livestock  and  CDrnjnuniiy dcvelopmcnt
service cooperatives
farmer groups_________
^ett
■'^trunce ‘Storing
I   Performance   of   the   sub   project   will   be   monitored   tn   accordance   with   the   Mewing mdicatofs:
lives tack market infrastructure improvements
s^ulabiliti, of hve^tock marketing uifrixmation and price dita
Linkages, between farmers in project area and (prrvme} sector traden liability and use of Credlil by fomtn for IrvestDck tfivesnocfiti
hav 
enhances livestock market conditions arid ircukenng aad b not expected io
detnmem^j effect on the environment.
'wiiLpk an<J ■iricerT:Unht5 ^dude:
ngnesE of taxrncrs to form savings and credit astocncmra
13
11-Mw tlofLfrMtpdcProdMctt _______________  __________________
to the prtJviHOrt of iwnon power output! from tnreifock include, mdk mal-
edition
e0! 5. h£>oef ■ W
o
f
[hfje
f urreruh. P
roducttvity of product* * W« m)lk Jnd KofieT nr krw Md ant b ined for home p ff5ervariofi or practising u done it the household Icvd
f£ ,nsuo>rn
U^rock bids
Their condition « P°°r
for home ajld Jwnrt]4TC1 w<. iold in the loaJ tniAei
Rinonalc
njmals ate traded when cash i> needed and without ajit attempt to iraprore phviKiJ d tx>n ru mixunisc prices Livestock sold are often wak. sometime! denied irJ ur
not attractive to the traders.
Currrnriy,  the  milk  and  honey  processing  Are  mdjtiunal,  where  wisnge  u  high  ind  ^xibtr n ulterior-
Them  is  likely  to  be  an  increased  need  for  processing  cento  is  brotock  mirnben  and prnduennty increases. These may focus on processing of dairy products, hides and itam
and honey, and also fattening qf cattle and umli ruminmu _$hrep and gm h)._________________ I Tic perishable nature of most livestock products require them to be disposed of or used
quickly. DeUy results in detenoraaon of quality and Inw puces Firmm' rrachtioajJ
|con±ervadon and processing systems are baiic Improved processing oi Ireestnck products
on- (7l extend shelf-life facilitating storage and / or tntisportacon. fa) idd ralue, and will
support ec by this sub project_________  __________  _____________________ _______ _ rhe  sub  project  objectives  are  to  extend  shelf-life  of  Itotoci  prcducu  and  increire  nkc
I^£££^ sbmuLk ting growth of the livestock sector in ihc subpm ea area____________________ _
?
I - < subproject will enable improved and more efficient:
•
dairy processing;
•
hoqey processing;
hides and skins processing; and
•
aninud fattening
Milk j .
used U,X bURCr Whl!c cheCM
85 lmPlxlved dairy may be processed to long shdl-bfe prodiKTi vlKei
^-product of milk-butter mdd be
* aninul teed supplement.
■I I DflCv IE.
The end cnTh' produced, using Local hives and m processed fay die sadjoonal loedrod-
nUTkeu
n
>  Ct   H   1Ujl>kk  tor  making  local  beer  (Jty)  brewing,  but  not  appropriate  for honey Marrin
final n
hides and v
ro
’kin* arc dned by pegging them to the pound under the II"1, rnfcrioc md irtchei lire pace compared to properir cured bidet «r>d
15
11-MipdlMwfy tflFarer aid Entr# ElhMpM Nik                 a*d Dnaiqr Pvojtst
Title                I
-S-6: Processing of Livestock Products
~ — — __
1
rhere » little preparation of livestock for the marker. 77n--------------------'------ —-. 1
11    e
louseholds need cash taking little consideration of livestock' k'’*""   ”
Die protect will support added values with livestock fattening'^ "                                          P*n
0
Programmes
c '’ndiur>nil)f(
The   subproject   would   support   an   expansion   of   process,      f       .,
Q
area, including construction processing sheds/ budding, and p ," ^ ’ *'
ng       acUl0(        m
ttJ    o
up materials, training  and onentanon These facihries would be 1..
processing industries.
,o                 Kale
Sub project Implementation
The sub-project will be implemented over a period of about 5 'ears unfuntf*----------------------- —■ The num rmplcmentation modalincs include: (i) construcnon and                                  7"*°
M provision of pfocetiini>
facilities; and (u) demonstrations, training and support
Main Benefits and Bene fie uries
The sub project would facilitate livestock development potential bong reached wnh------------------ sustainable numbers of livestock and higher proportions of improved breed,. »llh
livestock and livestock products processed to add value and shelf life This would lead to maximal profits accruing to farmers owning livestock
Subproject Costs
The  financial cost  of the project is estimated at ETB 4.026,000 with IfTB 1,999,000  m investment and ETB 2.02".000 as recurrent cost.
Implementing
Agencies
The  main  implementing  agencies  involved  in  the  implementation  of  rhe  sub  project include:
•       project institutions including project consultants
•        private  sector  institutions  concerned  with  Livestock  and  livestock  product processing and marketing
•        respective  wcreda  office  staff  concerned  with  livestock  and  community
development
•        respective  Kcbclc  level  DAs  concerned  with  livestock  and  community
development
•       servuc cooperatives
•       farmer groups         --- ------------ ------------------------- - ------ follow
Subproject
Performance
Monitoring
The  performance  of  the  sub  project  will  be  monitored  in  acco  ante  ’
indicators
• processing facilities established / unproved in or ncMf
project area
Environmental Impact
Waste from processing taahdes would need proper trea
Risks and
Uncertainties
Anticipated nsk and uncertainties include:                                                leading T° coC
• poor management of processing facilities, f
of milk and products              ________ -—  ---------
_—
t |jw”
Ub F4 SfO2r Ijvesfodc (2)
161fFederal  Democratic Republic &
Ethiopia
J\
Ministry of Water and Energy
World  Bank  Financed  Ethiopian  Nile Irrigation and Drainage Project
Feasibility  Studies  of  about  80,000  ha  net Irrigation and Drainage Schemes
Feasibility Study Final Report
UPPER   BELES   IRRIGATION   & DRAINAGE SCHEME
11
'     SR-02D. Land and Watershed Management and Forestry
May 2011
J. i •
Kalcrow
in association with
Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) ConsultantsHalrrnw Group Limited and
Generation Integrated Rural Development (GIRD) Consultants
PO Box 102175. Comat Building (5th Floor)
Haile Getxeseiass* Road. Addis Ababa Ethiopia
Tel *215-1 (0) 116 63 09 92 Fax *251-1 (0) 116 63 09 91
halcrow com
GThoivsifRTevpno.nr.t .hra. stMoBppaer®n<3 *1 accordance with the instructions of iba Federal
Any other
VVa,e,
* who use any information contained herein oo so al lho«r own
**
** *P^C
risk
©  Halcrow  Group
Limited  and  Generation  Integrated
Rural
2011Fede^l Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Ministry of Water and Energy
World   Bank   Financed   Ethiopian   Nile Irrigation and Drainage Project
Feasibility  Studies  of  about  90,000  ha  net Irrigation and Drainage Schemes
Feasibility Study Final Report
LIPPER BELES IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SCHEME
SR-02D: Land and Watershed Management and Forestry May 2011
102,
' KJP Llrntt&<l and
Rural Drvtlopwnt (GIRD) Consultants
G 't*e3«tesC<lriel B'*WbnB (S01 Fl« )
w
ACWl8A^ E^
0992 Fbx+25M (0) 118630991
r.                ha* kb_’l&n Dtac
anK> lr accx>rdanc* with the Instructions of <h« F«taral Per»on^ ^’n,!Kry of Water Resources for the* soft and speofc
t
** -ny *nlOn’ftBtl<jn conumad herein do 50 at the*
P L'nil’*J and Gan.rstion Integrated Rural Development (GIRO) CoMtHtwiBHural Development (&ftO) Co'""*"'*, 
rtf'*
Mt*’"*              r^r
UPPER BELES IRR  a
IG  TION SR^OZD: LAND AND WATERSHED
e-/^
HED^c£AfENT
SC *t'Aff
"°F0^W
f
a>KTENTS
. INTRODUCTION
’ f f Ofywfti* ofihf Sfifdy -"rd r/nvrzvnr V R^rT j /W Sows
f J MdfaMgy
2 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
2/ Agrwdltmj/I kvefopfHc nt Pofay
2? Mi&Hftiunr Deirhpnrenr Goa/j M/'JGj)
:J
p.^                         ™IK
2.4         C^haad TruHsfomration p^ (Crp^ 2010/11-2014/15
25  p tiatt
 R,^  /„
v
1 current status of forest resources
J.f Land Cover
All Central
312 Land Cover & 1 ^nduse in Protect
343 Reservoir Catchment
12 IF W Demand & Supply
3.2_1 Current Situation
.
4
3             2 2 Impaci of Irrigation Devdopment
3 2.3 Building Materials
CURRENT status of watershed MANAGEMENT
f  P'vjerf Command z1mi
4  1-1 Watershed Degradation
<-2
4                    13 Watershed Management Status
^WrrGtfTchwwr
4fc2_l General
Erosion Hazard in Reservoir Catchment
$
• •'UPOSeO WATERSHED
^HSERVATION AND FORESTRY) >N
“^E"S"°
HT(SOlLi*'ATeH
NS
^3.1 General Considerations fot Spec*
l^trnduclion
Command Ana
. gjdecUO11
1
r
/
-?
5
; 5 if
6
7
9
9
9 9
16
16
16 !R 23
25
25
25 25 27 2? 27 2f
31 //
J/
3!Prqffi1
5.2.2    Iancar Tree Planting along Infrastructure
5              2.3 Gullv Stabilisation and Rehabilitation
5,2.4        Community Forestry Development
5              2.5 Riverine Environmental (>omdor Management
5.2   6 Terrace Stabilisation
5.2.7 Soil and Water Conservation in SDAs Unsuitable for Irrigation
5.2 8 Nur sen Development
5 J      Rrirnwr Catchment
53.1         Reservoir Buffer Zone Development
5.3.2    Watershed Management of Reservoir Catchment
6 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION PLANNING BY STAGE DEVELOPMENT AREA
6.1       Introduction
6.2       Right Hank
6.2.1    Stage Development Area 1A
6.2.2    Stage Development Area IB
6              2.3 Stage Development Aiea 111
6.3 Left bank
6.3.1    Stage Development Area IVA
6.3.2     Stage Development Area IVB-W
6.3.3    Stage Development Area 1VBE-N
6.3.4    Stage Development Area 1VBE-S
6.3.5    Stage Development Area TVCN
6.3.6    Stage Development Area 1VCE
6              3.7 Stage Development Area IVCS
6 3.8 Stage Development Area VN
6 3.9 Stage Drvclopemcnt Area VW
6 3.10 Stage Development Area VS
6.4 l^nd I be Planning & Management of the Rjtmne Environmental Corridor
7 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND FORESTY SUBPROJECTS
Z /       1 ntroductfon
y L&FM. 1; iJntar Plantafniu Drama# Corridor Deiehpment
7}
-         L«>FAf-2; Stabilisation and Rehabilitation
7‘4
Community ponjtry
76        1 C>HW4; U a'enhtd
& forestry REC
•JKon-lrri&ble SDAs
'        M-5. Reemvir Catchment and Buffer Zone Development 1                  Temur Bund Stabilisation
•8 Total Corts
ANNEXES
ANNEX A; PHOTOGRAPHS
annfjc B subproject profilesJW**4‘
,,fr  &
[jS
r OF TABLES
Land Cover r,
‘   >2 Prrcenttge*--
, & Land Use of Upper Bdcs Command Area
Land Cover/Und Use by SDA.............................
—      •   —
J* 
U;   Sarural  Vegetation  and  Human  iafluenced  Li[]d   L J4 Estunatrnns of Standing Stock and Annua/ Yield h .^n 
.....-
j lbit L5 Fuel wood Supply from Land GleilIancc for
' °4......................
Tlblc56! Fuelwood Supply by SDA after Irrigation Devd             De%’C‘Opn*nt
Tl hi.V' Fudwooil Demand and Supply to 2030 bySD>\ °Pmear—”............... ........ fikJ4 Additxinal Land Available for Forestry DcvekmnZ---------------------------
■Mtw,,
- ............-
-...... ..12
^—-14
'--------- -
“—-.-19
-• —2)
.... -2l
”—■■—.22
r^je 4-1: Soil »ndwa<crcanscrvaoon........ C
.....
7^4-2: Am (hi) of Lind Cover/Ue by Slope Class r........................... “.......~“-~
hmen£........
,;
& 5-1: Number of Seedlings Required for ProDOiJ
M  52 Culled land by Slope Class in R„ervoir C "T®6005 ublryJ; SWC and W costs from RVLB.. 
‘ j4t6’  Upper Belts Development Options
f  «chmrat
'---.26
*lBl, ,       ---- --- -28
22, '—41
'------------ ——44
-------------------
ribie 6-1 Laid Allocation for Option 2A by SDA (Right Bank}
Tibltfr-l’Lind Cover (ha) of Available nd by SDA (Righi Bank)........................ .. ................ ....
------- ----------- -
Title 64 Land Quality (Sods & slope) of Available land by SDA (Right Bank;........................... •" ---------- -- 52
1^64. Population and Land Allocation by  SDA (Righr Bank} - —
Mr 6-5: Lind Cover and Sods/Slopc in SDA IA............................................ „ - —....
Title M; Lind Cover and Soils/Slope in SDA IB—.................................................... .......
....... —-- ------ 52
——53
—..................54
Tale 6-" Land Cover a_nd Soils/Slope in SDA III™ 
............................. .— ------------   ...55
Tele 6-8; Land Allocation for Option 2 by SDA (TV A A IVB Left Binkj—------------ --- — ——56
- -------------- 56 ~ik6-9: Lind Allocation for Option 2A by SDA (TVC A V Left BanLi_—
•»k640: Land Cover (ha) of Available 1-and by SDA (Left Bank)..,———-—
Li1 Land Quality (Soils/slope) of Available I-irid by SDA (Left Bank;—•—
Population and Land .Allocation by SDA (Left Bank)......................— '^6-U: Land Cover and Soils/Slope in SDA IVA-----------------------------------------
.............. -57
............5'
r ^1s  Cover and Solb'/ S,OPC SDA rvBW.............................................. ............ -......
-^(7 VJ°atioa of 1 and for Cultivation with SWC..................................................... .............. ............. t/. Ccvct/L’,c by Slope Class and Soil Type in SDA ATEN--------------------------------------
'**<hI8 All^
5e by Slope Class and Sod Type in SDA 1VBE-S---------------
—     ......... -.59
—   ---- ------ 60
------ --------- 62
---- ---- 62
___ ______  6]
T|fc*6-]9- L °atltJn °f l lnd for Cuhn™   SWC -
on
All/ ( °VC* S *l /Slope in SDA IVCN................................
o5
e
j n°1' °f 1-and for Cultivation with SWC...
C C°Vtr Mld Soil!'/sloPc ln SDA rves....
iJL / VCI ind Soils/S|ope tn SDA VIM........................
AHoca **10(1 Sods/SloP “ SDA VW.............................. Linrf i .Ol1 ^-and for Cultivation with SWC ui VS
................................................................   r
________ _?0
ca  * %) Right Bank bvSDA______ ___ ___ ___ -—-------------
_ ...............................................   72 
71
V   LfcFM ;T 
............. ........................... W *1                          r ^abOn Area Penmeter Planting by SDA
I:                          1,1 REC A- %) Left Bank bv SDA
...... .... ..............,...73
....... 75
75
------------ - ------------ ------------
, ...
-.■,.141. .-H-’M-.*..”'- — ’
4
1 r M ( n’U for
_.75
Unear Interventions.................................. ..............
f Q_ l -
-“icar Interventions-
..................... .......................... .... ........................... -Fe/itntJ  Demoavfti  RpMr  of  Ethiopia.  Minutty  ofWattr  &  Hwg
Ethiopian Nik Im/wnot jnd Drainage PryttT
Tabic 7-5: IAFM-2  Gully  Reshaping  & Stabilisation Costs Table 7-6: L&FM-3  Number of Seedlings & Planting  Days Required Table 7-7: L&FM-3  Communin' Forestry  Costs Table 7-8: I Ab’M-3  Costs for Forestry  Development tn RECs
Table
Table
7-9: SWC Costs
"-IO: SWC Costs
for
IVBE-N
for               1VBE-S
Table 7-11: SWC Costs for IVCE--............................................................................
Table
7-12:                 SWC                 Costs
for                 VS
Table 7-13: Total SWC and Watershed Management Costs Table 7-14: L&FM-5  Reservoir Buffer Zone Costs Table 7-15  LAFM-6  Bund Stabilisation Costs Table 7-16: Summary of Subproject Costs
LIST    OF    FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Land Cover/Land Use of Upper Bcles Project Area by SDA
...........—-.12
---------------- -
p
Figure 3-2: Project and Stage Development Area............................................................................. ....................... Figure     4-1:     RUSLE     Erosion     I     lazard     Assessment     of     Beles     Reservoir     Catchment.29
Figure 5-1: Stepped Stone Carpet for Gully Rehabilitation.............................................................................._...... 35
Figure
5-2:               Chcck/Drop               Apron
for               Vegetative               Waterways-B
Figure 5-3: Reservoir Area........................................................................................... .................... —- - *
15
Figure
6-1:
Proposed
With-Project
I-and
use—*
Figure 6-2 Proposed With-Project Commercial Sugar Estate & Smallholder Irrigation Development -X'
iv
S 3?*./»***' .
and acronyms_________—------------------------------------
(Zredit nd Savnigsjnstitutc_________ ________ ___  _
?
" Tmhara National Regional State-----------------
" \mhara Regional Agncultural Rgcych Institute _ __
' 'A^i^tu«_ '? -
a    d  RuraI 1
^veloEment
- Burc,uof Agriculture and Rural Development________________________
— Burcau of WaterRcsources Development ___________ ____ _______ ____________ Community Management Plan
' Cooperative Promotion Agency_____________________________
‘ Conseryatiop Sjratcgvof Ethiopa________________________________________ "Community Watershed DeyelopmentTams ’community leveT)i_
Development _Agent
I',n mon men tai Impact Assessment_____________ ____ ____ ___  ____ Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Level) _______________________ Environmental Protection, Land Administration & Use Agency (or LEPB)
(Regional Ixvel)
Ethiopian Sugar Corp ration
1 lectarc___
Household
Investmcnt   Promotion   Agency   (Federal   Regional   Lori) Kilogramme
| Kilometre
_Land and Environment Protection Bureau (Regional Ixvel)
. L?  E I I «andholding Household
rr
Metre
Multi-Cntena Analysis
MrdiurnLandholding I (ousehold_________________________________
of Agriculture and Rural Development______________________________ Ministry of \X a ter Resources (renamed Ministry of Water and Energy tn October 20ln
Mirustn of Trade^^.
—-^rLjjoy enunental Organisation
.Operation & Maintenance
Po ^ble W ater Supply
^nuljqokgj
P-’l'-ironmcntai Comdor
T^^SC^operative
^LjndholdmgHousehold’
f\v “Ct- -" lAssooatK>n
s
l ?gcmrnt Committees (kebelc kvej
A"’<     wSS®5^®5®______
“  -- -hssl p£  d< ipmen t Teams
ar                   v
vFttM OrwiTa/i. R/fM; of Ethiopia. Minirtn of Water anti Energy Ethiopian Si/r Irrigation and Drainage Prwerf>p**1
L?
INTRODUCTION
of the Study And Structure of Report
- vc oi the land & watershed manigcmcni and forestry component of the study »as
ofy watershed management requirements and plan soil ind water consmrarion
'°tenrcJinons and forestry development required to support irngauon development in the
Upper Belts project area.
- rLlLi «port is divided into the following sections:
•      Identification of the current status of vegetation resources and their management;
« Identification of watershed management needs, in both the protect wea and the area
proposed for water storage on the Upper Bclcs Left Rank;
•      Recommendation of specific strategies for watershed management within the project;
c Linear planting
o Gully stabilisation and rehabilitation
o Community forestry development
Q Riverine Environmental Corridor Management
o Terrace Stabilisation
o SWC in areas unsuitable for irrigation
o Nursery development to support these strategies
•      Application of these strategics as interventions to each SDA;
•      Application of the strategies as interventions to the REC. and
•        IdenntjcaLion  of  Watershed  Management  and  Forestry  Sub-projects  ior  the  proposed interventions
Source £
(
status  of  the  forest  resources  in  the  Upper  Beles  area  has  been  obtained  from  both  field serration and land cover & land use mapping. The field observations took place in May and
10. Land cover and land use mapping was Lmabscd in. October 2010 and was Largely
"HJirj             CXlcnaive 5<>’l survey fieldwork and observations made thoughout much of 2009-
and f                   md activities iclating to watershed management with sod and water cocsc rv^han hum   ntstr>   lnCciv«ux>ns   was   assessed   through   uifonnaDon   gathered   fiom   wereda   staff   and
ults obtained from focui group discussions during the snao-eeoootnie surveys.
SatrUitc im
■toitcr *                 was used to refine land (vegetation) cover bcundaneSr Use was also nude oi
and 1
c 4b *13
Other
P xninJiri5r the Abbay River Basin Master Flan [maps of vegcanon of m the ^ody Biomass Proicci 2004 <k 2005 which gave some mfotmaiion on
tending stock and anuud yield.
1
■
^0^°^ of thc feasibility study also provided useful information The socio-
^d loca ‘
surveys collected data on existing plan&rinn forestry, present SUC practices,
ifiti U°n capacnv of existing nursenes Populicou diu was d<o obtained w pct of
Wvrys.
'' hN K
Mlmra
l
nxfiv itFedtful Definite fapubhc of Ethiopu. Miaiifry of 11“jffr r'- Ewr^’
FjbtafvM Nik Im&tnfi an,i Dnartt^e Prytrt
The Land Allocation Optimisation Model (refer SR-(J2r. t
economic Development provided the methodology to detcr^j^ A*licu,h,« 4 population, along with practical engmeenng judgement concern
both being based on sod surveys and land suitability earned out under^' The layout of the irrigation & drainage scheme, particularly maior ca al
X
alignments, and boundary of the REC, were used to plan linear (stnp) ph^ X"d
ting
Fuel wood demand and supply for both the project (command) area and th
catchment has been estimated by interviewing wereda officials where ' r'* "’
r
1'
estimations based on the fuel-wood productivity of different land command demand based on the present and projected population
L3 Methodology
U '"*Dod
The Upper Belcs Irrigation Area has been divided into five Stage Development Areai i> liur_ on Figure 3-2 Irrigation and agricultural studies identified the areas of land for iraginJ.'^ and net) as shown on Figure 6-1. For the project area of 138,15-? ha, the gross unpBonmiu 70,451 ha (51%). The riverine environmental corridor is also shown on this map induknuy 27,290 ha (20%); this is land that should be set aside to provide environmental protection to the drainage lines and downstream irrigation design areas.
A storage area (dam and reservoir) is proposed for the 1-cft Bank development. The sue of the will depend on the development option selected, but the dam site and catchment will in iny event require management
Dam site and reservoir catchment management is discussed in Section 4.2 Erosion mipp . was earned out io identy amelioration and protection requirements.
Watershed management requirements (both rehabilitation and managemen
described in Section 6.4. The REC acts as an environmental buffer hr and the natural drainage lines (it streams and nvers). The present studied and it was concluded that a large (30-40%) proportion of
the REC
|  *jybeea
i xe
irt>
influenced  by  human  activity’.  It  is  proposed,  given  the  increasing  o|-cUinv>tcd  !lD<i
and co provide additional income to smallholders, that the cot homesteads) within the REC to managed forestry be promt forestry’ was identified and quantified
poteothl,cf
Chapter 6 focuses on the watershed management o designated for imganon or riverine environmental co infrastructure, already existing villages and land co 
f the 40.412  hl (29^ ofU°1d.^^
thereto**
^ o(jcl (de^* opot*1^
grazing and nunfed cropping. A I-and Allocation OpQ^cVCJopmcnt was used to identify development options. The propos
for an irrigated sugar estate area of about 36, 225 ha p 22,8 2 ha and small/medium commercial farm irrigate
ring*1
° vcr
7
Ub F4 SrO2d land & Watershed Man (2)
2rented bv the hand .Allocation Optimisation Model for
P^n,unf? °f OthCr (n°n ‘rnga0On lnd nOn
•
‘
*rf
ne ob|«“vc of d’C 110(1 * wa,Crshed mana^nt and f0Kstn
t0  commend appropriate sod and water conservation and 0^7** 'xhSDA. bearing in mind that the most suitable land had aJrady “nprion areas, the REC is a protected area, and allocations
■+
**
**
» *
(hf0Ugh  the  Und  Allocation  Optimisation  Model  for  housing.  mfastn^  ’
urwdlots The procedure to do this was. 
Establish the present land cover for each SDA (grassland, woodkad. ni^
- C22=?»C
n
SDA;
Compare population location and distribution in the present and future
situation.
Identify land requiring SWC measure outside the (net) irrigation anas; and Identity fuel wood requirements of the present and future population, the kxauoo of
Establish the land quality by SDA. based on soil ripe and slope, and aaka^ oerfde results of semi-detailed sod survey and land suitability chsnfiaoon already <x-nd>-: Tabulatc and review the output of the Land .Allocation Dptrnnsanon MorW   each
existing wood resources, and make recommendations for establishing 
resources if appropriate and possible.
b w not the intention to establish fuel wood self-suffioenq tn the project irta The ponx
on was to protect land quality and make the best use of areas ouside the tmyinon ireas.
, 1KXj>'C S>N°
e
G0,DEUNES
4^*“'* Attncult^l Development PnLioes and Stntepa „t
, aj|^
‘
fj3rcr growth and economic transformsThe rtntegv
^ ,cd
*    „l deve
dm
lopment with the major objectives of strength^
□n g**
3
ul,urJ
jod  ifs effective utilization, endunng prudent iliocmon and use of rusun?
f   lC,^dt^f:]opmenr path compatible with different igro-<xok>pal lona,
^tource  * ”
0
ij^aJoP" " “ ^i^anon and commercialization of a^ricultuial production, intepaimg
c
1   3    100'
sptcia * *'
development acmn
■ ■              other sectors and establishment of fffmrvc ignailtunl nuAre^
yysPElrt
cfnITlcOt will largely restrict itself to playing « inccrmcdianng mk, where there ire
C  where the Government would have a comparative advantage include senag the framework and standards, financing infrastructure (especially roads and the rural
and tranApotc program) and small-scale irrigation primarily focusing on waler harvesting [ the hmischnld level, helping farmers build medium-scale irrigation on a coat-meven bull
1R d canstniction of some multi-purpose dam:, that would support largcr-scik irngarion to same cases, rhe Government may help with the acquisition of Technology from outside the CDUflUy-
The national strategics and policies for all sectors directly apply to regional states, zones ind wtreda rural development programs. Based on the naooaal pohae> rtgjoDal saws have developed strategic management plans, which are tailored to focus on the specific development problems within their respective regions Similarly, zones and wercdas have formuhied zonal HMPs and wrreda SMPs. which focus on the particular development issues wtthm that respective administrative arras.
Dc
rc nprnt a(
/      .   GoaJs (MDGs)
hi be tIlrinini
Goals (MDGs) arc a culmination of several consultations lh*l
P^cnv                Mnce middle 1990s on several intemauorul forums regarding global ^tuaQy r lutnan deprivation. The declaration has mainstrramrd a set of mier-councctrd and bjr Millen Cl11^ ^“pment goals and targets into a global agenda Most of the targets set
^fertnc-.  ^^aration were not new. They have been derived from the global
f
r ^tr
and  form the body of intemataonal convenoons that have been codihed
711  n
h ^f -century.
‘ K other pntTn aratlon certtres on democracy, peace, hunum eights and poverty [tdurrioa.
* ^dicate k
challenges and eight major goals namely
u
C
^chie^Tr ,   Qwerty and Hunger,
’      ^otnote      G^d^      Pfiniar^      Education;
^cduCc CL.U * ®S ality and Empower Women;
nSUre Hnvir ‘ Malana and other Diseases;
nTr'ental Sustainability; and
IFftM DtMOirufic              of Erhofta Mautry of W afer & Eung
b.ttwptiNi Nik Im&fioo jod Dratojff Prwrrt
• Develop a Global partnership for Dev elopment
There are 18 specific targets set across the right goals and more than □
these targets. 
^indicator* to
,Q  ’norir^
23
Plan    for    Accelerated    and    Sustained    Development    to    Eradicate    Pov 2005/06-2009/10 
The Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Dev elopment to End Poverty (PASDl’p
en > (PASD£P)
to SDPKP The main objective of PASDEP is to define the nation’s overall s * * fottow”JP development for a period of five years; to layout the directions Ethiopia want'^J ultimate objective of eradicating poverty, and to outline the major promim '
‘
of the major sectors. 
ri
.
1K
llnd P0^ B Cjrk r
--
2.4
The  Plan  covered  a  five  year  period  i.c.  2(X)5/O6  -2009/10,  and  had  the  following  eight supporting pillars:
•      Building all-inclusive implementation capadtv;
•      Accelerated economic growth;
•      Creating a balance between economic development and population growth,
•      L’nlashing the potential of Ethiopia’s women.
•      Strengthening the infrastructure backbone of the country;
•      Strengthening human resources development,
•      Managing risk and volatility; and
•      Creating employment opportunities
Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), 2010/11-2014/15
This GIT was prepared by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFliD) m September 2010. The country 's long term vision, achievement of PASDEP and lesson* draw*, from its implementation were the basis for conceiving this five year Growth and Transformation Plan The overriding development agenda of GTP is to sustain rapid and broad-based growth path witnessed during die past several years and eventually end p°
objective, of the GTP ve:
1
* Expand Ind ”"
^-^~
5OfCdUCaCOn  d
’ VCrig' rcaJ GDP growth rate of 11% and meet the GDGs;
1
- ^ services, tbcreb) aduwW' *
>urable conditions for sustainable state budding through the a»uoo
democratic and developmental institutions, and
Ensure growth sustainability by realizing all the above objects macroeconomic framework.
Ethiopia s strategy for sustaining the rapid and broad-based growth pa following pillars:
•      Sustain faster and equitable economic growth;                           —oWth*
•      Maintaining agnculture as a major source of economic gr°
•      Creating favourable conditions for industry to play rO’
within a *»bk
, on
Ub F4 SrO2d Land & Watershed Man (2)
6Enhancing 
' ln<i quality Of Ultrl5tn'c^rc development;
* 
100
Chancing expans  and quality of social development;
* 
P^jing capacity and deepen good governance; and
* 
promote women ind youth empowerment and equitable benefit
on to agnc         *                P      -     ^ndamm&i policy directions that this
ulruTC    nd fural dnck5   m<mt tJle
lfl C A Knt sector focuses on aie: ffl scaling up productivity of labour on land; (d) um of
° Pt strategies for different agro-ecological scones; and (m) a focus on spctulbation ind ificatiun; and (iv) a strengthened agricultural marketing system.
j“h broad objective of the agricultural and rural development tn the fiat five yean is to
cheve accelerated and sustained growth that contributes to poverty reduction (m the basis of ^standing results and experience? gained from the implemmnuon of the programme hitherto as well as paving rhe way to attain rhe NfDGs by 2015.
GTT does nor elaborate on the place of land and watershed management in plan implementation, other than to observ e than within five years all areas which require physical soil and water conservation works will be fully implemented through proactive and organised community participation Forestry development, protection and utilisation will be done with increased effectiveness by ihr participation of communities.
Policies Relating to Watershed Mjtn agent mt
rhe Coalition fur the Food Security Programme suggested that Integrated Partiaptoiy VTatcnhed Management Planning should form the basis for planning and implementation of torxi security programmes just as die Communin' Based Participatory Watershed Development Approach (CBPWDj is now the national policy approach io rural development.
Thc nlUo,lal government on 15* July 2005 published a Ruril ljnd AdnutiBlnison uid Land ljl<  Proclamation (No. 456/2005}.
proclamation demonstrated the Government's concern about land degradation audits a        enl ’o combating the problem. The proclamation confirmed state ownership of lind
buc  k ^
^ural la J 1CCCSs to ^nd ^or citizens wishing to engage in agncvdiure. It indioic? that all
r ^giittaric                        Pleasured and the holders be given a cadastral map. It provides for the
^ht
(3
f           *^d Ccrtl^lcation of indinduaJ rural land holdings, and provides tenure security and 10  P^pcturty ,n the rural land use .right has no time limit
Thx; r -
■-- ■ - ^or ^lf,d to be leased (but not sold) to others provided the holder is not
■
tbc ln<
T
^ *  *lso allows the lesser (but apparently not [he lessor) io use the
•^ost
st
 import (J
lr
* ‘and beco^ “ dC&leS °bI*ao‘ >ti5 of rural Land users., and land use restncliony Prolecnori 11  ^ligation and failure to protect ir can lead to loss of title
1,4 ^24 J
•'"ihed %
7
U-Mbv-11t
. ,_ .^.p »ot.n»«S
1I
WC“*,""’"''“»“”“«a
E "^
^ih SWC is Ptohlb‘ t . 60% stope tequircs bench temcts SV^ *
Free g^“* “*            f utov.uoo on
wfc »f >°'** ""L’X a
Ctosure of deeded bads.
"''“' *■ ■
8
uk H^ftw,*aMW'21current status of forest resources
3
J.J
’'' ne status of the forest resources m rhe Upper Belts area his been obtained from both field
/Dseivarion and land cover mapping The field observations took place in May and June 2010 ^th rhe land cover and land use mapping finalised in October 2010 large], derived from W1I
^ev fieldwork and observations made in 2009-20W
poor i« this the Abbay River Basin Master Plan had mapped he area at 1:250,000 scale with
t hc majority of lhe area mapped as B2 Open Bushland compmmg 40% Open Baihhnd and
Open Woodland with 10% Open Grassland and Cultivation. Small areas of primarily cultivated
hnd ranging from SO®4 to 40% cultrvanofl. were also mapped. The reservoir command area was mapped as C 2.12 comprising 4U° * cultivation and bush/shrub grassland and 20% Open
Woodland.
'Che land cover mapping has been divided between the command area and the reservoir
catchment area with many more observations in the command area
J L? Ljitfrf C.eter c'"1 J jajec/wr? in Pro^Mt /'Irrt?
Table 5-1 below’ and Figure 3-1 show the disiribunon of land cover and land use within the project (command area- The land enver/hnd use ts largely split between grassland with varying degrees of tree cover which covers 5l,5OOha (37%) of the area and smallholder rati) fed farming which covers, almost -K.LMJOha or 31% of the area. Woodland covers a further iS.BnOha (21%) and nvenne forest an important 5%,
Oiher land uses such as villages^ scattered serdemeats with farmland, irrigated and nwehamse'd
Km fed farming and eucalyptus, plantations cover b-Etweem C DO and TjOOha conr^pondiitg to around |% each of the total area
9
12 Mar 11N/4 kjl* 
Mmum >fV^^ E^
Pn ^1
Table 3-1: Land Cover & Land U*c of Upper Bdes Command AxCa
Ute
Dominant
Symbol
Description
Trees
/ha
Shrubs
% /ha
Grau %
/ha
Area
(ha)
Land Cover
G1
(>pcn Grassland
0
<5
>50
G2
Grassland, scattered trees
<10
<5
>50
G3
Grassland, scattered trees, shrubs
<10
<25
>50
Gs
Shrub Grassland
<10
>25
>50
Gw
Wooded Grassland
10-35
n/a
>50
Subtotal
W
Woodland
>35
<25
n/a
Wo
(>pen Woodland
10 35
>25
U
n/a
Ws
Shrub Woodland
10-35’
>25
n/a
Subtotal
RF
Riverine Forest
Dense shrubs, trees, grassland
Subtotal
16,036 _ 2399 
10363
28,749
6,928
6,928
S
Smallholder rain fed farming includes scattered buildings;
42,459
31
I
Smallholder Irrigated farming
108
<1
M
Mechanised rainfed farming
535
<1
H
Hamlet (loose cluster of settlements A rainfed farming
1344
1
V
Villages i,nucleated settlements
1318
1.
E
Eucalyptus      Acacia Plantation
575
<1 1
Subtotal
46339
34
UU
Unclassified
__
Total Study Area
4,694
3
138,137
WO
l b F4 Sr02d 1-amJ A Waterwhed Man 7)
10LT> H4 ScOld Land & Uateohcd Man (2)
U
12 May-11Fe&ra/Df**rufh fc/wM? of Ethiopia. Mim'/fn of Water & Entr# l-.tNapjn Nik I motion anti Dratna? Prytrt
f .he Stage Development Areas (see 1 able 3-2, Figure 3 1 and Figure (hc 10 ,Cna'd° ht degree of human intervention is vanable with grassland predonunan, m
~*na m 'h' ~nh °f d" fcf‘ wa ‘"
d  vto
,'
Woodland has been mappe
d throughout the project area with the highest covet on the left Unk
lhtoughout the area but plants
for TeVstBrEy t(Ss c). VonW   fin1Ved to die soum o  f ,hc MCa tn SDAs Hl, WC and V. Culuvated land n dw
m
cast in stages 111, 1VC indV
Comparing the right and left banks shows rather more grassland on the right bank 4S' compared to 33%), but rather more woodland in the left bank (22° c compared to Ilf Culuvated land, mostly smallholder managed ratnfed cropping, extends over 30% ()n tk bank, concentrated in the nonh and south (SDAs IA & 111), and 32% on the left bank, • in the south (SDAs 1V-C and V).
Table  3-2:  Percentage  Land  Cover/Land  Use  by  SDA
---------        ------------ -------------1-
------------ “r ---
----------------- 1-
-----------------I-
----------------- 1
-----------------/--
------------------ r
SDA
•o
1
1
u
1I
i «
c
V
I
E
V
V)
8
*0
5
1
1
1
1
p
IA
36
16
4
40
4
IB E
59
20
3
18
<1
IBS
56
19
6
19
1BW
67
14
4
14
<1
111
29
20
6
42
2
1
Right Bank
45
18
5
30
2
<1
0
IVA
52
12
7
26
<1
2
IVBE (N)
35
12
2
17
<1
32
IVBE (S)
17
38
5
28
1
11
IVBW
59
21
4
16
<1
IVGE
16
27
t
39
1
1
9
B’C-N
35
27
5
28
3
1
IVC-S
20
27
5
44
5
1
V N
12
17
7
61
3
<1
v-s
16
15
8
58
3
VW
25
56
6
31
1
Left Bank
33
22
5
32
2
<1
5
Total
37
21
5
31
2
<1
3
Source Fieldwork nd Protect G1S
lib H4 SiOld land & Watershed Man (2)
12
Grassland
Cultivated■fV          jft V p“*7 pro's PJ SilN*   U a 5 show* the percentage cover o  of naniral vegetation and human inffleuftenced land uu, IVCN *nd XAX *"
IVCE
3-3: Natural Vegetation and Human influenced Land
——— z
(%)
SDA
Natural Vegetation
Human influenced land
use
IA
55
45.
1B-E
82
1ft
IBS
81
19
IB W
86
14J
III
M
IVA
72
IVBE (Nj
50
17
IVBE (S)
60
29
JVBW
83
17
IVC-E
49
42
IVC N
67
33 1
IVCS
51
49 1
V-N
36
64
VS
39
61
VAX
67
33
Total
63
34
Source bicldwork and Project GIS
p.
Natural Vegetation
t he majority  (yf forest
(Wcxxihnd, Open Woodland i
Wooded Grassland co • 
grassland comprise the
conunan<^ ^ea have been mapped as Woodland XV °odLlnd^ imposing 28.799ha or 21% of the
3  ^hcr 23.994ha (17%) meaning that woodland and wooded
(38%)    with    an    estimated    IO-3T    7^    rCS°UrCCS     ln     1110     arca     covcnng    a      'oraJ      nf    52’9Jha
semi-deciduous Acacia 
'vith some areas of
as$ odauon with ( a<
*"* chrutu, 
ttc cs/ha for much of this area The dominant woodland rjpe» ea -ffnj> Me. A. nthtua, A. terugal andzl
Conbntam woodland comprising T. brown and C.
( nron
Pihojtigma thorny Zi&h* naao^tj and Z
By local names, most important tree and shrub species lor tod P G7rw, IrwdrZ Nrrw. Sfibama, (Kira (Xfch lmhet), U an^a, Stfa ffantir, Stlcnquahi' and (u) Shrubs: Girar, Wai hint. Koftftr, K/rkra. 7 ru*/
(Kerkrhoj, Shinnl.
ate: J Tttf5:
57»^ P»^’
po
c ' **e c°tnposed of J
SD4S * V m 01051
areas 1
P^cularly dense in the mased vailed
^genous spedes such as Fkm jya>*w*j, {M*9P>
lib F4St02dUnd4U,lOThol
Man (2)
14ty"*' o/Elhfpw. \hvjrn 9f W'ttfr &
* V/> /"«**• J*d Drat*K
pttuHg"      /*»«».<"•      [>n,nus         ^h£t,"a'      S^tMia      amp^uLM,      Sltmiperm^      h.nth^um,      SjyffMt
fimufit. I >nr"’w "’WM™ind Xhwiwiw along with some woodland species above
In  addition there arc some 28.(XK)h. of grassland (excluding wooded wasshnrft 20% of .he (oul „„ sca.und tao^o, bu,
tVCN. ne nta. 
p.„ » P„.„„..^„„ „„ _
terms   of   feed   resources   arc   YfW   Jar   (most   imnortmri   r   iv   i   r   .
tata,.. Ata- /tabta. tap. 
"“’■ C"m 5~
The  natural  vegetation  is  the  main  source  of  fuelwood  and  building  materials  for  local communities although eucalyptus building poles arc increasingly being imported.
(b)             Plantation Forests
Plantation forests occur in thr south of the study area associated with the Tana-Bcks resettlement project of the mid 1980s - early 1990$. They occur primarily in SDAs IV CN and 111 with smaller areas in IVCS and IVCE comprising a total of 575ha. The plantations arc almost exclusively Eucalyptus although smaller areas of Casuanna and Acacia do exist. They were established in the laie 1980s and have not been well managed. There is no evidence of coppicing and many trees arc now far too large for use as budding poles although they may he suitable for power line poles.
The plantations arc managed by Pawc wereda but communities can apply to cut trees for ‘public use’, for instance for school buildings, but the trees cannot be cut for private use. The plantations arc guarded and the regional government his put thr management of the plantations out to private tender with the aim of increasing production Hie aim is to improve tlic management of the plantation* by rotating the felling and harvesting of wood but no bidders have been forthcoming to date.
There u evidence of management conflict between the region, wereda and local communities an d therefore the plantations just exist rather than providing any income to the region, wereda or  ^° al communities.
c
(c)            Other (Fruit Trees)
pta-ta, ». =™ 
•1» ~nb.„ p.o of SDA ID IK. 
'“»% 
»
..tabW » J-
-n. 
C  irnRxuon system is still m pbee m PP
currently owned by * NGO schoo tn - cm
Scarce ind the orchard his not been unK>« ‘ Produce i harvest -nh 10-100.000 Bur otchxrd need pruning ind there «k*1 ol rorting frn“ °n
to be in reisonxble condition The otchud is
Howcv„
nQW f<infetj
pnrded but not miniged The trees
1 and Ac W northed Man (2)
15
l2M
•y-HN** I'W'* JNfi DnMt* V’**1
The  potential  however  appears  to  lx*  high  with  citrus  performing  well
simple  and  low  cost  rehabilitation  and  great  potential  for  adding  value
canning.
(d)             Socio-economic Data
The socio-economic survey looked at forest management in 16 surveyed kebcl
that small protected stare forests existed in three kcbeles (19%) with community f kcbeles R5%). These were managed by rhe kcbclc councils with a reported 9 no 7*” * U and 3 well managed. 
None of rhe surveyed households in the 16 surveyed kcbeles had developed on.fami plantations although 30% to 100% of the surveyed households have planted trees ( from an average number of 7 to 140 trees) mainly eucalyptus, fniit and/or indigenous tree species to provide shade, fruit, fodder, umber and fudwood In addition reforestation as a and water conservation activity had hern undertaken in most surveyed kcbeles
' mvu8«l
5 13           Rtsenwr Cafchmrnt
The land cover of the reservoir catchment area was mapped as pan of the erosion hajird assessment using the RUSLE calculation This area was not part of the soil survey area ind die land cover mapping was therefore nor as derailed as tn (he protect (command) area. The and cover composes open acacia w oodland dose to the dam site in the south and extending north
3.2
5.2J
r
over the steeper hills associated with shallow soils. Elsewhere die cover is a combination of cultivation and open woodland and shrubland with intensive cultivation on the flatter upline areas to die north and east.
Wood Demand & Supply
Current Situation
Fuclwood demand and supply for both the project (command) area and the reservoir catchment has been estimated by interviewing wcreda officials where possible and bi estimations based on the fudw’ood productivity of different land covers and fuel* based on the population data The socio-economic survey- conducted tor this stud that wood was the primary source of fuel for cooking (collected from 1 -# km rl1 household) with only 2 kcbeles in Pawi reporting the use of dung as fuel and } households reporting the use of crop residues.
\X cred a information was obtained from Jawi and Pawc weredas. Jaul 'VTf wcreda as a whole has a fuclwood surplus with a plentiful supply °f wood to meet demand No fudwood is exported though and charcoal making * 1
Pawc wcreda reported that while the wcreda currently has enough natural vegetation to meet demand this is changing rapidly due to pop conversion of woodland to farmland, particularly in SPA V within t P^
I’hcy expect that the wereda will be in fuclw<xxl deficit in die near future
1 th 11 the
• fUmraJ fofCSD
tfon*
inert**            *
*
u-mt''
I ’b I 4 SfO2d I and Ac U
llmhcd Man (2)
16/&***          »< u"a"r liMv
J**'
r ,bk M ,ho»-. 
ns of the
!lock
project area using parameters from WBISPP. 
' Ot 1110 woody biomass m the
T*bte M: Estimation* of Standing Stock and Annual Yield by SPA
SDA
Standing
Stock
(«“’)
Annual
Yield
(tn’)
2010
Pop.
Annual Wood
demand at
Annual
Surpluii
ot
Deficit
Years of
stock left
UtnVpetaoD
current
Plantation
Area (ha)
needed to
meet demand
U
113,682
4,736
12."64
J6.593
de fiat
1.186
— IB* — -
-— jn____.
Right Bank IVA_____ im
IVBEN_ JVBES _ 
lycN____
INoT_ [tves
VK
82.961 ______3,232
78,928
3X458
3,223
3.686
3.999
1.261 j 1.083
<792
5199
deficit
deficit
109J86
152.161
107,057
69.800
339.785
R.488^
20,940
4,848
5.738
3,642
2,197
14.408
137,828
73,881
37,836
V^_
__ ________ 30.112      MJ.HZ
MtBftnk
1,179,015
5.821
3.293
1,756
1JM7
48,043
Toed
1.662,852
11.209
32,741
4J91
5,357 3,297 1.709
17.355
6,872
; _i2i9_
*  _?.44O
| <802
3.008
68,980
101,721
1.408          deficit
14,572          de fiat
42363           deficit
__ 635£         de fiat
6,964 de fiat
de fiat
de fiat
defiat
121368             ^335
8^34
15,924
12X72
6,243
3,910
89,674
132337.
deficit
deficit
deficit
debar
deficit
deficit
deficit
286
M63
6325
S °urcc:    Project  I  and  Qwer/Uac  mapping  Project  Population  dan  Wondy  B»nmw  lovcntno  &  Strategic  Planning Pf **ect 2004
knd cover information was obtained from the protect mapping and the estimations of standing stock and annual yield from the Woody Biomass Project 2004 & 2005 The WBJSPP quotes standing slock and yield in t/ha which have been converted to rn'/ha at a rate of
lf n ~600kg
v
«Umatx>ns have been used to assess whether wood supply meets demand in the project The 2010 popuhnon of the protect area has been e,unrated at 101.721 (20,951 urban,
rural). Ai an annual wood demand oil Wp« P«™ 
>
of B2>2rm5 Ht<Mn
 „ble above the annua! yield has been caicub.ed ar 6 ^
8   3rn,
Wttcerl, a . 
>n annua! shortfall of 65.2Mm' Thu however conflicts with mfomiaoon from both the da and th  socio-economic survey tnit t 4..I rndscate that there is currently enough wood to
c
nRe,T demand.
* ^lenu.™ „ 
. a A
__________
* nUr> Repot* SR-02B Imgated AgiKulturt A&- - 5i Agrno economic Devehpment Planning
17
12-Moy- ] ]
*1 A atcT^hcd Man (2)Ftiirvi Dtm^an-                   E/*«pw. Af«u/p of Vatrr & F.mgi
Elttofuo ,\’li Impfioo uoJ Pnuo^r Pnp.1
This may be explained in a number of ways: (i) the parameters in Table accurate; (ii) wood is being sourced from outside the project area and/ •"** "°* **
is being used resulting in wcxxiland degradation It is quite nossibl k
No SDAs have an annual fuelwood surplus with deficits ranging fro left. The area as a whole is in dcfiat and has 12.6 years of stock left ” 
i ■°icthataUth
thc  ’'Min,
reeireij
J^’lf'dl
'° ’’ 4
more  heavily  populated  and  cultivated  areas  of  the  south  and  north-w'  "  n,’Uttablc   th”  4c  *
have the least amount of stock left at around 6-9 years whereas the 7"' about 20-30 years. The area of plantation required to be planted to mec^h
Pr °,cn «w
h,v '
has also  been assessed ranging  from 3  ha  in lVBE-S to  l.186  ha  m | \'i ° CUn'"t dcminJ
been calculated as needing  to  be planted with fuelwtxid plantations to  10,41 °f **
without degradation of the natural woodland
° mCCt CUCcnt demand
In the reservoir catchment only data for North Achefer wereda at 1 jben were available and th reported that as with Jam the wereda has a fuelwood surplus from natural woodbnd in the lower valley areas and from on-farm eucalyptus plantations in the uplands There ue manv more on-farm and community’ eucalyptus plantations in the upland areas compared tu ’.owlam! areas where they arc largely absent.
1.2.2        Impact of Irrigation Dtvdopmtnt
An assessment has also been made of the impact of irrigation development (63,8?1 hand imgauon) on the fuelwood resources in the project area The amount of standing stock removed for irrigation development has been estimated from land cover and irrigation Layout mapping and die WBISPP parameters. This indicates that an amount of fuelwood ojur.-ikn" 53 years supply (at 2010 population following resettlement) could he made available, see Tahir 3-5. However the logistical challenges of stockpiling such an amount of wood would be considerable and it is likely that much will be wasted.
As an indication, fuelwood retails in the highlands at ETB40/m'valuing the amount of fuelwood cut and cleared as part of the irrigation development at just under -8 million Bin
b’b F4 StO2d land & Wirmhed Man
18r
* Watfr &
T.Me 3-5: Fuel wood Supply from Land Clearance for lrriM«„„
- —              _e
SDA
[A
1BK
iw                    4
Standing Stock
removed (m )
5
Po«t
resettlement
2010 Pop.
65.465 |
22,423
3ra supply
for SDA
HHs
3.9
0
0
Stock value
at ETB
40/ml
L—_—
2,618600
2,451 517
2,156320
IBS
------  -4
III
Right Bank
IVA
IVW
61,288
53.906
16.556
118.050
315,265
24,356
63.211
0
662354
11309
8.1            4322,002
33,632
7.4         12,610,593
4,891
3.8             9"4,231
9.1
2,528.438
IVBEN             I—
IVBES
0 5,976 1.709
1 IVCN
1 IVCE
IVCS
VN
VS
203335
20,035 6.872
9.0
*
59,141
12349
9.440
3.7
8,133398
2.365,645
17,162
-
1.4              686.492
4.803
VW
15.165
3.008
3.9
606,610
Left Bank
382370
68,983
43
15394,814
lTou]
697,635
102,615
53
27.905,407 ]
Source  Project  Lund  Cover/L'»c  mappmg  Project  popybiDtMi  data,  Wrxxh  Bwniiss  Inventor?  fit  Strategic  Planning Project 2004
An assessment has also been made of the amount of fuelwood remaining once irrigation has
hecn developed This has helped to plan the requirements for fuelwood in the project area
Table 3-6 shows the annual vidd of the remaining wood resources by SDA, the area planned
for community forestry, the area of plantation forests required to meet the current demand and the fudwood surplus or defiat. This shows that following trriganon development the annual vidd reduction will be about 40% for the whole area ranging between 19% in IVA and 66?'» m
III.
11le ^ble also shows the area of forestry plantations that would need to be planted to meet the 2010 post resettlement demand (taking the remaining ncld into account and assuming a yield of
’Orn'/yr from plantations) and compares that with the proposed forestry plantation areas under ( >I»>on 2Ai -p^ $hoW5 thl| )ust ov„ 9 (MX) ha would need to be planted just to meet the
of lhe 2010 population but that only 3.022 ha of land is planned for private and ^nimurutv woodlots leasing a shortfall of some 6.800 ha of forestry which (if the project area ** suited to be sef-sufficient tn fuel wood) would have to be planned to be located
e, ’ewhe
re
 ( .g. 
c       as conuncra*J plantations in the environmental reserve)
„f .bout 38 <XO ha. md mal net imp non area of about 6.3.8 Wj
Sunn,             ' SUg" “to‘C
Wementafy R^^ SR-02B Irrigated .XgHCulturt * 6
““ 
* eccM^c l^rlopmen, Plannm  .
K
h|4stO2(jj , 
]199
12-Mayn
A Waicnhetl Mac (2)fttJtml             Krpaba. ofEthnpia, Mimrfr) ofW~att' r* Entry
Erbtcpw* Nt Jr Iniffafwi jnr! Drmjy Pnpr.-r
Tabk 3-6: Fuehvood Supply by SDA after Irrigation Devclo
Annual
Fuelwood
Yield of
remaining
3
__ hu>d (m )
2,414
1.106
1,267
743
2,888
Annual Wood
demand at
1.3m /person
(2010 with
29,150
5
Annual
Yield
Reduction
with Project
_ --J>pfncnt
Station
h« requirC(j
to meet
2010
demand
(ha) to
Panted
under
°Ption 2A
Right Bank
tva
8,419
3,947
3.692
14372
J3.722
6.358
IVBW
_______U68
3,530
241
IVBEN
lX'BES
3,642
2,196
IVCN
6.253
IVCE
5.235
3.300
2.608
J .756
703
L979
370
1.262
Left Bink_____ 33332
Total
41,751
2322
26.045
1.934
J1924
12372
6.244
3,910
89.G77
B3399
5,635
9.165
onin ’in
increasing demand for fuelwood with an increasing population from 2010
°                ic supply of fuelwood has increased by 2020 with the production of those
p ntations established in 2010, however no further plantations arc established with the result '  *'  C   Udu<X>d   dcficlt   lncrcascs  from  91,000m  'in  201  Oto  109,000m’  in  2030  despite  falling to 87,000m'm 2020 wuh the plantations.
U bRS*°ML  d* 
W       Mjnp)
20* EfhrftJ Afwtn Water & l.nrr^,
and Supplv to 2030 by SDA
T
fuel  wood
dcnJAud in
i Fuel wood
demand in
Fuel wood
supply from
natural
Fuel wood
supply from
Total fuel
wood
plantations
2020
Surplus
or
2030
Surplus
or
2030
i vegetation
supply
39.431
2*414
1,106
3.743
6.157
-Deficit de fiat
surplus
Deficit defiat surplus
0E    — 
1,267
surpluIs | surplus   1
jW -
743
surplus
17,342 I
4,385
deficit
surplus defiat
8,126
16.545
deficit
deficit
7,673
19,722
59,154
8.814
2,888
M19
3.947
2,316
6363
defiat
____ 0_
9355 ,
_______ 0_
3.692
3.642
2,196
surplus
]VBE5_
1VBES
10730
894
756
4,535
de  fiat
2,681
3,080
2,952
surplus
de fiat surplus ^leficn deficit
ivcn
(VCE
31341
35.931
J2340
6.253
5.761
1,144
12.014
deficit
deficit
10/08
y?
3
deficit
deficit
TO
VS
VS
18,884
14.69*
_ 21.420_^
16/92
B.542_
5,351
3.300
2.608
5.958
2.992
deficit
deficit
de fiat
defiat
k 75L
/43
1.-08
deficit
vw
'03
T" —    —-
deficit
deficit
ph Bank
Tool "
107,499
122,900
22,273
55^605
deficit
deficit
159,521
18^0^
33332
41,751
72,150
deficit
deficit
It is not within the remit of the proposed lmgauon prefect to ensure that the Upper Belta area
« supplied with fuclwood However the data shown in the tables above .bow that fbehvood
*>11 become increasing!, scarce during the life of the project While it ia quite possible that some of this demand may be met by electnaty. at least m the urban areas, it is Itkely that the demand for fuchk'ood will rcnuin high for some years to come.
T>M. 1 8 
sod
show. ted -ta *■ P'°""
pnxhtaoo. (ta S-pptatata. «'P" s“ °“- T‘bfc i”>
—
•**„d tad „ SDA., wntad tad » SDA’ P'““d f” "WK. Wlv ,„d oncta.dta tad - ~~ «  ‘"
b     k SD '-
■*. d» 
d «tad.« to 
, 'm"
l 'k *S<O2d    l
21
12  May J]
-»nd & Warrohcd Man (2)Ffdlra.'’ L>ffi9o»rv!t. RtpMc of Erhtofw. Mittrtry ofWatrr ch
F."wew Nt it lmfjt**    Drutfti^t JVwrrf
Table 3-8: Additional l-and Available for Forestry Development by SDA
Land in
Unallocated
Core
Estate
Hills and
Cultivated
I
Unclassified
land in
Area
Right Bank
IVA
IVBW
2,041
2,706
1351
2,781
8^
IVBEN
1,302
1,031
4328
rvBES
i
JVCN
1VCE
IVCS
1384
1,150
Left Bank
6,504 
25,240
Total
I
8,563
10,062
2,781
4,822
_7392
7392
7,473
29,748
fuclwood fo^
oao 
<3
1OUgh L*ntl *Viuli,bl« within r
he area to supply 
the populati
on with
land management poky de" ’
land ma 1 k
as *ons to be made For instance the development of any unallocated
dcVcJ°pment °f 5ome of thcse “e"
devrl                 ri pressures °n it from homesteads and communal grazing lind The P Id within the core estate will require the cooperation of the sugar estate
dcvel
muc^ of the hills and unclassified land may not be suitable for forestry
forc't^nT RlC C°DVCrS1On °f formcr cultivated land tn the REC to a land use of product
an Purcb conservation forestry mav also be contentious and require the acceptance of all stakeholders.
In summary fuclwood supply is in deficit throughout most of the proiec
are* and iodic*000’
| pment of
co
are that the natural woodland is being degraded to provide fuelwood. Die project irrigation will, tn theory, result tn enough fuclwood to supply household
about 5 years with a market value of ETB 2R million providing it is p^f*1 S remaining fudwood yield will not be enough to meet demand and will q
tL ’r
The
of community forestry plantations throughout the project area Jth<’Uth
' d0.l5
1
oOthr
under Option 2A (Le. the farm allocation of 0.10 ha on ihe Right Ba 
Bank for fuel wood totalling 3,076 ha) will not be sufficient to meet a 6*°^, CUIren* 1 lower this demand could be met by the development of additional
earmarked for forestry but would require land management and pobc>
jcrti*01*
lb  F4 StOM I jnj * Jlcrshed
Man (2)
22A’;/
In the resenotr catchment area the supply is from *—* bkdy ■„ mud „ degnd.,,,,, of
community and tndixndual wcxxllots.
. Bar W Mattrials
b„,
a1 '0 texJ'“nng the develo P
ptnent of
W According to both Jawi and Paun weredas eucalyptus budding poles arc imported from the
lands to lowland weredas with Chagni an important entrepot between the upland producers and lowland consumers. Building poles are not grown in the lowlands but the eucalyptus plantations in SDA HI in the project command area show that on-farm and / or communin’ / commercial eucalyptus plantations are possible Similarly m the reservoir catchment area eucalyptus piles need to be imported but can be proposed as part of the watershed management strategy-
$1024 t.
25
12M. .
yn
Ac Watershed Min (2)«•****'
W" '*d 
t'mtfa
CURRENT STATUS OF WATERSHED MA„
Project Command Area
1,16 ** T
iTd/trsM Degradation
.Analysis of land use and land suitability data shows that about 37% of the rain fed culrivacmn at Upper Belcs is on land considered to be unsuitable for surface irrigated farming. This land is dtber/and steeply sloping (> 12%; > 8% for Vertisols) eroded or with a shallow '< 0.6 m) soil. Soil loss from erosion can be considerd to be moderate, that is above 5/t/ha/pa and greater on cultivated areas with steep slopes I xiw-intensity ram fed cropping is obviously possible and farmcis have moved onto these at-ns k lands but without the resources and skills to apply the conservation measures needed to alleviate potential damage There is widespread evidence of
joil loss and degradation in these areas
Rainfed and irrigated agriculture arc separate lind use types with different requirements and outputs. Not all of the land currently under rainted farming can be considered suitable for irrigated agriculture under the normal conditions and within the accepted criteria for irrigated development. Irrigated agricultural development must sustain good livelihoods without detriment to the environment. For these reasons shallow’ soils, steep slopes and erosion-prone land arc all avoided unless appropriate soil conservation measures are specified and accepted as a necessary pan of any development. The costs associated with maintaining safe and high productivity from such land are invariably high. The level of management and technical skills to ensure conservation and to maintain yields arc also high.
The productivity and accessibility of Vertisols arc limited because of their poor drainage Even so, some Vertisoh on steeper slopes (6%—12%) are being cultivated These lands are better drained but arc more liable to erosion; most of the farming is undertaken without any soil conservation measures.
,l
’Ihe argument becomes                     Awdr tfrr/ ?• Or ’’/mM/ftw af
‘ ‘ - •- < .... . ,
so fhotdd trnfdtwn. conservation and
....            1./. j M whai tedmual or mJ fonts r Or. Imfation of
know-how be extended to these lands if possible. and if
tarmerx
., .
** fond should inrp^
9n these lands should be encouraged to withdraw. for ex /■
t0 expand onto jt-nta lands, andjarmers
Vtrtwls^ about ^^nuwforaled)
Ponded with good nerface drama# C
current (limned atatua of watched management in the protect area suggests that the
option.
12-May 1]
25Ftder*. Df**rufh-          Ethtopti). Mining tfW'ater
ErtMpiaa Nile         wd Dnnnaft Pryttct
afforestation mainly with indigenous species (eg Combntotm moik, Bcsur/i t>A /ffff/tf/w//) and E camuldalcnsis They also have plans for afforesub areas and along roads and field boundaries and indicate that iatrmk /'
.... .
stabilisation.
n
1 IOP * works well
-J for
In total the wereda have completed 768 ha of terracing, 21 km of cut off d check-dams. There is one (non functional) wereda nursery but 24 private communal and 7 institutional (school) nurseries Seeds (c g. Cordia afric are collected from the surrounding natural woodland. The wereda staff happy to implement SWC works being able to see the benefits
J
"Pontha.f^,^
Pawe wereda also has an afforestation programme in some kebelcs with seedling di from a wereda nursery (400,000 in 2009) including Eucalyptus, Ixucaenia and fnLu mango, banana and papaya They indicate a pressing need for soil and water consen ^ ” SDAs IV & V due to the expansion of cultivation.
Hie socio economic survey also gathered detailed data on soil and water conservation interventions tn 16 surveyed kcbdcs as summarised in ‘fable 4-1.
Table 4-1: Soil and water conservation
ltK)n n
SDA
No.
surveyed
kebcles
SWC intervention
by NGO
Type of SWC
1
4
I kcbcle (500 ha)
Terracing, bund>. reforestation
Bunds, reforestation, contour ploughing,
111
4
None
terracing 
______ ______ _
IV’ & V
9
2  kebelcs (19  and 23
ha|
Terracing, soil bunds
Source fhematic focus group discussion* and household surveys
In 15 of the 16 surveyed kebelcs, SWC interventions had been undertaken by 10% the surveyed households, mainly terracing, construction of bunds and reforestation.
l2-M*51
I lb H SrO2d Land & Watershed Man
26Catchment
. f GtMfd
The reservoir catchment is a relatncfv steeply sloping area with a mixture of cultivated land and open woodland and shrubland. In some areas steep slopes are cultivated bur no SWC practices of structures were observed North Achefer wereda staff at Ialien indicated that none of the farmers in the catchment area had been issued with land user certificates (‘farmers arc farming without permission*) in contrast to upland farmers. It is possible that the lack of afforestation and/or SVC C measures is related to the absence of land user certificates and insecurity of land tenure.
North Achefer has a newly established nursery’ and has identified some upland micro watersheds for SWC intervennons such as micro-basins, trenches, bunds, terracing and check dams but no micro watersheds in the catchment area have been identified due to their tenure status Stone terraces are an indigenous SWC measure but were not seen in the catchment area although they would be suitable given the stony nature of the soil
i22 Eronion / tabard in Rtjrnvrr Cakhmtnt
An estimation of the relative erosion hazard has been undertaken of the reservoir caichmenr area using the Revised I'niversal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)
Universal Soil Lois Equation
A-R*KT*S*C-P
where
The Rl’SLE uses data on the rainfall erosivity, soil credibility. slope gradient and length, land cover and management to generate a figure of total soil loss The study has gathered together relevant data from a variety of sources such as the Abbay Master Plan, WBISPP,
FAO/LUPRD, U.R1, the SCRP and the University of Bcm, concerning the norms for I he fictors used in the equation to enable as accurate an assessment as possible to be made of the relative erosion hazard
The land cover/hnd use of the area was mapped in the field onto a satellite imagery base and then digitised. The slope data was obtained from the prefect's DEM and the soils and rainfall information were interpobted from available data and mapping
1 ’ble 4-2 shows the area in hectares of the different land covcr/bnd uses by slope class and Silicates that there arc appreciable areas currently under cultivation on relauvelv steep slopes (** 15%) (hat will require soil and water conservation intervennons
12-Miy 11I-ftirrv.' Dtmocruhc RfpMc of Ethiopia. Mfalfr) of ITifrr & Etftrg
Erhiopiao Nt Jr Im^oftoti aid Dnaugt fovfwf
T.hte 4-2: Area (ha) of Land Cover/U»e by Slope Clasa in Rcscrvoi Land Cover/Use
Intensive Cultivation___________
Moderate Cultivation/Open
Woodland
Bare land with Scattered
Vegetation
4.411
&-15
1314
4.567                8.279
(Ipen
Grassland
Open Woodland______________
<   )pcn   Woodland/   Moderate
Cult nanon
Totals (ha)
%           2%
12.839
22%
l*he results of the RUSLE assessment are shown on Figure 4-1 and indicate that the vast majority of the area has a moderate (5-50t/ha/yx) erosion hazard with areas of none to slight erosion hazard confined to immediately surrounding the Belts River and the flat slopes of the uplands. Areas of high (50-200t/ha/yr) erosion hazard arr associated with steeper slopes
It should be remembered that the main atm of die assessment was to generate relative amount* of soil loss and chat dur to data gaps, rainfall and soil information in particular, (he tiguics in t/ha/year arc indicative only.
Hofgpoig
ShS^“‘ I«
5t
and d^ ‘T^ CatChn,Cn* 
100t/ha/yr alth > k"
h-»rd with aoil iX’ntcs™ <“; ^ '
of the L’PP- Belo catchment ™ “ os,on ho,!'P^' by ENTRO (2006)'with soil loss rates of 25
Abbay Mastr Pl
//
hC ^PCr
' /yr This correlated well with sediment data reported in the
nUpped “ ’
Metekel fCd I u  ^
c
onc<^ m FR() 2006)* that showed a sediment load of 1,563Jt at
X/X/r.^ d” ■ 3-45,k“! 0-11°/ c
■ «*»■ ™>d
^ 5° *h°wed that most weredas in the Upper Belts area reported onK
-Hhcrwc^a had moderate to severe-erosion hazard
e-xtensi - / °U W1,bU’ dlc 1 PP^1 Bcles area include the reservoir catchment area dur w
and V affec d'h*10" °f S'CCp xlop<‘s
»ny SW'C or afforestation and pans ofSWs n
arable fuma        ’ guUnng ind rctiuinng SWC due to rapid deforestation and expansion o( R ven b\ an increase in population pressure.
_____________________________________  W-atr^1
4  ENTRO. Eastern Nile Watershed Management Project: Cooperative Rep Management.    Transboundary    .Analysis.    Final    Country    Report,    F.thiopia.»    P ' Data from 1983-1992 
>nal Assessment f
2(8)6.
|2 ^
I’b F4 Sr<»2d 1 and & Watershed Man (2)
28! *b H SrO2d I .and & Waicnhcd Maa (2)
29
I2-Mav 11r, Mtiuifn of'V ^rr & Enrr^
* .V/> and Drurn^f p^
oenpOSED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT (SOIL & WATER
P                      CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY) INTERVENTIONS
Introduction
To ensure that investments in irrigation and drainage arc successful and sustainable, associated investments in watershed management, comprising sod and water conservation, land nunagemenr and forestry, are also required Aspects of watershed management in imgatton development and proposed land and forestr) interventions are presented below for the project command area and for the reservoir catchment
Project Command Am
f          Ontral Considcrattonf for Specif/ Selection
Opinions on the unlit}’ of Eucalyptus spears vary widely, and depend on the point of view. Production foresters usually argue:
•      Eucalyptus are fast growing; for energy related uses they can be harvested from six years, for solid wood they can be harvested from 12 years;
•      Woody biomass from Eucalyptus has a wide variety of industrial uses depending on management and age of harvesting;
•      Because of their rapid rate of growth they contribute positively to absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen;
•     'rheir demand for soil nutnents is low’ relative to other tree speoes so they are productive on land of low natural fertility.
•      Eucalyptus plantations require relatively few inputs (lalxxir, chemicals, machinery nmc etc.) compared to other plantation spears, and
•      Eucalyptus is steno-valant: ie it can tolerate a unde range of soil types, rainfall, micro climates, etc.
Ecologists and agro-foresters usually argue
•      Eucalyptus trees reduce the fertility of the land they ire planted on;
•      Eucalyptus trees have a high water demand and open canopy and because of their deep roots can contribute to lowering of groundwater tables and drying out of sod profiles; therefore the species can contnbute to desertification ,
•      Eucalyptus plantations have limited use (ie not muln-use) in the agroeconorruc context, for example thev have little value as browse or forage land;
•      Eucalyptus has a small crown, therefore forests provide a single and incomplete story,
therefore land use is sub-optimal and the ground is more open to ram drop impact and
.,
•      Eucahptus plantations miugatc against bihni<n-ndsi« versitr other prlanr  t species are eliminated
therefore erosion;
,
(thev cannot compete with the Eucalyptus "
,.
.
• Eucalyptus has a hard leaf which falls tnfttquentn
• . . u.—kMus rate of growth as well as its tolerance of k>w
.
fertility, drought and fire) and as a resuh ecologKaimniches for non-plant speccs are
reduced.
i-r—mwntir and is slow to decompose and
return nutrients co soil;
.♦.
•
Eucalyptus trees are exones (eatept « 
*        „ 
g roon    CTOp> Jnd
•
Eucalyptus productivity ts highest *
1             & Watershed Man (2)
31
12  May -nl- f' +nf            tyM *Eihitfi* Mintty ifWatfr & Entrp
Ethi^ .\/Jr /mg**"      1 Mwtf Pnytct
•      Eucalyptus plantations are culturally dis-harmonious for a v
exone, they- reduce landscape value, they are limned in purpojJ^ feas°n$; they
It is obvious that the desirability of Eucalyptus depends on the
available for planting and the availability of alternatives. In reconven'd ”*
planting in die Upper Bcles the following has been considered:                                 'U'Ublf *l*de. fr„
•      Land suitability - soils are moderately fertile and rainfall is ade
distribution of rainfall is poor and land allocated to forestn^ ferule, shallow and steep);
•      The use for which new plantmg ,s required (shade. pr(>dllcb )n
,
..
conservation, catchment management, agro-forestiy etc )■
•     The care that can be expected after planting, which is likdy lo bc managed areas;
•     The required speed of establishment;
•      Landscape and amenity, and
•      I he alternative if no plantations are established
’
margmil
**ta
P°°r m common
In general (and similar to most of the country) speed of growth, mostly for woody biomass for energy and secondly as wood for building use is the most pressing need. To meet this need Eucalyptus is the strongest contender because of high MAI and tolerance to low rainfall, moderate to low fertility and low levels of required aftercare. Without detailed measurement? on inal sites it cannot bc ascertained whether or not Eucalyptus will impact negatively on sod fertility and groundwater levels. Locally it may be a positive result if groundwater level? urre reduced, to mitigate salinization and increase the rooting zone. It is almost certain that the impact on bi< ^diversity and ecology will bc negative, but possibly not so negative as to remove w’oody biomass without replacing it, leading to soil erosion.
Lauar Trrt Planting along InfrajtnirtxTT
(a)            Intervention Overview
This intervention aims to plant trees within the irrigation area along specific infrastruct including roads, canals and field boundaries. The aim of the planting will bc to ctL imgatcd area, to provide shade, for protection of the two Main canals and as a so fudwood, budding poles and fodder for local communities in those areas of 5
lmganon It 15 proposed that the wood resources in these areas are managed by ^ hl>sbtf
u
community/ics or individuals and that the seedlings arc sourced cither from nurseries, from nurseries established for the project or from outside the unm
Different trees will bc suitable lor different situations and options are pr
tcdbclo* Inlil
jpcal
instances it is proposed that the mix of tree and shrub species is agreed ^p  p
s   C<3r
s used,
communities   in   consultation   with   the   ARD   offices.   Assumptions   as   to   mtcrvefilt1ions planting spacing, survival rates and harvesting have been made for c
(b)            Planting along Roads
fhe main aim of planting along roads will be to define t e r<
a ds*ndl°P
h> de tot
habit- CopP1
users. Therefore the trees should bc relatively tall or have a p^ ^in>ry conccrn provide wood either for building poles or as fuelwod will not
Ub IM SrO2cl land Ac *Mrnhcd
Mof^'dttr c*-£wt
tree,, this objective can be met elsewhere in the command Euobptu* spp (E cMaUnlntu l5 known to do well) whichT growing or Xhinxs mollt. Cordia Afncana. FhJU
* ndudc
p                    VC ,he ’dv»ntage of being fast
for shade. Some acacia species are also stable indud # speaes of font trees such as Mango {Magfftra iymiaAmmcana) may be considered. Alternatively caodc "
whkh art> often grown
^ /a”^ ‘^L Some
™d Avocado
or flame trees (Dtltitix mial °'nam«tal trees such as Jacaranda & ' may be selected
a
ft is therefore proposed that these trees be a single row. spaced appropriately according to the species selected hut for costing purposes it has been assumed that a 5m spacing has been selected Also for costing a mix of 50% Eucalyptus. 40% indigenous and 20% exotic has been assumed. The seedlings will be supplied by local nurseries wherever possible and the trees will be managed by the estate in estate irrigation areas and by the communit}’ in smallholder irrigation areas.
(c)            Planting along Main and Branch Canals
Trees will be planted upslope only of the two Main canals and on both sides of the eight branch canals. The main aim of planting upslope of the Main canals is to protect the canals from outside encroachment and. to a lesser degree, to define the irrigation scheme outer boundary' The branch canals will have trees both sides with the aim of providing shade to reduce evaporation and to define the canal preventing cultivation encroaching into the canal embankment
Tlie tree cover should not overhang the canal due to potential problems with debris falling mto the canal, and planting should not be too close as roots may damage (any) canal lining. It is therefore proposed that a double line of trees at a suitable spacing is estabbshed at least along / offset from the outer bank of canaL For the Maw canals these trees should be managed to preside building poles and fudwood and could be underplanted with shrubby fodder species such as Sesbatua or Leucaenia as well as grasses which would have the added advantage of reducing surface flow into the canal from upslope
1<
Wh .
eucalyptus
to 
be ptori
-1» l»“"' »todd“ f”“
Wi'b ... S
„( lm J, ..
Pr,or the branch canals the trees’ pnman a             to orovdc shade rather than fuel wood or timber *tid therefore slower growing indigenous %h
'pacings of 4 5m.
v .
,
• -mulrinumosc trees other than Eucalyptus include
the Main canals suitable fast growing .2^ and f.-Mw ^lk some of which are
niwta
AatrrW, CuAwa •
-
othcf pam of
^ndy grown tn local nursenes while
fruit trees such as Mango ... f
and Avocado (!>*„
^dersown with fodder specie.
■
my lUo
consulcred
, „^
rM
^cattia kiuvctphala. Pigeon pea {Cap*
At Watershed Man (2}
12
-m.v nI ftM               KifM.- tfPJhnf^. Mtiurry 9/W afer & H wnp
Eth^iafi Nik im&tM J*d Dr^njff Pn/Kt
For the branch canals suitable shade trees include Albit&i $w*rHiferu and Erythrium abysrimca
SM"” mlk, Piau
For  costing  purposes  a  50/50  split  between  eucalyptus  and  r~-
assumed for the Main canals with seedlings supplied by local 1 
,DUB* «»d
a
*
bv a partnership between the estate and the communities with all benefit" communities.
(d)        Planting  along  Boundary-  of  Irrigation  Area  &  R,
.
thctret,^b*»
vn
Corridor
The main aim of planting trees to demarcate dramagc lines is to provide a buffo irrigation command area and the natural vegetation which, in most instances
drainage line, the nvenne environmental corridor Most of the command area
the Main canals with trees planted upslope (sec above), and the riverine envrrwrneZ^ corndors (RECs) This planting concerns the boundary- between the imgaied area and th The RECs themselves will be managed separately (see Section 5 2.5 below) and there is bLh r be a need for vegetative conservation in places tn drainage lines where field / tertian- / drains outfall structures meet the natural drainage lines
'**
lhe planting of the irrigation REC boundary will differ between the commercial sugar estate and smallholder irrigation areas. In the smallholder areas the planting will be similar to th>r upslope of the Main canals with a double line of trees underplanted with fodder crops and grasses. In places this boundary could be a line of eucalyptus planted at a doser spacing to provide building poles and/or fuelwood although, as with the Main canals, the planting of fodder species will be inhibited by the eucalyptus. For the commercial estate areas onlv Eucalyptus and indigenous trees will be planted.
For costing purposes a 50/50 split between non-eucalyptus/eucalyptus has been assumed w.th a further 50/50 split in IA and 60/40 split in 1VCN between commercial and smallholder irrigation. The seedlings will be supplied by local nurseries wherever possible and the tr
be managed by the estate in estate irrigation areas and by the community in smallhold irrigation areas.
5.2 J
6i/Zfr Stabilisation and Rfhabi/itation
'l'he aim of gully stabilisation and rehabilitation is to reduce the effect o irrigation area. 1’his intervention will at first require an assessment ot all
<mlbo °n ***
entefl*5#
ne cding
the irrigation command area Io identify active gullies Drainage lines asi ^calincfu of the^ treatment can then be reshaped and revegetated. Reshaping involves t ^pp^d stone head and sides by cut and fill and stabilisation with brushwood layering
carpers as shown in Figure 5-1.
Ub l 4 SrO2d Land Watershed Man (2)
?
MR^tgmrion should include creeping and dnsngh nrsithiw ,
Mtrlgrtss and local species) planted in dense hw, ,Ml (|,r . h '
m th tree, and shrubs (such as
’
[fl most cases gully stabilisation should Iw accoinpAlitrd by ihwiwiI t/f fh<
Vh ^
'""‘W
J r
thcgullv is part of a wider watershed managcnirni pingnuiMM' ijm! 0^ *W M                       >
ircas IVBE-N & S. IVCE and VS j\ wider and drluikd
not uithin rhis irrigation feasibility study's remit although a 
vnh dui for the reserves catchment area al i)w urn* uffkiiM 4*Ug/? >M hiadnn za 10gain t»ta2xht<o xj xxxi reve^^a’/zo */4 y;X) 1/Xi ^>0 
,^4*^ 4
U *»
r
4*
rjcdaa rjz of cta>r?ag o-_r£islt XXo natural
:3aac&=Kxr cc&e o:
7IiaEX*5 Trer . _r
b*/t / M «>/-4r *£ z*^***5 'A <V
vi>* H x llrZb d*** 1/X
" j t - •r- Jaae * *3j*nao>«11/5010: v/U^ is
->f
aa
T --°—*^5/1 
* ™^z 1 atr^x Fj
//£ sc itAnm jt / q>yv >? vZ ft
ywyr+A w
»*// **
nlitfcpta* Nilt ImfiJfion and Dntt*&
Gully rehabilitanon within the irrigation development area is included in i]u.
as part of land development including the construction of terraces, land sh smoothing. Needing particular attention arc steeply (3% - 8% of 12%) slopn^ ’"d mapped as Nle. The Nle mapped areas have active soil erosion but axe suitable development if terracing and gully rehabilitation is implemented.
The Nle arra< arc most prevalent in SDA VN where thev form 1 157 ha x*to
*'*>
’'f”
• ua or i°/  Qf u
n
irrigation area They also form appreciable areas in IVCS (90” |1a or pot
ntt
absent in other areas.
In VN it was noticeable that some of the incipient gully erosion on cultivated land
from runoff from roads The development of these areas will therefore need tn take ih disposal of road runoff into account The terracing and vegetation of terracing on u
areas is discussed in Section 5.2.6.
Cosung these interventions depends on estimations of the number required For gully treaty and rehabilitation it has been assumed that 100 drainage lines entering the command area
.
.
.
out art minor
“
(mainly in the south of the command) will require treatment and similarly for the outfalls it has been assumed that 20% of the estimated 1,000 outfall drains (mostly on vertisols) will require treatment An outline cost of Birr 160/ha has also been estimated for die treatment of aiding areas in drainagr lines within the irrigation area. A more detailed requirement and costmgcan be obtained at the time of detailed design / implementation.
5.2.4 Community Fonstg Deve/opmenf
Areas to be set aside for community forestry’ development have been calculated tor each SDA These arc areas unsuitable for lmgatioQ and include areas with shallow soils, steep (>8or 12 ■ slopes and broken topography. Any such land that is currently fanned will be converted to forestry or improved grazing with die current land users offered land within the imgatw>n scheme The exact location of community forestry areas has not been determined, this
the subject of negotiation with the communities but an indication of what land is terms of land use and quality (sods, slope) is given by SDA in Chapter 0.
• 11... ca closure Hie establishment of forestry on any hills with shallow sods should be pr , afforests®011
to enable the regeneration of ground cover grasses and shrubs. A programme * ^tcI
can then be initiated. The relatively high seasonal rainfall of the project area retaining structures such as rrucrobasms should not be required but a site as made to assess whether cut-off drains will be required. The initial area dos gmund cover establishment should mean that cut-off drains are not requir
5 houidl*
Suitable tree species should be a mix of fast growing (generally exotic) m J“P as Gnvilka robuita, Acacia decurrent. C.alhandra caiothyrsut and             moM* and slower growing (generally indigenous) trees such as Atacid albida.-
1 utp°K *****
fxipyltru, Cmton macro rtaebyuj. Fkhj spp and Cordia afneana. In addition fnn              stntg^' Wangffra indtcaj, Guava (Psidium geajava). White Sapote (Castmtroa tdudtf
1 apaya (Canca papaya) and Avocado (Prrw                        could be plantc
•i
12 MJ'1
IJb H SrO2d land ik Wiienhcd Mm (2)
56.fEW- .*** 1*'“”
uoJvpnw 20% ”’ P
f          owm8’ 20" '’ “M*»ge»nB and 10% fruit trees has been assumed for costing purposes although the actual mix will be dependent on communits- preference and needling supply and cost.
JUrnJrr
( orridor
The main aim of the Riverine Environmental Comdor management intervention will be to provide protection for the drainage lines running through the project command area which wil iho act as w ildlife corridors enhancing biodiversity These areas will be planted with boundary* trees as outlined above but most of the rest of the drainage line will be an environmental protection area of woodland, shrubland and nvenne forest that will be allowed to regenerate naturally-
Tire only exception to this concerns arris of currently cultivated land within the REC which could be afforested and then managed as community forestry Costs for the development of community forestry* in the REC have assumed a species mix of 60*® indigenous trees, 20% eucalyptus and 10% other fast-growing exoocs and fruit trees In time the fast growing trees could be replaced by indigenous trees
Where water from the irrigated area drains into natural drainage lines it is proposed that there will be an outfall structure to dissipate the water ami reduce scour and erosion In many places this will be enough to ensure no further erosion of the natural drainage line but in some locations it is likely that further conservation measures will be needed as discussed in Section
S labtluatian
I-and has been classified on the basis that slopes above 3% are BUttlUlx no' Mutable for surface Tngation Only if terracing and appropriate sod conservation measures are provided is such 'md considered suitable for irrigation In addinon shafts sods. sleep ‘lopes and erosion-prone land are all avoided (for smallholder development particularly) unless appropnate soil ronsetvauon measures are specified and accepted as a necessary part of any development
before for irrigation devek.pment. land on slopes of 3 to 12% (8‘. for vertisols) wiU be Celled to slopes of either 0% if basin ungauon is proposed or up to 2 /. for furrow imganon
1K  '>1 I-mJ & Watershed Man (2)
3?EtbKfitH SUt Imiutn'
I 'n rr'1
end bunds have i width and height of 0.3m, an uphill slope of 1:1 and a downhdl slo This will result in a 1 5% land take for terracing It is also important that the
° f 1:2
be required and such land is therefore considered to be currently not suitable for pressur irrigation.
llic terracing of land for irrigation is a new departure in Ethiopia and it is therefore parinxw
that a pilot area is mailed prior to full land preparation, terracing and irrigation development This is particularly important for vertisols wliich are known to he unstable due to their shrink- swell nature
There are no guidelines as to the design of terraces for irrigation. In Queensland vertisol* ire terraced for rainfed cropping with bunds (called "graded banks' in Australia") at vertical inremli of 13m on 2% slope and 23m on 5% slope. Probcrt et al (1987) indicate that contour banks
and grassed waterways arc the usual conservation measures used on vertisols in Australia but that they are not always successful. Cracking of the banks can occur leading to failuir and gullying during high intensity storms. They* also indicate that contour stop cropping and gnv rotations have been successful in Africa (although for rainfed rather than irrigated land' and
that the provision of gTound cover is of paramount importance in preventing erosion on vertisols. They report that 80° o pasture ground cover is required to prevent soil loss on venunl but that 50% cover was no better than bare soil.
The  design  of  die  terraces  described above is reported in more detail in Irrigation &  Oral Development (Supplementary Report SR-01B1 and was undertaken with different par
result  in  greater  stability  but  the  land  take  would  range  from  39%  on  land  with 58% on land with 8% slopes thus removing a great deal of land from irrigation
>,539ha in the smallholder area (4,065ha on red soils. 8.145ha on vertisols).
Ub F4 Srv2d Land & U aienhcd Man (2)rja - Up* 
, Irm^f D™* ™
ofWjttr &
1 P      eii
drought resmant such as Vctifex, Rhodes gt^ fluf
« .^zZ and W planted in dense rows Trees and shrubsT wT" “ SpcWs «•* 
s p,dng of 30 to 60cni apart on single or staggered double row F f ' pbn,fd 11 ’ dos' 
fixing trees/shmbs such as Lrwurw
Pigcon p<a
P rotl^o  nitrop-n-
should be used slama jaApa planted in dense rows can also bT^
mixed with crop residues. On the under vertisols bunds a liL 
top and bottom of rhe nser to discourage farmers from plough*
Cash crop* can be ptwfl on the bunds, particularly I -2 years after composting has been
n Svb 'n‘alr,bm
lnd  *’ for^e
introduced as an agronomic measure with sunflowers, gourd, tomatoes, cucumbers, etc grown.
Grazing will need tn br carefully controlled with no grazing for the first year of establishment
and idcallv cut and carry after that.
Costs for land development including terracing and bund formation are included in (he
engineering works. while costs for bund stabilisation are included in subproject LdcFM-6:
Terrace Bund Stabilisation.
Soi/wd W'srtfr Conservation inSllslr Unsuitable Jar Irrigation
Four  SD  As,  IVBE-N.  IVBE-S,  IVCE  and  V5t   have  only  a  low  prrcenLige  of  their  laud  suitable for irrigation (12-28%) and have therefore been excluded from irrigation development.
However there are appreciable areas of land already  cultrvarcd under rainied conditions in these stage development areas, farmed without any  soil conservation measures, and this could impact on the irrigation scheme in the long term.
Il is therefore proposed to introduce .oil rod water conservation measure rod a wider
watershed management p«k»«e m these four SDAs in order to: (j) improve the livelihoods of the local population (who will not be offered plots on tmgated land;, (u) to improve the sustainabtlm o (rain fed agriculture. and (th) to crease the security of the irrigation
development ill adjacent areas from erosion and sedimentauon
To  achieve this, information on soils, topography, land use and current erosion have been collated and a  suite of suitable rod rod water conservation measure have been oudincd in order to gain an idea as to the coats involved
Soil rod water conservation programmes m Ethiopia have found that communities are urwlimg to be involved in interventions that do not provide an improvement in their livelihoods and therefore sod rod water conservation programmes are now designed primal
to improve livelihoods with soil eomenanon usually allied to agricultural inlemiCcabo|l. need for farmer participant in the process is now rorerotaHy accepted
-eognmon that the measures must demonstrate.
burners who are investing then land and then nine, labour m the SWC workl.
js ,
to the
.
.^-.ent the SWC measures need to be integrated
In order to get tommumn in'
technical measures such as agrono 
and increased use of inputs that w1
fot(atry. area closure and reforest,do
bcnt,flU m j short ume.
39
*»li other
n ^Asures
I jnd & Waicrthwi xrw» (2)
12 M«v UPttoui Dunmtir KffMr of Ethnfn, Minhfg of IT'a/rr & Eirr#
l-.thiophn Niff lmfjtnn and 
Prvje.l
I. j  proposed that farmers receive some payment for adopting soil and water conserve
s
nJuxes in these four SDAs since many of the benefit, arc downstream (te protect irrigation area)
It is not within the remit of this feasibility study to prepare a detailed watersh d
soil and waler conservation programme for these areas but outline inr
be indicated and it is proposed that a more detailed study is undertaken d of the irrigation scheme
The proposed measures can be divided into the following categories
c ,inc<*entic)ns and r
m,r”P^cn  -
tc
c<HUcan
l
Agronomic interventions
ii
Biological soil conservation measures
hl
Structural soil conservation measures
iv. 
Agro-forestry and reforestation
v.        Training and promotion
Agronomic conservation measures include practices aimed at soil fertility management such u inter cropping, relay or double cropping, ley cropping, crop rotation, row planting (for opoml plant density') and improved fallow. Most agronomic measures are most suitable on low iloyo and would make up most proposed measures on land with slopes of less than 5% The mi^rxv of agronomic measures* costs arc in training which would be an integral part of any soilind water conservation package
7 tef conservation measures include measures such as grass strips and
f 11 
i*1* di5at*°n r^al reduce soil losses that occur through the splashing effect of OVCF an^ A°W' invoke keeping the soil infiltration rate as high as possible sod
<>n mg runoff by reducing the speed to non-erosrve velocities as well as including sraDiteatum of physical structures by multipurpose plants, hedgerows and area closure
. I \ nscrvation forestry*, woodlots and agro-forestry are also an integral part of
gt soil and water conservation as is area closure and the planting of trees on hjghh degraded land                                                                                                        1                *
t S*dAHdralk
SWC mCMUres w usu   U
« y undertaken in areas with greater slopep""**
natural slope length into shorter sections to control runoff, to limit ir* crusts Paaty. encourage infiltrauon and crap sod and to safely dispose of excess runoff
ronmTf
pr °tCCt
land and co rehabilitate degraded hillsides. I
effective when both structural and biological measures are used
soilb"J.7lt ^As ’ "“"H* Of vcRctanvc
slope „ ’ I’"-’
structural measures (grass smp» slt’*'
of B-15% and structural -as^^
dispose of
, ln "•«**■* - to —
er land and spillways from bunds to natural waterwip u
p obto„ „ *. i.»«• * *“
I.T,F«s
n)2d milu lmw
|.
"""  •«< ™o«.. „LO„  ,
40
>:«■"Miftuny of IV nr, & Enrvgf
f                               Drjrttf Pnfta
enough natural drainage lines to lead the excess , 
p,™J «l«~.y., 
.
" “ “*”■ '!>' n~d for rr™.^ „,
^-forestry measures can be integrated with SWC measures to provide both additional tficome (through fruit, fuclwood and fodder) and to enhance SWC measures by providing extra xtmctural stability to bunds and terraces. Reforestation is most effective if communally or Wrvidually managed and if linked wtth area closure for the rehabilitation of degraded lands and the provision of cut ind cam- fodder
Training and promotion arc an integral part of any WM development programme,
p-amcuhrlv since implementation will be al the micro-watershed level by local land users uith guidance from wereda and regional specialists. Training in the use of broad bed makers (BBM) for die cultivation of vertisols and soils with vertic properties will be particularly relevant since vertisols need to be brought into production tn all these areas.
Nimrrj Dwt!op*ren(
At present there arc 25 nurseries in the Bcles area; 24 private nurseries injawi wereda and 1 wcreda nursery in Pawl wcreda
Table 5-1 shows the number of seedlings required for the proposed interventions. Assuming that the right bank is developed first over . 5 tear pennd then there will be a requuement for 124 mtihon seedlings » year from the 25 nmscr.es This translates into about 90.000 seedlings
per nursery which is well within the capability of most nuiseaka; Pawl wereda nursery produced 400.000 seedlings in 2.00*1 for instance.
Table 5,1;
•- —                 Required               Right
Left                    Total
Read*
95,344
166J2O4                     261348
^Canab
32(i.flW                     701,986                   1.027,986]
jentrketfr
3.055.143
4432.834
7 487.977
.^ofnrnuTdty Fcreitn1
3,865.401              1Q.5t>5,W5
14460.446
J'SS’iy.' m Rl-Cs
3,869,399                25,936,220
29,825.619
Terrace Bond S tabtlisstaoTi
551800
____ _____Total
11,211.288                 41.852088                  »,617J76
A nursery development programme » part of the project » therefore not proposed since it ,s
felt that the demand can be met by ousting 
“ c“asw« “Plc^ m mce' *«= m«eascd
^mand The development of nurseries m the oon tmgauon bDAs however is included of the watershed matufmmt programme, partly to ensure enough seedlings for SW{; interventions and pardv to provide employment tn these areas
UjuI & Wa'cnhtd Man ®
4tM                        R^Mr ofE^ M'"'” of ir Mr & EthioptM Nik im&nc' jc3 Dna»<& Pm*1
5.J 5.3J
Reservoir Catchment
Rettrwr Buffer Zone Dfirlopmtn!
At present there are no specific limits of buffer zones dong lakes, nvcrs and streams al
the Regional Conservation Strategy and the Rural Land Administration and Use Procl * put these areas under state ownership and protection. 
Buffer strips around reservoirs arc usually recommended to attenuate non-pomt polluu particularly to protect water supply reservoirs. They arc natural or managed areas used to" protect an ecosystem from adjacent land uses or sources of pollution and produce a more favourable environment for aquatic ecosystem processes. A riparian buffer is usually  p|
9    l( mr
three different zones (trees, shrubs and grasses) each having its own specific purpose for filtering runoff and interacting with the adjacent aquatic system
000
However  the  proposed  reservoir  is  not  a  water  supply  reservoir,  neither  is  it  at  particular  mk from   non   point   pollution   (there   being   ven’   little   fertilizer   applied   in   the   surrounding   catchment and  it  is  surrounded  by  open  woodland  in  a  rocky  valley  It  is  therefore  proposed  only  to  crcitr a   buffer  zone  of  indigenous  trees   and   shrubs  with   enrichment  planting  of  the  current  woodland to  a  width  of  1  (X)m  from  the  reservoir.  Thr  perimeter  of  the  reservoir  is  50-70  km  in  length  if  a large  (Type  A,  B  or  C)  dam  is  built*.  However  if  a  small  (Type  D)  dam  is  sufficient  the  reservoir perimeter will be considerably less, just 15.6 km, sec Figure 5 3.
As with the interventions in the command area, the creation of the buffer zone wall be accompanied by awareness raising and training in the management of the area Die final decision on buffer width, species to be planted, buffer zone management, access to water tot people and cattle and liaison with fisheries will be undertaken in close consultation with ’he communities most affected by the creation of the reservoir.
IL atersbed \tanagemrat oj Rtsemir Catchment
The Rl SLE assessment undertaken of the reservoir catchment has indicated that the area moderate erosion hazard, see Section 4.2.2 1 lowever fieldwork has indicated that
area is cultivated without anv soil and water conservation practices. Oita on land
*
within the reservoir catchment area (Table 4-2 & Table 5-2) show that there is a toolot
\
* 
. , ,« -11 Ug i4j * *'
25,550ha   of   cultivated   land   within   the   reservoir   area   of   58.424   ha,   of   which   11.53 on slopes greater than 15%.
’ Refer SR-04D: Engmeenng _ Storage
Ubr-4Srt)2dUnd  W.
&       lrnhcdMm(2)
42•(                  Murry                      & Earrg
/^N* *<* Owjfl Pw
Table 5-2: Cultivated Land by Slope Claw in Reservoir Catchment
Faroe -----------------—
Land Use
Slope Class (%)
06
6-15
15-30
30-60
>60
Total
Intensive Cultivation
3.790
2.375
560
212
3
6.940
Moderate Cultivation with Open Woodland. J601’" cultivation
1,617
6.168
•’.612
2.987
34
18,418
Upcn Woodland with culnxwuon. 1 (40% cultivation
16
32
73
70
192
-
Total Cuhivaicd Land
5,424
8,576
8^45
3069
37
25.550
Percentage*
21%
34%
32%
13%
<1%
Source, Held mapping and Pnijcct CIS
I’hcre is therefore a compelling argument for a programme of watershed management comprising soil and water conservation and afforestation in (he reservoir catchment area However fieldwork also showed that farmers in the catchment do not have the land user certificates. ‘Hierc is therefore an opportunitv to link the issuance of land user certificates with improved land management in terms of implementation of soil and water conservation measures.
The approach to watershed management and SWC in the reservoir catchment will be similar to that m the non-ungable SDAs (Section 5.2.7) integrated with other technical measures such a, agronomic, agto-forestry. area closure and reforestation measures and increased use of inputs that will show benefits in a short space of nmc.
The aim of this watershed management programme would be pnmanly to reduce segmentation
•mo the proposed reservoir by implementing a soil and water conservation programme
banners will need to be pa>d for adopting the sod and water conservation measures since most of the benefits are downstream (Le. the reservotr not sdnng up as qurekly) although hnlong the >dopuon of SWC with the issiunce of land user certificates could be used io mitigate some of the costs.
’«« not within the remit of thts feastbdin studv to prepare a detaded watershed management or ^d and water conservation programme for the reserve catchment area. However outline mterventxsns and costs can be unhealed and it is proposed that a more detailed studv ,s
^denaken during tmpkmenuuon of the reservotr and tmgauon scheme
■0* Proposed measures are similar to those outlined m Section 527 dnnded into Agmnotmc
•"'ervenuons, Biolopcri sod conservation measures. Stmctural sod conservatxm measures. %0-forestrv and reforestation and Trarmng and promotion with a greater emphasis on Plural measures given the higher proportion of steeper slope*.
*■wd.
'Aernattng with grass strip.) on land W”h^ “ 
P
’bspesof 15-30% and bench tetraang on land u i           P
dun 30%. In "Mttmn"^
*3 Si02(l
I-and & Watcnhed Man (2)
43
12 M»y-nFrtitni/ [ftorotrunr R/fMc of I ithiopi^ Mwfr) of IT jttr & 1-orr^
bf hop Jit .V;> lmfufton anti l>r* tap Piy*-f
drains and waterways are disposal drainage structures constructed where there ’ drainage for safe drainage of runoff from farmland These are likclv to be '* ”°
sloping areas in conjunction with bunds and terraces. 
Halcrow has recently undertaken three feasibility level watershed management studies fn, MoWR in the Rift Valley Lakes Basin and has therefore recently (2009) com  led co
S^ed on
pi              5(s pe[
hectare for SWC interventions and for the wider watershed management programme including the provision of inputs and project management, see Table 5-5
Table 5-3: SWC and WM costa from RVLB
Study
Area
Area (ha)
SWC Cost
ETB/ha
WM Cost
ETB/ha
Hawassa
143.651
1,412
4.249
W. Ziwav
300.410
2,565
5.143
^8"
19,100
1.141
2.643
Mean Cost
1,706
4,012
Sourer Relevant RVI.B Study Report*
These costs were based on the assumption that communities need to be involved in watershed management planning from the outset and that the best means of implementing such i prujee is at community or micro watershed level (c. 350-500ha) where the communin' presents its problems and proposes solutions. The SWC costs were derived from an assessment of suitable interventions and work norms following Mo A RD guidelines and included costs for specific SWC interventions and under costs for training, promotion, awareness raising and nunen establishment.
implement the
Management r
community )evelf,UtM,tCCS
f
thc serting UP of a project implementing insufuDori to Wcr®d> Watershed Development l earns liaising with Watershed
* cvc^ Community Watershed Development Teams a:
Table 5-3  shows that the cost ne k
Hsing to ETB 2,643 to 5,143 
***** from ETB h 141 to 2,565 for SWC works,
^   reservoir catchment area ‘
es
ni P^cre watershed management package of works For
cost ot El’S 99 7 
nu llon
|     - o.yy 
58 4
‘ “  h® (25,550 ha cultivated) this translates into a mean
4
T 5.9m and 14 04
m
costs and E*n3 234.4 million for watershed managonrnr '"PC“'’* TO 16.7 = lJS   LOOX
, 
11
Ub b’4 SfO2d I Jind A U ater'hcd Man (2)
44L'b F4 SrO2d Lind & IVj/cnhcd .Moil (2)
45
12-May HggS/i
of Mni'tT) ofti'alrr &
Drjtf:^ Pryt.j
watershed^manageiment^ntervention planning by stage
Introduction
The L'pper Bclcs Irrigation Area has been divided into five Stage Development Areas, 1-V (although SDA II is I lyma and outside the Upper Beles feasibility study area) and subdivided into Gvr SDAs on the right bank (IA, IB\X. 1BE. IBS A III) and ten SDAs on the left bank: IVA. IVBVC (further subdivided into 3 phises), IVBE-N, IVBE-S, IVCN, IVCE, IVCS, VN.
VS & VW (sec Figure 3-2).
This Chapter outlines the watershed management issues in terms of planning for soil and water conservation interventions and forestry development m each of the SDAs. It also concerns the allocation of land for uses other than irrigation, irrigation infrastructure and the nvenne environmental comdor
Figure 6-1 shows the area* of land for irrigation gross and net) and the nvenne environmental cotndor The gross irrigation land is all land within the irrigation development area, the net irngation land is the gross area muni' land used for infrastructure (roads, canals, drains etc) and terracing The nvenne environmental cotndor is land set aside to provide environmental protection to the drainage lines ui die whole area. The rehabilitation and management ot these corridors is discussed separately in Section 6 4 For the project area of 138.15 ha, the gross irrigation area is "0,451 ha (51%), and the nvenne environmental cotndor area is 2 ,290 ha
.20“o), leaving 40.412 ha (29° o) for other uses.
The 40.412 ha of land that is not designated for irrigation or nvenne environmental corridors is therefore available for public infrastructure, already existing villages and land to be allocated for homesteads, forestry and grazing Planning norms were derived for the latter as described tn Supplementary Report SR-02B, Section S3, see lable 5-4.
' aid allocations for tainted smallholding for homesteads, forestry and grazing were adopted at "•20.0.10 0.15, and 0.10 - 0.20 ha respecmeh The Land Allocation Optimisation Model'
u 'ed for planning project development, land allocation .nd resettlement has shown that using 'hese norms the existing rural population and their progeny to 2030 can be accommodated uothin the project area of 138,15" ha.
A ’ maximising irrigation development subject to suitable (and comtnandable) ungable land * tVcs the greatest (financial & economic) return, the land .Allcanon Optimisation Model adopted freed Wls tobc allocated to rural HHs for homesteads and (irrigated / rainfed) crop llnd Household allocations were also made for grazing and woodlots Additional areas for
and forestry were also found in some SDAs urth extenme hdlv and REC areas
S ^-92B: Itngatcd Agriculture & Agru-ecooomic Development Punning 47
12‘Mav 11Mmt  ,j"tw
EthionJ’ kW" Dn»»tf P^1
A number of alternative development options for Upper Belcs were considered (
f
re w s
Irrigated Agriculture A- Agro economic Development). These include an assessment” / financial and economic impact of planning a commercial sugar estate of different »tz  / '
tt
zero (Option 0) to 63.871 ha (Option 5). .All the development options considered ui^ J cAsibilitx’ Study to a greater or less extent arc tabulated below.
Table 6-L Upper Belcs Development Options
lion
Net
Total
Sugar
estate
Small
holders
^-oninifrviJ
Firm
( 0
No sugar estate
63,871
0
33.284
(52.1%)
.
3(1.58’
4? T
(Jption 1
Minimum sugar estate
63.871
21,860
34 2%
26,644
A 41.’%)
,
15366
•241%
Option 2A
Core sugar estate
63,87!
36.225
(56.*%j
22.8*2
(35.8%
£.5%
Option 2B
Corr  sugar  estate  (ic  as  <  Iption 2A) but with out growers
63,871
36.225
(56.7%)
22,872
(358%)
4,Tn
(>ption 2C
Core   sugar   estate   with   pressure sprinkler} tn SDA JVB-W
65,161
37315
<57.6%)
22,8”2
(35.!%-
V*
Option 3
Core sugar estate plus
expansion area
63,871
40,999
(64.2%)
22.8-2
’35.8%)
0
< >pr:on 4
AD sugar estate with only pumped left bank development A accelerated implementation
39,175
39,175 
(100%)
0
0
Option 5
AU sugar estate
63.8*1
63.871
(100%)
0
0
For most of the seriously considered options the gross and net irrigation areas were
0,450 ha and 63,870 ha respectively, and REC area was about 27,290 ha
The proposed development scenario is Option 2A (i.e. a sugar estate area ot atm
this provides a reasonably livelihood for existing rural smallholder farmers whil ^ . usnl
.      ( ha) ••
xn
commercial sugarcase estate area The values (areas) generated by this option base c« for the planning of other (non-irrigation and non REQ land uses.
l"he proposed with-project commercial sugar estate and smallholder imgatw ^jjjts the riverine corndor areas, based on Option 2A. were defined by the unganon sp^ are shown on the map attached as f igure 6 2
ITte areas allocated to these other (ie non irrigation / REQ land uses are pre*' * nghc and left bank project areas in rhe following sections.
rdb?SpA'W
0Figure 6-h Proposed With-Project Land ute
Cb H !^2(j Jjnd A Ufar ifarf Mjr» (2|
12-Miy.Hhdrni/  Df^acrjfif  RtpMc  of  Ethiopia.  Miauty  of  W'atrr  e*  E«rrp E/tapMir N/Zr Irrtfijnotf anti Dniiugt Ptwerf
17 1M«t I I
A-Afwwfry  f' lTa  & E^rp
ler
Sth Im&ttM       Dnttna/fr Pn/Kf
R>gbt B/Jtk
Land allocations for the right bank SDAs are tabulated belo ' total nght bank project area is -W.06I ha< of whlch 3. 
and   4.332   ha   the   REC.   area   This   leaves   just   6   952   ha 
’ "* dweloPm^r Option 2A. Tile
• na (J •>. 1 /#)(1  for other USes. w Table 6-2
s   !«/>   c   Pmes    t^e
gross   irrigation
area
Table 6-2: Land Allocation for Option 2A by SPA (Right Bank)
Wilh-Project Land Li«c (ha)
SDA
1A
IBE
IBW
IBS
HI
Total*
(M
Total Area
13.080
8,668
9.035
2,594
12.684
46.061
Gross Irrigation Area
H.638
7,424
7,609
1,612
9,494
34.777
Net Irrigation Area
7,«79
6.853
6.966
1.410
8.400
31.509
Riverine Environmental Comdor
1,418
558
639
407
1,311
4.332 |
Land Available for Other Land U*e«
3,024
607
787
575
1,879
6.952
Public Infrastructure
127
-
193
319
Existing Villages
403
2
6
126
538
land Allocated for Homes readi
506
-
772
1,278 ,
Land Allocated for Cumnurun Forest rv
253
...
..
386
639
land Allocated for Grazing
253
386
639
Unallocated Land
1.482
685
780
575
17
3,539
Suuitn Project Dita CuUrctino, mapping & G1S.
I able 6-3 show’s the current land cover ot available (ie non irrigation / REQ land in each right bank SDA and Table 6-4 shows their land quality tn terns of soil and slope- Tible 6 5 shows the current 2010 population and with project (following resettlement) population and land allocations fox each SDA.
^ble 6-3; Land Cover (ha) of Available Land bv SDA (Right Bank
Land Cover
LA
rBE
IBW
IBS
in
GraMUnj
1.014
326
206
291
497
Jft'oodjyd
318
160
282
134
527
^j^edne
35
12
22
8
86
-CulTiVaQQr,
Ly^
1,210
188
271
142
637
403
2
6
126
i HiHnnlei! T^nratkun
■U
1
5
— —___ Total,
3.024
687
787
57S
1,879
li
rojtcr F)it> ColIccricMJ. mapping St C SIS.
r,
1  ^ d Ac Wmenhcj Mon (2)
51
S2-MW-1T1‘ederut   DcfttoiniTk     fafutbtic   t»f   E.fhtofna.   Mtniffn   of   Wafer   ci"   Ewry Efbioptoft Xt/e I mutton and Drainage Pwjed
Source: Project Data Collection, mapping & GIS.
Tat >lc 6-5: Population and Land Allocation by SDA (Right Bank)
I BE
2010 Urban Population
2010 Rural Population
69
3.617
0
IB-W           IB-S
—
229                      0
With Project Urban Population
3.770
0
1.083
0
III
3 487
7.722
3.48“
With-Project Rural Population
Option 2 Land Allocation (ha)
1 louschulds
Forestry
Grazing
Unallocated
IA
6.835
5.929
7.133
10,515
506
253
253
1.482
0
0
0
0
685 |
0
0
0
780 |
0 12,499
0 779
0 390
0 390
575
1_ L
Option 2 Land Allocation (ha/rural household)
I louscholds
Forestry
0^20
0.10
Commercial sugar estate area
1
Grazing
_ °_d°   ___________
__________ __
0.20
0.10
0.10]
6.2.1
Source: Project Data Collection. mapping A: GIS-
Proposals for the allocation of land within each SDA are discussed below.
Staff Development Ana £4
SDA IA is planned for a mixture of large-scale commercial and smallholder irrigation c
smallholder development is mainly on the slopes leading to the Dera bay plain, south of F nd^
with a smaller area in the far cast of the SDA split by the main sugar estate area There i
of 3,024ha of land available for other land uses. Of this 4O3ha is covered by existing ret
and 94ha is allocated for pubhc infrastructure.
Option   2   allocates   375ha   for   households,   IB^ha   for   forestry   and   IB   ha   for   grazing l,777ha unallocated. Table 6-6 shows the land cover/land use and sods and slope.
available land.
but leave*
for dw
Ub I ■* Srt)2d l and Ae Watershed Man (2)
52SDA IA
SDAIA
ha
Soila/slope
Ku
1.014 318
—
Red soils 6-12*/®
0
35
Vertisols 0-6%
289
1,210
Vertisols 6-12%
8
44
N2 soils
1.778
403
Seirlemcnr
«3
3,024
Total
3,024
cd that the 35ha of nvcnnc vegetation is left unchanged
Tlic I J7"ba of unallocated land should come under the nunjgrmcDt of the Lcbdc who on
then kep it a* a b™l bank and allocate land to a variety of uses such n household phis,
forestry. grazing, cultivation or infrastructure as the need arises and they sec fit
Iris  proposed  that  the  land  for  households  is  convened  from  land  currently  used  as  himktf 'clustered  settlement  areas  surrounded  by  cultivation},  grassland  and  culnranon  with  red  sods and N2 land preferred. There arc two hamlet arras mapped at about Hkm and 18km north east ofFcndjka and these can serve as village growth centres
forestry land can be obtained from grassland, cultivation ind woodland and grazing LrJ from grassland and cultivation. Vertisols would be more suitable for grazing rather than foresar In trims of land use allocation it is proposed that the grassland areis be ilocattd to gnzaig although in places wherr the land is currently eroding the areas should be dosed io allow
^growth and sown with fast growing fodder shrubs such as kucaenu and scsbazua
do *ntk *n<* Current^y cultivated land could be converted to communny forestry which.
1 cndika could also include areas set aside for cut ind canv fodder.
P^ cct fi n C^CU^4te^ ^at a total of 2,915ha of plantation would be Deeded to meet 2fHD witn- So^f h WOOd dCmand Thcrc 15 therefore a shortfall of 2»728hi with rhe Opton 2 scouur
by ticctnc Shnfl^ could be met from planting in IB and some energy demands may be met hut fudwnod will nerd to he imported into Fendikaind suntmndng^
1 *^Uoo^nnCd f°r
commercial ungatmn, the core sugar
o   r rynf<:d fan™ng undertaken in the area. There is ■
,v «hble f °
lBE ^PruT Cf US" nOflC °f wkdl has bcW lUocattd 10 f,tb“ 
*°*kd. The ’ nUlnl-’ areas **»' «° I** ™in
UltS’
^curtendv 
n0
of bnd
J
*“*
^ Ollehoutdl Vc shallow an J $tQny There are also scartcrcd patches ofgrawhod
n
lnd k ' yci °  Vtttisok Id [BW most of the available land occur dose » 
Ftn
envj^ X cult»vwon and shrub wwdbed In IBS any 
knd ,3ner5 .
corndor and is a mixture of woodland wd grvshnd with p t,,ni
^2d[
iJAlif-H
53Pedtrul    Dem^ruftt    Papubhc    of    Ethiopia.    Afinutn    ofW    Mr    <>   Hwy Ethiopian Nik Irrigation and Dnonarr Profit
The allocation of land to other uses in IB is dependent on the commercial s
no need for any land for homesteads and it is unlikely that a sugar estate widT^*^ ii communal grazing land within the estate area although some could be made °° west of Fendika in IBW. Community forestry is a possibility, particularly on th^h^ ? to the road but this will require the acceptance of the estate and therrC   ' ***** clc*
°n
r
costed for this SDA. 
n ° *"«*
osed therefore that of the total 2,049ha, the 42ha of nvenne forest remain wuh the
It is Pr°P°* 
remanung 
potentially suitable for community forestry. The development of woodland ^ nlichmcnt planting of existing woodland with indigenous species but
vemsols  may  need  to  be  planted  with  Eucalyptus  spp  since  they  are  known  to  perform  well  on vertisols.
Table 6-7: Land Cover and Soils/Slopc in SDA IB
1BE
IBW
IBS
Grassland
326
206
291
Woodland
160
282
134
Riverine
12
22
8
Cultivation
IBB
271
142
Village
2
6
Total
687
787
575
Red soils 0-6%
13
16
17
Red soils 6-12%
1
Vertisols 0-6%
181
153
40
N2 soils
491
611
518
Sertlcmcnt
2
6
'rhe 2,OO7ha of community forestry could then help to alleviate the fuchvood shortfalls
111
6.2.3 Stag Deivlopmertt Area III
SDA 111 is planned for smallholder irrigation with a potential estate expansion future. There is a total of 1,879ha of land available for other land uses ( 1 covered by existing settlement and 180ha is allocated for public infra
in the
Option     2     allocates     584ha     for     households,     438ha     for     forestry     and     5*4h*for       the     Jvubhk unallocated land. Table 6-8 shows the land covcr/land use and so s an s
land.
j2
11
tlb F’4 SrO2d Land & Watershed Man (2)
54d Covcr and Soilj/Slope in SPA III
SPA in________________
h>
Soils/t lope
ha
497^
Red soils 0 6%
77
527
Red soils 6-12%
4
86
Vertisols 0-6%
121
637
Vertisols 6-12%
1
126
Settlement
126
1
Eroding red sods
34
5
N2 sods
1.517
pUn«n°n
It j$ proposed that the 86ha of riverine area and Sha of planUbon forest nmuin gremg a total
1,879
Total
1.879 |
area of 1,~88ha rather rhan *’8 9ha ,O ** dt’’tnbutcd
homesteads, forestrr and gnzm?
This will result in 54" ha of homesteads and grazing and 426ha of communin’ forestry
It is proposed that the land for households come from land uses of grassland, culnvwon xnd hamlet with areas of red soils and N2 soils preferred. Forestry can indude the Sha dreadr planted and land from woodland, grassland and culnvabnn with grazing land also tfocn woodland, grassland and cultivation. The 34ha of currently eroding red sods should come
under irea closure initially with subsequent planting for community forestry and could be minaged to produce cut and carry fodder and wood products The 122ha of vertisols are
suitable for communal grazing land and eucalyptus plantations
It has been calculated that a total of 1.457ha of plantation would be needed to meet 2010 with project fudw’ood demand. There is therefore a shortfall of l,098ha with the Opoon 2 soauno
Some of this shortfall could be met from planting in IB and some energy demands may be met electricity but it is clear that fuelwood will need to be imported into SDA III in the future.
J2.XUC-11
(2)
55Federal Democratic fcpMc oj Ethiopia. Mmittry o f Water r> Energy, E.lhi opt an N/Zr Irrigation and D ruinate Pnftct
6.3
Left Bunk
Tabic 6-9 and Table 6-10 show the land allocations under Option 2 for the left
fable 6-11 shows the land cover and I ablc 6-12 the land quality of the available la d
6-13 shows the current and with-project population and proposed land allocations
With-Project Land Uae (ha)
1VB Left Bank)
SDA
IVA
IVBW
-
IVBE N
Total -Area
JVBE.S
9,730
13.570
Gross Irrigation Area
____     4,84$,
3.339
7.286
Net Irrigation Area
2.909
6.631
-------- ------ ---
Rivenne Environmental Comdor
2.004
3.460
2.824
.
7 476
1 880
Land Available for Other Land Use*
4,386
Infrastructure
,
121
-,wo
? iu\
AC
Public Infrastructure
31
44
23
Existant Villages
-
35
I .and Allocated for Homesteads
122
176
94
I .and Allocated for Community Forestry1
89
121
65
land .Allocated for Grazing
H9
162
86
Hills
1,351
8
4.328
743
Rsunfed Agriculture
1,221
652
Unallocated Land
2.706
2.781
1,302
1.031
Table 6-10: Land Allocation for Option 2A by SDA (IVC & V Left Bank)
7.010
2.718
1,635
2,657
l b F4 Sr02d Land & Watershed Man (2)
56.r
Cw P
■a
IVA        ivbw   kvBE-N
1.930 1.383
817 792
15 _
Rived**
^nran^ _ _
ly>£-- ---
plinwd^?.
’'undissi^-
Tot*L
’ 167
1,239           594
35
43                 4
-
2,332
790
13
IJ54
15
IVBE-S IV CN 544 85' 1.016 572
IS           30 697           834
2
37            67
12
18
2,085
-
4J86 1         2,824                               2,759
_
190
\ri
447
_
2393
1_42_
76J
_Mfe 2,771      2^57
l>ILrn '^—------------ ------
ih/alopc) of Available
L
IVA
IVBW
IVBEN
1VBES
rvc-N
—^-x . 1VGE
rvcs
56
547
174
— -                      — _T-J _ 131            4      411
V-N     V-W     vt
1 Rrd soils 0 6%
42
78
7
2
4led sods 6-12%
Vertsob 0-6*-n
69
402
10
468
9
-1
5
1.051
1.031
389      1.130
0
139
16 1 95
90 50 X9
Vrrnsoh 6-12%                        121
3
It
59
21            48
27
R
J                 1         28
Funding red soils
0
313
7                    35
Funding Vertisols
1
-
57
0
2M
11
13
53
N’2 suiLs                              2.400
2,223             2,069
868
1.837
1.783      2JD8      ?3J      629
Settlement
M
0
M         246         97            4
F flails. U nelaisificd
1,351                   8            4.328
743
88
763            M         57
Rai
4, W
2,824
7.476
2.760
2,393
4J5£   2.791
2657     e-53      Uto
Table 6-13: Population and Land Allocation by SPA (Left
IVA       IVB-W       IVBE-N
[VC-N
^atK-iyy 4,89]
_ 122
___89
1      89
1 2J06
id P»^/ru^|
0.20
176
121
M.
65
_ — ■Rl_.—=
2,781
162 86
1.031
___ —
0.20
0.14
020 _
--
-J
-°.y
0.14 _
0 20__ _045___
-Ol±
^ceslaed
020 _— 014 _ Lit 8__ ,
048                   04 8_
|2JU?
“^ld & yr,Prd^uJ Df**Tutic R/pMi lilhopj. Mimrtfy oflTaJrr c*" Entrg,
r.fhfcfuan Nitf Im&tm jxH Dnnna^f Pn^r
6.3.1            Stage Dnrhpmfnt Area 11 >1
DA IVA is planned for a mixture of large-scale commercial and smallhold
Figure   6-2.   There   is   a   total   of   4,386ha   of   land   available   for   other   land   u*^    v^i foie nvenne vegetation and 29ha is earmarked for public infrastructure
.115ha for households. 84h» for forestr)' B4ba fot R~*ng but leva
b  i$
2,725h     Optiona u 2 al nalloclocatatesed. 1 able <»-1m .
available land
Tabic 6-14: Land Cover and Soils/Slope in SDA IVA
IVA
covcr/land use and soils and slopes for the
Land Cover
ha
Soil/slope
ha
Grassland
1,930
Red sods 0 6%
42 1
Woodland
817
Red sods 6 12%
69
Rivennc
167
Vertisols 0-6%
402
Cultivation
1.239
Vertisols 6 12%
121 |
I lamlct
43
Eroding Vertisols
—
1
Ln classified
190
N2 sods
2,400
Hills
1,351 1
Total
4486
Total
4,386
The areas for households, forestry and grazing will have to be located in the east of the SDA to be dose to the proposed smallholder irrigation development This land is composed of shallower erosion prone soils on undulating topography prone to fl<x>ding in places with land uses of cultivation and grassland.
This leaves some 3,000ha in two relatively large contiguous blocks within the proposed sugn estate development that could be used for commercial or communal forestry. The decision ** to whether commercial or communal forestry is developed will rest with the sugar estate, whether (hey would like to drvdop commercial forestry* or whether they would allow communal or small-scale private forestry on land surrounded by the estate. These areas
land cover of mainly woodland and have been mapped as hills by the soil survey Their suitability' for forestry will have to be assessed prior to any development since die m«» t appropriate land use may be to leave as woodland providing environmental protect!
it has been calculated that a total of 636ha of plantation would be needed
project fuelwood demand indicating that with a proposed planting of 84ha 
'l"his   could   be   met   by   communal   forestry   within   the   estate   area,   possible   b   P fringes of the wooded hills as protection of the sugar estate area.
^010 with-
o f552b*
d*
n(jng 
l b F4 SrO2d land A Wncrwhcd Man (2)
Tpjrnx 
£;#**>*
Afaufy $ lfa„ & £„„&
Xr* 
Dwidgf Pnwt
Sfcg? Pwttywitf A mr II 'TWT
SDA rV BVC 15 planned for large-scale commercial imgaucn to be implemented *n three phases. The arc* would be within the core sugar estate with no villages, population or run fed famung undertaken in rhe area rhe area however is much more fragmented than the core areas on the right bank with the potential for commercial forestry within the area.
TTicirc is a total of 2,824ha offend available for other fend uses of which 35ha is current ly occupicd by a village that will be relocated following development There b a further Bha of hills and I5ha o( mrrme vegetation that should remain leasing 2,801 ha for potential forestry development
Table 6-15: Land Cover and Soils/Slope in SPA IVBW
FVBW
L-ind Cover
ha                            Soil/ilope
ha
Gra«bnd
Woodbind
Kivennc
Cultivation
1,1R3
792
15
VilLtfic             ____
594
35
Hander
4
Red mjiIs 0 63 ■
Red soils 6-12*#
Vernsoli 0-6%
Vertisoli 6 12%
■Settlement
N2 soils
Hills / Urvcbs it fied
78
10
468
3
35
1223
8
Total
2,824
Total
2,824
4J
Tlic majority of the available land has a land cover of wooded grassland^ grassland and cultivation on Phases 1 and 2 and woodland with shrubs ind wooded grassland tn Phase 5 'flic majority of soils are shallow and eroding with a comp lea topography, prone to flooding in places. The majority of Lhc available land occurs between the proposed irrigation development and the mtrinc environmental corridor indicating that the development of forestry would enhance land conservation as well as playing a commercial role
J^nr^wcar/1/rd JVBEuV
Due to the dissected nature uf the fend id IVRN do irrigation development u proposed. However some of the land is cultivated and there is a need Io protect the downstream irrigation development from soil erosion, runoff and sedimentation and therefore a soil and water conservation programme is proposed.
Phc SWC measures will be concentrated on cultivated land alongside the development of communal forestry and communal gracing land to provide additional income tn these areas not benefiting from irrigation development. An outline of the SWC measures proposed is given in Section 5.2.7 with costs in Section 73.
Tcrnis <>f land use planning the aim will be to conserve current cultivated areas as long as they ^c not within the nvenne environmental corridor and arc not currently on land considered to Pose a high erosion hazard
,4n,J A Watershed Mw 7;
59
12 Mar-11DaW- RrfM. »ftilb,tpia. 
Etbupio* Tiilt Imfarnt and Druinaff Pn/ttf
</ W'alrr & Harrp
Within the total area of available land (7,475ha gross; 4,297ha net) there arc 1,1 S4ha f cultivated land, of which 375ha arc on land mapped as ‘hills’ with steep slopes aiKj
A further 451 ha is within the designated riverine environmental corridor and a decmo  °’ need to be taken whether to convert this land to riverine vegetation or to provide SWc keep it as cultivated land.
Ilus decision whether to relax the provision of an environmental corridor is dependent availability of suitable upslope land that can provide sustainable rainfed fanning If such
$    fc
readily available then the cultivation in the corridor can be convened, if not then it may lx b/ to improve sustainability* by providing SWC measures to cultivated land in the comdot '*
1 lowevcr there arc also 693ha of deep vertisols on slopes of < 15% with grassland and a funj 144ha of similar soils with woodland In addition there arc l,467ha of shallower sods withO 8% slope and 369ha with 8-15% slope that, while not being suitable for irrigation, mav be suitable for rainfed agriculture with SWC measures. Land that is not suitable or required for rainfed cultivation may then l>c used for communal grazing and/or forestry .
The Option 2 development scenario indicates a requirement for 2,09?ha of cultivation wlurh can be met from currently cultivated land, derper ‘other’ soils and vertisols if required 'rhe allocation of land for cultivation with SWC measures is shown in
Table 6-16 where different land units are brought into production until the target area is met This allocation is based on the assumption that land already under cultivation probabk represents the ‘best’ land in terms of soil depth and that this land can be farmed sustainably with SWC measures. Any cultivated land on slopes of >30% has not been included but deep vertisols with natural land covers will be brought into cultivation before other shallower soils
Table 6-16: Allocation of Land for Cultivation with SWC
IVBE-N
Land Unit
Slope (%)
Area (ha)
Cumulative area (ba) _
Deep Red Soils Cultivated
0 8
14
14
Vertisols Cultivated
0-8
168
182
Vertisols Cultivated
15 30
13
195
Hills Cultivated
0-8
149
344
Hills Cultivated
8-15
106
45O_
Hills Cultivated
15-30
85
Shallower soils Cultivated
0 8
400
93 L
Shallower soils Cultivated
8 15
113
1,048.
Vertisols Grassland
0-8
693
l.HL
Vertisols Woodland
1J85_
0 8
144
Shallower soils Am land cover
0-8
212
2,09’
Option 2 also plans for the development of 207ha of infrastructure, 28Kha of bon* 207ha of communal forestry and 276ha of grazing land This leaves no unalkxat
12-W"
Ub F4 Sr02d Land 8c Watershed Man (2)KrfvhfcoJ                  Mmritty tfff-Jitfr Efrp
DfyriW Pfl™
^Chough there arc 4.32fllu Of ‘undmiW land of wh further 638ha have dopes of < 30% tndicanng lh,. f
slo P« of <|5% ,nrl,
calculated    that    a    total    of   777ha    ofpltnr^    MlukJ      J’**    "*    °P0WL      *'    been
fbriwood demand of die 5,976 popular™ of BURN j„L
of 207ha a shortfall
hills as stated above
of 570h*. Tins could be met hr commjl
2010 pwjea
rt5trT development wuhm die
1 b I'-l SrijiJ
1 jmi i Watershed Man (2)
6]
!2 Wiy-111 edtra!
ofEthtofttj, Mhurty 9} Vaier tr Etrrp
Elhtopatt I'n^jno* jnd Drnnjp Prvffil
Table
in SDA rVBE-N
I
Table 6-18: LamHSover/Ute by Slope Class and Soil Type in SDA IVBE-S
,
Slope Chsaei %
Hills
Eroded soils
Shallower Soils
Total
0-2
2-3
0-2
2-8
8-15
15-30
0-2
2-8
8-15
15-30
30-60
>60
0-2
2-8
8-15
0-2
2-8
8-15
15-30
30-60
>60
1  Rjvennc Forr<(
1
1
1
1
1
12
1
______
18
Grayland
142
184
11
2
1
22
23
30
20
•>
19
5
42
23
'3
5
544
J Ilimlets
1
1
2
2
1
21
3
5
1
* Cultivation
1
29
171
15
£
29
42
33
__<2
3
1
11
16
157
92
47
15
1
5d
697
i Woodland
Bl
371
25
4
r
20
13
3
1
1
20
I
24
226
104
43
10
4
1,020
Totals
2
1,090
296
57
870
2451
life 1*4 MO/a I
A. W*(r«»fe«.| K4*«1
f»7
12 M«r My,A
P ™'
f
o f the land but there is i need to protect the domeamtmgarm development from x-d
erosion, runoff and sedimenuuon and therefore a toil and water amwitm programme n proposed.
The SVC C measures will be concentrated on cultivated land alongside the development of communal forestry and communal grazing land to provide additional income m these areas not benefiting from irrigation development. An outline of the SWC measures proposed is gnm in Section 5.2 7 with costs in Scrtion 7 5.
In terms of land use planning the aim will be to conserve current culnvaied areii » long as tbev arc nor within the nvenne mvironmcniaJ corridor and are not currrnrlv on Lind considered ro pose a high erosion huardl
VTithin the total 2,M5ha (2/59ha of other land and 444ha of‘unclassified find) there is “34ha uf cultivated land including ‘hamlets’) of which 139a is on land mapped as ‘hills’ with srerp slopes and shallow soils. Hiere are also "fiOha nf cultivated land within the rn-rnne environmental corridor which will either have to be convened to natural vcgcraann or
protected by SWC measures if agreed to be unable
llieir are 1,084ha of deep soils (mainly vertisols) on slopes of <1 5% dial can be cultivated with SWC measures and a further 57ha of eroding vertisols that may be suitable for culnvaotMT and a further 868ha of shallower other soils of which 47% (41 lha) will be required to be suitable for sustainable tainted. cultivation if the option 2 run fed larger is to be met. 11' they are not suitable then the protection of cultivated land in the environmental comdorwill need to be pursued
Land that is not ?njjlable or required for tainted cultivation may (hoi be used fur comrnunal grazing and/nr forestry
L-ablc 6-19; Allocation of L-znd far Cultivation with SWC
f/Jpf Dfithflurmt /irra il "BE J
As with TVBE-N no written development u prefx^d in IVBE-S dur to :h  du.eacd nature
IVHE-S
Land Uofc
Slope (%)
Area
(h»)
Cumulative
area (ha)
J^cp Red Scxis Cultivated
0-8
2
2
_\grti5>uli Cultivated
as
200
202
-A.^isols Cultivated
B-15
15
217
-IQS* Cultivated
0-8
29
246
-jjjh Cultivated
8-15
42 |
288
Jjjjh^Culttv-iled
15 30
33
32J
Soih Cultivated
0-5
12
333
-•^uwex soil. Culled
OB
173
506
--Mowersod, Cultivated
8-15         |
92
660
I -anil & Wa tL-nJicd Man (2)
63
12 Mav-it!-«kral    DawvfK    Rfptbbi    of    EMt    wfry    of    Ua/rr    &    Efien^
Efhtofwv Nik Imj^ftoo and 
Pnpta
l*he   Option   2   development   scenario   indicates   a   requirement   for   660ha     of   (   •
which can be met from currently cultivated land, deeper ’other’ soils ancj v
The allocation of land for cultivation with SWC measures is shown in Table rcWed.
different land units arc brought into production until the target area is based on the assumption that land already under cultivation nrobahk
I uaujy represents th *v
W ^re
^^Uon h
in terms of soil depth and that this land can be farmed sustainably with SWC
cultivated land on slopes of >30% has not been included but deep vertisols mC4M,re* ■Ar"
covers will be brought into cultivation before other shallower soils ° * 
Option 2  also  plans for the development of 23ha  of infrastructure,  94ha  of homest d communal forestry  and 88ha  of grazing  land.  This leaves no  unallocated land although are 743ha of‘unclassified* land that may be suitable for communal forestry
bn<J
6,3. 5 
Z
It has been calculated that a  total of 222ha  of plantation would be needed to  meet 2010  with- protect fuclwood demand of the 1,709  population of IVBES indicating  that with a  proposed planting  of 66ha  a  shortfall of 156ha.  This could be met by  communal forestry  development within the hills.
Stag Development /Ina 71 C7V
SDA IVCN is planned for a mixture of large-scale commercial and smallholder irrigation. The large scale irrigated sugar estate comprises the bulk of the area in the north and west with the smallholder irrigation on the Werk Meda plain in the south and east of the area
There is a total of 2,393ha of land available for other land uses located in two patches in the commercial sugar estate and fringing the estate to the south west with smaller patches in the nvenne environmental corridor of the smallholder area. The available land includes SOha of riverine vegetation. 2ha of village and 12ha of plantation with a further 21 lha allocated foi public infrastructure.
Option 2 allocates ft44ha for households. 625ha for forestry and 625ha for grazing leaving no unallocated land. Table 6-20 shows the land cover/land use and soils and slopes for the available land.
Table 6-20: Land Cover and Soils/Slope in SDA IVCN
IVCN
Land Cover
ha
Soil/slope
ha
Grassland
857
Red soils 0 6%
56
^Woodland
572
Red soils 6-12%
1
Riverine
50
Vertisols 0-6%
389
Cultivation
834
Vertisols 6 12%
21
Village
2
N2 soils
1.B37
1 iimlct
67
H dis/Unclassified
88
Plantation
12
Total
2,393
Total
2,393
i2.wt1
Ub F4 Sr€2d lund 4k Watershed .Man (2)
64fty.M- if tohopu. Mwrr, of
1^'"' P'*‘*
p
T
will have to be mrT from outside.
J. £        A fap I Iwefafimtit/ zl ff J /VCE
As with IVBE-N &. S no irrigation development is proposed in IVCE doe to the dissected nature of the land but there is a need to protect the downstream irriganon development from soil erosion„ runoff and scdimenution and therefore a soil and water conservitjon programme w proposed.
The SWC measures will be concentrated on cultivated land alongside the development of communal forestry and communal grazing land tu provide additional income tn these areas noi benefiting from irrigation development. An outline of the SWC measures proposed is given in Section 5.2." with costa in Section 7,5.
In terms of land use phnoing the aim will be to ccmservc current cuinvated areas is long as they are not within die uveritic rnvironmental comdur and arc not currently on land considered to pose a high erosion hazard
Within the total 4.092ha of available land (4,B46ha minus 754ha unclassified) there u 2,084ha of cultivated land and 48ha of himkls’ There arc also 1.150ha of rainfed cultivated land withm
the riverine environmental corridor which will either have tu be converted to natural vegetation Or  protec ted by SWC measures if agreed to tw suitable-
There are 552ha of cultivated deep red sods on slopes of <15% that an be secured with SWC tncasures and a further 1 ?ha converted from other lafld. uses. 299ha cl vertisols are culmated Or ! slopes of <8% and 14ha on slopes of 845%. A fiirtbcr 8J7ha of vertisols are available for ton version trotn grassland, hamlets and woodland In addition there are 502ha of eroding soils that can be culovatcd with SWC and i further 1.763hl of shallower other soils of which 6Wo (l,054ha) wiU be requited to be suitable tor sustainable rainled culuvarioii if the option 2 rainfed target is to be met as shown in Table 6-21 If they are not suitable then the protection n f cultivated land in the environmental corridor Will need to be pursued. I-and that is nut
The pliable land withm the commend 5upr M[alc compfutJ urx^d
cultivation on shallow and eroding mils with > comply mpofinphv. Tb«e trlJ lte
juirounded by the propowd sugar estate and only » land u« ot fomm is lidy to be countenanced by the estate management, ITie land fringing ihe proposed estate to the south has a mixture of land covers of grassland, woodland, cultnition, hamlets uk! eueahptus plantation and would be suitable for comtnunttv woodland and homesteads
Within the smallholder development area the n ailable land is composed of hills, grassland and cultivation with shallower, eroding soils on compter topography suitable for commurur-, forestry, communal grazing and homestead development
It has been calc uh red that a total t>i 2fcfr04ha of plantation would be needed io meei die 2010 wit h project fuel wood demand of the 20,0W papula non of IVCN. Ihc proposed planting of 625ha indicates a shortfall of l 979ha indicating that thr fueJwood requirements of the SDA
* Watershed MuR
65
12-M*r 41f. tlitral DnfvroM                       cflMopio. Mn»tn of Wain & Eorrg,
Erhiofnm N>Jr Im/fano* nd Drunqr Pnfrt
suitable or required for rainfed cultivation may then be used for communal
forestry.
Table 6-21: AHocation^f Land for Cultivation with SWC
IVCE
Land Unit
Slope
Area (ha)
Cumulative
area (ha)
Deep Red Soils Cultivated
____________
0-8
512
512
Deep Red Sods Cultivated
8 15
20
532
Deep Red Sods Other
0-8
12
544
Vertisols Cultivated
0 8
299
843
Vertisols Cultivated
8-15
14
857
Vertisols Other
0 8
839
1.696
Eroding Sods Cultivated
0-8
91
2,107
The Option 2 development scenario indicates a requirement for 2,l(Fha of cultivation which can be met from currently cultivated land, deeper ’oilier’ soils and currently eroding soils Option 2 also plans for the development of75ha of public infrastructure, 300ha of home steads 21 lha of communal forestry and 282ha of grazing land. This leaves 846ha of unallocated land and ”63ha of ‘unclassified’ land that may be suitable for communal forestry.
It has been calculated that a total of 893ha of plantation would be needed to meet 2010 with- project fuclwood demand of the 6,872 population of IVCE indicating that with a proposed planting of 211 ha a shortfall of 682ha This could be met by on-farm woodlot development is pan of the SWC and by communal forestry development within the hills as stated above.
6. J. 7         J zjgr Dcvelofwntnt z1 rta H 'CT
SDA IVCS is planned for smallholder irrigation development The pattern of development shows irrigation on the broad, flatter interfluves flanked by land available for other hod uses bordering the rivenne environmental corridor
There is a total of 2,791 ha of land available for other land uses largely located to the west an cast of the central irrigation development. The available land includes 26ha of rivenne vegetation, 270ha of village and 34ha of plantation with a further 16lha allocated for pu infrastructure.
Option 2 allocates 643ha for households, 473ha for forestry’ and 473ha for grazing lc 748ha of unallocated land. Tabic 6-22 shows the land cover/land use and soils and slopes die available land
41
L’b E4 SrO2d I.and A Watershed Man (2)
66Miourr,
W Jf,a &'***& fy**
T,bk 6-22: Land Cover and SoiJg/SJope i0 SDAIVCS
I
IVCS
Land Cover
Lha
Soil/ifopc           L ha J
GrtStland
429
Woodland________             1,020
Rjvcnne
26
925
Red soils 0 6%
Vertisols 0-6%
Vertisols 6-12%
L
-
Culnvation
Village ______
Hamlet
Eroding red sods
270
Eroding Vertisols
32
N2 soils
Plantation
34
Settlement
Unclassified
54
Hills/Unclassified
174
159
27
--------
13 I
---------- -J
2,108 1
246 1
54 1
Tou)              2,791
Total ]      2,791
'Hie majority of the land w composed of relatively shallow soils on steeper slopes, often erosion prone and with a complex topography sometimes flooded in places although there are 360ha of deeper soils on low slopes and 24ha of eroding deeper sods. The land uses are maink a mixture of woodland and cultivation with some grassland. It ts proposed that additional household areas are developed on land uses of hamlets, grassland and cultivation; grazing from grassland and cultivation and community forestry from existing plantation, grassland, cultivation and woodland Mixed use land for forestry and grazing can be developed by planting fast-growing and indigenous tree species other than eucalyptus under which grasses and fodder shrubs can also be encouraged
It has been calculated that a total of 1,592ha of plantation would be needed to meet the 2010 with project fuel wood demand of the 12^50 population of JVCS The proposed planting of 473ha indicates a shortfall of 1,119ta indicating that the fuchvood requirements of the SDA
'’•ill have to be met from outside.
.fap DtDt/opftKftf KV
SDA VN is also planned for smallholder irrigation development Ihc pinem of development
u similar to that of IVCS with irrigation on the broad, flatter interfluves flanked by land available for other land uses bordering nverine cnvuonmcnul corridors.
There is a total of 2,657hi of land available for other land uses located m scattered patches to the west and cast of the central tmgition development with a large area of available land in the nonh west of the area surrounding the existing settkment of Almu. The available land include
of nvenne vegetsnon, 1 (Mhi of nlhge W* * ,unhcl '6hj lUoatft! for Pubhc
infrastructure.
Opuon 2 allocates W4ha for households, 22lhi for forestry and 22lha for grutng leasing 1 .681 ha of unallocated land Table 6 25 .how the land cover/land use sod sods .nd slope, fOr the avulible land
ii
fl ‘
I'bH
bK|2d Un*i 4 Waienh«J Man (2)
67
12-May nEtiitrai Df^rarh
of Ethiofoa. Mifuirn of ITj/rr cu Eftrrp
Ethtof^an Ni/f lmfritio* Dniqt Prwra
Table 6-23: Land Cover and Soils/Slope in SDA VN
The majorin’ of the land is composed of relatively shallow soils on steeper slopes, often erosion prone and with a complex topography although there arc 150ha of deeper red soils south of Almu on low’ slopes. The land use of this available land is primarily rainfed cultivation, particularly around Almu with cultivation and patches of w oodland and grassland scattered throughout the area.
It is proposed that additional household areas arc developed on land uses of hamlets, grassland and cultivation; grazing from grassland and cultivation and community forestry from existing plantation, cultivation and woodland. The 1.681 ha of unallocated land wnthin the SDA could be allocated to community forestry and/or grazing as required to make up for the scarcity of land in IVCS.
It has been calculated that a total of l,227ha of plantation w ould be needed to meet the 2010
r
wnth-projcct fuelw’ood demand of the 9,440 population of VN. The proposed planting of 221 ha indicates a shortfall of l,006ha indicating dial the fuelw’ood requirements of the SDA will either have to be met from outside or that most of the unallocated land will have to lie planted to community forestry’.
63.9 Stag* Deiv/ofitment Ana I IF'
SDA VW is planned as either a potential expansion area for commercial suga* development or for smallholders. The pattern of development is that of relat . ^^onrn£0tJ contiguous blocks immediately south of the Beles river interspersed bs a m
corridors.
there is a total of 688ha of land available for other land uses located between nvcI5^r and the main riverine environmental corridor. The available land includes vegetation and 4ha of village with a further 32ha allocated for public infrastructure Option 2 allocates 128ha for households. 94ha for forestry and 94ha for
slopes ,oC
334ha   of   unallocated   land.   Table   6-24   shows   the   land   cover/land   use   and   *<>   5
the available land.
Ub b’4 StO2d I -ind & Watershed Man (2)
68p****"j
b |c 6-24; l /uul
ouid Soila/Slope in SDA VW
ha
Soil/ikjpe
-4------ -----
ha
148     Red JQih 0-6" fl
127     Red soih 6 12%
10     Verdsuli 0-6%                 _ _
4
.1
398
Vcrnsuh 6-12%
4     N2 soils
1_        —
Sei dement
50
1
629
4
Total
MB
--
^’oodbnd
_    _
ftjvenpc    _    —-
CuirnTnon _ _
VJbfiS _
Tina!
The majority of rhe land is cotnpo^d of relamdy shallow tods on Keeper slopes. often erosion prone and with a complex topography. The land u« of this available fetid is pnmaniv tamfed Lluvation with patches of woodland and grassland scattered throughout the area.
It is proposed that additional household area) and communal grazing are developed on land uses of grassland and culm aeon and community forestry from culrivmon. woodland and grassland
It has been calculated that a total of 391 ha of plantation would be needed to meet the 2010 with project fuclwood demand of die 3.MS population of VW. The proposed planting of 94ha indicates a shortfall of 297ha indicating that the fuelwood requirements of the SDA will have to be met from outside
6330    JA#f Dcrrjb/Jwjr/ /Inw I z.f
No irrigation development is proposed in VS due to rhe dissected nature of the land but there is a need to protect the downstream irrigation development from soil erosion, runoff and sedimentation and therefore a soil and water conservation programme is proposed.
The SWC measures will be concentrated on cuhivarcd land alongside the development of communal forestry and communal grazing land ro provide additional income m these areas dot benefiting from mnganon development. An outline of rhe SWC measures proposed is grven Ln Section 5.2.7 with costs in Section 7.5.
In terms of land use planning the aim will be to conserve current cultivated areas as long as lhev ve not within the rivenne environmental corridor and arc not currently on land considered tn
P°Sc a high erosion hazard
W ithin the total 2,630ha of available fend there is l,640h» of cultivated land and 66ha of T’wnlcts’ There are also 638ha of cultivated land within the riverine environmental eoe„dOI. *hich will either have to be converted to natural vegetation or protected by SWC measures il agreed to be suitable.
Their are 536ha of deep red soils on slopes of <15% that can be cultivated eiwz
>.
measures
and a further 107ha of culnvitcd vertisols and 2l6ha of vertosils with nr I
««u warn
t 1
« vincr land uses. In
^ rt,2d [jnj Wutenhcd Man (2)
69Ftiiffui Dfntccrufii Rtf'* Mr                      Mttujfr) *f Wattr e> I'.ntrvy
pjhwfna* N4 Imgrtw* aid Dnnm#t Pnyuf
addition there are 55ha of eroding soils with slopes of <8% that may b
and a further 899ha of cultivated shallower other soils on slopes of <8%^!CU,t’* “on
,
further 828ha of shallow soils with other convertible land uses of which V5L required to be suitable for sustainable rain fed cultivation if the option 2 met as shown in Table 6-25. If they are noi suitable then the protection environmental corridor will need to be pursued. 
<IS ’°*nti«
° 1Jla) *tll be
,af8et “ •<> be
Va| cd lanj m
I-and   that   is   not   suitable   or   required   for   rainfed   cultivation   mav   then   be   used   f grazing and/or forestry. 
The Option 2 development scenario indicates a requirement for 1.889ha of cultivation which can be met from cunendy cultivated land, deeper other’ soils and currendy eroding soils Option 2 also plans for the development of 43ha of infrastructure, l?3ha of homesteads 123h of communal forestry and 165ha of grazing land There is also 50ha of village ancj ^2ha of riverine vegetation that should not be developed. This leaves no unallocated land
Table 6-25: Allocation of Land for Cultivation with SWC in VS
1 cornniu^il
VS
Land Unit
Slope
(%)
Area
()
lla
Cumulative
area (ha)
Deep Red Soils Cultivated
0 8
423
423
Deep Red Soils Cultivated
8-15
36
459
Deep Red Soils Other
0-8
65
524
Deep Red Soils Other
8-15
12
536
Vertisols Cultivated
0 8
107
643
Vertisols Other
0-8
216
859
F-roding .Soils Cultivated
0-8
55
914
Shallower soils Cultivated
0 8
823
1.737
Shallower sods Cultivated
8-15
76
1,813
Shallower soils Anv land cover
0-8
135
1.948
Il has been calculated that a total of 624ha of plantation would be needed to meet 2010 with project fuelwood demand of the 4,803 population of VS indicating that with a proposed planting of 123ha a shortfall of 501 ha Thia could partly be met by on farm woodlot development as part of the SWC but indicates that fuel wood will have to be imported into the
SDA.
Mat -u
I’b F4 SiO2d land & Watershed Man (2)
70f**
t#?*
t'" n™** “ ""V™'." „la, flr^r
*■ The rivcnnr cnvjronmental corndor (REQ was defined a. i0 earh nr
pr
„ ae . buffc. be.u«„ n^nnn „„ .nd ,„, „„^
ri
'»
5trMJn5 and rivers) within the project area Wh,lc some of th^e areas w cnJ-TV’ forests much of the land users natural vegetation, there are areas of human cultivation, -hamlets' and plantations Table 6-26 shows land use ^thin th, BIT r u .
tank »d Table 4-27 foe d» lef, tank
Rrverine forest comprises 2&-W » of nght bank REG and irkW. „f kft blnk human mtlncnced land uses comprise 9-19%  f
o   ngh, REC$
bank REC? 
Tabk 6>26: Land (Jac in REC (Area Al %) ■ Right Bank by SPA
** "* '“ * *“
q
 “
n
I_and Use in REC (ha)
1A
1BE
1BW
IBS
Hl
Total
Gnsdand
406
232
166
H9
287
U40
Woodland
204
56
93
34
2£O
586
Riverine Forest
398
221
256
141
516
1,530
Cultivation & J launlcts
410
49
124
84
102
970
Villages
0
Planations
6
6
Total
1,418
558
639
407
U11
4332
IA
IBE
LBW
LBS
in
Tool
liiassLind
29
42
26
37
22
29
Woodland
14
10
15
8
IS
14
Riverine Forest
28
40
40
35
39
35
Cultivation & Hamlets
29
9
19
21
23
22
Vdlagei
0
-Plantations
0
0
Total
100
100
100
100
100
WO J
L ’h!^«02dUnd           & WaternheiJ Man    (3)
71
12 Mi)- 1!V f' fitfui DtmomOic Rspubhc of Ethiopia. Ministry of ITitfrr  e* E ner&
Ethiopian Ndr Irrigation and Danna# Pryert
Tabic 6-27: Land Use in REC (Area 8c. °/o) - Left Bank by SPA
LU in REC (ha) Grassland
IVA
780
1VBW 1.328
1VBEN
899
IVBES
IVCN
IVCE
rves
VN
v\p
281
1,307
503
245
.vs
202
Woodland
117
919
317
892
1,592
6C
1,136
In
793
371
5.74
Riverine Forest
529
507
208
217
1.111
516
418
12(
PS
Culttvarion &
1 iamlrts
579
707
45”
700
l,3R4
l,15d
348
638
135
134
252
—u
Villages
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
—
^■1
Plantations
12
26
3
Total
2,004
3,460
1,880
2,090
5,407
3431
1,807
(
1 635
414
IVA
ivbw
1VBEN
IVBES
IVCN
IVCE
IVCS
,
VN
VW
7.5(1 vs
Grassland
39
38
48
13
24
15
14
12
|4
Woodland
6
27
17
43
29
34
44
23
21
13
14
Riverine Forest
26
15
11
ir
21
15
23
26
33
27
Cultivation &
Hamlets
29
2C
24
32
2(
35
IS
39
32
44
Villages
C
r
(
(
f
■
C
Plantations
(
(
Tota
10(
1(M
)             1(M
>             KM
J             10(
) 10(
)             1(M
)            KM
)         KM
MX
X
The rationale behind the delineation and establishment of the RECs is to act as an
environmental buffer between the irrigation area and the natural drainage lines. However as the above tables show, 22% of nghl and 25% of left bank (range 10 to 45%) of the RECs have
been influenced by human activity. Ilic question concerning the environmental management of
these areas then is whether to just allow natural regeneration of vegetation with the sole aim of
conservation or whether to allow managed reafforestation of the cultivated land with the aim of
production as well as conscrvanon.
It   is   proposed,   that   given   the   increasing   fuclwood   deficit   in   the   area   and   to   provide   uddioofial income    to    smallholders,    that    the    conversion    of    cultivated    land    (and    homesteads)    within    the REC   to   managed   forestry   be   promoted.   These   areas   should   be   planted   with   a   mix   ot   slou growing    indigenous    trees,    fast    growing    exotic    trees    (but    keeping    eucalyptus    to    a    minimum possibly   fodder   shrubs   ’Che   areas   should   then   be   individually   or   communally   managed   to provide   fuclwood,   poles   and   fodder   on   a   rotational   basis.   This   will   mean   an   additional (970ha    right    and    6,504ha    left    bank)    of    forestry    within    the    planned    development    The
this intervention arc shown tn Section 7.4.
t’b F4 SrO2d 1 jnd &. Watershed Man (2)
72.
-Wnwfn e/'ITrf/r<*• Hwip
Pn ^
jX"*'
7
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND FORESTY SU8PROJECTS
fntnrduetian
|  watershed management and forestry subproject, have been identified
SX
j^FM-1 linear Plantations fle Drainage Corridor Development
ji ] ATM-2- Gully Stabilisation and Rehabilitation.
[ u              LA KM-3: Communin' Forestry Development A Forestry in RECs.
4  V IAFM-4-’ Watershed Management of Non-lmgabk SDAs.
LAFM-5: Reservoir Catchment and Buffer Zane Development.
v!         IA EM -6: Terrace Bund Stabilisation.
The six subprojects WE presented below and detailed subproject profiles ire tnchidcd in Annex
B
During project implementation the design of these subprojects can be varied according to the specific nerds of the local communities within the project area after discussion with Larmcts and Other stakeholders. The main purpose of packaging inter, eno™ as subprojects is to provide structure and costs to this aspect of project design.
Tn all cases planting will be accompanied by training, awareness raising and the promotion or agreed community management plans. 'Die management and care nf these trees will also need to be discussed and agreed with the local communities- It 1$ proposed that the Water User Associations (WL'As) in irrigation arras and Community Watershed Development Teams (CWDTs) in nou-irngataon areas be responsible for the maintenance of any comm tinny forestry plantations as part of the O&-M activities far the project infrastructure.
L&FMd Linear Pfanritiotu A
Corridor Development
This intervention aims to plant trees within the imgauon area along specific infrastructure including roads, eanils and boundaries The intervention has been outlined in Section 5.2 above and is discussed in grrncr detail in Annex B The costs for Ous intervention are shown in Table
-1 below.
Table 7-1; LAFM-3 Linear Planting Costa
■_______________
Length
Sidra
Trees
Total No. -Seedling                        Sub-coat               Total Cost 1
-              Roads
-Kjfiht Bank
243.6
2
M1
95344
5
4?6.720j
, heft Bank
430.7
2
200
I66.2CM
5
—
831.020
___  Sub-ioul
674.3
261.SJ8
1*307 740
,________
Planting Cost
, 104.61Q
____ ___ ____________________ _  Total Ro,d Coat
t Ji7 irn
Along j-nak
_ Mam
100.26
1
25U.65O
-^Branch
2126
2
21.263
453.677
212 630
- LB Main
130.4
1
326,1 KHi
5*>0 Ofit)
1       Branch
104.0*
2
1CM.<T3
—------- --------------
JJM0,730
_ Eucalyptus
4.0013
02
—------ -J
r * Srf>2j tjnJ          •Sc Watcrfthrd Man (J)
"3
12 May-HVtdtral   Dtawric   R/pMc   of   Ethiopia.   Miniftr)   of   Water   &   Energt Ethiopian Nik lmfarion and Dmini^e Project
length
Sides
Trees
Total No.
Seedling
indigenous
500
10
fruit
500
25
(odder
500
5
Total
356.00
701.986
PJantin^ Cost
Area Penmeter
Right Bank
1,294
1
3,055.143
Left Bank
1.854
1
4.432.834
Total
3,148
7.487.977
Planting Cost
2,297,097
280,794
Total Canal Cost
\433.152
5.407,09(1
8,840,242
2,995,191
_________________________________________ ___________________ Total Perimcter Coil Source: Project data (lengths) and wereda information (seedling costs).
(a)              Roads
A single row of trees at 5m spacing along both sides of all roads has been assumed Existing roads that arc being upgraded are assumed to need 20% less planting due to existing suitable trees. Seedling cost is relatively low due to use of indigenous frees with seeds collected locillv The cost could be reduced by planting cheaper seedlings although mass planting of eucalyptus should be avoided. The planting of C'amctldtefensit for every (say) 10,h tree would lower costs
(b)              Canals
Planting along the Main canals will be along the upslopc (outer) bank only. A split of 50/50 Eucalyptus/Other trees (indigenous and fast growing exotics) has been assumed. Eucalyptus can be grown at lm spacing in 4 rows; other trees can be grown in 2 rows at 4m spicing undersown with fodder. 10% fruit trees have been assumed.
Planting   along   branch   canals   will   be   on   both   sides   with   a   4m   spaced   double   row   of   indigene and   fast   growing   trees   such   as   Gmtilka   rvbusts,   Scoria   de   curve   ns.   Calliandm   eaMysits   S.hmm
mode.
(c)             Drainage Line Perimeter
A split of 50/50 Eucalyptus/Other trees has been assumed with fruit trees cotnpflsU'R 1 tlic ’other' tor smallholder areas. Eucalyptus can be grown at lm spacing in 4 rows, can be grown in 2 rows at 4m spacing undersown with fodder shrubs. For commercial irrigation areas a 50/50 Eudayptus and Indigenous with fast growing trees has been i Costs by SDA arc shown in Table 7-2.
(
Uh 1*4 SrO2d I-and & Watershed Man (2)
74f**'
rfEfhftpia. Mnittn ffW'arrr c*
0"**
+
Table
SPA
1 A
; ln___—— — iyE
raw
IBS
in
Right Bank
IVA
JVBW-P1
IVBW-P2
1VBW-P3
IVCN
TVCS
VN
VW
Left Bank
Total
Length
(km)
349
247
Seedling
Com
‘Xi'J.BW
408.032
75                    123.343
220                    362.674 402                  1369.240
Planting Cost
332.025
222563
67378
197322
402369
1222,057
242,436
102,797
Toul Qmi
ETB
1,301587
6303K> .
190,621
$M4%
1.971310
1,294
4.655JOT
242
114
100
3.43L152
945,502
lflfi.460
164305
89,566
1,187.739
291357
253.772
179                    294 709
160,750
455,459
697              1.778.519
655,611
293
184
1.141307
715,787
178,702
292,617
193.535
46
45,821
1.854
5,407.090
1,773,134
344a              8,840342
2,995,191
2,434.129
I.4B.H24
899322
224J23
7,1803W
11,835,433
(d; Planting Cosu
Costs for planting these linear interventions have been assumed to come under the projcct planting rate of 50/Person day and Birr20/day the planting costs are as shown below.
Table 7-3: Planting Costs for Linear Interventions
Planting Gouts
Pcnoo Days
Planting Cost 1 at ETB20/day
Roads
5331
104.619
Canals
14,040
200,794
Prnmclcr
149.760
2.995.191
—„                    Total
169.031
3.380,604
Table 7-4; Total Costs for Linear Inrervendons
1 J_
Right Bank
Left Bank
Tool
Rnads                                         514,858
Gin al                                          775,072 DrsurwLgc
897,502
1.412,359
Penmcrer
4,655309
1.802,819
7 J 80324
2,577,891
11,835,433
_ _ Total_____________  5,945.138
9,880,545
15^25,683
1 rfLd j,
, \x" a| e.j-1jicj Maa
75
12 Mar tDwt&c KrpMc afL/^a. 
Ethafnan Nit Imgahon and Dftinap Pwffil
of Wat” e> Ewtf
7.3            L&FM-2: Gully Stabilisation and Rehabilitation
This intervention aims to stabilise any gullies in drainage lines upslopc of the irrigation stabilise areas where drainage water outflows into natural drainage lines and to secure eroding areas in natural drainage lines. The intervention has been outlined in Section
above and is discussed in greater detail in Annex B
Il has been assumed that 100 drainage lines entering the irrigation area will require rehab,! and that 20% of the 1.000 tertian’ drainage outflows will require stabilisation. Norm reshaping and revcgetation have been taken from MoARD Guidelines 2005 assuming/ ' area of 0.4 ha per drainage line and a cost of Birr 8,000 per gully.
For the outfall costs it has been assumed that half (100) will require vegetative measures and half stone pavements. Costs have also been obtained form the MoARD Guidelines for vegetative and stone faced waterways and converted from a linear cost to area cost. Assuming 150m  for each outfall the costs arc Birr 89.900 for vegetative measures and Bin 385.700 for structural measures
2
Table 7-5: L&FM-2 Gully Reshaping &. Stabilisation Costa
Intervention
Number of
Gullies
Area   per gully (ha)
Cost
(ETB)
Total
Cott
(ETB)
Gully Reshaping and Revcgetation
100
0.4
20,000
800.000
Outfall Stabilisation
Vegetative measures
100
0.15
899
89.900
Structural measures
100
0.15
3.857
385.700
Eroding areas in drainage lines
Vegetative measures
63.871
160
10^19360
Total Cost
11,494,960
74             L&FM-3: Community Forestry’ Development & Forestry in RFC
This intervention has two interrelated parts. ’ITie first is the development of community for plantations on non-imgatcd land and the second is the conversion of cultivated land wi RECs to community managed productive forestry.
I'or the community forestry it has been assumed that 50% of the area will be eucakp at 2m spacing (2,000 trees/ha) for rapid growth, harvesting and benefit accrual , planted with other fast growing trees at 4m spacing (625 trees/ha), a further grownng indigenous trees at 4m spacing and 10% will be planted with fruit ti
(400 trees/ha).
Costs for the development of community’ forestry in the REC have assume 60% indigenous trees, 20% eucalyptus and 10% other fast-growing spacing the same as the community forestry. In time the fast growing tire by indigenous trees.
j a $peoc?
Ub F4 Sf02d land Ac Watershed Man (2)
76Mrt/ffy *• IT’dfrr r* £ —
c 4^'!***"'
\7Jr MC*wfl W PrW***'
f..*^            -
T.blc 7-6 shows the number of seedhngs ,cquifed wd „ seedlings/ day) needed for each intervention by right and ] f
.
ct             f
P                  da^ («»
costs for the development of community forestry and T«ble 7.8  shcjJ’kJ
development of forestr) fo th  RECs by SDA
c
*        *** for thc
1
LU 7-6* IJfcFM-3 Number of Seedlings Al Planting Davs Requited
-------
1
Tree ryj*
- ---------------
Area(ha)
Trees/ha
r-~——— r-
Total Na seedlings req.
Planting         i
r’^rmmiindir^ Fr
tream
_  — - EucalyF»»____ Other
u.‘r4u flank
406
10.0M
1.015,714
163
625
101371
Indigenous
163
625
101,571
Fruit
HI
40(1
65.006
Total
813
1383,862
25,67?
l^eft Rank
--------
Eucalyptus
1.1M
lU.Ota
2.” 84.067
Other
445
625
276,407
Indigenous
445
625
278.407
Frwt
TTJ
400
178.180
Total
2.227
3319,060
703»|
Fores tn. in REC*
Right Bank
1 F'ucaiTjprus
194
10,000
484,766
Other
97
62 S
oo^w
Indigenous
582
623
365374
Fruj:
97
4TNl|
38,791
Total
970
d
947,717
18,954)
Left Bank
_ bLicaJyprus
1,301
10.000
3451.8441
-
”i
Other
65C
625
4O6,43ll
Indigenous
3.902
625
2.43H,8d
bruit
65(1
400
260,1+Si
___                 Total
6304
635735s[
127,147
Vh  H ScOJd
t-uid 5c Warmhcd Man (2*
77
12 Mar-11Republic ofEfN^a. MMfty cf Wafer & E^ff Efbnpiatt N/> Irritant* and Dnnna^e Profect
f Costs
a auic t -1. SDA
Area
ba
()
Seedling Cost
Planting Cost
Total Cott
ETB
1A
374
1.544,026
236,564
1 "80 590
.
1BE
0
-
•
1BW
0
•
______________
■
IBS
0
in
438
1,807.830
276.981
2 084 812
Right Bank
813
3351,856
513,545
,,
3.865,401
IVA
232
955.484
146,392
..
1 101 876
TVBW
0
-
-
1VBF.N
89
368,580
56,471
425.050
IVBES
76
311,766
47,766
359.532
1VCN
576
2,376.520
364.112
2,740.632
IVCE
114
471,886
72,299
544.185
TVCS
596
2,457,595
376.533
2,834.128
VN
299
1.234305
189,111
1,423.416
\AXr
74
306,538
46.965
353.503
VS
171
704.746
107,976
812/22
Left Bank
2,227
9,187,420
1.407,624
10,595,045
AU Belcs
3,040
12,539377
1,921,169
14,460,446
Table 7-8: I^cFM-3 Costs for Forestry
in RECs
SDA
Area (ha)
■
Seedling Cost
Planting Coat
Total Cost
ETB
IA
410
1.477,139
160,434
1.637,573
TBE
49
175.276
19.037
194313
IBW
124
448.157
48.675
496.832
IBS
84
301,160
32,709
333.869
111
302
1.088.581
118,232
1.206,813
Right
970
3,490313
379,087
3,869,399
TVA
579
2.083.813
226,325
2.310,139
IVBW
707
2.543,674
276.271
2,819.945
IVBEN
457
1.646.519
178,830
1,825^49
IVBES
700
2.518,502
273.537
2,792,039 ,
IVCN
1,384
4.983,018
541.211
5,524.230
IVCE
1,150
4,138,696
449.508
4.588,2O5j
rves
348
1.251.184
135.893
1.387.0-7
VN
638
2,298.158
249,605
X 547^W.
VW
134
481.584
52.305
533.88?.
VS
408
1.468.129
159.455
1^627,58^
Left
6,504
23,413,278
2,542.942
25,956/2^.
AU Boles
7,473
26,903,590
2,922,029
29,825,61’_
t’M3’"
lib 1*4 Sr02d 1 and A Watershed Man (2)
-81'
J
. M'i- IrrffJtr**  *^ Drjutqp Pnyxt
L&FM-A WaferthedMtntfcmcaf ofNon-frrifabteSjDAj
Thw   subproject   liras   to   protect   the   irrigation   development   area   from   soil   erosion   and   runoff from  non  irrigated  rainfed  ire«  in  the  four  (left  bank)  SDSs  where  irrigation  development  is not   proposed   Costs   for   SWC   inten   mrions   have   been   calculated   by   assessing   soil,   topography and  land  use  with  suitable  land  being  used  as  set  out  in  Section  6.J.  For  slopes  of  0  8%  a  slope of  5%  was  assumed,  for  8-15%,  12%  and  for  15-50%,  20%,  Work  norms  in  person  days  were obtained  from  the  Mo  ARD  Guidelines  for  VC  afenhed  Management  and  these  were  applied  at  a rate of 2 Birr/day, the current labour rate in Ikies
Scaling up costs from SWC tn full ura rushed management including 'entry point' interventions in access, health, education and water supply as well as protect management has been achieved by  pply  j? * percentage uplift following experience gained in a number of similar projects in Ethiopia.
Table 7-9; SWC Coal, for IVBE-N
T
a           in
Land Ute & Slope %
SWC Intervention
Cultivated
Odier
Cultivated
Total*
0-8
0-8
u-w  1     15-30
Area (ha)
731           1391             219                 98
2339
Cora ia ETB
Vctifcr grjMi strips
296,055
603.855            53 JI 7
953,127
Graded Stone faced bund
443,475
661,500
1.104.975
Hund Sralnliution
53J17
79,380
132,597
SpiUwzti to Wirerwi'Ts
3,947
8,051
1.183
529
13.711
Cut-cff Drains
1.457.988
^Agronomic A: Soil Mgt measures                                60.CHMJ
Training
2.961 |
122381
5.039 |
110,218 148,282 440.882
5,499 7,400 21.907
1
Nunc a' Establishment
J
425.000
Area closure and protection
401.02? 1   817,963         120,143 ,           53,763
1,392.895
Gully reshaping & revcjjeradDii
1                    n
1,350,000
Total SWC Cotta
7.293,082
L-
L
SWC Cara/tu (Total area)
SWC Cotta /La (Cultivated area)
1,6971
2,872
L’b h‘4
SbO^I L-and & ’S’aiL-rtiird Mm (2)
79Ffdem/Dt^^R^bi.             ofEthof^.             Mbattn             ofVarort^F.oe^
Frhofoao M
Dnan^f
Table 7-10:JWC Co»tB forJVBE-S______
SWC Intervention
Toui,
Total Area (ha) ;
Cultivated
0-8
416 168.480
Land Uae & Slope %
Other
Cu
0-8
962
1360
Vctifer grass strips
Graded Stone faced bund
Bund Stabilisation
Spillways to Waterway*
Cut-off Drains
Agronomic & Soil Mgt measures
Training 
Nursery Establishment
j\rca closure and protection Gully reshaping & revege ration
8-15
149
36,20"
301,725
60. U 5
805
79,816
3.983
81,741
15-30
33
2,246
34,145 1.685 
228.218
35
78
s 24,475
- ■ 3 'i >
.           8,424
11.925
SSSJBU,
675,006
3.848,1(4
1,662
2,467
Total SWC Costs
SWC Coau/ha (Total area) SWC Coats/ha (Cultivated area)
Land Dae & Slope %
Table 7-11:SWC SWC Inte Crveoat ntions for TVCE Total Area (ha)
Cultivated
Other
Eroded            Cultivated          Total
0-8                       0-8 1,579               1,059
0-8                      8-15 502                       110
Coats in ETB
Vctifer grass strips_____________
Graded^_Stone faced bund
Graded Fanyajuu
Bund Stabilisation
Spillways      to      Waterways
Cut-off Desuns
Agronomic A Soil Mgt measures
Training
N^£2££} Esi a blis hmc nt A rea^lusuxc and protection
639.495
8.527
129.604  6.480 86^239
5,719
86,923
4,346
580,967
Gully reshaping & c vegetation’
f
0
-
JOI .655
 677,700 I
121.986
2711 I _
180.810
9/m
275,397
1.355.400
16,038 _ U_jM
133.650  I3W
—
26/30             14
594 _ JP
-; i
35,402 ' _ £»
iro _2L£
60J46.
Tott|_SWC C«« . S WC Con*b>£roml«5*l
SWC Co.*./balCuJm*-^
|2>l« "
>0 Include, ETB 675,000 for 5km of gulh’ rehabdnat.on Uh F’4 SrO2d land & Watershed Man (2)Tjfl-
W“w1)™V
fable 7-12: Costs for VS
SWC Inicrvendco Tool Area
VedfcF"4*”^*
GnJw*S,ooe      &ccd      bun<1
Ggded hwy?]^----------------
BundStabiUsan<i£L_________
to Waterways
CV!
Jg
Trajun^
NurseryEstablishment
Vra closure and protection
Gull'. reshaping & rrvrgcuoon11
I------------
Cultivated
Other
L^d Uy & Slope %
Eroded I Cultivated
0-8
0-8
L
1353
492
788.495
72.495
7JO6
2.657
t
2,019 
- r
269.91)
H10,334    U-” |
255.000 1
110,783
823500 I
3538477 ;
SWC Cota/hajTotai area) SWC Com/ha (Cultivated area) 1
In order to scale up the SWC costs to the cost of watershed management the dan m
Table 5-3 have been used This shows that on average the SWC costs comprise 42.5% ol the totil cost and that therefore the watershed management costs of the non irrigated SDAs would
be as set out below
Table 7-13: Tool SWC and Watershed j           meat
J'79*
SDA
SWC Cott
(ETB)
Watenhed
Managemeni Coat
(ETB)
IVBE-N
733.882
17,149.715
FVBE-S
■ 1 ■ ' “ 1 3.848,108
9.048,843
ivce
6,863,246
16.138.953 1
vs
3.6M.37T
8.555,660
_             Total
21,642,813
so,mtn J
ETB 675,000 for 5lun of gullv fthaWittnon Vh| '< SfOZd l^nd & Watenhed M-i •£
12 May-11D'^rur,.- R^Mr
Ethtaptiin Ktlta,l(^ Dann^t Prtyrcf
* E"T
7.6                  L&FM-5: Reservoir Catchment and Buffer Zone Development
Outline costs for the Watershed Management of the reservoir catchment have bcm
at 99.7 million Birr with a watershed management cost of 234.4 million Birr The penmeter has been calculated to be 50km long and a buffer width of 100m is propose^ * Assuming a planting density of 100 trees/ha (lOmxIOm) results in a total of 50 ijoo Planting costs will be higher than in thc command area due to difficult terrain and spacing.
Table 7-14: LAFM-5 Reservoir Buffer Zone Coats
0
Cover
Type
Buffer
length
(m)
Zone
width
<L
m
area
(ha)
Number
trees/ha
_
Number
of trees
req.
Seedling
cost
ETB
Total Cost
ETB
Indigenous
Trees
50.000
100
500
100
50.000
5
250.000
Seedlings Coat
250 (XX)
Planting Coats (20 seed lings/day = 2,500 days at ETB27/dav)
,
67.500
Tola! Cost
317,500 |
7.7               L&FM-6: Terrace Bund Stabilisation
Costs for terrace stabilisation arc given in Table 7-15. These have assumed that grass seed will be planted by broadcasting at a cost of Birr 3,000/ha for the seed, a planting rate of 1.5ha/day at a labour cost of Birr 27/day. It has been assumed that grass alone will be suitable for thc commercial areas but that additional fodder shrubs will be required for the smallholder areas
Terrace length has assumed widths of 1 m for red soils and 2m for vemsols with plants planted at 0. 5m intervals either in a straight line or a staggered double line. Cost of fodder seedlings has been assumed at Birr 5 and planting has assumed 50 plants a day.
Table 7-15: L&FM-6 Bund Stabilisation Costs
Bund
Area
(ha)
Grass
Seed
Cost
Terrace
Length
(m)
Fodder
Plants
Required
Fodder
Plants
Cost
Planting
Cost Grass
Planting
Cost
Fodder
Tao
a*
Smallholder
Red Soils
130.4                 391,050                     130.350                       260/00             1.303.500
2.346^             140/78
Vertisols
293 1
879,300
146.550
5,276
Sub-total
423 5
1,270350
276.900
293,100
553,800
1.465.5(H)
2.769.000
7,622_
J542™.
299.05jL
Commercial
____
Red
72.9
219.700
72.900
Vertisols
5214
1.564.200
260,700
1.312
9.385,
_________—
----- -- ------ --
uft
T\1l ' lP.
1.^
Sub-total
Total
5943
1,018
1,782,900
3,053.250
333.600
610,500
553,800
2,769,000
10,697
1832°,
Ub 1*4 SrO2d land & Watershed Man (2)
82MHOff iftSr PEiny
Toto I Costs
n, ,MJ fe.d< p-vri w„) „,mW 
fmm
.umm^mTabk 7-1*. 0“’■<»•’■ »iJ«» fail ,O!-Wa! ETOM)mifa] (US* 21 •’»*»•)»'««' "««’«« pioponx. „ „ „,„
f            w ml^mnl<ll.ix
reservoir catchment area.
Interveaoons within the project command area as pan of the irrigation development {and including watershed management within the four non irrigated SDAi) totals ETB 129 mill™ (US$  .7 million!.
Table 7-16: Summary of Subproject Com
7
Intervention
' Coat (ETB)
1
IAFM 1: Lincir Plantations <5c Drainage Gxndor Development
i—L 15325,6&.
1          4.4
1
LAJ-M 2: Gully Stabilisation and Rehabilitation
11,4%9M
3.2
1
IAFM 3: Communm Forestry Development & Fomin m REG
J
Commurun Forestry Development
14.460.446
ForestfV Development in RECi
29.825,619
p^L
R
Total LAFM-J
44,286,065
122
LAFM 4: Watcnhed Management of Non ImgiblcSD.U
50.908352
14.0
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
Watershed .Management of Reservoir Qtchmeni .
1 AFNf 5: Reservoir Catchment and Buffer Zone Development
234477.613 ,
(643) 1
Buffer Zone Development /
317.500 I
(0.1) 1
Tout LAFM-5
234,695,113
64.6i
LAFM’6: Terrace Bund Stabilisation
6,09322
’•L
Total Coat
363438365
100.0
1’4 SrtjJJ ] jqJ & \x aicnhcd Man (2)
83
12-May 11REFERENCES
WTW (2000). 
fc,
N« 
wxented 5toW”“' F—B"- to-oper.Ov. 
Final Country Report, Ethiopia. September 2W,
Watershed Management.  Transboun
Kahsay Berhc. Yigzaw Dessegp. 
Azage Tegegne (20CT) Sm <>
a l Yisehak Baredo. Worku Teka, Dirk Hoekstra
sccdling supply system for sustainable font production m Improving Productivity and Market Success (1PMS) of
E *iopi« 1— to- 'he
, ™  MN. Add.. Ababi. Ethiopia
p
Ethiopia Farmers Project, ■
Lakew Desta &
Guideline. Ministry o
•
v « d (2005) Communin’ Based Participatory Watershed Development A
& Rural Development (MoARD). Addis Ababa. January 2005
. r-                        K 1 (198”) Approaches to erosion control on vertisols in Queensland Scn " A"“ ” RcR’""‘1 *“
December 1986.1BSRAM Proceedings No. 6.
t Maoaoement of Vertisols. CSIRO. Queensland. Australia.
Probert M E et al (1987) The Properties and Management ot V erm
r                        and Planning Project. A National Strategic Plan for the
Tecsuli ,0/(2005) ««->l
Biomos b-ffS— E““OV‘
Tcc«tdl,/o/(2004) Ed»op» 
“ '"'"'XZL aXZ J.„X 2005
Add“ Ab>b*'l*
• 
ii Pr.orct Woodv Biomass Inventory and Planning Project
111 ro,«<
Repo.c Find Report Add.s Ab— 31"J—2W»
Ub F4 SrO2d Land de Watershed Man (2)
84Pf^ra
*?>
ANNEXES
ANNEX A PHOTOGRAPHS ANNEX B: SUBPROJECT PROFILES
F * SiOJd
1_
J
"' * W'Alrrrhcd M^n (Z>
i
12-Mar.l 1Ftdtrul Dtn"*ruti<                  < Efbtcpia. Ministry of Waltr c* Ewijy Ethiopian Nik Jrrjfiifio* and Dnani# Proper
Ub F4 SiO2d Land & Watershed Man (2)
2ANNEX A: PHOTOGRAPHS
Drainage line in JVBVF
I jna fit atciftbcd Mart (2j
I
12-Mpy 11r-ftirru/  Drwntric  R/ptdrtc  oj  'Ef/topia.  Minhtn  o  f  Water  &  Linfrgy Efhapiun Kiit Irrigation and Drutnape Pnjttf
R*
View in Reservoir Catchment
Soil Eroni^m in Reservoir Catchment
Cultivation in Reservoir Catchment
Woodland in Reservoir Catchment
I’b 1-4 SrOld 1-und A: Watershed M.
JZM'F 11
an (2)&ET
£ >* Ifn^*“ Mli P™’*’ Pn^cl
ANNEX B SUBPROJECT PROFILES
I'k* IJ
‘ rt,2d Ijnd &; Wjimhrd jMuji
1ofE^op"-. Mi'i*, of W'"r e- EtimfiM Nik lmgonoo aod Dranagt Pnyf<1
.11
Ub b‘4 SrO2d land Ac Watershed Man (2)
2•fVatrr f^E-ry
P ^nr
----------------- — FMLi“"' ""“fr- * IW^ Comdo, rV..H________________
fnr  *•
„ 37 Krbde. ,„ 6
f
B ™,tul Gom   Hq?TOi s„,o
„
?
Subproject Background
popuUuon    „    „om,td      .,    tOl.TOO    (W.    „1)    co^rf    lbou,    23.170    tamtol*    rfwkid, about 31% have land user nghts.
The soft of .he «e> are pnmanly vrrtack (50%) wth red ruruoh and Iniwh extendmg over 14%. cambisolf over 5% of the irei and very shallow and/or very ttoey Leptoaoh.over 31%. The topography js flat to undulating with more dlssccocn in the ent. In terrn< of land nuutnluy 58,337 ha (78% veffimls) have slopes of <3% and are suitable for irngaoon and 15JO7 ha (<561» vertiiota) hive 3 8% (12* •) slopes making them condidomUy awnble for irrigation reqainng soil and wafer conservation. It is proposed to terrace land with >3* • slopes for irrigation
The Land cover land use is largely split between grassland with nrnng degrees nf tree cover which coven 51,500 ha (3 %) of the area and smallholder run fed farming which coven almost 43,000 ha or 31 * • of the area Woodland coven a further 28,800 ha (21%) and rrvennr forest an important 5%.
’Ihe Project area covers a total of 138,15” ha split into the right and left becks, bisected tn the Main fEnat) Bcles river. It has been divided into five major Stage Development ukreas (1 V* although SDA II is Hyma outside the Upper Beles im) and sub-dnided into five SDAs on the right bank (LA, IBW, IBE, IBS A TTI) and ten SDAi on the left hank; IVA. IVBW (further subdivided into 3 phases). 1VBEN. IVBE S, IVCN. IVCE IVCS, VN. VS & VW
Water tor the irrigation scheme uiU be obtained from a dam and reservoir on rhe Reles River with water diverted into 100 km nght bank and 130 km left bank canals. The gross lrngsble area it 70,451ha (net 63.8?lha) split between 36.225 ha nf commercial sugar development (plot 4,773 ha potential expansion) and 22,744ha smallholder imgatiiM In addinon four SDAt nn the left bank (1VBR-N, IVBE S. IVCE. & VS) that are noc suitable for negation will be developed under a watershed management programme with Soil and Water Conservation on rain fed land.
The main goal of the project is to 
rnwam. gwtb aid rrdan
through the
development of untamable, smaUholder based ungared agru-Jturr » well as promoting the involvement of the pnvale sector in hrgc scale commercial irngauon development.
To maximise the financial and economic return to rhe proposed investment land suited to irrigated agnculture will be set aside for that purpose, subject to first meeting requirements fnr settlement5 Ar homesteads and CO preserve the environment nvecnc cumdon This will lead tn shortage of
’other’ land for forestrv and grazing m s«ne of the SDAs where imgadoo m ten sties are high. Information from land usen and wrrrda officials indicates char tuelwood supply exceeds demand in lhe protect area but a fulewood balance calculation has indicated that natural woodland is being degraded to supply fuel wood. Budding poles demand also exceeds supply. In addition fodder is in short supply in the dry season. About 6.325hl of plantation would be required to meet (fuel wood) demand in the project area
Uh  1 ’4 Srtzd
IjjhI A- Watershed Man (2)
1Federal Dfr**vurii Republic of Ethiopia. Mini trey of Water c> E'«ri£>
F.lhtopian Site Imtafion and F> no note Project
Tide
LAcFM-L Linear Plantations Ac Drainage Corridor TV                                     ------
v
The aim of the planting will be to define the irrigated area boundanes. to providT"-----------------------------------------------
Subproject
Objectivc(s)
protection of the Main canals, to delineate a buffer along natural drainage lines i
area  and and as a  source of income through fuelwood,  budding  poles fodrie a
•
communities.
r and fruit fa L.
Subproject Activities
Subproject activities include: ~ •—
•         Formation of Water User Groups (WUGs);
•         Decision on tree planting requirements lictwecn WUGs and Wrrcda \Rn rp Roads: Eucalyptus spp. (fast growing) or Schtnuj nolle, Hiatt tpp, and Podocarp* f * (often grown for shade). Acacia nttoftca, A. tty at & A. Sent&L Fruit lrces Juch (Mangtftru indica), Guava (Pndtttn ytajava), and Avocado {Penta Anttncana} Qf ornamental trees such as Jacaranda (Jacaranda nttntostloitd) or flame trees (Mo**
•         Main Canals; fast growing multipurpose trees; Gmttlka robwta. Acacia dtcnrrt* Calk caloihynnt and Schirms nolle underplanted with shrubby fodder species such is Jwhm Gtucatma as well as grasses. Also lincatyplHS spp but no underplanting with fodder i For the branch canals suitable shade trees include dritaws malic, Ftatt tpp, .Milkteafm Alinka fftmmjrra and Ery/Anwir abytsinrea,
•         Drainage lanes: As for the Main canals but only Eudyptus and indigenous trees m
commercial area;
•         Seedling requirements sent to nurseries;
•         Seedlings produced by nurseries;
•        WUGs organise lalx^ur for planting - plant seedlings as produced by nurseries;
•         Grasses undersown from seed;
•         1 avcstock excluded from planted areas;
•         WUGs organise management of trees/shrubs (watering, weeding etc) - nuv be
communal or individual;
•         WUGs organise harvesting including cut and earn' of fodder, marketing of prcxl ji
(fruit, fuel wood, poles, fodder).
Subproject
Implementation
The    subproject    will    be    implemented    over    5    years    in    the    project    area. The main implementation modalities include:
•         Formation and organising WUGs;
•         Training & technical support;
•         Decision on what to plant where;
•         Management of planting activity and subsequent tending; and
•         Management of benefits (communal/individual).
The expected benefits include: fodder
•         Livelihood enhancement through increased production of fuclwo**!
Main Benefits and
Beneficiaries
•  Environmental improvements through reduced need for deficit*
surrounding woodland; and
•  Beneficiaries arc communities in and around the command area.
non*<^*
I’b F4 SrO2d lan J Af Watershed Man (2)tfE/hitpu. Mmifr, rjffr & {
rj^M I** '
iiJDna,^ p^
JAFM-1 LinqrPhguggn. &
Coat ETB
Right Bank
Left Bank
Total
Roads
514.858                  897,542
1.412.359
Canal
775,0*2
!JO2£19
2577,891
Subpwicct <;oits
Drainage
Penmetcr
Tool
4,655.209 7.180,224
5,945,138 9380345
11,835.433
15,825.683
Implementing
Agencies
The subproject will be implemented by’ the fallowing agencies
•        Wercda ARD offices;
•        DAs; and
•        Private and Government Nunenes.
Subproject
performance
MotuTonng
The performance of subprotect will be monitored using the following indicators;
•        Number of trees/shrubs planted;
•        Survival rales, growth rates, production; and
•       Satisfaction of WUGs with management of wood resources.
Risks and
Uncertainties
These include
•        Effective formation and management oftfl’Gs;
•       Capacity of local nurseries tn produce required seeds and seedlings; and
•        Effective management and marketing of produce.-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I' I < SiOSd J and de Wirershrd Man (2.‘t
3
12-May-ll*fraltr & b*®
‘ <ft j/ftlml Mrf I tjrKffJ' ■
-------------------------------- IAFM-2.- GuDy Subifaatioti and Rehabilitation
The Study area for the Lpn^ fl ]
cB
, , Mhao and B«^
~      7 
‘ ;------------ ----------
or 37 Kebelea m 6 
WlTl]a
ft
lhu | G
^
uz
popular ,5 estimated a< 101,700 (79% meal) combed of lbout 3 ro 
alx>ur 31% have land m rights.
The s<nh of the area arc pnnunlv vemoh (50%) wxth red nirimh and lixisok mending over I4U cambisms over 5% of the area and wy italW and/or very irony Lcpt^li.ovcr 31% The
topography is flat to undulating with mutt diuecnon in the east. In terms nf land sutrabtliry 58 J3" ha (78% vertisols) have dope* of <3*« and ire luirahk for irrigation and 15,307 h> (66% vertuda)
of
Subproject
Sackground
have 3 Ft ■?■ (12 <?) slopes making them conditjcnahv suitable for Lmgirion requiring soil and water conservation. It is proposed ro terrace End with >3% slopes foe irngarmn
The land cover/hud use is Largely split between grassland with varying degree» of irte cover wh>ch covers 51 „500 ha (37%) of the am and smallholder rain fed farming which coven almost 43,0U0 ha or 31 % of rhe area- Woodland covers a further 28,800 ha (21%) and nvenne fumt an important 5%.
The Project area envm a coral of 138,157 ha split into the fight and left binJcs, bisected by the Main (Enar) Belts river. It has been divided. into five major Stage Drveluprticnr Areas (1 V although SDA II is Hyma outside the Upper Belts area) and sub divided inr<» five SDAi on rhe right bank (LA, IBW. ISE. IBS A III) and ren SDAi on the kft bank IVA, 1VBW (further subdivided into 3 phases), 1VBE-N. 1VBE-S. JVCN, IVCE, IVCS, \"N, VS & VW
Water for the irrywian scheme will be obtained from * dam and tr scrvmr on ihe Belel River with water diverted into 1IX) km right tank and 130 km left tank canals. The gross imgable am is
1  7U,451h» (net 63,871h*) spilt between 36,225 ba of commertul mgar development (phy 4,773 hi potrntiaj expansion) .nd 22.644 ha imaUholJer irrigation, [n addinon four SDAs on foe kft funk (1VBE-N, IVBF.-S. IVCE, k VS) that are nor suitable for irrigation will be developea under a watershed management programme with ShJ md Water Conwmh..n on runted land.
The main goal nf foe pro,ertia to "ranmrr mrawnr «"■** 
r,J '*T
thr
develop™,!   of   sustainable,   srnxlhoHer-   baled   legated   agmvlnur   a.   well   u   promoting   the involvement of rhe private seetnr io Luge y Je cnmmcgal jrijgjiqndevelrynunt.--------------------------- _-----------
The development of irrigation ar Upper
^ong of rod. above 3% dope
’T’ruiect Ranonale
and   the   „fe   Jnpuud   nFexeess   waler   mto   natuoi   damage   line..These   damage   line.   need   to   be secure from gullying and ensure that am mntmg P>“>« *> D°' '"W on ^gaoon land
In  addition  there  »  a  need  for  foe  alabilimtfon  of  damage  outfall,  into  natural  damage  lines.  Thr safe fovpool of arm water into damage Irne. needs to ensure that the greater and more
cnn.iatent cuttow of water doe. not cause erosion of foe
lines The need. u-d| depend on
rhe  chanctenstics  of  the  damage  Jmr  at  the  outfall  bul  it  u  likely  foal  both  vegetative  and ttructunil nrtcAiurcs may be mpured.
L'b P4
Sr02J I And & Waitnhcd .Min (2)
5
12 May 11V({if
rui
<>J Elh^
of W afer &
Effaopta* Nir lmfatiw and Drarn^e Prryed
Title
L&FM-2: Gully Stabilisation and Rchahi|jUli
Gully rehabilitation and rcvcgetation where necessary will helpcnsu 7 
into drainage lines. 
-------------------
^“poul of
Subproject
Objeedvefs
To protect irrigation investment from expansion of gullv erosion duTnTu                                                        — and erosion of natural drainage lines.
Subproject Activities
Subproject activities include: ~ —
•         Identification of areas of current gullying;
•         Survey of ground conditions ar every drainage outfall
•         Needs Assessment (Number of gullies requinng treatment, number of
arras);
•         Assessment of lal*our requirements;
•         Seed requirements sent to nurseries;
•         Seedlings produced by nurseries, hire labour, and
•         WUGs organise labour for structural and vegetative measures - the wwfa
place before irrigation commences.
Subproject
Implementation
The subproject will be implemented over 5 years in the project area.
The main implemcntanon modalities include:
•         Formation and organising \XlJGs;
•         Survey and Needs Assessment;
•        Training technical support; and
•         .Management of construction/planting activity and subsequent tending
Main Benefits and
Beneficiaries
The expected benefits stem from securing irrigation investments from cmuon Beneficiaries arc communities in and around the command area.
The estimated subproject cost is ETB 11,494,960
Subproject Costs
Implementing
Agencies
The subproject will be implemented by the following agencies:
•        Wercda ARD officcsl
•         DAs; and
•         Private and Government Nurseries
__
 --- -------------- ---------------
Subproject
Performance
Monitoring
The performance of subproject wall be monitored using the following indicia
•         Number of gullies rehabilitated;
•         Number of drainage outfalls secured; and
•         Performance of implemented works. 
-------- -—-—
Risks and
Uncertainties
These include;
•         Availability of labour to undertake work;
•        Poor design and implementation of vegetative A structural tneas
•         Effective momtonng and feedback of pertormance._____________________ „___ —    —
Vb F4 SrO2d land & Watershed Man (2)
6f&fyxa, Afaufr,
fjnp* .N/i Jm/pf/rf and Dnun^ P^-
Ti«*e
L&FM-3. Community Fores try Development 8c Forestry in RECi
1
Subproject
Background
fhe Study area for the Upper Beks lmganon Protect extends over 138,000 ha and covers (parts)
□f 37 Kebeks in 6 wcredas in Amhara and Beneshul Gumuz Regional States. The current population is estimated at 101,700 (79% rural) composed of about 23,170 households of which about 31% have land user rights.
The soils of the area arr pnmanly vertisols (50%) with red rutisols and luosots extending over 14%. cambisols over 5% of the area and very shallow and/or very stony Lcptosols over 31%. The topography is flat to undulating with more dissection in the east. In terms of land suitability 58,337 ha (78% vertisols) have slopes of <3% and axe suitable for irrigation and 15,30” ha (66% vertisols) have 3-8% (12%) slopes making them conditionally suitable for irrigation requiring soil and water conservation. It is proposed to terrace land with >3% slopes for irrigation.
The land covrr/hnd use is largely split between grassland with varying degrees of tree cover which covers 51,500 ha (3*%) of the area and smallholder raxnicd farming which covers almost 43,000 ha or 31% of the area Woodland covers a further 28,800 ha (21%) and riverine forest an
important 5%.
The Project area covers a total of 138.157 ha split into the nght and left banks, bisected bv the
.Main (Enal) Beks over It has been divided mtn five major Stage Development Areas (I-V although SDA 11 is Hyma outside the Upper Beks area) and sub divided into five SDAs on the nght bank (IA, IBW, 1BE, IBS A III) and ten SDAs on the left bank. TVA, IVBW (further subdivided into 3 phases), TVBE N. IV BE S. IVCN, BCE, IVCS. VN. VS & X'W
Water for the imganon scheme will be obtained from a dam and reservoir on the Bries River with water diverted into 100 km nght hank and IV) km left bank canals. Ihe gross irngabk area is 70,451ha (net 63.8 lha) split between 36.225 ha of commercial sugar development (plus 4,773 ha potential expansion) and 22.944 ha smallholder irrigation In addmon four SDAs on rhe left bank (1VBE-N, IVBE S. B’CE, 8c VS) that are not suitable for irrigation will be developed under a watershed management pn>gramme with Soil and Water Conservation <m nun fed land.
The main god of the project is to "rater
ndan ptivny” through ihc
development   of   sustainihle.   smallholder-based   imgarcd   agriculture   as   well   as   promoting   the involvement of the private sector in large scale commercial irrigation development
^project Rationale
Of the 57,702 ha not suitable for irrigation development in Upper Beks. 27,290 ha have been
designated as Rivenne Environmental Comdocs leaving 40,412 ha of land for development of
homesteads, forestry and grazing The Resource Allocation Model has allocated land in SDAs f
each of these uses dependent on post-resettlement population.
Information from land users and wereda officials indicates that fijetenod supply exceeds d
but a fulcwond balance calculation has indicated that natural woodland is being degraded CfTUnd
fuel wood. Building poles demand exceeds supply About 6.325 ha of plantation wotfd J0
to meet wood demand m rhe project area. There are 7,473 ha of currently Cultivated ^H^ired
| in the RFCs that could be used for communal forestry. 
v^fed) land
Ub 1*4 Sr€2d I .and «t Wairnhcd Man {2)
12-May 11Federal DentOiivric Repnbhe of Ethiopia, Mi nit try of Vater C  Energy
u
Ethiopian Nile Irrigation and Drainage Peyerf
Title
L&FM-3: Community Forcslty Development & ForeMr/in Fr
R
Subproject
Ob|cctivc(s)
Livelihood        improvement        through        provision        of        fuelwood.        timber,        fodder        andTZiTrT' project area and to proside protection for degraded land in the project area
Subproject activities include:
•         Formation of Water User Groups (WUGs) and Forestry Ac Communal Graz
Committees;
•         Decision on communal grazing lands and forestry lands - alio any new e
settlement areas;
[Suitable tree spedcs should be a mix of fast growing (generally exone) mulnpt trees such as (irrvilka robusta, Acacia (ieatrrens, Calhandra allothynns and Sehina as Eucalyptus and slower growing (generally indigenous) trees such as Acaaaai
trya/, A. senega/. Bosut/ba papyfera. C roton macrostaebyw, View tpp and Cordta ^ricana addition fruit trees such as Mango [Mangtfera tndtea), Guava (Psidnint
Uy
Subproject Activities
(Casimtroa     edubs).     Annona     senega/ensis,     Papaya     (Caneapapaya)     and     Avocado     (/taw. could    be    planted    ]    A    mix    of    50%    eucalyptus,    20%    fast    growing.    20%    mdigmcxn fruit    trees    assumed    for    GF    and    60%    indigenous    Trees.    20%    eucalyptus    and    10% fast-growing exotics and fruit trees in RECs
•         Agree species mix and seedling requirements sent to nurseries;
•         Assess requirement for cut off drains;
•         Area closure prior to planting — cattle excluded,
•         Secdbngs produced by nurseries;
•         WUGs organise labour for planting - plant seedlings as produced In nursraes,
•         Implement cut-off drains if necessary;
•        WUGs organise management of trees/shrubs (watering, weeding etc) - may be
communal or individual; and
•        VCUGs organise harvesting including cut and carry of fodder, marketing of produ
(fruit, fuelwood, poles, fodder).
Subproject
Implementation
The subproject will be implemented over 5 years in the project area. NB Decision on any® expanded resettlement areas to be taken in advance of communal grazing & forestry ddin The main implementation modalities include:
•         Formation and organising WUGs;
•         Training & technical support;
•         Decision on what to plant where;
•         Management of planting activity and subsequent tending; and
•         Management of benefits (communal/individual)
The expected benefits include: fodder nrnb^1
•         Livelihood enhancement through increased production ot fvch»i
Main Benefits and
Beneficiaries
fruns; and
•         Environmental improvements through reduced need tor defo
surrounding (natural) woodland
Hcneficianes are communities in and -around the command area
* *
12-M* "
Ub 1*4 SrO2d 1 -and ft Waremhcd Man (2)
8>/af Im&fw Dm# Pf9ftlt
L&FM-3 Community Foreatry Development & Foret uy m RECt
Costa ETB
Right Bank
Left Bank
Community Forestry
3,865,401
10595.045
Tool ]
14.464),446
Subpcofccf ^°*tt
i Forestry in REC
1.869399
lv'i56J2O
29.825.619
Total ______
7.7M.8OJ
V5.551.2M
44,286.065
[xnpkiDcnung
Agencies
Subproject
Performance
Monitoring
I
Risks and
I Uncertainties
The subproject will be implemented by the following agencies:
•       Wereda ARD offices;
•       DAi; 8c
•       Private andGovernment Nurseries.
The performance of subproject will be monitored using the following indicators:
•       Formation of WL’Gs and Forestry Management sub committees;
•       Number of trees planted;
•       Survival rates, growth rates. production; and
•       Satisfaction of VTUGs with management of wood resources
These include:
•       Effective formation and management of WUGs;
•       Capacity of local nuncncs to produce required serds and seedlings; and
•       Effective management and marketing of produce
1 *b 1*4 Srt>2d I and & U alcnhcJ Man (2)
9Pttkral Dtintrufh- R/pMc Ethiopia. Mimi tn of Water & Emr^ Ethiopian Wk Irrigation and Drainer Profit
Ub l 4 SfO2d !^nd & Watershed Man (2)
7
10Afamy efir*,, & Ell
.\'r^ Jrrr^f nn jirf Dr-Mffd^r Pt^r
LficFM-4: Watershed Management of Nott’Imgable SDA>
l*ht Study Mea jot the Upper Ikies it nation Project extendi over 138.000 ha and coven (pom) of 37 Kebelfi in 6 wmdai in Amhara. and BencihuJ Gunw/ Reginald Slates, iBe current population u estimated it 101,700 (79% rural; carr.posrd of about 23,1 "0 households of which about 31  • have land user nghts
Subproject
Background
s
The soils of the uta art pnman-v wtwnlt (50%) with red juntub ind lucsnls extending over 14* *. cambisoh over 5% of the ura and ver. shadow and/nr very Worry Ixptosoh.ovef 31%. The topography k flat to undulating with mare dtuedxM) in the rut. In terms of land suirabditT 58337 ha (78% vertisols) hax-e dopes of <3% and ire wirabie for trngatsoa and 15JO7 hi (66% vertisols) have 3 8% (12%) slopes making them conditionally suitable for irrigation requiring sod and water conservation. Ir is proposed to terrace land wall -*3’ * slope* for ungacrun.
The land caver'land use is largely spin between grassland with varying degrres of tree cover which, covers 51,5(Nl ha {3“”’ #) of rhe am and faullhuldcf minted firming which covers lLtmut 43,00(1 ha ur 31% nf rhe area. Wnodhnd covers a farther 28,800 ha (21%) and rrverthe forest in important 5%.
The Protect am covers a rota! of 138 J 57 ha split tn tn the oghr ind left banks, buret rd by the Mam (Enaf) Bries river. It has been divided into rive major Stage Development Artas (l-V although SDA H is Hvma outside the Upper Brie* aim) aid iuh divided into five SDAs on the right Lank (LA, IBXX . rBE, IBS A TIT; and ten SDAs an the left bank; IVA, (VBVT [further suljdrrvdrd into 3 phases), 1VBE-N, IVBE B CN. TVCE, 1VCS. VN, VS A VW
Waicc for the ungatiDn schrmr will be obtained from a dam and reservoir on the Beley River wilh water diverted into 100 km right hark and 130 km left bank auudr The gron irngable ares is 7O.451ha (net 63,B7lhai split between 36.225 ha of commercial tugu development (plus 4/73 ha potential expansion and 22,944 ha smalLholder imgatioc Tn addition four SDAs on the left trank (1VBE-N. IVBE-S, I VCR. A VS) that are not suitable for irrigation w_ll he developed under a watershed management programme with Sod and Water Con tern turn on ram fed bnd.
The num goal of the proieci is to "rufan mrefcwrjrwfA atd ntt*.r :*irrtV" through The development r»f sustainable, imalholdcr based irrigated sgnculrure as well an promoting the involvement of the invite sector in Luge scale cummeroii irrigation dcvrlcpmene.______ _ _____ F nur SDAs  1VBE-N. DTSE-S, IVCE and VS, have oak a low percentage cf their Lind suitable
r
for irrigation (12-28%) and have therefore tren excluded from irnganoii devrlapraent. However there are appreciable areas of land cultivated under runted conditions in thew SDAs dial are farmed without any sod cDT-servantm measures-.
Sut »proiecl Ran.onaJc              li il therefore proposed to introduce kkI ind water Ccxntrvatiofi measures and a wider watershed management package in these SDAs m order to both improve the livelihoods of the Irx al population (who will not lie offered plots of irrigated land), to impwt the nuraanahilrty of rain fed agnculrurr and to increase the security of the irrigation development from erosion and sedimentation from these SDAs.
-'r’.Ld I jj>j Watenhcd Man |2)
11
12-Mn-llElhitfxai Sik Imganon oxd Dnaxaft Pnffil
Title
LAFM-4: Watershed Management of Non-Irrigable SR*
Subproject
Objectivc(s)
Livelihood improvement through provision of watershed management mea^^T^'^'
where only rainfed crop production is planned, as well as sccunng adjoining im?,  *
llr
development area from erosion, sedimentation and runoff.
Subproject Activities
Subproject activities include: -
•       Formation of Community Watershed Development Teams (CWDT) who uU Community Action Plans (CAP) for agricultural intensification and sod and
conservation.
•       Formation of Wcreda Watershed Development Teams (VCWDT) to lune with njp
and assist communities at micro-watershed levels to prepare CAP*.
•       Decision on location of cultivated areas, communal grazing lands, cocnmuni! face lands (as pan of CAP) and applicability of proposed interventions.
(Interventions include Agronomic measures (inter cropping, relay or double
cropping, crop rotation, row planting Ac improved fallow). Biological sod coftscmatx measures (grass stops, bund stabilisation). Structural soil conservation meisurn ihnv juu. stone faced bunds, cut-off drains, spillways). Agro forestry and reformation (am closure, reforestation). Training and promotion).
•       WWDT to secure agricultural services as inputs to (CAP) at kcbele level.
•       VC*WDT to facilitate the means to provide interventions required for agreed CAPr.
•       CVC’DTs to organise labour for interventions and planting - plant seedlings uptoCiK
by nurseries.
•       Construction and Implementation of SWC measures over agreed period following wu
plan in CAP.
•       CWDTs organise management of SWC measures including trees /shrubs (warmng weeding etc) — may be communal or individual.
•       CVC’DTs organise harvesting including cut and carry of fodder, marketing of product (fruit, fuelwood, poles, fodder).
Subproject
Implementation
The subproject will be implemented over 5 years in the project area. N’B Decision on joetto (expansion) areas to be taken in advance of communal grazing A forestry delineation.
’Hie main implementation modalities include:
•       Formation and organising WWDTs and CVC’DTs;
•       Training Ac technical support;
•       Decision on what to implement where,
•       Management of implementation activities and subsequent maintenance. and
•       Management of benefits (communaJ/individual)-
The expected benefits include: ffud**-
•       Livelihood enhancement through increased crop production and pron
*
Main Benefits and Beneficiaries
fodder, umber and fruits; and
•       Environmental improvements through reduced soil erosion and '*%>o
The beneficiaries arc communities tn the four target SDAs and,  to  a  lesser exte1
.
irrigation area. 
______——-
Ub 1-4 Srt)2d Land & Watershed Man (2}
12c'-Eotrp
^■^,.            'W*1**DrJp^r ***
Titfc
UfcFM-4i Watershed Mxnagcmenl of Non-Irrigable SDA*
SDA
swe Cmt!
WM Coils
1V0E-N
7,293,082
17,149,715
rVBE-S
1W.108
9,048,843
Subproject Costs
IVCE
6,863,246
16.J3J1.953
vs
3.644.W
B,57I,1«
Total
21.6493%
50.WJ.652
Implementing
Agencies
The wbprefect will be implemented by the following agenoey
•      Werrda ARD and Other lector office;
•      DAs; and
■ Private and Government Nurscncs-
1 Subproject 1  Performance
Morutocing
■[he performance of subproject will be monitored using the foll«wing mdiaturv
•       Formation of WDTi and CWDTv;
■     Production of CAPs.
•      Imptanenratiun of SWC mca lures;
•       Performance of 5WC measures and livelihood improvement; and
•      Satisfaction of CWDTl and kcbelcs with watershed management internm&ons.
Hulu »nd
LI ncrrtMnties
Theie indude-
• Effective fomutiun and nurugemenr of CWDTs;
■      Production of tuiiahlr CAP^ with imp fern ertauem plans;
■     Construction of SWC interventions to MoARD guicfeiines;
■     Capacity of local nunrnn to produce required seed* and seedhr-gs: arid
■     Effective management and marketing ol‘produce.
■----------------------------- -
bb 14 StOId Loud Wiicnhrd Min n
3 2-Miv-l 1ir^arfW* ” ’
N>* ^“"' ** P"’^'
n
. ___ __________^M-^Rgcnyfr Caichmtni anJ Huffrf Z^ge D^dop^i
Hk Smdy ™ for the Upper Bds i^Om
of 37 Kebctei in 6 wtredis in Acirun ind B™huJ Gun™ 
m( , ,
Suin The a»nx
Subprojecl
Background
populxuon LJ H rimmed «t 101.700 [7W.renf) cnrr.TWMrd of ^bnut 23,1* bn^hUd* of ubt h jrwwt 31% have land limy fights.
The soils of the im ire pnnunh wmrols (50%) with red rtnrioh and lixiwb mending rro 14- camhiswls over 5% of the area and very shadow and/or very irony Lcprowbover 3t% The FDpugnphy is flat to undu bring with more dusecuon in the art- In reruns of land suirshE-y SBJ37 ha (?B% vertisols) have slopes of <3% and ire miiabk for irngaikm ind I5JO7 ha (66% rntoofa) have 3-8% (12* i) slopes making them tondinomliy soluble for irrigation requiring sod and wafer conservation. It 15 propmed io terrace land with >3% itnpri for irrigation.
The la nd covcr/krid use u largek ipbl between grarabnd with varying degrees of tree cover whxJi cuvets S3,500 ha (37%) of the irtl ind smallholder runted firming which coven ilwiv 43,0011 ha or 31% of rhe area Woodland rovers a iur_hci 28,80*2 hi i.21" «J and rrvenr.t fniett an important 5%
The Project area coven i total of 138,157 hi split into the orH t and Jell banks. bisected by thr Main (Ecut) BcJes river. It has been divided tn to five mapr Stage Developtncnf Areas (1 V although SDA 11 » HrfTU hum ide rhe Upper Belts area) and rub divided mro dve SDAs on rhe nghl hank (IA, IRVt\ 'BE, IBS & III i and ten SDAs on the left bank: IVA, AW (further subdivided into 3 phases), IVBF.-N, IVPE-S, IVCN  B’CE, IVCS VN, VS fir TO
r
P
Water fur the lmganon scheme will be obtained truwn a dam arid retemar on. the Belt* River w-rrh water diverted into 100 km nghl bank and 130 km left bank anils. The gruss rmfczbtc area ti 7f),4M ha (net 63^7] hl} dpbi between 36,225 ha of cumnxrnd iLigir drvtfopmen t (phis 4,773 ha potential expansion.) and 22,944 ha smallholder uiigaiinfi- In addition four SDAs on the left bank (TVBE-N. 1VBE S. IVCE, & VS) that are not suitable for ufigaonn wdl be developed under i
wa tershed management programme with Soil ind Water Gxurmty *1 cm run fed land
The main goal of the project is TO "ria&ntff
mikr purrt/' through the
auh f>n)jttr Rabf,rale
-.
deveiopmenr of sustainabLe, smallhuidcr-bascd ungaied agnemture as weU as promoung dvr invulvcmenl of the pdvaie Sector Ln. large iole commertElJ tmgafiun development.
The proposed Bdes Dam will create i irccrvoir with a large fc£-aacmx2y trucruaEmg range £ram 29Qhi it low level co IJGUha at hill supply Level.
The catchment upstream hat largely a moderate eroMOn huard and tan be expected ft> produce 5 50t/lw/yctf of icdirocnt since 64% of the area has intensive or mndertTC eJrivadoo on rcbmeb1 steep slopes without SWC mororei
To protect the recen™ from tcdwnecQtxm In- over land flew and tu improve die livelihoods of people farming, tn the reservoir mrchmen: area a mterthtd narugement pniffitNM ±s proposed as well as the cmwci of a buffer lone of mihgenncE tu^ around she rq«™ rujl ju-ppJy IryrL
s ^2d 1-wd acWstrahcd Man
15
12-Aby 1Dr^run.-
of
.«»»» of Volrr & Hoop
Ettoof"* N» lmt^io" DwJV Pro*-*
Title
LAFM-5: Reservoir Catchment and Buffer Zone Dcvelopme
Subproject
(>b,ecave(s)
Livelihood improvement through provision of watershed management measures a*                               * prolonging reservoir life.
Subproject Activities
Subproject activities for Watershed Management include:
•       Formation of Community Watershed Development Teams (CWTJT) who will Community Action Plans (CAP) for agricultural intensification and sod and ware,
conservation.
•       Formation of Wereda Watershed Development Teams (WWDT) to liaise with cq
and assist communities at micro-watershed level to prepare CAPs
•       Decision on location of cultivated areas, communal grazing lands, communal fon-
lands (as part of CAP) and applicability’ of proposed interventions
[Interventions include Agronomic measures (inter cropping,  relay  or double cropj cropping,  crop rotation,  row planting  dr improved fallow).  Biological sod conserr measures (grass strips,  bund stabilisation),  Structural sod conservation measures (I juu,  stone faced bunds,  bench terraces,  cut off drains,  waterways.  spQlwavs),  Agro forestry and reforestation (area closure, reforestation). Training and promotion]
•       W’W’DT to secure agricultural services as inputs to (CAP) at kebelc level.
•       WWT)T to facilitate the means to provide interventions required for agreed CAPi
•       CWDTj to organise labour for interventions and planting plant seedlings as pre
by nurseries.
•       Construction and Implementation of SW’C measures over agreed period following
plan in CAP.
•       CWDTs organise management of SW’C measures including trees/shrubs (watenn
weeding etc) — may be communal or individual.
•       CWT)Ts organise harvesting including cut and carry of fodder, marketing of prod
(fruit, fuelwood, poles, fodder).
Subproject activities for the Buffer Zone include:
•       Formation of Community Reservoir Buffer Zone teams.
•       Decision on width, layout and species to be planted in buffer zone (CRBZT, D.M
Wereda ARD).
[Note:  propose  a  lUOm  buffer  of  indigenous  species;  enrichment  planting  of  exut
woodland].
•       Agree species mix - seedling requirements sent to nurseries and/or collection of5 from surrounding woodland.
•       Allocate land within buffer zone to communities/individuals for planting and
management.
•       Area closure prior to planting - cattle excluded.
•       Seedlings produced by nurseries.
•       CRBZTs organise labour for planting - plant seedlings as produced b) nurscri
•       CRBZTs organise management of Ixjffer zone including cut and carry of f marketing of produce ( fuehvood, fodder).
Ub F4 SrO2d 1 And & Watershed Man (2)
16
12-M«t”jT^rfKJ* N'* ^j^°* 
yAtarrty 4DT^/rA*
**«
Title
L&FM-5: Reservoir Catchmem *»d BwJirr Zcee r>r~,«* | - —
Subproircf Implementation
The rubproitct wiD be implemented over 5 vean » the merru               **-^r— implementation modairicj include
•      Formation ind organising WWlJTs and CWDTc
•      Training & Technical support;
•       Deacon on what to implement where;
•       Management of implementation acmihri and subwGueu rmsiseraxDCc. irai
•       Managemenf of bene fits (commumJ /ifidivsdtalj.
And for the buffer atone:
■ Formation and orspnixing CRBZTs;
•       Decision on what to phnl wherr,
•      Training 6c technical support;
•      Management of planting activity and tubsequmt teod=£ and
•       Managrmm r of bene fits c ommunaJ ■ individual)
Mam Benefits and Bene fi canes
The expected bene firs include:
■ Livelihood' enhancement through incrta-ied crap production and provider- of emJ fodder, timber and finals;
*      Environmental improvement^ through reduced tod et union and wooc-and                   ->
and
•       Beneficiaries art communities m the mrrvoir catchment area
Subproject Coin
Implementing
Agencies
------  ... — _------------------------------  --
The subproject will be implemented by tbe following agencies
■     Weredi ARD and other sector offices;
• DAi; and
■     Pmrate and Government Nuraenes.
The esnmarrd lubprojrci cost u?
•      Wa tershed Management of Revetvcar Catchment ETB 2MJ ■■ ,£13; md
•       Buffer Zone Development ETB A17,500- TotaJ coir ETB 2M.69SJH
Sulipcuject
Performance
Monitoring
The performance of mbprojecr will be monitored using the following indjoron
•      Formation of Vt'WDTs, CWDTs and Tot the mervotf buffer zone) CRBZTs;
•      Production of CAP*;
•      ImpierrtertTannri nf SWC measures;
•      Performance of SWC measures and Livelihood improvement; and
•      SatH&ctiort Oi CAXTJTs and CRBZTs and kebcJes with watershed msnagemest and buffer rone mt erven rioru_
Rilks and
Uncertain He i
These include:
■ Effective fonnaiMMi and management of CWDTi 4c CRBZT'w
•      Production of suitable CAPS with implementation plim;
•      CaniTTUCtion ofSWC miervrations to MoARD guidelines;
•      Capacity of local nurseries io produce required seeds ind sredhngs; and
•      Effective management and marketing of product-
Ub 1*4 SrO2J Land & Wairnhrd Min (2j
I?
12 Mir 11Fnkr^ Dttmht fyM Ethufta* Nik 
Mimirn                & lifrp
Dr**# Prrr*i
Ub IM SrO2d Land & Watershed Man (2)
•2-Mi1
-DwwjnS' K** * 
.Wrws* if Fdt/r
Subprefect
Background
___ ______ _______ L^FNf-fc Terwc B<ttd fahdh4boa
The Study a m for rhe Upper Bclrs Iragjnon Project crrrndi om I MjW- ha ir^ tmtn (pwtij
of 37 Kebcta in 6 wwcdti si .Kmtun ind Berjobul-Crinxiz ite^rxial Srirrv Th* tirra
popuhhon u nfiiTUtcd ar 101 JOO f9*«rural) compowd of xbnm 23J7O bcrndhoida rfwbch ibocT 31% have land user cghn.
The mnIs of the area are pnmank vrnisob (50* *) with ml nm>oh ind Icuvii txtndar* orc IF cimbwob over 5% nf the am and very ihaliow ind/or vrry itocy Lqwrnr>h,mr 31% Tec
topography « flat io undo hung with more ditwnon m the cask In terra of and pjCxStot MJF tu (78% vtrtiioh) have *lopei of <3* » and are tumble for imtranon ind 15 J0“ ha (MtfrKTMfaj have 3 B* • (12%) slopes making them cofuiitwtwDy imtabk for trngaeon rtcpsnn^ icd a=d wiser conservation- It is proposed In terrace land with >3% slopes foe iffipnoa
r Hie land cover/land use is largely split between gnidand *nh virynig degms of tire cem vhxb covert 51*500 ha (37%) of the am and smrfhdder mtnfed tanwig which coven iimne 43JW ha or 31% of the am Woodland covert a further 28,300 ha (21%) and nvenne forev an
important 5"«.
The Prefect arrJ town » total of B8.157 ha split into the tight and left banks. btswed be the Mun (EnatJ Bdes over, it hai been (bnded into five nutoc Stage Develop™11 Areu l1A
ilthough SDA 11 is Hym* outside the Upper Belts am) and sub-dmded into fine SDAt on ie right lank (IA. IBW, IBE. IBS & Ilf) and ten SDAi cm the left buTJC IVA. tVBW (further subdtvsded into 3 phases). IVBF.-N. IVBE-S, IVCN, TVCE. IVCS. VN. VS & VW
Water fot the irrigation scheme will be obtained from a dam and rmcr-Titt on :bc Bejes it—rr »nlh warer diverted mro 100 km nghr bank and 130 km ktt bank onaJi- The groa* ongjWr am a 70.451 ha (net 63*fi71 ha) split between 3622* ha of commeroid sugar devriopmerJ (pha 4 T3 ha
Subproject Rabntwdr
k
pntenrixJ expansion) and 22^944 ha smallholder imgjnon In addiocm four SDAa £» »hr left bonk (IVBE-N, IVBE-S. IVCE* 6c VS) that art not suitable for udgwon will be drvrk^ed under a
■aitershed management programme with Sod and WiTtf CorumiDtm on rainicd had-
ITie main goal of the project ii to "nttawr k*«mh4 ,^faffb friter^•wTO'” through the development of sustainable, smallholder baled Lmgatrd ignculrwc as well is prowi^nn^ the involvement of the private sector in Urge scale conurerail irnjplxm deveiopmenl
The development of unganon it Upper Beles wdl               tenaong of hnd above 3‘ . dope and the life disposal of excess water into narurxJ drainage lines. There will be a U«J ot 12,110 la of land to be terraced composing 5338 ha foe smallholders (2,60' red soils. 2,931 vrmsoh) s~i
6,t72ha of the commercial sugar estate (1.458 red sexb and 5JI4 vcrOaolsL
the end terrace bunds cm red sods wdl have a rop wsdth of 0J! m, a haRht of 03 m arJ uph;3 .nd downhill slopes of 1.03 (verar-aLh.,mental). Vertooh am less stable and am htgbJr etodihle even
□n low dupes d« to their shrink ■ swell oiture. They aid there fmr teepdre gender bund toes slopes. It u ptupmed that these bunds hart a width and hngjht of OJm, ,  uphill ik^sc of I 1 and
n
L
' A downhill s-I jpe of 1 j (oc ikrtcr). _______
Uh V4 StffiU lijund & ’Wi'iilFrvhed Man ‘7)
19
1? Mdiy !lEnM                     K^M. 
Miritr, tfV Mrr c” b.rp
Ntb bn^frc" *** P'**»<* PnynT
Tide
LAFM-6: Terrace Bund Stabiliaation
shrink-swell nature and arc easily credible.
Subproject
Objective (s)
Subproject Activities
Stabilisation of terrace bunds to ensure bund stability and viability of irrigation scheme
Subproject activities in Smallholder Areas include:
• Formation of Water User Groups (WUGa) and Forestry & Communal Grazing
Committees,
• Decision on location of expansion (and any new) resettlement areas, communal grin
lands and forestry lands.
[Collection  and  purchase  of  suitable  grass  seeds.  The  grasses  should  lx  creeping  ird drought resistant such  as Vetifer.  Rhodes  grass and  Buffcl grass  as well as local ipccu such  as  'itntbflf/S  and  *da/ho  planted  in  dense  rows  Trees  and  shrubs  should  be  ponf at  a  close  spacing  of  30  to  6(km  apart  on  single  or  staggered  double  row  For  forage production  nitrogen-fixing  trecs/shrubs  such  as  LtMiOfna  lettiTKrphala,  Pigeon  pea  (Qi ayan) and Sribanta nsban should lx used. Acacia saligna planted in dense row's can tv introduced and used as forage mixed with crop residues. ( >n the wider vertisols bun; line  of  trees  could  lx?  planted  at  the  top  and  bottom of the riser to  discourage tinrer from  ploughing  through  the  bund.  In  addition  fruit  trees  such  as  Mango  (Maygfw* Guava (Pndhtm jpajava), White Sapote (Catimirva f<iu&s). Annona nnqpkiuu, Papaya |C-
papaya) and Avocado (Ptnia Ammana) could be planted.] Agree species mix seedling requirements sent to nurseries;
.Area closure prior to planting — cattle excluded; Seedlings produced by nurseries;
• WUGs organise harvesting including cut and earn’ of fodder, marketing ol
(fruit, fuel wood, poles, fodder).
Subproject activities in Commercial estate / farm area include:
Selection of area for pilot scheme;
Plant   bunds   with   suitable   grasses   (NB   only   grasses   in   commercial   « Assess most suitable grass seed mix; and
Plant scheme with best mix for soil type.
Vb F‘4 SrO2d laind & Watershed Man (2)
20Pr-*™* y
p ,^.jt X>* &’«**’ "•<
lf
n,J "^
Title
LAFM-6; Terrace Bund SubdiMtwra
Subptni^
Implementation
The tubpro|«t »i 11 he implemented over 5 yean in the penjed im. NB P>.' ire* * ibc-iid be
trull rd finr.
The num impkirientirxMi rn* dailies for smallholder farm areas rttak
•       Forannon and <?rgani3ing WUGs;
■     Training A rrchrjcal support.
•       Decision on what io plant where;
•       Management of planting ac Truly and tubicquenl rending. ind
■     ft b rugeme nt raf berveftti (communal. jidjyidLuijj-
i
Mun BdiEfils and BcneAcuaes
'Rie expected benefits include
■     Srabdiarion of terrain enabling untamable ungrsoix
■     IjveEihood enhancement ihrough increased crop productjrxi from tfnptM fxj provision of fodder and fruits from stabihsed bunds; and
■     BiiAironiTvental impraVEmcnh through reduced sod rrmann. Rrnctkurie'i are communities in, rhe command area and he ^iJmmeraaJ estate
Subproject Com
‘Die ei tuna ted subproject cost Sm*Uboldcf
RcdSoih
Vertuok 2»50R3i^ Sub-total 4346,024
Commercial
Red Soils                   220.012 I Vertisols                 1.575,505
Sub-totaJ            J.TOJ.S*)? i Total________ 6,139.622 ]
ts:
1
Implementing
.\Xtnciei
The subproject utLl be implemented by the following agenocs-
•      VC’ereda .ARD and other sector offices;
■ DAs;
•      Pmare and Government Nurseries. and
•      Cummcrcul estate.
Subproject
Performance
Monitoring
Hie performance of subproject uiU be monitored using the MUowmg ifkbdion
•      Pilot Tcmcci constructed ind planted;
■     Area of gran md number of trcci/shrubs planred.
■     Survival rates, growi h ram. production.
•      Terrace condition / stabdity / ugm or cronon, and
•      For smallholder firm area MtutixDun of Wl’Ga with trurucar^ of bunds
Risks and.
Cnccrraintio
These include,Comitment of commciu-d estair to ipuhry / lusruruaurulw retracing;
•      Effective trirmatron and rrtmagcTnenr of WUGt;
•      Capacity of local nunmet ru produce required iccdi and retdingi;
•      Succashil completion or pdot terra,cd areas;
•      Quality cDmiruccDa of bunds and terraces, and
•      Effective management of terraced areas
Vb IM SrOfld land &. Watershed Man (2)
21
12 Mm 1 ]

Summery

Upper Beles Irrigation Project Summary

Upper Beles Irrigation and Drainage Project Feasibility Study

Project Overview

The Upper Beles Irrigation Project is a World Bank-financed initiative in Ethiopia aimed at developing sustainable irrigated agriculture across approximately 30,000 hectares. The project is located in the Amhara and Benshangul-Gumuz regions southwest of Lake Tana.

Project Goals

Promote sustainable smallholder-based irrigated agriculture
Reduce poverty and improve rural livelihoods
Enhance food security through increased staple crop production
Encourage private sector involvement in large-scale irrigation
Create rural employment opportunities

Key Components

1. Land Resources & Agricultural Development

The study examines present agricultural conditions and proposes with-project development options including:

Large-scale sugar estate (36,225 ha proposed)
Small/medium commercial farms (4,773 ha)
Smallholder irrigation (22,872 ha)

2. Current Agricultural Situation

The area currently features:

Mixed farming systems (rainfed and limited irrigation)
Average landholding size of 1.91 ha per household
Main crops: maize, sorghum, sesame, groundnut, vegetables
Low yields due to traditional practices and limited inputs

3. Proposed Development Options

Option	Description	Irrigated Area (ha)
Option 2A (Recommended)	Core sugar estate with smallholders and commercial farms	63,871
Option 2B	Core estate with out-growers	63,871
Option 5	All sugar estate	63,871

4. Proposed Cropping Systems

The study recommends different cropping patterns for:

Sugar estate: 90% sugarcane with 10% rotation crops
Commercial farms: Sugarcane, maize seed, sesame, haricot beans
Smallholders: Mix of food and cash crops adapted to soil types

5. Expected Benefits

Significant increase in agricultural production
Improved food security and household incomes
Creation of rural employment opportunities
Development of agro-processing industries

Implementation Requirements

The project identifies several key interventions needed:

Soil fertility enhancement
Improved seed supply systems
Pest control measures
Agricultural marketing improvements
Strengthened extension services
Irrigation agronomy training
Farm credit access
Post-harvest technology improvements