Assistance to land use planning Ethiopia. Land … · DRAFT ASSISTANCE TO LAND USE PLANNING E T H I...

A

I -1

3 I A /`'1\ I-1

tir

7,)

i;

V 1/:-)

DRAFT

ASSISTANCE TO LAND USE PLANNING

E T H I OP I A

LAND EVALUAT7Crl

OF

HAYKOCH AND E'UTA1IRA LTAJA

(SHEWA

by

D.J. RadcliffeG.K. Bechtold

with the assistance of Tadesse Andaroe, Kassa LakewAsbu (4/Gabriel, Girma Teketel, Hagos Gidey, Peter Sutcliffe

THE PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIAMINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATORY DEPARTMENT

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMEFOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Addis Ababa, June 1989

DP/ETH/87/006Field Document 40

ii

This technical report is one of a series of reports preparedduring the course of the UNDP/FAO project identified on the titlepage. The conclusions and recommendations iven in the report arethose considered appropriate at the time of its preparation. Theymay be modified in the light of further knowledge gained at sub-sequent stages of the project.

The designations employed and the presentation of the materialand maps in this document do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations or the Foodand Agricultural Organization of the United Nations concerningthe legal or constitutional status of any country, territory orsea area or of its authorities, or concerning the delineation ofits frontiers of boundaries.

iii

FAO. Assistance to Land-use Planning, Ethiopia. LandEvaluation of Haykoch and Butajira Awraja (Shewa) , by D.J.Radcliffe and G.K. Bechtold. Addis Abeba, 1989, 177 pp., 11maps. A6:DP/ETH/87/006, Field Document 40.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Food and Agriculture Organization expresses its ap-preciation to the following individuals and organizations who as-sisted in the implementation of this report by providing informa-tion, advice and facilities:

Ato Fikru Abebe, Head of the Land Use Planning andRegulatory Department,

Ato Kifle Yohannes Shiferaw, Ato Teshome Estifanos, andAto Mengistu Negash, successive National Project Coordinators,

Soil Section of LUPRD,Agroecology Section of LUPRD,Socioeconomics Section of LUPRD,Cartography Section of LUPRD,Awraja and Woreda level staff of the Ministry of

Agriculture in Haykoch and Butajira Awraja and its componentWeredas

Table of Contente

ABBREVIATIONS................................................xi

GLOSSARYmmaaapymagranwanawayavv4wonnonanymoonanomaymannenampoXii

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................xv

LAND EVALUATION RATIONALE..................................11.1. OBJECTIVES OF LAND EVALUATION.........................11.2. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF STUDIES..........................11.7. REPORT STRUCTURE......................................7

HAYKOCH AND BUTAJIRA AWRAJA............ ..... ...............42.1. LOCATION..............................................42.2. PLANNING ZONES........................................42.3. TOPOGRAPHY AND

2.3.1.Landforms. ..... ................................9

2.4. CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY................................122.4.1. Precipitation .............. ..... .............122.4.2. Temperature and Evapotranspiration .........132.4.3. Frost

2.4.5. Hydrology.....................................152.5. PRESENT LAND USE AND LAND COVER......................16

2.5.1. Vegetation................. ..... ..............162.5.2. Present Land

2.6. ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION182.6.1. Population Density............................192.6.2. Livestock Population Density..................21

2.7. INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS....................222.7.1. Rural Institutions............................222.7.2. Communications................................23

2. LAND71.=.2.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY...INTRODUCTION.............DATABASE FOR LAND EVALUAT3.2.1. Base Maps, Satelli3.2.2. Soil Inventory....3.2.3. Climatic Inventory

3.2.3.1. Precipita3.2.3.2. Temperatu3.2.3.3. Potential3.2.3.4. Growing P

3.2.4. Land Use and Land3.2.5. Agroecological Zon

MUMMX.MR.O&IONAOSIMMIERXI.M.MOO 25AMMIIMMOMMMERRMAKIWXMMOMONO.MM 25ION .........................27te Imagery and Aerial Photos27

29............................29tion Mapping Units..........31re..........................34Evapotranspiration.........34eriod Assessment............36Cover Inventory.............37ing....... ..... .............37

7.7. COMPUTERIZED DATA HANDLING ...........................40

vi

3.4. EROSION ASSESSMENT...................................413.5. CROP SUITABILITY.....................................433.4. DETERMINATION OF POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY.........45

3.6.1. Cropland Submodel.............................46SOIL EROSION AND CONSERYATION.............................494.1. INTRUDUCTIDN.........................................494.2. SHEET EROSION4.3. BADLAND, SLIP AND GULLY EROSION......................524.4. CONSERVATION BASED LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS..........55

4.4.1. Conservation Based Recommendation Units.......564.4.2. Distribution of Conservation Based Recommend..604.4.3. Summary of Conservation Measures Required.....65

LAND SUITABILITY FOR CROPS................................66

5.2, CLIMATIC SUITABILITY.................................675.3. RESULTS OF LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION...............68

5.3.4. Horticultura]. and Cash Crops..................805.3.5. Perennial Crops...............................81

IMPACT OF INTERVENTIONS...................................836.1. IMPORTANCE OF YIELD IMPRDVEMENT......................836.2. IMPACT OF INCREASES IN THE LEVEL OF INPUTS ...........844.3. LAND IMPROVEMENTS AND AGRONOMIC INTERVENTIONS........85

6.3.1. Use of Short Maturing Crop Varieties..........866.3.2.

6.3.4. Conservation..................................946.4. CONCLUSIONS..........................................97

POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY...............................987.1. CONCEPTS AND APPROACH................................987.2, INTERMEDIATE RESULTS ................................997.3. DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY ........1007.4. POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY OF PLANNING ZONES AND ..

SERVICE COOPERATIVES................................1047.4.1. Cropland Balance by Planning Zone............1047.4.2. Balance of Forage Resources and LivestockCarrying Capacity...................................1047.4.3. Overall Resource Balance and Population Need.1077.4.4. Population Support Capacity of Service Coops.1077.4.5. Planning Zone 1: Gurage Mountains............1117.4.6. Planning Zone 2:Gibiso Upland................1137.4.7. Planning Zone 3: Bui Upland..................1147.4.8. Planning Zone 4: Wilbareg Upland.............1167.4.9. Planning Zone 5: Negele Footslopes...........1187.4.10. Planning Zone 6: Koshe Plain................1207.4.11. Planning Zone 7: Alaba Plain................1227.4.12. PLanning Zone 8: Ziway Plain................1247.4.13. Planning Zone 9: Haykoch Plain..............126

7.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................128

Appendices

SERVICE COOPERATIVES BY WEREDA...........................1:0SOIL MAPPING UNIT COMPOS1TION............................132CODING OF LAND CHARACTERISTICS...........................135LAND CHARACTERISTIC RATINGS OF LAND TYPES................1:9ASSESSMENT OF SHEET EROSION HAZARD.......................143CROPLAND SUBMODEL FOR POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY........146CONSERVATION BASED RECOMMENDATION UNITS BY SERVICE COOP..159LAND SUITABILITY FOR CROPS...............................163

REFERENCESmene.ma0.annveitOannonamanamslenvensmeslannavannammon174

LIST OF TABLES

F'age

Si Planning Zones xvii82 Recommended Land Uses by Planning Zone xviiiS3 Conservation Measures on Potential Arable Land xix53 Land Suitability for Crops xx

2.1 Planning Zones 72.2 Mean Elevation of Planning Zones2.3 Dominant Landform and Soil Conditions of

Planning Zones 11

2.4 Mean annual Rainfall of Planning Zones 132.5 Temperature and potential evapotranspiration of

Planning Zones 142.6 Growing Period Characteristics of Planning Zones 152.7 Physiognomic Vegetation types 16

2.8 Current Farming Systems 182.9 Weredas of Haykoch and Butajira 192.10 Population by Wereda 202.11 Population of Planning Zones 202.12 Livestock Population by Wereda 212.13 Livestock Population of Planning Zones3.1 Land Qualities and Land Characteristics 263.2 Stations used for Climatic Inventory 172

3.3 Characteristics of Precipitation Mapping Units3.4 Conversion Factors for Determination of monthly

PET: Group I Stations 353.5 Assessment of Slip and Gully Erosion Hazard 42

3.6 Evaluated Crops 44

4.1 Distribution of Sheet Erosion Hazard Classes (ha) 51

4.2 Distribution of Sheet Erosion Hazard Classes (%) 51

4.3 Distribution of Slip and Gully Erosion Hazard (ha) 544.4 Distribution of Slip and Gully Erosion Hazard (%) 54

4.5 Conservation Based Recommendation Units 57

vii

viiiPa.ge

4.6 Distribution nf Conservation Based RecommendationUnits (ha) 62

4.7 Di'Atribution of Conservation Based RecommendationUnits (X.) 62

4.8 Conservation Measures Required on Potential ArableLand 65

5.1 Climatic suitability 675.2 Crop Suitability at intermediate Input Level 695.3 Land Suitability for Cereals at Intermediate

Input Leve]. 715.4 Land Suitability for Maize based on two LBP

reliability levels 715.5 Land Suitability for Pulses at Intermediate

Input Level 775.6 Land Suitability for Oilseeds at Intermediate

Level of Inputs 795.7 Land Suitability for Horticultural and Cash Crops

at Intermediate Input Level BO5.8 Land Suitability for Perennial Crops 816.1 Impact of Input Level on Crop Yields by Planning

Zone 856.2 Areas benefitting from Short Season Maize Varieties 886.3 Comparative Impact of Irrigation on Maize and

Chilli Pepper 916.4 Areas benefitting from Drainage Improvement 926.5 Impact of Major Soil Conservation on Land

Suitable for Teff 957.1 Comparison of Land Requirements with Actual

Cropped Areas 997.2 Planning Zone 1: Population Support Capacity

of Service Cooperatives 1127.3 Planning Zone 2: Population Support Capacity








of Service Cooperatives 127A3.1 Annual Calorie Requirements per Household 147A3.2 Indicative Crop Mixes by Planning Zone 148A3.3 Indicative Crop Yields by Dominant Suitability

Class 150

ix

Page

A3.4 Determination of Net Yields 151A3.5 Land requirements for Crop Production by Planning

Zone 152A3.6 Cropland support Capacity of Service Cooperatives 162

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Si Impact of Short Maturing Varieties on Productionof Maize xxii

S2 Population Support Capacity of Cropland xxiv83 Cropland Support Capacity of Service Cooperatives xxv84 Stocking Load Relative to Carrying Capacity xxvi1.1 Interrelationship of Studies3.1 PET Profiles for Group I Stations3.2 Cropland Submodel 474.1 Conservation based Recommended Land Uses 616.1 Potential Production Increments from

Introduction of Short Season Maize Varieties SS6.2 Potential Production Increment of Wheat from Minor

Drainage Improvements 947.1 Cropland Availability relative to Requirements in

1989, 1999 and 2012 1057.2 Current Stocking Load Relative to Carrying Capacity 1067.3 Cropland Support Capacity of Service Cooperatives

by Planning Zone 1097.4 Distribution of Service Cooperatives according to

relative Grazing Pressure 110

LIST OF TEXT MAPS

(Scale 1: 1 000 000 unless otherwise stated)

Page

Location of Haykoch and Butajira Awraja 5

Planning Zones 6

Accessability to All Weather Roads 24Index to Topographic Base Maps 28

4A.Location of Stations used for Haykoch and ButajiraClimatic Analysis (Scale 1:1 400 000) 30Distribution of Sheet Erosion Hazard 50Slip and Gully Erosion Hazard 53Land Suitability for Maize (Intermediate Inputs) 70

B. Land Suitability for Wheat (Intermediate Inputs) 72Land Suitability for Barley (Intermediate Inputs 73Land Suitability for Teff (Intermediate Inputs) 75Land Suitability for Haricot bean(Intermediate Inputs) 78Land Suitability for Ensete 82Areas Benefitting from Short Season Maize Varieties 87Land Benefitting from Irrigation of Chilli Pepper 90

15 Areas Benefitting from Minor drainage Improvement 9316 Land under Teff benefitting from Major Soil

Conservation Measures 9617 Population Support Capacity of Cropland 10116. Grazing Pressure 103

LIST OF MAPS

(1: 250 000 scale; accompanying report in a separate folder)

Mean ElevationPrecipitationLength of Growing PeriodAdministrationPlanning ZonesConservation Based Land Use RecommendationsLand Suitability for CerealsLand Suitability for PulsesLand Suitability for Oilseeds

10, Land Suitability for Perennial Crops11. Land Suitability for Horticultural Crops

xi

ABBREVIATIONS

AEZ - Agroecological zoneAMC - Agricultural Marketing Corporation of

Ethiopiaa.s.l. - above sea levelOSO - Central Statistical OfficeDM - Dry matterEHRS - Ethiopian Highlands Reclamation StudyETS - Ethiopian BirrFD - Field DocumentGILES - Geographical and Land Evaluation SystemGIS - Geographical Information SystemGoE - Government of Ethiopiaha - HectaresILCA - International Livestock Centre for AfricaLGP - Length of growing periodLUPP - Land Use Planning ProjectLUPRD - Land Use Planning and Regulatory

DepartmentLW - LiveweightMLUP - Master Land Use Plan of Ethiopia

(FA0,1988)MoA - Ministry of AgricultureNGO - Nongovernmental Organizationp.a. - per annumPA - Peasant AssociationPC - Producer CooperativePET - Potential evapotranspirationPSC - Population Support CapacityPZ - Planning zone

- Quintal (100 kg)SC - Service CooperativeSWCD - Soil and Water Conservation DepartmentTLU - Tropical livestock unitUSLE - Universal soil loss equationWFP - World Food Programme

xii

GLOSSARY

Alluvial fan Topographic unit deposited by a streamwhere it emerges from the constriction ofa valley at a mountain front

Awraja Administrative district (sub-region; 102in Ethiopia)

Climatic suitabilityEvaluation of climatic suitability fora particular crop or land use

Crop requirements Quantitative description of environmentalrequirements of crops

Dega Agroecological zone in altitude range2400-3200 m a.s.l. The Lower Dega refersto altitude 2400-2800 m and the UpperDega to altitude 2800-3200 m.

Ecological suitabilityEvaluation of climatic and soilsuitability for a particular crop orland use

Escarpment Steep slope terminating an upland surface

Farming system

Footslope

Relatively homogenous ecosystem withdefined product mix and environmentalsetting.

The lower part of a slope above thegentler gradient of a valley floor orplain but below the constant slope (e.g.escarpment); can have gradient of morethan 10 degrees

Geographical Information SystemComputer system to store and retrievethematic maps in various combinations andoverlays

Geographical and Land Evaluation SystemComputer system to store and retrievethematic maps in various combinations andoverlays with the possibility tomanipulate the input parameters (models)to produce all thematic maps essentialfor land evaluation and land use planning.

Input level Material input

Kolla Agroecological zone in the altitude rangeapprox. 1000-1800 m

Land characteristic Attribute of the land which can be measuredor estimated, and which can be employed as ameans of modelling land qualities

Land evaluation Procedure to assess the suitability of landfor particular uses

Land improvement

minor

major

Land quality

Land suitability

Alteration of the land which improves itspotential for particular land usesRelatively small or temporary change of theland which is usually within the capacity ofthe farmer to implement.Large, non-recurrent input which causes asubstantial and reasonably permanent change(e.g. drainage channels, terraces) and whichnormally requires significant capitalinvestment

Attribute of the land which acts in adistinct manner in its influence on thesuitability of the land for a specific crop

Assessment of suitability of soil, climate,erosion hazard, and workability for aparticular crop or land use

Peasant Association Smallest administrative unit

Planning zone Aggregration of Service Cooperatives withsimilar resource constraints and potentials

Population Support CapacityThe ability of a defined area to support itspopulation based on production from its landresources at a given level of inputs andtechnology.

xiv

Producer CooperativeGroup of farmers within a Peasant Associationoperating a communal agricultural productionsystem

Region Administrative region

Service CooperativeGrouping of between 2 and 10 PeasantAssociations for procurement of inputs,agricultural services and credit facilities

Soil suitability Assessment of suitability of soil for aparticular crop or land use

Throughflow Lateral downslope movement of water throughthe soil body above a less permeable layer.

Wereda Administrative s b-district (515 in Ethiopia)

Woina Dega Agroecological zone in the altitude rangeapprox. 1600-2400 m

Wurch Agroecological zone with altitude above 3200m.a.s.l.

Hay koch and Butajira: Summary

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Hay koch and Butajira is one of three Awrajas covered byreconnaissance level resource surveys, land evaluation and in-dicative land use planning by Phase III of the FAO Project"Assistance to Land Use Planning". These Awrajas were selected asareas of agricultural surplus production.

Haykoch and Butaj ira is located in the southern part ofShewa Administrative Region and comprises the central part of theEthiopian rift valley with adjacent highland areas to the eastand west. The Awraja comprises 1 177 336 ha of land, consistingmainly of flat or gently sloping plains on the rift valley floor,rising to the dissected highland plateaux through a series ofparallel ridges, escarpments and intervening plains. The areasupports an estimated population of 1.4 million, equivalent to 15% of the population of Shewa Region, more than 90 % of which arewholly dependent on agriculture for their survival and economicwell being.

The Awraja supports subsistence based agropastoral farmingsystems in which livestock become more important in the lower,altitude Kona areas, where the rainfall is less reliable and therisk of crop failure is high. Maize is the dominant crop in thedrier areas, with teff, wheat and barley becoming more importantin the adjacent uplands, where a limited amount of ensete (Enseteventricosum) is also grown. Chilli peppers and potatoes are theprincipal cash crops.

The purpose of the present land evaluation study is toprovide a rational basis for decisions on land use which can betaken in accordance with national and regional developmentpriorities.

Consistent with the above aims, the study is directedtowards the following objectives

identifying land suitable for arable and perennialcropping, livestock grazing and fuelwood production,based on assessment of soil erosion hazard, presentland degradation and wetness limitations.

identifying suitable crops, areas where they can begrown, and estimating yields under different levelsof inputs and technology.

XV

Haykoch and Butajira: Summary

iii) assessing the land resource balance relative topresent and projected population numbers for ServiceCooperatives and Planning Zones to identify areas ofparticular need and areas most likely to benefitfrom additional investment.

Planning Zones

For purposes of summarizing and interpreting data fromresource surveys and for facilitating the application of resultsand planning recommendations, the Awraja is divided into 10 Plan-ning Zones (PZs). Nine of these zones are dominated by peasantagriculture, and PZ 10 comprises State Farms and forest land.Certain key properties that form the basis for definition of PZsand SDA5 are summarized in Table 51.

PZs are essentially physical resource units with boundariesadjusted to follow administrative divisions. Thus each PZ com-prises a group of Service Cooperatives (SC5) with relativelyhomogeneous agroecological conditions and a broadly similar rangeof constraints and potentials for development. The PZ is there-fore a suitable spatial unit for the targetting of area specificland use planning recommendations. Resource information and landevaluation results are summarised by PZ throughout this report.

Distribution of Planning Zones is shown on Map 2 (p.6)

xvi

Hay koch and Dutajira: Summary

1. Eurage Mountains Dega

Gibiso Upland Lower Dega

Bui Upland Woina Dega

6. Koshe Plain Woina Dega

7. Alaba Plain Kolla

8. Ziway Plain Kolla

Escarpment with

high plateau

and footslopes

Undulating -

rolling plain

Undulating and

flat plain with

parallel ridges

Flat and gently

sloping plain

Flat plain

plain with poorly

drained Yertisols

9. Haykoch Plain Kolla Flat plain with

outlying hills

Lakes

Table Si

Planning Zones

Rolling dissected 1.Badland

upland with badland 2.Poor drainage

and Vertisols 3.Fuelwood shortage

Note: 1/. Based on 1984 census data.

2/. PZ 10 comprises only State Farms and forest land

xvii

I.Steep slopes 145

2.Shallow soils

3.Erosion hazard

1.Erosion hazard 149

2.Fuelwood shortage

84

',High population 168

2.Fuelwood shortage

1.Forage shortage 144

2.Drought risk

larought risk 70

2.Fuelwood shortage

1.Drought risk (severe) 50

2.Shallow soils

97 56039 4.8

81 31882 2.7

70 79410 6.7

73 68848 5.8

122 108174 3.2

98 233680 19.8

190 160197 13.6

85 145871 12,4

96 173820 14.8

24747 2.1

94354 8.0

Dominant Agro- Dominant Topo- Specific Constraints Population 1/ Area

Ecological Lone graphy and SOil5 Haan Stock ha X

(/km) (TLUlkm2)

No. Name

4. Wilbareg Upland Woina Dega Degraded rolling 1.Badland

upland with 2.Erosion hazard

extensive badland 3.Fuelwood shortage

149

1.Erosion Hazard 143

2.Forage shortage

5. Negele Footslopes Woina Dega Footslopes,

escarpment and

plateau

O1.Shallow soils

2.Drought risk

10 Aje Hills 2/ Woina Dega Volcanic hills

and footslopes


Conservation based Land Use Recommendations

Land evaluation identifies land uses which are sustainablein the long term which form the basis of a conservation baseddevelopment strategy. Table 52 summarises the percentages ofthese recommended land uses for Hay koch and Butajira and for itscomponent PZs.

Table 52

Recommended Land Uses by Planning Zone 1/

(% total area of PZ Haykoch and Butajira)

No, Planning Arable Fuelwood Wetland Restricted ExclusionZone Crops 2/ or Grazing Grazing

Perennial (Shallow)

Gurage Mountains 36 5 0 30 29

Gibiso Upland 60 3 0 13 24

Bui Upland 61 0 0 6 33

Wilbareg Upland 43 11 0 8 38

Negele Footslopes 71 5 1 13 11

Koshe Plain 72 0 4 10 13

Alaba Plain 76 0 0 11 12

Ziway Plain 70 0 7 8 15

Haykoch Plain 66 0 4 24 7

Aje Hills 62 0 0 32 6

Haykoch and Butajira 66 1 2 14

Notes

1/. The figures refer to the most intensive use that can be recommendedfrom a conservation standpoint. Given the structure of present farming systemsin the area some of the potential arable land must be allocated to livestockgrazing.

2/. Figures refer to the net arable land, after deductions for recom-mended conservation structures. Areas are therefore slightly less than thegross figures in Figure 4.1 (p.67)

Hay koch and Butaj ira: Summary

Approximately two thirds of Haykoch and Butajira comprisespotential arable land, and the flat ta undulating plains of therift valley (PZs 7,8 and 9) and dominantly gently sloping margins(PZs 5 and 6) are the best endowed with cropland resources. TheSurage Mountains (PZ 1) and the Wilbareg Upland (PZ 4) haveproportionally the least land suitable for arable cropping, dueto steep slopes in the former case, and due ta extensive degradedbadland in the case of the Wilbareg Upland.

Conservation of cropland and grazing land is essential tamaintain long term productivity and guarantee the subsistencebase of the rural economy. The potential arable land includesland on which physical conservation measures must be implementedto support cropping on a sustained basis. Table 83 gives theproportions of potential arable land in each PZ which should betreated with the specified conservation measures.

Table 63

Conservation Measures on Potential Arable Land

(7; of Arable area requiring specified measures)

None Gully/ Grass Strips+ Bunds Bunds+ Drainage DrainBadland Strips Gully Gully + GullyProtection Protection Protection Protn.

1 43 1 0 7 26 23 0 0

,:. 11 2 0 6 4 75 0 2

3 3 18 0 5 7 41 10 16

4 17 58 0 9 0 16 0 0

5 30 48 0 0 0 22 0 0

6 67 27 0 3 0 2 1 0

7 78 10 11 0 0 1 0 0

8 54 35 0 0 0 1 10 0

9 86 14 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 91 7 0 0 0 3 0 0

Awraja 57 L. L. 10 L.

xix

Planning Conservation MeasuresZone


Land Suitability for Crops

Assessment of the suitability of individual crops is carriedout in order to predict the the productive performance of the ex-isting farming systems and to screen the development potential ofany crops which are new to the area or which are currently under-utilized. The output of this evaluation informs the user whichcrops are best suited for the areas of arable land previouslyidentified.

Table 54 lists the proportions of each Planning Zone whichare suitable for a number of crops with existing importance orpotential in Haykoch and Butajira. These figures are based on and"intermediate input" situation, with limited use of fertilisersand improved seeds, but without land improvements such as physi-cal conservation or drainage.

Table 84

Land Suitable for Crops under Low Level of Inputs

(% of total area of P or Haykoch and Butajira suitable for crop indicated)

Note: 'Suitable' land comprises land in Suitability Classes S1-S3 inclusive.

XX

Crop Haykoch & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Butajira

Wheat 46 34 64 40 39 73 67 57 58 17 30Sorghum 43 12 2 34 29 62 69 59 57 19 37Maize 40 15 11 35 31 53 61 56 53 18 35Teff 55 30 65 70 46 77 73 74 69 21 57

Barley 51 39 70 40 40 74 69 70 58 24 41

Millet 50 12 0 25 33 58 70 75 60 52 60

Fieldpea 44 34 64 40 39 75 51 57 55 19 44Haricot 46 19 18 37 37 73 69 67 55 20 45Horsebean 49 34 64 40 40 76 69 67 55 20 45Chickpea 52 24 53 36 16 72 61 73 63 56 64

Lentil 52 25 54 37 17 72 61 73 63 56 64Vetch 59 30 65 58 40 81 70 77 67 57 64

Flax 51 34 64 40 39 76 69 68 55 33 43Nigerseed 16 21 38 38 30 36 30 1 1 0 4

Sesaoe 19 0 0 0 0 6 5 38 56 36 3

Soybean 28 0 0 9 14 28 50 42 49 12 25Sunflower 35 12 0 25 32 54 65 40 46 6 30Groundnut 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 0 0

Potato 11 27 52 18 12 33 11 1 4 0 3

Pepper 15 18 2 35 25 57 17 8 1 0 5

Shallot 1 12 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cabbage 20 36 70 40 35 46 32 4 1 0 4

Tomato 18 19 8 37 32 58 22 8 14 0 3

Sweet potato 12 4 0 18 19 37 25 4 1 0 2

Tobacco 6 0 0 9 8 17 8 3 8 0 2

Cotton 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 0 0

Ensete 13 25 55 14 20 55 14 3 0 0 8

Coffee 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0Sisal 51 12 0 22 34 60 70 77 60 58 60


Climatic and soil conditions in Haykoch and Butajira aresuited to a range of subsistence and cash crops. In the Konazones of the rift valley the short duration of the crop growingperiod and its unreliability restricts the range of crops thatare suitable, particularly on the Haykoch Plain, where failure ofthe staple food crop, maize, is common. In the highlands smallgrain crops such as wheat, teff, and barley are generally themost suitable and many areas are also suitable for ensete. Mostpulses, oilseeds and horticultural crops are best suited to theWoina Daga areas such as the Bui Upland (PZ 3), the NegeleFootslopes (PZ 5) and the Koshe Plain (PZ 6), where temperaturesare warm and the length of growing period is not usually limit-ing. Crops such as sesame and sisal, which are better adapted tohot dry conditions, are more suited to the Kolla areas such asthe Alaba Plain (PZ 7), the Ziway Plain (PZ B) and the HaykochPlain (PZ 9).

Impact of Interventions on Crop Production

If production of food and cash crops is to keep pace withpopulation growth in Haykoch and Butajira it is essential thatyields must be raised and that cropland be made more productive.The use of material inputs such as fertilizers and improved seedsshould be promoted and land improvements should be directed toland with particular constraints which are susceptible toamelioration at reasonable cost.

Approximately two thirds of Haykoch and Butajira has a reli-able growing periodl- of less than 90 days and there is a sig-nificant risk of crop failure in dry years in this area. The in-troduction of short maturing maize varieties such as Katumani cansubstantially reduce the level of risk to farmers and guaranteean enhanced and more stable level of production. Figure Si com-pares the production impact of introduction of short maturingmaize varieties in the Planning Zones of the wraja.

xxi

1. The growing period which is exceeded in 75 Y. of years


Figure Si

Impact of Short maturing varieties on Production of Maize

.

1.1-el

HB 1 2 3

Pla ing

Responses to this varietal intervention are highest in thedriest areas of the rift, such as the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9) andthe Aje Hills (PZ 10), although benefits are also substantial inparts of the Koshe, Alaba and Ziway Plains (PZs 6,7,8), and inthe Bui Upland (PZ 3).

Irrigation is a more costly technique for alleviating themoisture constraint in areas with short growing periods and istherefore only likely to be economically viable for high valuehorticultural or fruit crops. Map 14 (p.98) gives an approximateidea of the areas in the Awraja likely to benefit from irrigationof chilli pepper assuming water is available. Potential impact isgreatest in the rift valley and on the lower footslopes of PZ5 5

and 6.

Soil conservation is a further land improvement expected toimprove crop production. Conservation works should be appliedwhere neccessary throughout the Awraja and are particularlyneeded in the western highlands. The proportion of land requiringspecified conservation measures in each Planning Zone is given inTable S3 (p. xix),In addition to preventing yield decline oncropland, benefits can accrue from stabilisation and reclamationof degraded areas through increased fodder and fuelwood produc-tion.

1---74 5 6 'a 9 10


On the limited areas of Vertisol occurring in Haykoch andButajira, crop productivity can be raised through improvement ofsurface drainage using an adaptation of the traditional Mareshaplough developed by ILCA. Vertisol areas are principally locatedon the Bui Upland (PZ 3) and Ziway Plain (PZ 8).

Population Support Capacity

Analysis of population support capacity (PSC) aims to definethe availability of the basic needs of the people relative totheir requirements. Both availability of cropland andavailability of forage resources are assessed at the levels ofPlanning Zone and Service Cooperative.

The principal output of PSC is a classification of ServiceCooperatives according to potentials and constraints in relationto population need. This classification can be used as a basisfor selecting SCs for allocation of material resources, and toprovide a logical framework within which a more detailed planningprocedure, such as Service Cooperative Consultative Planning, canoperate.

The distribution of cropland availability relative to re-quirements over the Awraja is illustrated in Figure S2."Critical" SCs are currently short of cropland even if higher in-put levels are supplied and land improvements are implementedwhere necessary. "Adequate" SCs are theoretically able to supplythe cropland needs of their populations at the lo w input level

(in 1989). "Medium" SCs are able to subsist at the intermediateinput level but have limited potential for surplus production.

Given a projected population growth rate of 3.0 Y. per annum,Figure S3 shows the frequency distribution of SCs according to

available cropland relative to requirements over a 25 yearperiod. The histograms show the cumulative numbers of SCs whichbecome critical relative to population demand for crop/and in1989, 1999 and 2014. SCs in the "<1989" class have already ex-ceeded their cropland support capacity.

Figure S4 illustrates the relative pressure on forage

resources, relative to the needs of the estimated present live-

stock population.

a'. The results of forage availability are based on a separate as-essment, presented in a Consultant's Report (Harris, 1969).

Havkoch and Butaiira: Summary

PoPulation SuPport Capacity of Cropland

by Service Cooperat ve


Figure S=3

Cropland Support Capacity of Service Cooperatives

by Planning Zone

a) Lo w inputs

198S.'

b) Intermediate inputs

40

30-

10 -

30

10

Plann Zone1989

Z%NN,hk

'N.

AP::

01:, OW :14P 04:.'t

g : OM 015:: ':'

,CA In . OW .

.<1989

3 4

Plann ng Zone1989 M1999

X XV

199 ERI2014 LLI.0

2014 [ max

o 20-


Figure 54

Current Stocking Load relative to Carrying Capacity

140120-100-80-60-40 -23-

20-40

41r4r.dirAlrAP:11

1I i 1

2 3 4 5 6

Plamning

Source: Adapted from Harris (1989)

The present situation in the Awraja is characterised by lowcrop and livestock productivity, competition for land betweencropping and grazing uses and an overall forage deficit equiv-alent to 25 "4 of the requirements of the present livestockpopulation (Harris, 1989). In parts of the Awraja land degrada-tion is extensive.

O

There are clear zonal differences in population supportcapacity within Haykoch and Butajira which can be related tospecific constraints within each Planning Zone. The Western High-lands are the most critically short of cropland, largely due tothe occurrence of steep slopes, shallow soils, or degraded bad-land areas. Within the highlands, the Gurage Mountains (PZ 1) andthe Wilbareg Upland (PZ 4) are the worst affected areas, with theGibiso Upland (PZ 2) and the Bui Upland (PZ 3) generally havingadequate cropland due to dominance of less steep slopes and, inthe latter case, to a lower population density. On the AlabaPlain (PZ 7) high livestock densities result in an acute forageshortage, and in all the Kona PZs (7,8,9) rainfed cropping issubject to risks of crop failure in dry years, a problem that ismost severe on the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9) where rainfall is thelowest in the Awraja. On the Koshe Plains (PZ 6) and NegeleFootslopes (PZ 5) there is considerable variation between popula-tion support status of cropland and forage between individualService Cooperatives.

xxvi

7 8


Recommendations arising from this analysis aim to ach eveself sufficiency in staple food crops and the production ofsurplusses to meet AMC targets and to generate cash income,throughout the Awraja. As there is already competition for land,the situation can only be improved through raising productivity,per crop and per animal, by supply of improved inputs and im-proved management. The rapidly growing population, which isprojected by the PSC model at a growth rate of 3.0% per annum,will pose an increasing strain on the resources of the area underpresent levels of technology, even if intermediate inputs areadopted on a large scale basis. Increases in input level must becombined with a policy of population control to provide a longterm solution to the problem of population pressure on resources.

A number of recommendations are directed to specific Plan-ning Zones. Crop yields could be stabilised at a higher level inthe rift valley PZs (7,8,9) by the introduction of short maturingmaize varieties such as Katumani. In the western highlands, par-ticularly in PZ 1 and parts of PZ 4, increasing the proportion ofensete in the crop mix could reduce the cropland required toproduce sufficient calories for subsistence. The most promisingtechniques for reducing the forage deficit generally involve acloser integration between cropping and stock rearing activities.Undersowing maize and sorghum with legumes is likely to have themost impact (Harris, 1989), particularly in the rift valley andin EZs 5 and 6, where maize is the dominant crop grown. Stabi-lization of crop production through the introduction of shortmaturing varieties may make a reduction in total livestock num-bers more feasible, particularly in overstocked areas like theAlaba Plain (PZ 7). In the western and eastern highlands closureof steeply sloping and badland areas, accompanied by cut andcarry harvesting of forage should have a substantial impact ontotal supplies.

Conservation of soil and of natural grazing and browse isimportant throughout the Awraja to ensure the sustainability ofexisting farming systems and to prevent further losses of produc-tive crop and grazing land. Soil conservation is particularly im-portant in the western highlands (mainly EZs 3 and 4) to

stabilise areas of existing badland and to prevent furtherencroachment. Prevention of further pasture degradation is of

greatest importance on the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9), where oppor-tunities for reliable rainfed cropping are most limited.

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 1: Land Evaluation Rationale

1. LAND EVALUATION RATIONALE

1.1. OBJECTIVES OF LAND EVALUATION

Land evaluation is the assessment of land performance whenused for specified purposes. The results of land evaluationtherefore provide a rational basis for decisions on land usewhich can be taken in accordance with national and regionaldevelopment priorities.

Consistent with the above aims, the present land evaluationstudy is directed towards the following objectives

identifying land suitable for arable and perennialcropping, livestock grazing and fuelwood production,based on assessment of soil erosion hazard, presentland degradation and wetness limitations.

identifying suitable crops, areas where they can begrown, and estimating yields under different levelsof inputs and technology.

assessing the land resource balance relative topresent and projected population numbers for ServiceCooperatives and Planning Zones to identify areas ofparticular need and areas most likely to benefitfrom additional investment.

1.2. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF STUDIES

Haykoch and Butajira is one of three Awrajas covered byreconnaissance level resource surveys, land evaluation and in-dicative land use planning by Phase III of the FAO Project"Assistance to Land Use Planning". These Awrajas were selected EtE

areas of agricultural surplus production.

The interrelationship of the various studies carried out inHaykoch and Butajira by FAO/LUFRD is shown in Figure 1.1. LandEvaluation is a cehtral component of an integrated study andlinks the data gathering activities of soil (Van Sleen and MisbahAbdulatif, 1989), climate (WoldeGabriel Kidane, 1989), presentland use and land cover (Mengistu Negash, 1989) and socioeconomicinventory (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989) with the indicativeland use plan for the study area (Sutcliffe and Bahiru Melasse,1989). The study of agronomic potentials and constraints (Adjei-Twum and Dure Kumssa, 1989) draws on data both the socioeconomicand land use surveys and from land evaluation to formulate recom-mendations, and the results of these studies are used in themodelling of population support capacity described in the presentreport (Chapter 7).

1

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 1: Land Evaluation Rationale

Fogiae

INTERRELATIO

f km a liformatio

,

II

IP OF STUDIES

O 04

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 1: Land Evaluation Rationale

1.3. REPORT STRUCTURE

This report describes the methodology and results of theevaluation of the land resources of Haykoch and Butajira Awraja.The following Chapter (2) outlines the physical, demographic andinfrastructural characteristics of the area. Chapter 3 presentsthe data base on which the evaluation is carried out anddescribes the methodologies used for erosion hazard assessment,crop suitability evaluation and population support capacityanalysis.

The remaining four chapters present and discuss the resultsof the land evaluation. Chapter 4 describes the incidence ofsheet erosion hazard and the distribution of present badland andgully erosion in Haykoch and Butajira and formulates a series ofconservation based land use recommendations which are presentedin tabular and map form. Chapter 5 gives the results of cropsuitability evaluation , while Chapter 6 assesses the impact ofchanges in input level and of land improvements. Chapter 7presents the results of population support capacity analysisby Planning Zone and by Service Cooperative. Within each PlanningZone, Service Cooperatives critical with respect to cropland orforage resources for livestock are identified and appropriaterecommendations are formulated to improve levels of agriculturalproduction and conserve the land resources of the area.

Data on the physical and human resources of the study areaand the component Planning Zones, together with cropsuitabilities, and conservation based recommendations and popula-tion support capacity by Service Cooperative, is presented in theAppendices. 5 basic thematic maps, a map showing conservationbased land use recommendations and 5 land suitability maps forcrop groups, all at 1: 250 000 scale accompany the report.

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butajira Awraja

2. HAYKOCH AND BUTAJIRA AWRAJA

2.1. LOCATION

Haykoch and Butajira Awraja is located in the southern partof Shewa Administrative Region and comprises the central part ofthe Ethiopian Rift Valley with adjacent highlands in the northwest and south east. Text Map 1 shows the location of the Haykochand Butajira, and of its major towns and roads. The Awraja is lo-cated between geographica/ coordinates 6° 55' and 8° 55' N, and38° 02' and 39° 02' E, and occupies a total area of 1 177 340 haof which 94 354 ha comprises lakes.

2.2. PLANNING ZONES

For purposes of summarizing and interpreting data fromresource surveys and for facilitating the application of resultsand planning recommendations, the Awraja is divided into 10 Plan-ning Zones (PZ5). The location of PZs and in Haykoch andButajira is shown on Text Map 2, and at a larger scale on Map 6accompanying this report. Certain key properties that form thebasis for definition of PZs and SDAs are summarized in Table 2.1.

PZs are essentially physical resource units with boundariesadjusted to follow administrative divisions. The agroecologicalzonation of the Awraja (Mengistu Negash, 1989) and the surveys ofsoils and physiography (Van Sleen and Misbah Abdulatif, 1989)and farming systems (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989) provide theprimary basis for zone definition, while the Service Cooperatives(SCs) are the smallest administrative units used for boundaryalignment. Thus, with the exception of PZ 10 which is wholly com-posed entirely of State Farms and forest land, each PZ comprisesa group of SCs with relatively homogeneous agroecological condi-tions and a broadly similar range of constraints and potentialsfor development. The PZ is therefore a suitable spatial unit forthe targeting of area specific land use planning recommendations.

4


Table 2.1

Planning Zones

7

Dominant Agro-Na. Name Ecological Zone

1 Gurage Mountains Dega

2 Gibiso Upland Lower Dega

Bui Upland Woina Dega

4 Wilbareg Upland Woina Dega

Negele Footslopes Woina Dega

6 Koshe Plain Woina Dega

7 Alaba Plain Kolla

8 Ziway Plain Kolla

9 Haykoch Plain Kolla

10 Aje Hills Woina Dega

Lakes

Dominant AreaTopography ha

Escarpment with 56 039 4.8high plateau andoutlying spurs

Rolling - 31 882 2.7undulating upland

Rolling upland 79 410 6.7with parallelridges and valleys

Extensively 68 848 5.8degraded rollingupland

Footslopes, escarp- 108 174 9.2sent and plateau ofeastern rift valley

Undulating and flat 233 680 19.8plain with parallelridges

Flat and gently 160 197 13.6

undulating plain

Flat Plain 145 871 12.4

Flat Plain with 173 820 14.8outlying hills

Volcanic hills 24 747and footslopes

94 354 8.0

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butajira wraja

2.3. TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS

?.3.1. Elevation

Haykoch and Butajira extends over a total altitudinal rangeof 1 400-3 600 m.a.s1 but three quarters of the Awraja is lo-cated below 2 000 m.a.s.1 on the rift valley floor. The highestaltitudes in the Awraja occur in the mountains in the north west,where the Gurage escarpment rises to over 3 600 m. The lowestelevations occur in the trough of the central rift valley whichcontains Lakes Abiyata, Shala and Langano, and in the lowerreaches of the Bilate valley in the extreme south west.

Table 2.2 shows the dominant mean elevation of the PlanningZones.

Table 2.2

Mean Elevation of Planning Zones

No.

1

45

6789

10

8

DominantMean Elevation

PZ (masl)

Gurage Mountains 2000-3400Gibiso Upland 2400-3200Bui Upland 1800-2400Wilbareg Upland 1800-2400Negele Footslopes 1600-2600Koshe Plain 1600-2200Alaba Plain 1600-2000Ziway Plain 1600-1800Haykoch Plain 1400-1800Aje Hills 1800-2200

map I LOCATION OF HAYKOCH AND BUTAJIRA

AC

LOCATION MAP CONVENT/ONAL SYMBOLS

LOCATION MAP

AVKOCH AND BUTAJIAIM RAJA

CONVE L SYMBOLS

o

All Weatl., -

Railway

To

o

I, 000, 000

VO


Landforms

Haykoch and Butajira occupies the central part of theEthiopian Rift Valley, which is a part of the rift valley extend-ing from Jordan to Mozambique. The rift valley floor comprisesflat or gently sloping plains (PZs 7,8, and 9), occasionally in-terrupted by Pleistocene volcanic cones and calderas. The riftfloor slopes gently from north and south into a central troughwhich contains Lakes Shala, Abiyata and Langano. The former lake,in common with Lake Zwai further north, is deep and results froma combination of volcanic and tectonic activity. Lake Abiyata andLake Langano are shallow lakes formed in depositional basins, andsurrounded by extensive lacustrine plains (PZ 9).

The western highlands rise from the rift valley in a seriesof tectonically controlled escarpments and terraces. The ini-tial rise, onto the Koshe Plain (PZ 6), is gradual and the reliefbecomes more dissected and irregular to the north west, cul-minating in the Gurage escarpment which rises to over 3600m.a.s.l. close to the north western boundary of the Awraja. Theseuplands, associated with the edge of the rift, consist of struc-turally controlled valleys, ridges and escarpments alignedparallel to the rift valley floor. More recent volcanic activityhas resulted in small outlying craters and cones.

In the south east the Negele Footslopes (PZ 5) rise to theArsi plateau and to the volcanic peak of Mount Duro. In this areathe drainage pattern is less structurally controlled than in thewest and the topography comprises dominantly gently sloping in-terfluves, separated by incised valleys. The relative relief anddegree of dissection increases with altitude until the plateau isreached.

The Rift Valley is a relatively young geological feature andis still subject to seismic activity. Although none of the vol-canoes are presently active, common hot springs indicate the in-cidence of recent activity. Of more immediate significance to thecurrent land use is the very active geological erosion procedingon the rift valley margins. This erosion is most serious in thewestern uplands where the soils are underlain by soft layeredpyroclastic parent materials which are rapidly incised by rivers.The resulting steady fall of base level imposes an erosionalgradient which is reflected by an extension of badland alongand away from drainage lines. Such "geological erosion" is dif-ficult to halt, although measures can be taken to delay the rateof badland enchroachment. The Wilbareg Uplands (PZ 4) and the BuiUpland (PZ 3) are the worst affected areas in Haykoch andButajira.

Further details of the dominant landforms of each PlanningZone are given in Table 2.3.

9

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butaiira Awraja

2.3.3. SoilsThe soils of Haykoch and Butajira Awraja are discussed in

the surveys of soils & physiography (Van Sleen & Misbah Ab-dulatif, 1989). Soils are classified according to the draftrevised legend of the Soil Map of the World (FAO/ UNESCO, 1988).The dominant soils types identified in the area are Phaeozems,Vertisols, Andosols, Nitisols, Fluvisols and Leptosols.Planosols, Solonchaks and Luvisols occur in certain localitiesand areas of bare rock land and degraded badland are locally ex-tensive.

The distribution of the dominant soil types in each PlanningZone is given in Table 2.3. Notes of the dominant soils andlandforms in each PZ are given below.

PZ 1, the Gurage Mountains, is dominated by a very steepescarpment with shallow Leptosols and bare rock. Deep andmoderately shallow soils (Andosols and Phaeozems) are associatedwith the the escarpment footslopes and with shelves and spurs onthe escarpment. This zone also contains rolling topography withdeep Phaeozems on the summits and backslopes of the escarpment.

the Gibiso Upland, comprises a rolling to undulatingplateau underlain by moderately deep or deep Nitisols andPhaeozems.

the Bui Upland, is a dissected undulating plateaudominated by deep poorly drained Vertisols and deep well drainedPhaeozems. The area contains extensive degraded land extending upthe valleys.

In PZ 4, the Wilbareg Upland, badland is even more extensiveIn the worst affected areas, 'islands' of good soil are sur-rounded by coalescing badland from two or more valleys. Vertisolsand Phaeozems are dominant in the better areas, with Nitisols oc-curring at higher altitude.

the Negele Footslopes, is dominated by gentle volcanicslopes. Deep Andosols, which are sodic at depth, dominate thelower parts of the zone, while deep Phaeozems are the most commonsoil type at higher altitude.

the Koshe Plain comprises flat or gently slopingplains, seperated by parallel riges and valleys. Deep Phaeozemsare dominant on the plains and ridges, with deep Fluvisols in thevalleys. Some areas with poorly drained Vertisols occur, and An-dosols, which are sodic at depth, dominate the lower altitudeareas.

10

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 2x Haykoch and Butajira Awraja

Table 7.3

Dominant Landform and Soil Conditions of Planning Zones

No. PZ/SDA

6 Koshe Plain H53 10

822 8

A411 8

R21 6

134 6

H61 6

Soil X Area Dominant Landforms and SoilsMapping of

Unit 1/ PZ (X of total area)

Gently sloping convex with Phoeozess

Undulating convex ridge w;n Phaeozems and Vertigo'sTerrace with Plani-Mollic FluvisolsGently sloping plain with Andosols; sodic at depthGently undulating plain with Vertisols and PhaeozemsGentle slopes with Phaeozess and ollic Planogols

11

1 Gurage Mountains P51 22 Very steep escarpeent with Leptosols832 13 Ben ly sloping p ain with Andosols and scoriaP52 9 Dissected foothills with Leptosols and NitisolsP13 8 Rolling upland with Mlue:sP23 8 gently sloping ridges and sk2lves with PhaeozemsVII 8 Very steep vocanic cone reElants with Leptosols

2 Gibiso Upland P22 31 Rolling plateau with NitisolsP13 28 Rolling upland with PhaeozemsP21 18 Rolling upland sith PhaeozeDgP51 8 Very steep escarpaent with Leptosols

Bui Upland P321 23 Undulating eroded platean with Vertisols and SEE2 [':iliAdP312 16 Concave footslopeg with stagnic and vertic Phaeoucr:5121 11 Dissected undulating plain with Vertisols and Phaeo:ffisP311 8 Eroded summits and steep slopes with Phaeozems and LeptosolsP51 7 Very steep escarpment with Leptosols4412 7 Moderately dissected terraces with Vertisols

Wilbareg Upland 5113 18 Undulating plateau with extensive badlandSIll 13 Rolling plateau with extensive badlandV121 11 Strongly degraded ridge and footslope (badland)P322 9 Rolling eroded plateau with Vertisols and extensive hadlandP323 e Escarpsents with bare rock and Phaeozess8132 7 Undulating convex interfluves with Vertisols and Phaeozems

Negele Footslopes R21 18 Bently sloping plain with Andosols: sodic at depthAll 18 Dissected hill and mountain slopes with Andosols and Phaeozess11132 16 Strongly dissected lower slopes with Phaeozems and 1,11ic

Planosols

1121 11 Sently undulating plain with Phaeoz85 7 Steep ntains

7 Alaba Plain R21 38 Gently sloping Plain with Andosols; sodic at depth

C211 12 Undulating plain with Mollie Andosols1 sodic phase

R31 5 Bentle slopes with Mollie Andosols; skeletal phase

8 Ziway Plain 1211 21 Flat lacustrine terrace with Andi-Eutric Fluvisols; sodic phase

A422 12 Gently undulating terrace with Mollie and Eutric Fluvisols

L311 9 Nearly level lacustrine plain with Andi-Mollic Fluvisols

9 Haykoch Plain L311 13 Nearly level lacustrine plain with Andi-Mollic Fluvisols

1221 9 Nearly level lacustrine terrace with Calci-Andi-Mollic Fluvisols

L321 8 Flat takeshore plain with saline Fluvisols

L211 7 Flat lacustrine terrace with Andi-Eutric Fluvisols; sodic phase

L231 7 Very gently sloping plain with Andi-Mollic Fluvisols; sodic phase

L222 5 Gently undulating plain with Calci-Andi-Mollic Fluvisols

10 Aje Hills R1 30 Bentle caldera backslope with Mollie Andosols; sodic phase

R21 24 Gently sloping plain pith AnJosols; sodic at depth

V22 9 Steep inner caldera escarpeent with Leptosols and-rock

V13 9 Recent volcanic cones

V31 9 Moderately steep slppes with lava f

Note 1/. Soil Napping Units refer to the Soil Report and acenapanying sap (Van Sleen and Misbah Abdulatif,1989)

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butajira AwraJa

PZ 7, the Alaba Plain, is dominated by deep Andosols, most ofwhich are sodic in the subsoil. Dark mollic horizons, which arerich in organic matter, commomly occur.

On the flat and gently sloping Ziway plain (PZ 8), deepFluvisols are the dominant soil type. These soils are usually welldrained with dark mollic topsoils. Sodic phases are common.

Fluvisols are also the dominant soil type on the lacustrineterraces of the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9). These soils are mainlyformed in redistributed volcanic ash and have strong andic charac-teristics. Soils are dominantly deep, with sodic layers occurringin the subsoil. An extensive saline plain with shallow soils oc-curs to the north and west of Lake Abiyata.

The Aje Hills (PZ 10) consist of a caldera complex, which isdominantly rocky, and long gentle backslopes which are underlainby deep Andosols with well developed dark topsoils.

2.4. CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY

2.4.1. Precipitation

The mean total annual precipitation in Haykoch and Butajiravaries from less than 600 mm to around 1400 mm. The spatial dis-tribution of mean annual rainfall is presented on Map 2 at 1: 250000 scale. Total rainfall is broadly related to altitude and themountains and escarpments exhibit strong orographic effects, withthe highest rainfalls occurring on the Gurage escarpment, and thelowest occurring in the trough containing Lakes Abiyata, Shala andLangano. The monthly distribution of rainfall is bimodal with themain Kremt rains falling from June to September. The relativeimportance of the Belg rains, which normally fall between Februaryand May, increases from north to south in the Awraja. In the northeastern part of Haykoch and Butajira around Alem Tena (PZ 8) theBelg only accounts for between 20% and 307. of the total annualrainfall but this proportion increases to 40% to 50% around AlabaKulito, Shashemene and Wondo Genet in the south (PZs 5, 7 and 10).In these latter areas double cropping is feasible on soils withreasonable water holding capacity. Even when the Belg is not suf-ficient for cropping, these early rains are important for landpreparation and for grass growth.

Table 2.4 gives the dominant annual rainfall range and theproportion of rain falling in the Belg, by Planning Zone.

12


Table 2.4

Further details on distribution of precipitation in Haykochand Butajira are given by WoldeGabriel Kidane (1989).

.4.2. Temperature and Evapotranspiration

Both temperature and potential evapotranspiration (PET) areclosely correlated with altitude, a fact that is highly reflectedby the traditional Ethiopian climatic zonation into Dega, WoinaDega and Kolla zones. Thus the highest temperatures ( mean annual22°C) and highest PETs (annual 1800 mm) are encountered on the

Haykoch Plain, whereas on the upper slopes of the Gurage Moun-tains temperature and PET decrease to around 9°C and 900 mm

respectively. Mean annual temperatures on the rift valley floorvary from 18°C to 22°C and annual PET varies from 1500 - 1800 mm.

Dominant mean annual temperature and PET ranges for each PZ aregiven in Table 2.5.

13

No.

Mean Annual Rainfall of Planning Zones

Mean Annual RainfallPZ (mm)

Proportionin Belg (%)

1. Gurage Mountains 1200 :-. 1400 30 - 402. Gibiso Upland 1100 - 1300 30 - 403. Bui Upland 900 - 1200 25 - 404. Wilbareg Upland 1000 - 1100 25 - 405. Negele Footslopes 900 - 1300 35 - 456. Koshe Plain 800 - 1100 25 - 507. Alaba Plain 800 - 1000 30 - 50B. Ziway Plain 800 - 1000 20 - 409. Haykoch Plain 600 - 1000 30 - 50

10. Aje Hills 900 - 1100 35 - 45

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter : Haykoch and Butajira Awraja

Table 2.5

Temperature and Potential Evapotranspiration of Planning Zones

2.4.3. Frost Hazard

Frost is a only a significant constraint to agriculturalproduction in the Dega areas of Haykoch and Butajira which com-prise the summit plateaux and upper slopes of the Gurage Moun-tains (PZ 1), the Gibiso Uplands (PZ 2) and a small part of theNegele Footslopes (PZ 5). The degree of frost hazard increasesprogressively with altitude and is also affected by relativetopographic situation, with valley bottoms and adjacent lowerslopes being the areas most at risk. The period during whichfrost are likely to occur extends from October - January, whichincludes the latter part of the crop growing period.

2.4.4. Growing Period

The growing period is a period of the year when moistureavailability is sufficient for crop growth and depends on therelative balance of precipitation and evaporation on soil mois-ture storage.

The spatial distribution of length of growing period isshown at 1: 250 000 scale on Map 3. There is a very wide varia-tion in the growing period regimes experienced in the Awraja. Thereliable growing period, exceeded in 3 out of 4 years, variesfrom 50 to 250 days and the median growing period, exceeded in507. of years varies from BO to 290 days. Approximately twothirds of the wraja has a reliable growing period of less than

14

Dominant AltitudePZ Range (masl)

Mean Annual

Temp.(°C)

Annual PET(mm)

1. Gurage Mountains 2000-3400 9.0 - 18.2 890 - 1540G. Gibiso Upland 2400-3200 10.4 - 15.6 980 - 13503. Bui Upland 1800-2400 15.6 - 19.4 1350 - 16304. Wilbareg Upland 1800-2400 15.6 - 19.4 1350 - 16305. Negele Footslopes 1600-2600 14.2 - 20.8 1260 - 17206. Koshe Plain 1600-2200 16.8 - 20.8 1450 - 17207. Alaba Plain 1600-2000 18.2 - 20.8 1540 - 17208. Ziway Plain 1600-1800 19.4 - 20.8 1630 - 17209. Haykoch Plain 1400-1800 19.4 - 22.0 1630 - 182010. Aje Hills 1800-2200 16.8 - 19.4 1450 - 1630


90 days, which indicates a considerable level of risk to annualcropping. Being dependent on rainfall and PET, growing periodduration is closely related to altitude: the longest LGPs occuron the Gurage Mountains (PZ 1) which experiences both the highestrainfall and the lowest PET. Conversely the shortest LGPs occuron the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9). Table 2.6 shows the dominant grow-ing period characteristics of Planning Zones.

Table 2.6

Growing Period Characteristics of Planning Zones

Notes: 1/. Growing Period exceeded in 3 out of 4 years2/. Probability of having a Relg growing period of at least 60 days

2.4.5. Hydrology

The rift valley lakes of Zwai, Abiyata, Langano, Shala andAwasa, as well as Lake Abayal form a closed basin into which ap-proximately 90 % of the Awraja drains. There is evidence of afall in lake levels over the past two decades and the lakesreceive considerable sediment loads from the active erosion oc-

1. This is the large Lake Abaya in Sidamo. A smaller Lake Abayaoccurs within Haykoch and Butajira, to the west of Silti town,and drains a limited area of the Awraja.

15

No. PZ

Main Growing PeriodDuration (days)75 :1/ Median

ProbabilityBelg GP2/

Median Onsetof main GP

1. Gurage Mountains 120-210 160-250 25-60 April - Play

4. Gibiso Upland 150-210 170-250 45-60 April - May3. Bui Upland 100-180 140-220 20-60 April - May4. Wilbareg Upland 120-170 160-210 25-45 May

5. Negele Footslopes 100-210 140-250 20-60 April - May6. Koshe Plain 80-120 100-180 25-40 May - July7. Alaba Plain 80-120 100-170 20-25 May - July8. Ziway Plain 80-120 100-170 0-25 May - July9. Haykoch Plain 50- 90 80-120 0-25 July

10. Aje Hills 80-150 100-180 25-40 May - July


curring on the western and eastern margins of the rift. Geomor-phological evidence suggests that areas of open water were moreextensive in prehistoric times.

The extreme north and north eastern parts of the Awraja aredrained by tributaries of the Awash River.

The occurrence of numerous springs in the area west of thecentral lakes (Abiyata and Shala) suggests some potential forgroundwater development.

2.5. PRESENT LAND USE AND LAND COVER

2.5.1. Vegetation

The present physiognomic vegetation types occurring in thestudy area are summarized in Table 2.7 and described in detail inthe report land use and land cover of Haykoch and Butajira Awraja(Mengistu Negash, 1989).

Table 2.7

Physiognomic Vegetation Types

Note: The remaining 75.3 'X of Haykoch and Butajira is occupied bycultivated units

Dense Forest 25449 2.2Open Forest 27921 2.4Riverain Forest 12387 1.0Planted Forest 1348 0.1Dense Woodland 41405 3.5Open Woodland 22359 1.9Wooded Bu hland 28714 2.4Wooded bush shrub grassland 17303 1.5Wooded-Shrub grassland 46797 4.0Shrubland 1882 0.2Shrub grassland 25898 2.2Degraded shrub grassland 4719 0.4Grassland 13848 1.2Marshy grassland 8089 0.7Seasonally inundated grassland 12696 1.1

290415 24.7

16

Description Area (ha) 7. of the Awraja

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butajira wraja

2.5.2. Pr nt Land Ulm

The present land use of the area is dominated by traditionalpeasant farming and is basically subsistence orientated. Thefarming systems of the area are mixed, comprising both croppingand livestock rearing, with livestock rearing becoming relativelymore important in the drier areas on the rift valley floor. Maizeis the dominant subsistence crop grown in the Awraja, and teffbecomes more important in the north and west (PZs 3, 4, and 8).At higher altitudes (PZs 1 and 2) barley and wheat are the prin-cipal subsistence crops and ensete (Ehsete ventricosum) is an ad-ditional source of subsistence . Pulse crops are also importantin some of the Woina Degg areas and in the northern and centralparts of the rift valley. Chillies and potatoes are grown to asignificant extent, mainly as cash crops, in PZs 5,6 and 7.Cattle are by far the dominant livestock, and are used for landpreparation, as well as providing disposable assets. Productionof dairy products is particularly important in the ensete farmingsystems of PZs 1 and 2. Crop residues contribute approximately60 % of the total livestock feed resources (Harris, 1989).

The Socioeconomic Survey (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989)recognized eight farming systems based on product mix and en-vironmental setting. Table 2.8 gives the dominant farming systemin each Planning Zone.

17


Table 2.8Current Farming Systems

Note 1/. Farming System Numbers refer to those used in the SocioeconomicsReport (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989)In addition to peasant farming systems, state arms and

ranching enterprises account for a total of 21 881 ha which ismainly located in PZs 6, 7, 9 and 10.

2.6. ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

The study area is located in the south of Shewa Administra-tive region. Haykoch and Butaiira comprises 13 Weredas, 4 ofwhich are classified by the Government as "surplus producing".There are 850 Peasant Associations which are organized into 157Service Cooperatives.

18

Planning Farming Cereals Other LivestockZone Syste. .1/

1. Gurage Mountains 8 Barley Enset CattleWheat Horses

2. Gibiso Upland 8 As Planning Zone 13. Bui Upland 7 Teff Chickpea Cattle

Wheat Lentil4. Wilbareg Upland 5 Maize Cattle

TeffWheat

5. Negele Footslopes 6 Maize Potato CattleTeffWheat

6. Koshe Plain 4 Maize Chillies CattleSorghumWheat

7, Alaba Plain 3 Maize Potatoes CattleGoats

8. Ziway Plain 2 MaizeTeff

Haricotbean

Cattle

9. Haykoch Plain 1 Maize Haricotbean

Cattle

10. Aje Hills State Farms and forest land


Table 2.9 lists the Weredas of Haykoch and Butajira andtheir administrative captals. A listing of Service Cooperativesby Wereda is given in Appendix A (p. 131 ) 0

Table 2.9

Weredas of Haykoch and Butajira

Wereda Capital

Bora Alem TenaDugda MekiZiway ZiwayArsi Negele NegeleShashemene ShashemeneSiraro AjeAlaba Alaba KulitoDalocha WilbaregLanfaro ToraSilti KibetMeskana Mareko Butaj iraSodo BuiKondaltiti Kondaltiti

The Weredas of Arsi Negele, Shashamene, Dalocha and MeskanaMareko are classified as surplus producing by the Government.

7.6.1. Population Dermity

Rural population density in a subsistence based economy ismainly determined by the productivity of a given area and itscomponent farming systems. The total population in Haykoch andButajira was 1 211 964 in 1984 when the last census was taken.Assuming a population growth rate of 3 % per annum the present(1989) population is approximately 1.4 million giving a grosspopulation density of 130 persons /km l'r of land area.

Tables 2.10 and 2.11 give the distribution of rural popula-tion by Wereda and by Planning Zone respectively. Rural poulationcomprises approximately 97 % of the total. Areas refer to landareas (excluding lakes).

19

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butajira wraja

Table 2.10

Population by Wereda

Table 2.11

Population of Planning Zones

20

Wereda Land Area(ha)

RuralPopulation

Density(/km')

Bora 44719 30563 68Dugda 100057 63216 63Ziway 93568 44852 48Arsi Negele 95618 82791 87Shashemene 84944 113709 134Siraro 140590 128676 92Alaba 106714 134585 126Dalocha 72641 105087 145Lanfaro 69551 81001 116Silti 49635 111130 224Meskana Mareko 85309 167072 196Sodo 73315 81898 112Kondaltiti 66320 67384 102

Planning ZoneRural

PopulationDensity(/km')

1. Gurage Mountains 81271 1452. Gibiso Upland 47468 1493. Bui Upland 66736 844. Wilbareg Upland 102283 1495. Negele Footslopes 154355 1436. Koshe Plain 383530 1687. Alaba Plain 193386 1448. Ziway Plain 101073 709. Haykoch Plain 81882 50

10. Aje Hills 0 0

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butajira AwraJa

The highest population densities are found on the KoshePlain, in the highland Dega areas (PZs 1 and 2), on the southernAlaba Plain and, perhaps surprisingly, on the degraded WilbaregUpland. Excepting the Aje Hills, the population of which is con-fined to State Farm workers, the lowest population densities arefound on the Haykoch and Ziway Plains which have the poorestrainfall regimes in the wraja.

2.6.2. Live tgck PoDulation Density

The Awraja has a large livestock population, numberingnearly 2 000 000 animals or 1 138 035 Tropical Livestock Units(TLUs):2 according to MOA Wereda Office statistics based on 1964census data (quoted in Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989). Live-stock are an important component of all the farming systems inHaykoch and Butajira and are particularly significant in thedrier areas of the rift valley floor. THe vast majority of thelivestock population (on a body weight basis) comprises cattle.Tables 2.12 and 2.13 give the livestock population and density byWereda and Planning Zone respectively. Livestock on State Farmsand ranching enterprises are excluded from this data.

Table 2.12

Livestock Population by Wereda

2. A tropical livestock unit is equivalent to a zebu ox of 250 kgliveweight.

21

Wereda Land Area(ha)

Livestock(TLUs)

Density(/km)

Bora 44719 41172 92Dugda 100057 82911 83Ziway 93568 45349 48Arsi Negele 95618 75780 79Shashemene 84944 110698 130Siraro 140590 359330 256Alaba 106714 66736 63Dalocha 72641 54747 75Lanfaro 69551 33825 49Silti 49635 43335 87Meskana Mareko 85309 117627 138Sodo 73315 66948 91Kondaltiti 66320 39579 60

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 2: Haykoch and Butajira Awraja

Table 2.13

Livestock Population of Planning Zones

The Alaba Plain is the most densely stocked area with agross density of 190 TLUs/ km, while the degraded Wilbareg andBui uplands have the lowest livestock densities. The comparativeimportance of livestock in the farming systems of the Kolla areasbecomes apparent when the average numbers of livestock perhousehold are compared. The Haykoch Plain, which is the most mar-ginal area for cropping, has the largest livestock numbers rela-tive to the human population.

2.7. INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS

2,7.1. Rural Institutions

The Awraja is served by the usual complement of institutionsfor agricultural development established by the Ministry ofAgriculture. These offices are responsible for conducting croptrials, organi7ation of cooperatives and soil conservation ac-tivities.

The Service Cooperative (SC) is the organizational unitthrough which the supply of inputs and much of the marketing ofproduce is carried out. The vast majority of PAs in the studyarea are organized into SCs. Agricultural extension is also sup-plied at SC level through the development agent (DA).

Planning ZoneLivestockPopulation

Density(/km)

No. of TLUs/householdl/

1. Gurage Mountains 54163 97 3.02. Gibiso Upland 25669 81 3.33. Bui Upland 55623 70 4.74. Wilbareg Upland 50051 73 2.45. Negele Footslopes 131447 122 5.36. Koshe Plain 230032 98 3.37. Alaba Plain 300703 190 9.9B. Ziway Plain 123451 85 8.59. Haykoch Plain 166899 96 15.4

10. Aje Hills 0 0 0


2.7.2. Communications

Haykoch and Butajira is relatively well served by allweather roads. The road network is shown in Map 1 5 . An asphaltroad traverses the eastern part of the Awraja, linking AddisAbeba with Awasa and the rest of Sidamo through Ziway. An allweather gravel road runs roughly parallel to this, down the west-ern side of the Awraja, and links Addis Ababa with Hosaina andSodo Wolaita through Butajira. The road linking Shashamene withAlaba Kulito in the south is mainly asphalt, and this road con-tinues as an all weather gravel road to Sodo Wolaita. All weatherroads also connect Ziway with Butajira, and connect Shashamenewith the Arsi highlands. Tora is the only Wereda town lacking allweather road access.

Map 3 shows the relative access of Haykoch and Butajira toroads. 34 % of the Awraja is within 5 km of an all weather roadand 60 % is within 10 km of an all weather road.

23

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 2: Hay koch and Butaiira raja

Map 3

Accessability to All Weather Roads

24

Haykoch and Butafira/ Chapter 3: Land Evaluation Methodology

3. LAND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3.1. INTRODUCTION

The essential procedure of land evaluation is one of match-ing the resources of land with the requirements of specific typesof land use. "Land" is taken to include all relevant features ofthe land use environment, including climate and vegetative coverin addition to surface and soil features.

The rationale behind land evaluation is described by FAO(1976) and guidelines for its application under rainfed condi-tions are given by FAO (1983). Applications for LUPRD surveys inEthiopia are described in the successive manuals produced by theFAO Project. (Bechtold and Konstapel, 1987; Adjei Twum, 1987; Be-chtold, 1988; Radcliffe, 1989).

Land evaluation is applied in the present study to:

derive recommended land use based on assessmentof erosion hazard and wetness limitations.

assess the land suitability for selected crops atdefined levels of inputs and management.

assess the ability of the land resources of thearea to support current and future levels ofpopulation.

Land evaluation involves the comparison of land 'qualitieswith the specific requirements of individual crops or definedtypes of land use. A land quality is a complex attribute of landwhich exerts a specific influence on land use. For the presentevaluation, which is carried out at a reconnaissance scale, 10land qualities are used. Each land quality is assessed from a

number of land characteristics, which are relatively simple landproperties recorded during the various resource surveys.

Table 3.1 lists the land qualities used for land evaluation,with their associated land characteristics.

The following Section (3.2) describes the database fromwhich land characteristics and other information required for theevaluation are derived. Base data are entered into a computerisedGeographical Information and Land Evaluation System (GILES),through which assessment of erosion hazards and crop suitabilityis made by modelling techniques (Section 3.3, p. 40 ). Sections3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 outline the methodology for the three applica-tions of land evaluation listed above.

25

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 3: Land Evaluation Methodology

Land Quality

I. Temperature regime

II Moisture availability

III Frost hazard

IV Drainage conditions

VII Flood Hazard

VIII Sodicity and SalinitX:

IX Soil Workability

X Erosion Hazard

Table 3.1

Land Qualities and Land Characteristics

Diagnostic Land Characteristics

Mean annual temperature (from altitude zone)

Decadal rainfall (reference stationin precipitation mapping unit)Decadal PET (from altitude zone)Soil depthSoil available water holding capacityContent of coarse fragments (topsoil)Content of coarse fragments (subsoil)Soil type (vertic / non vertic)Ground water table

Altitude zoneRelative topographic situation

Soil drainage class

V Nutrient supply Topsoil total nitrogenTopsoil available phosphorusTopsoil pHTopsoil organic matter contentSubsoil cation exchange capacitySubsoil pHSoil type (Andosol / non Andosol)

VI Rooting Conditions Effective soil depthContent of coarse fragmentsSubsoil bulk densitySubsoil consistence

Frequency of flash floodingFrequency of normal flooding

Topsoil exchangeable sodium percentageSubsoil exchangeable sodium percentageTopsoil electrical conductivitySubsoil electrical conductivity

Mean slope gradientSurface stoninessSurface rockinessTopsoil consistence

Mean annual rainfallSoil unit (FAO/UNESCO classification)Mean slope gradientPresent gully erosion or badland

26


3.2. DATABASE FOR LAND EVALUATION

The physical and socioeconomic resource surveys carried outin Haykoch and Butajira during 1987 and 1988 provide the basisfor the land evaluation in the present report. Additional data issupplied from the study of agronomic constraints and from stan-dard topographic and administrative base maps.

To provide a framework for presenting the results of theevaluation, and to facilitate the translation of these resultsinto planning recommendations, a zonation of the Awraja was madeon the basis of altitude, physiographic and administrative bound-aries. These 'Planning Zones' are described in Section 2.2 (p. 4

and some of the criteria for their definition are stated inthe following subsections.

3.2.1. Base Maps. Satellite Imagery and Aerial Phdtographs

Haykoch and Butajira is covered by topographic base mapsproduced by the Ethiopian Mapping Agency at 1: 50 000 and 1: 250000 scale. Text Map 3 gives an index to sheets covering theAwraja.

The following Landsat 2 scenes cover Haykoch and Butajira,and were used in the soil and land cover inventories:

181/051180/054

Haykoch and Butajira is completely covered by aerial photog-raphy at approximately 150 000 scale. The most recent availableprints vary from 1965 to 1984.

27

K °Mott it iIlo Bui

83CIC2 0338DI

INDEX TO TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAPS

LOCATION MAP

NAYKOCH AND BUT r:RtMRAJA

CONVENTIONAL SY LS

Hoyitoet Butojiro &dory

All Weisner Rood

o

PO

er".


.2.2. Soil Inventory

A survey of the soils and landforms of Haykoch and Butajirawas carried out between January and March 1988. The results arepresented on a Soil Map at 1: 250 000 scale and in the accompany-ing report (Van Sleen and Misbah Abdulatif, 1989). The soil maphas been entered into the GILES data base.

111 Land Types were classified in the soil survey. These areunits with a distinct combination of soil and landform featuresand are defined according to soil parent material and slope, withfurther subdivisions based on soil class (FAO/UNESCO/ISRIC,1989), and profile features such as depth, stoniness etc.. Unitsof badland (severely degraded land) were separately distin-guished. Boundaries of soil mapping units are based mainly on in-terpretation of Landsat imagery, cross checked with 1: 50 000topographic sheets, aerial photographs and field observations.

Due to the small mapping scale and the complexity of theterrain, land types could only occasionally be mapped as discreetunits and many of the 145 soil mapping units shown on the soilmap comprise complexes of up to 4 land types. In order tofacilitate computer analysis the distribution of land typeswithin soil mapping units is fitted to a 25%-25%-257.-25% matrix.This limits the maximum number of land types in a soil mappingunit to four and the possible number of combinations to five(1007., 75%-257., 507.-50%, 50%-25%-25% and 25%-25%-25%-257.).Landtypes occupying less than 25% of the soil mapping unit are there-fore not considered.

Appendices B - D present the essential soil data used in theland evaluation. Appendix B (p. 133 ) gives the composition ofsoil mapping units by land type. Appendix C (p. 136 ) givesthe rating codes for each land characteristic and Appendix D (p.140 ) lists these codes for each land type. These land charac-teristic codes comprise the land data base for matching with croprequirements using the models in the GILES system.

or

Data on rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature and es-timates of Penman evapotranspiration (PET) were collected for allthe stations inside or adjacent to the three Awrajas comprisingthe entire study area of Project ETH/87/006. These data are usedto compile a Precipitation Unit Map and to establish correlationsbetween temperature and PET with altitude. Table 3.2 lists thestations used and data collected. The location of stations isshown in Text Map 4.

29

O Kunture

Zikwoto

oKoieiee do Genet

Sendofo

Addis

Addis Abeba Bole

Bollo Giorghis

Nozret

Debre Eilrhon

Ankober

Aworo

ikowere

30

Reference skrtion used for/tinfoil I_GP ono

LOCATION OF STATIONS USED.00H AND BUT: CL TIC ANAXSI

Other ed for

Lod

or PET a ' 3n with

Scale I I, 400, 000

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 3: Land Evaluation Metn000logy

3.2.3.1. Precipitation Mapping Units

Rainfall is mapped according to the following criteria:

mean annual totalseasonal distributioninterannual variationmajor diffences in topography or aspect relative torain bearing winds.

Mean annual rainfall is calculated from the average of:

annual totals from daily records, covering the period1972 to 1985 (records not usually continuous)

annual totals from monthly records, extending from1965 to 1985 (records not usually continuous).

Seasonal variation i5 calculated in terms of the relativeproportions of rain falling in the Belg and Kremt rainy seasons.For analysis purposes, the Belg is taken as the period fromJanuary to May inclusive, and the Kremt is taken as the remainderof the year.

Interannual variability is determined from the coefficientof variation (COV) of the range of annual values.

In Haykoch and Butajira 7 Precipitation Mapping Units (PMUs)are distinguished on the basis of 100 mm intervals of total an-nual rainfall. Within the wraja there is a marked increase inthe relative importance of the Belg rains from north to south.PMUs 3, 4 and 5 are subdivided on the basis of proportionalamount of rain falling in the Belg season. Further subdivisionsare made in PMUs 2 and 4 on the basis of location and dominantaspect. The precipitation characteristics of the resulting 13PMUs are given in Table 3.3.

In drawing the isohyets between PMUs attention was given tomajor differences of altitude, topography and aspect.

31


Table 3.2

Stations used for Climatic Inventory

32

STATIONS LAT. LONG. ALT(MASL)

AWRAJACODE

RAINFALL TEMP. PET(GROUP)

MELKA KUNTURE 8.43 38.37 2000 1 x I

TEFKI 8.50 38.30 2050 1 x

AKAKI 8.51 38.48 2090 1 x x

BONEYA 8.49 38.37 2100 1 x

SEBETAA ABABA BOLEADDIS ALEMHOLETTAA.ABABA OBS.SENDAFA

8.569.029.039.009.029.03

38.3938.4438.2438.2938.4539.01

226023502400240024082420

1

1

1

1

1

1

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

I

I

I

I

I

IALELITU 9.12 39.09 2550 1 x ISULULTA 9.11 38.44 2610 1 IINCHINI 9.19 38.23 2680 1 ICHANCHO 9.18 38.45 2750 1 xLANOANO 7.31 38.48 1600 2 x x IHOMBOLLE 8.22 38.46 1620 2 x IADAMI TULU 7.51 38.42 1630 x IZWAI 7.56 38.45 1640 4 X X ICHILDRENS AMBA 7.42 38.28 1650 2 IALABA KULITOWONDO GENET

7.227.10

38.0638.35

17501880

-,,2

x

x

x I

IKUYERA 7.17 38.38 1900 2 x xKELA 8.16 38.30 1940

3x

BUTAJIRASHASHAMENESILTI

8.097.128.02

38.2238.3638.20

202020802150

b422

X

x

x

X I

I

IAWARA MELKA 9.10 39.59 840 3 x IIAWASH 8.59 40.09 916 3 x x IIMETAHARA 8.52 39.54 951 3 x x IINURA ERA 8.50 39.54 1140 3 x IIWELENCHITIWONJI

8.408.29

39.2639.15

14501540 3

x

x x

I

IMOKA DAM 8.25 39.12 1595 3 x x IMELKASSANAZARETH

8.298.33

39.1739.17

16001622

33

x

x

x

x

I

IMOJO 8.37 39.09 1780 3 x x IDEBRE ZEIT 8.44 38.57 1900 3 x x IBALCHI 8.53 39.22 2000 3 x 1BOLO GIORGHIS 8.49 39.22 2000 3 x x ICHEFE DONSA 8.56 39.06 2400 3 xZUQUALAGINCHIWELENKOMITEJI

8.339.019.018.49

38.5138.0838.1238.21

3010225023002050

3445

x

x

x

xTULU BOLO 8.38 38.13 2170 5 xDIMA GURANDAFICHE

9.319.48

38.4338.42

23502800

66

x

x ISHOLA GEBEYA 9.12 39.23 2500 7 x IANKOBER 9.35 39.44 2600 7 IDEBRE BIRHAN 9.38 38.30 2750 7 x 1SHENO 9.19 39.17 2850 7 xHOSAINA 7.35 37.50 2320 8 x x IBILATE 6.47 38.03 1310 9 x xAWASA 7.05 38.29 1750 9 x x IMUNESSA 7.35 38.54 2510 10 x x IKOFELE 7.04 38.47 2680 10 x xMORE 7.13 38.56 2730 10 IADDIS HIWOT 8.34 39.40 1254 11 IIMELKA WERER 9.20 40.10 737 12 x r II


Table 3.3

Characteristics of Precipitation Mapping Units

0 1700-1400 20

1 1200-1300 20

2A 1100-1200 20

1100-1200 10-15

3A 1000-1100 10-15

35 1000-1100 25-70

4A 900-1000 720-70

45 900-1000 10-20

4C 900-1000 10-20

5A 800- 900 10-25

5B BOO- 900 20-30

6 700- 800 20-30

7 600- 700 20-70

Notes: 1/ Bald = January to May inclusiveKremt = June to December inclusive

2/ Stations with daily rainfall data.

# Rainfall figures increased by 10 %* Rainfall figures reduced by 5

Key to Awrajas (Table 3.2):

I Menagesha2 Hay koch ano Butajira

Yerer and Kereyu4 Jibat and Mechau Chebo and Gurage6 Salale

Tedulet and BulgaKembata and Hadiya

9 Sidama10 Chilalo11 Arba Gugu12 Chercher, Adal & Gara

Guracha

Annual COV % of Rain in: 1/ ReferencePMU Rainfall (mm) Belo Kremt Stations 2/

------------

30-40 60-70 Kela #

70-40 60-70 Kela

70-40 60-70 Kela *

35-45 55-65 Wondo Genet

25-40 60-75 Silti

75-45 55-65 Aje

25-70 70-75 Hombolle

30-50 50-70 Alaba Kulito

35-45 55-65 Shashamene

20-25 75-80 Mojo

70-40 60-70 Ziway

70-40 60-70 Langan°

70-40 60-70 Adami Tulu


Distribution of PMUs in Haykoch and Butajira is shown on Map2 (1: 250 000 scale). Further comments on the rainfall charac-teristics of the Awraja are given in Section 2.4.1.(p. 12 )

3.2.3.2. Temperature

A correlation between mean annual temperature (the mediantemperature between mean maximum and mean minimum values) and al-titude was established using the 24 stations listed in Table 3.2.The following regression equation was derived:

T = 31.15 - 0.65 * A/100 r° = 0.94

where T = Mean annual temperature (c'G)A = Altitude (masl)

= Coefficient of determination

This regression equation is used to define the mean tempera-ture ranges for the altitude zones mapped in the study area,which are given in Section 2.4.2. (p. 13 )

3.2.3.3. Potential Evapotran pirat ion

Penman potential evapotranspiration (PET) estimates weretaken from the recent agroecological zonation study of De Pauw(1988). A regression of annual PET with altitude was derived forthe three Awrajas of Menagesha, Haykoch and Butajira, and Yererand Kereyu, based on the 44 stations listed in Table 3.2. Thefollowing equation was derived:

PET = 2463 - 46.24 * A/100 0.85

where PET = Annual potential evapotranspiration (mm)A = Altitude (masl)

= Coefficient of determination

Analysis of monthly PET was carried out for 42 of the sta-tions used in the analysis . Stations could be convenientlydivided into two groups on the basis of monthly PET distribution.The relative proportions of PET occurring in individual monthswere averaged to determine a 'PET profile' which is illustratedin Figure 3.1. Average correction factors which must be applied

3. 1/. The stations of Fiche and Debre Birhan, situated to thenorth of the study area, were useful in giving reference pointsfor annual PET at higher altitudes. However, monthly PET dis-tribution differed from the 'Group I' and 'Group II' patterns, sothey were not included in the monthly PET analysis.

34


to annual PET to derive monthly values are g ven in Table 3.4.These factors apply to 'Group I' stations, which are typical ofthe whole of Haykoch and Butaiira. 'Group I' stations are charac-terised by a maximum PET in March, or more rarely in April orMay, and a minimum PET at the height of the Kremt rains in July -August.

Figure 3.1

PET Profiles for Group I Stations

The annual distribution of PET according to defined al-titudinal zones is determined from the given regression equation.Monthly PET can then be derived for each altitudinal zone by mul-tiplying annual figures by the correction factors in Table 3.4.

35

û 1 J A SONMonth -

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 3: tand Evaluation Methodology

Table 3.4

Correction Factors for Determination of Monthly PETGroup I Stations

Month Factor

January 0.0847February 0.0847March 0.1001April 0.0934May 0.0918June 0.0799July 0.0710August 0.0718September 0.0772October 0.0865November 0.0814December 0.0814

3.2.3.4. Growing Period Assessment

The acroclimatic growing period, defined as the period ofthe year with sufficient moisture for crop growth, is assessedfor each combination of Precipitation Mapping Unit and Al-titudinal Zone. The length of growing period (LGP) was computedfor each of these combinations using decadal (10 day) rainfalldata for a reference station in each PMU and the annual andderived decadal PET for each altitudinal zone. The model is runfor all years with recorded precipitation data to give a deter-mination of LGP and growing period onset and termination dates atdefined levels of probability. Soil moisture storage is also anessential component of the LGP model. Technical details of themodelling procedures are given in the GILES Manual (Bechtold,1988).

LGP is mapped based on isolines for the longest growingperiod. A total of 10 LGP mapping units are recognised and theirdistribution is shown on Map 3 (1: 250 000 scale). For each map-ping unit information is given on the LGP at 75% probability ofexceedence and on the median LGP, together with an assessment ofthe probability of having a Belg growing period of more than 60days, and an indication of the median onset of the main growingperiod.

36


3.2,4. Land Use and Land Cover Inventory

Present land use and land cover types of Haykoch andButajira are described in Field Document 38 (Mengistu Nedash,1989). Mapping of land use / land cover types is based on inter-pretation of LANDSAT imagery, and on fieldwork undertaken afterthe cropping season in early 1988. Present land use data col-lected in this survey provides a useful cross check on the moredetailed crop and livestock production data derived from thehousehold surveys carried out by the Socioeconomics team. Thecharacterisation and mapping of both natural vegetation and landuse forms the basis for estimates of forage production and live-stock carrying capacity (Harris, 1989).

A total of 11 physiognomic units and 10 land use types aredefined and mapped at 1: 250 000 scale. Present land use typesare differentiated on the basis of relative cultivation inten-sity. The map was digitised and entered into the GILES database(Section 3.3, p. 40 ).

Current agricultural practices, together with ecological andagronomic constraints and proposed interventions, are describedby agroecological zone in a seperate Field Document (No.

39)(Adjei-Twum and Gure Kumssa, 1989).

Maps of estimated forage supply, livestock carrying capacityand grazing pressure at accompany the livestock/ rangeland con-sultancy report (Harris, 1989).

3.2.5. Agroecological Zoning

In order to provide a reference frame for summarising exist-ing information and planning sampling points in physical andsocioeconomic surveys, a zonation of the Awraja was carried outprior to systematic fieldwoi-k. The traditional agroclimatic zonesrecognised in Ethiopia (i.e. Wurch, Dega, Woina Dega and Kolla)provide the primary basis for zonation, and further subdivisionswere made on the basis of broad physiographic and soil features.A total of 16 agroecological zones (AEZs) were defined and mappedfrom interpretation of LANDSAT imagery and topographic maps. AEZswere more precisely defined, and boundaries were adjusted follow-ing fieldwork carried out by the Agroecology Team. A full

description of AEZs is given in Field Document No. 38 (MengistuNegash, 1989).

37


. Ad njstr

Accurate location of the boundaries of administrative unitsis essential for analysis of the current land use situation andfor subsequent land use planning. At the present scale of inves-tigations the Service Cooperative (SC) is the smallest ap-propriate administrative unit for mapping and analysis. A SC com-prises between 2 and 12 Peasant Associations (PAs) forming an as-sociation for input supply and produce marketing purposes. A to-tal of 157 SCs are identified in the Awraja from Peasant Associa-tion data collected from Wereda offices by the SocioeconomicsTeam. Adjacent PAs which are not affiliated to a SC are treatedas a single unit for analysis purposes.

Considerable discrepancies were observed in the boundariesof the Awraja and its component Weredas between maps issued by

the Ethiopian Mapping Agency and the Central Statistical Office(CSO). Following a ground check, the CSO maps were found to givea truer representation of the actual situation, but these mapslack geographical control. Awraja, Wereda and SC boundaries weretherefore transferred to 1: 50 000 topographic sheets and reducedby pantograph and by visual methods to the standard 1: 250 000base map. The resulting map was digitised and entered into theGILES data base.

3.2.7. Farming Systems

The principal output of the socioeconomic survey, presentedin Field Document 36 (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989) is a

description of the farming systems present in Haykoch andButajira Awraja, together with an indication of their distribu-tion. Eight farming systems are identified, based on differencesin product mix and environmental setting and these are describedin Section 2.5.2 (p. 17 ). Data was collected by farm surveys inall the major AEZs of the Awraja, during mid 1988. Farming sys-tem parameters are used as one of the principal inputs to modell-ing of population support capacity (Chapter 7).

38


3.2.8, Planning Zones

Ten Planning Zones are mapped in Haykoch and Butaiira by aneffective overlay of the AEZ, soil, farming systems and ad-ministrative information. PZs essentially comprise groups of SCswith similar physical resources, similar farming systems andbroadly similar ranges of constraints and potentials for develop-ment. Physical and demographic characteristics of PZs and SCs aredescribed in Chapter 2. Table 2.1 (p. 7 ) gives a summary list-ing of agroecological and physiographic properties.

3.2.9. Crop Requirements

A description of the ecological requirements of crops, theirachievable optimum yields under specified input levels, and alisting of their estimated responses to physical limitations andto land improvements, is essential for the land evaluation proce-dure. Field Document 17 (Adjei - Twum, 1987) provides the basisfor defining the requirements of crops in the present study. In

the light of experience gained since this document was completed,some minor modifications were made to certain requirements asfollows:

1. The rate of increase in the minimum LGP (growing period)requirement with altitude is reduced by 25%-507. ofprevious values. Typical values are now 10 days/100 mfor maize and 4 days/100 m for teff (both above athreshold altitude of 1800 m.

'','. The crop coefficients (Kc), governing water uptake, werereduced for all crops by 107.. The original figures weretaken directly from Doorenbos and Kassam (1979) andrefer to irrigated conditions where water is notlimiting and leaf area index is likely to be higher.

HaykOch and Butajira/ Chapter 3: Land Evaluation Methodology

3.3. COMPUTERIZED DATA HANDLING

For effective handling of the large data amount of data fromfield surveys and for inventory and planning related interpreta-tions, evaluation and mapping, computerized data handling tech-niques were employed. In particular.

survey and mapping was done with a high level of detail,

recommendations are required at SC level,

detailed assessments have to be made for thesuitability for 'new crops',

detailed assessments have to be made for thesuitability for crops after implementationof higher input farming systems or or certainland improvements,

fast data retrieval is essential for immediate responseto Government requests.

A computerized 'Geographical Information and Land EvaluationSystem', GILES was developed for the execution of landsuitability assessments at reconnaissance, detailed and semi-detailed level, the establishment of a physical and economic landuse data base, and for printing of land evaluation and otherthematic maps, based on a grid cell raster with a resolution of48 ha. Processing was done on an IBM-PC/AT computer.

The GILES is an interactive, menu-driven software packagewhich can be operated by any user without specific training. Itsfacilities, procedures and required data set are explained in auser manual: "GILES: Geographical information and Land Evalua-tion System (vol. III of Manual for Spatial, Computerized LandEvaluation System; Bechtold, 1988,).

GILES is a flexible system into which new information can beadded at it becomes available. The influence of new informationon crop suitability, erosion assessment, or any other componentof land use system can then be tested. The system can also beused to print thematic maps or tables for any particular part ofthe area (for example, a particular Wereda or SC) as required.

In addition to the present study area of Haykoch andButajira, the areas of Menagesha (886 155 ha), 'Borkena'(Shewa/Welo, 305 250 ha), 'Bichena' (Gojam, 365 525 ha), and'Hosaina' (Shewa, 229 606 ha) have been entered into the GILESdatabase and processed, allowing further request specificretrievals.

40


3.4. EROSION ASSESSMENT

Due to the importance of land degradation in the study areaassessment of present erosion status and of erosion hazards istreated in some detail. Two seperate assessments are carried out,the results of which are presented in Chapter 4:

Sheet erosion hazard

Badland and gully erosion (both existing and futurehazard)

The sheet erosion hazard is calculated by an erosion es-timate model, adapted from the Universal Soil Loss Equation(USLE) by Wischmeier and Smith (1978), modified to the conditionsin the Ethiopian Highlands by Hurni (1985). This assessment isbased on environmental conditions, such as rainfall, soil type,surface stoniness, slope gradient, slope length, as they occur inthe area. Constant values for the land cover and the managementpractice were applied. A detailed explanation is given in Appen-dix E (p. 144 ).

The sheet erosion hazard is grouped quantitatively in fourclasses of potential soil loss:

Existing badland and gully erosion is assessed from informa-tion recorded during the soil survey for each soil mapping unit.

The hazard of further slip and gully erosion, which islargely determined by subsurface water flow, and by scouringalong tracks and footpaths, is assessed from a consideration ofexisting gully erosion, soil type, and slope class, which arecombined on a limiting factor basis as shown in Table 3.5. Asthis type of erosion is also strongly influenced by distance froman actively eroding front, classes are downgraded if a par-ticular land unit is mapped in association with one which isbadland or has severe gully erosion.

41

< 10 t soil loss/ha/yrII 10-30 t soil loss/ha/yrIII 30-75 t soil loss/ha/yrIV >75 t soil loss/ha/yr.


Table 3.5

Assessment of Slip and Gully Erosion Hazard

Rating Code Existing Soil SlopeGullying Type Classl/

Nil 0 Nil All,except 1,2,3,as below

Slight 1 Slight Vertisols 4,5VerticCambisols

Moderate

Severe

Moderate Solodic 6Planosols

3 Severe,or aSSOC-iated withbadland

Notes: 1/. Slope classes: 1= 0-27., 2= 2-67., 3= 6-137.,4= 17-25%, 5= 25-55%, 6= >55%

Downgrade assessment by one class if land type occursin association with badland or with severe hazard offurther slip or gully erosion.

Derivation of conservation based land use recommendationsfrom consideration of erosion risks and other factors isdescribed in Section 4.4 (p. 55 ).

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter Land Evaluation Methodology

43

,. CROP SUITABILITY

Land suitability is assessed for a number of crops at thefollowing levels of inputs:

- a low leve.t of inputs, corresponding to local unimprovedcrop varieties, no fertilizers or pesticides, and noconservation measures.

- en intermediate level of inputs, corresponding to l.miteduse of improved seed, fertilizers and pesticides.

- a high level of inputs, in which improved seeds are usedand in which fertilizer and pesticides are applied at nearopt mum levels. Land preparation is mechanised.

In the present methodology, a 'land utilization type cor-responds to a single crop at a defined level of inputs.

The crops which are evaluated are listed according to inputlevel and land improvements in Table 3.6. They include all thestaple cereal, pulse and oil crops grown in the Awraja, togetherwith some horticultural crops and a few perennials such ascoffee, and ensoto.. To reflect the present situation in Haykochand Butajira, and to indicate improvements potentially achievableunder present levels of technology, emphasis is given to evalua-tion at the intermediate levels of inputs.

In assessing the impact of land improvements, emphasis isgiven to "minor land improvements" or to agronomic interventionswhich can be carried out by the individual farmer or Peasant (21 -sociation. The potential impact of these measures on suitablearea and on production is assessed by comparing with improve-.ment" and "without improvement" situations, both by computeroverlay of land suitability maps and by calculating potentialproduction increments attributable to the improvement. At thepresent reconnaissance level scale, "irrigation" is evaluated asa land improvement which effectively eliminates the moisture con-straint. Neither water availability (for irrigation) nor specificsoil factors, apart from slope'l-, determining irrigationsuitability are considered, and further investigations of theseaspects are clearly a prerequisite to any medium or large scaledevelopment.

4. Land having a maximum slope grad ent in excess of 6 % is ex-cluded,.

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 3: Land Evaluation Methodolog>

Table 3.6

Evaluated Crops

Crop

Input Level: Low Intermediate Nigh 502

Prob.

Land Improvement: : None None Cons. Drain. In.. Cons+Drain. Rain I

Sorghum t I

Maize I ItII t I

Wheat I I I I $ I

Barley I I I

Teff I I t I

Finger Millet t

Fieldpea I

Haricot bean I

Horsebean I

Chickpea t

Lentil t

Vetch t

Nigerseed t

Soybean I

Sesame I

Sunflower I

Flax I

Potato I I t

Coffee t

Pepper t I

Shallot I

Tomato I

Cabbage I

Groundnut I

Tobacco I

Sisal I

Ensete

Note. I Evaluation based on 502 reliable rainfall, rather than 752 which is used as a standard.

Evaluation methodology involves a matching of the require-ments of crops with 10 land qualities (Table 3.1, p. 26 ). Dataon crop requirements, climatic parameters, and land units andtheir characteristics are entered into the GILES database and thematching operations are carried out by the computer in the fol-lowing stages:

The climatic suitability is assessed, based on the Lasmoisture availability, temperature regime and frosthazard.

The soil suitability is assessed, from the Las oxygenavailability, nutrient supply, rooting conditions, floodhazard, and sodicity.

The climatic and soil suitability are combined, andincluded with additional assessments of erosion hazardand workability to give a final land suitability class.

44

Haykoch and Butaj ra/ Chapter 3: Land Evaluation Methodology

The land suitability class predicts the sustained perfor-mance of the specified lar-id utilization type (crop / input com-bination) on the land unit evaluated. The following five classesare defined. Expected crop yields are expressed as percentages ofthe maximum attainable yield:

81 highly suitable 80-100 maximum yield82 moderately suitable 60- EBO % maximum yield83 marginall/ suitable 40- 60 maimum yield84 very marginally suitable 20- 40 % maximum yieldN not suitable 0- 20 % maximum yield

Details of the methodology used and the component landquality models are contained in Field Document 25 (Bechtold,1988). An important modification of the methodology employed inprevious LUPRD land evaluation studies (e.g. Radcliffe, Bechtoldand Teshome Estifanos, 1988) is in the use of composite landevaluation units (CLEUs) as a basis for evaluation. CLEUs aredefined by overlaying the soil mapping unit, elevation, andprecipitation maps to produce units with specific values for allthe characteristics used in the evaluation. This facilitates sys-tematic checking of resulto and enables suitability maps forseveral crops to be combined. Overlaying the three base mapsyielded a total of 710 CLEUs (i .C. combinations of soil mappingunit, altitude mapping unit and precipitation mapping unit). Thisfigure was reduced to 410 by filtering out units of less than 100ha which are not mappable at a scale of 1: 250 000, and by com-bining units of uniform unsuitability due to very shallow soils.Further reductions in the number of CLEUs were realised when cer-tain groups of crops were combined.

The resulta of crop suitability evaluation are presented inChapter 5, and Chapter 6 discusses the effect of changes in inputlevel and the effect of land improvements. Land suitability mapsare produced, at 1: 250 000 scale for cerco] s. pulses, oilseeds,horticultural and perennial crops. In addition, seperate landsuitability maps are produced in the text of Chapter 5 for themaize, wheat, barley teff, and haricot bean at the intermediatelevel of inputs and for ensete under traditional inputs andmanagement. "Improvement maps", showing the areas likely tobenefit from varietal introductions, irrigation, drainage, andsoil conservation, are included in Chapter 6.

3.6. DETERMINATION OF POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY

Populateon support capacity (PSC) analysis assesses theavailability of suitable cropland and forage resources relativeto the needs of the population and their livestock. Two assump-tions are fundamental to the determination of PSC:

- Population support capacity is determined assuming aconservation based, sustainable, land use pattern.


Farmers will preferentially allocate land to cropping, andforage and fuel resources must be met from thispredetermined distribution of cropland and non-cropland.

In accordance with the latter of the above assumptions,population carrying capacity is determined in two stages.Firstly, the cropland requirements and available croplandresources are assessed using a 'cropland submodel', which is il-lustrated in Figure 3.2. Secondly, the forage resources fromcropland and grazing land are compared with the requirements ofthe livestock in a 'livestock grazing submodel'. This methodologyis described in a separate Consultant's report (Harris, 1989).Consideration of fuelwood availability and requirements isdeferred to the Land Use Plan (Sutcliffe and Bahiru Melasse,1989).

.tf2.1, Cropland Submode

The various stages in the analysis of cropland requirementsand availability are described in Appendix F (p. 147 ).

Essentially, the submodel derives a land requirement perhousehold for each PZ based on:

The Calorie requirement for subsistence, derived fromCalorie yields of indicative cropping systems.

A requirement to produce a surplus to meet AMC quotas.

A requirement for fallow land based on observed currentland use.

Assuming a population growth rate of 3.0% per year, the to-tal cropland requirements are calculated for each ServiceCooperative by multiplying the requirement per household by thenumber of households in 1989, 1999 and 2014.

MA

TC

1-:!`

',:3

tr..:

'.."

MIX

NE

T C

ALO

RIE

YIE

LD

CA

LOR

IER

EQ

UIR

EM

EN

TF

RO

M C

RO

PS

AN

NU

AL

CA

LOR

IER

EQ

UI f

ig M

EN

TP

ER

HO

US

E H

OLD

SE

HO

LD S

IZE

AG

E S

TR

UC

TU

RE

101I

.Mea

Val

ag.4

1.00

YIE

LDS

SE

ED

RE

OU

IRE

ME

NT

PO

S'

4VE

ST

LO

SS

C i

ON

LO

SS

ES

CA

SH

CR

OP

LAN

D

AN

ALY

SIS

BY

PLA

NN

ING

ZO

NE

ON

LY

CR

OP

LAN

D S

UB

MO

DE

LF

igur

e 3.

2

NO

OF

OS

MA

TC

G

PO

PU

LAT

ION

SU

PP

OR

TC

AP

AC

ITY

IN 1

989

1999

/412

D 2

014

(AT

LO

W A

ND

INT

ER

ME

DIA

TE

LEV

ELS

OF

INP

UT

S)

UN

ITS

SU

ITA

BLE

FO

R

aliff

.0 UN

T8

AN

ALY

SIS

BY

SE

RV

ICE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

AN

D P

LAN

NIN

G Z

ON

E

UT

IUZ

AT

ION

FA

CT

OR

S

SU

BS

IST

TO

TA

LT

OT

AL

C 1

-,:P

LAN

D/

CR

OP

LAN

D/

Ci-,

OP

LAN

DN

ET

HC

US

EH

et.D

HO

US

EO

RO

UIR

EW

IEN

TC

RO

PLA

ND

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 3: Land Evaluation Methodology

Land requirements for subsistence are determined at twolevels of material inputs. The low input level assumes no fer-tilizers or improved seed varieties. The intermediate input levelassumes some fertilizer use, although not to optimum levels. Be-cause of higher projected yield levels, land requirements forsubsistence are lower at the intermediate input level than at thelow input level.

Net suitable cropland is determined for each ServiceCooperative from the distribution of Conservation Based Land UseRecommendations (Appendix G,p. 160 ). Any badland, land with ex-cessive erosion hazard or wetness limitations, or land occupiedby physical conservation structures or gully protection measures,is excluded. Land occupied by State or private farms or by treeplantations is also excluded from available land. Populationsupport capacity with respect to remaining available cropland isdetermined by matching the total land required in each SC withthe net suitable cropland area.

The surplus or shortfall in cropland resources for the sixpossible combinations of year ( 1989, 1999, 2014) and input level(low, intermediate) are calculated and SCs are allocated a simplenumerical classification as follows:

Class 1: The cropland resources (of the SC or PZ) aresufficient to supply the needs of the population in2014.

Class 2: The cropland resources are adequate for the1999 population, but, given the stated crop mix and levelof inputs, a critical shortage will develop before 2014.

Class 3 The cropland resources are adequate to supportthe present (1989) population, but a critical shortagewill develop before 1999.

Class 4 The cropland resources are barely adequate tosupport the needs of the present population.Population support capacity is between 907. and 1107.of the current number of rural households.

Class 5 Cropland resources are already criticallyshort relative to the needs of the population. Populationsupport capacity is less than 907. of the current(1989) number of rural households.

The results of population support capacity of cropland andof forage resources are discussed in Chapter 7.

48

Haykoch and Butajira/Chapter 4: Soil Erosion and Conservation

4. SOIL EROSION AND CONSERVATION

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Soil erosion and associated land degradation is one of themost serious constraints limiting the long term productivity ofmany areas of the Ethiopian Highlands. In Haykoch and Butajira,the effects of both sheet and gully erosion are especially severeon the western hills, but significant erosion also occurs arounddrainage lines in areas of gently sloping topography. 87. of theAwraja comprises badland, from which the topsoil has been effec-tively removed.

The present report analyses the distribution of the hazardsof erosion resulting from both sheetwash and from slip and gully-ing processes. An appraisal of present gully or badland status isincluded in the latter assessment. The results of these deter-minations, together with additional consideration of slope andwetness limitations, are used to define a series of conservationbased land use recommendations which are described in Section 4.4(p. 55 )

4.2. SHEET EROSION HAZARD

Although the effects of sheetwash are less dramatic thanthose of gullying, the steady soil loss resulting from this formof erosion is responsible for reduction in the effective soildepth that can be utilized by crop plants or forage species andfor an eventual decrease in the land that can be productivelyutilized.

Sheet erosion hazard is assessed in four quantitativeclasses of soil loss based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation asdescribed in Section 3.4 (p. 41 ). Text Map 5 gives a generalimpression of the distribution of sheet erosion hazard throughoutthe Awraja, and Tables 4.1 and 4.2 give the distribution byPlanning Zones (PZs).

The soil loss estimates used to define erosion hazardclasses are based on a reference situation and can be greatlymodified by the degree of vegetative cover and by land managementpractices. For example, land under an arable small grain cerealsuch as teff is subject to 25 times as much soil loss as the sameland under coffee.

49

Haykoch and Butaiira/Chapter 4: Soil Erosion and Conservation

Map 5

Distribution of Sheet Erosion Hazard

.0009,

50

la-sUihtoderaie

severeiseuere


Planning Zona

Table 4.1

Distribution of Sheet Erosion hazard

(Areas in Hectares)

Sheet Erosion Hazard

None Very-Slight Moderate Severe Severe

<10 10-30 30-75 >75tons/ha tons/ha tons/ha tons/ha

Gurage Mountains 11973 19009 1846 23209Gibiso Upland 4129 21018 1186 5547Bui Upland 39803 20611 11910 7085Wilbareg Upland 47106 9508 2654 9578Negele Footslopes 70154 9234 17507 11278Koshe Plain 198968 21952 7366 5393Alaba Plain 143125 10168 5976 1320Ziway Plain 140141 2471 3258 0Haykoch Plain 134888 18904 19269 758Aje Hills 16727 2605 5330 0

Haykoch and Butajira 807014 135485 76306 64171

Note: 94 354 ha of Haykoch and Butajira comprises open water

Table 4.2

Distribution of Sheet Erosion hazard

(% total land area of Planning Zone / Study Area)

Planning Zone

Gurage MountainsGibiso UplandBui UplandWilbareg UplandNegele FootslopesKoshe PlainAlaba PlainZiway PlainHaykoch PlainAje Hills

Haykoch and Butajira

Sheet Erosion HazardNone Very

-Slight Moderate Severe Severe<10 10-30 30-75 >75

tons/ha tons/ha tons/ha tons/ha

21.4 33.9 3.3 41.413.0 65.9 3.7 17.450.1 26.0 15.0 8.968.4 13.8 3.9 13.964.9 8.5 16.2 10.485.1 9.4 3.2 2.389.1 6.3 3.7 0.896.1 1.7 2.2 0.077.6 10.9 11.1 0.467.8 10.6 21.6 0.0

74.5 12.5 7.0 5.9

51


Map 5 shows that land most susceptible to hazards of sheet ero-sion is concentrated in the highlands in the north west and thesouth east of the Awraja. Areas having a very severe sheet ero-sion hazard, with an indicated soil loss of more than 75tons/ha/year are associated with steep slopes and high rainfall.The hills around Lake Shala, and the parallel ridges on the west-ern margins of the rift valley also have significant sheet ero-sion hazards.

This spatial distribution is reflected in the percentage figuresfor the various Planning Zones. More than 407. of PZ 1, which com-prises significant areas of steeply sloping escarpments and in-cludes the wettest part of the Awraja, has a very severe sheeterosion hazard. Conversely, more than 85 % of PZs 6,7, and 8,which comprise the rift valley floor and gentle footslopes haveonly a negligable sheet erosion hazard. The slightly higher ero-sion risk in the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9) is largely due to the LakeShala hills.

4.3. BADLAND, SLIP AND SULLY EROSION

Badland is land from which topsoil has been removed by pre-vious erosional processes. Such land is effectively lost fromagricultural production because of the comparatively slow rate ofsoil formation. If unchecked, slip and gully erosion are theprecursors of badland formation.

Slip erosion is the removal of broad strips of surface soillargely due to structural instability and permeability dif-ferences associated with abrupt soil horizon boundaries orstratified parent materials. The occurrence of slip erosion isoften associated with soft pyroclastic parent materials whichpredominate on the western highlands and rift valley marginswithin Haykoch and Butajira. Gully erosion is more widespreadand may be formed from concentration of surface run off, or bypiping of water through subsurface layers, leading to topsoilcollapse.

An assessment is made of slip and gully erosion hazard basedon the present erosion status, with additional considerations ofslope and soil depth (Section 3.4, p. 41 ). Badland is recordedas a separate unit. The resulting distribution, for the Awrajaand for the individual PZs is shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. TextMap 6 gives a broad indication of where these hazards are mostacute.

52

Hay koch and Butajira/Chapter 4: Soil Erosion and Conservation

''S4

.. .... . ... .

Slip and Gully Eros on Hazard

....

. ............:".'.....'.'

2Jrt : ................

E

'

AT

.

...

....... . . ... .

. .

53

1 ightAloaLrate

r Severe/Badiandl


Table 4.3

Distribution of Slip and Gully Erosion Hazard

(Areas in hectares)

Gurage Mountains 11594 9339 8490 25183 1432Gibiso Upland 2464 2450 7921 18280 765Bui Upland 2745 9241 17942 36236 13244Wilbareg Upland 4129 13455 3890 26945 20428Negele Footslopes 5561 21095 40224 41222 70Koshe Plain 41664 107282 51594 19881 13258Alaba Plain 22907 98918 15386 7914 15463Ziway Plain 37654 46397 43574 3174 15070Haykoch Plain 101615 14234 46172 8286 3511Aje Hills 2345 13328 4915 2767 1306

Haykoch and Butajira 232678 335745 240113 189889 84550

Note: 94 354 ha of lake is excluded from the totals.

Table 4.4

Distribution of Slip and Gully Erosion Hazard

(% total area of Planning Zones or Study Area)

Slip/Gully Erosion Hazard ExistinPlanning Zone None Slight Moderate Sevotre Badlan

54

Sli /Gully Erosion Hazard ExistingPlanning Zone None Slight Moderate Severe Badland

Haykoch and Butajira 21.5 31.0 22.2 17.5 7.8

Gurage Mountains 20.7 16.7 15.2 44.9 2.6Gibiso Upland 7.7 7.7 24.8 57.3 2.4Bui Upland 3.5 11.6 22.6 45.6 16.7Wilbareg Upland 6.0 19.5 5.7 39.1 29.7Negele Footslopes 5.1 19.5 37.2 38.1 0.1Koshe Plain 17.8 45.9 22.1 8.5 5.7Alaba Plain 14.3 61.6 9.6 4.9 9.6Ziway Plain 25.8 31.8 29.9 2.2 10.3Haykoch Plain 58.5 8.2 26.6 4.8 2.0Aje Hills 9.5 54.0 19.9 11.2 5.3


The results show that approximately 8 % of Haykoch andButajira is degraded badland and that a further 40 % is ubjectto moderate or severe slip and gully erosion hazards. Badland ismost extensive in the Wilbareg and Bui Uplands (PZs 4 and 3) onthe western margin of the rift valley plains. Areas of moderateor severe slip and gully erosion hazard are concentrated in theboth the western upland areas, particularly on the rolling GibisoUpland (PZ 2), the Negele Footslopes (PZ 5) and the Bui Upland(PZ 3). With the exception of the northern part of the ZiwayPlain, the plains of the rift valley are relatively free fromslip and gully erosion ha ards.

4.4. CONSERVATION BASED LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the assessments of erosion hazards described in thepreceding sections, with additional considerations of wetness andsoil depth, recommendations are made for appropriate land usestrategies and associated physical conservation works to minimizefurther degradation of the land resources. Areas with similarsoil conservation based recommendations are shown on the Conser-vation Based Land Use Recommendation Map (Map 7 at 1:250000 scale).

These recommendations are formulated as a guideline for theland use plan of Haykoch and Butajira (Sutcliffe and BahiruMelasse, 1989). While some of the recommendations may have to beadapted to the prevailing socioeconomic conditions and to theland availability in some localities, adoption of a conservationbased development strategy for the area will ensure that in-

creases in agricultural productivity is not achieved at the ex-pense of irreversible degradation of land resources. Conservationbased recommendation units form the basis of population supportcapacity modelling of Planning Zones, and Service Cooperatives inChapter 7.

In addition to conventional physical measures such as bund-ing and terracing to control sheet erosion, attention must be

given to preventing the extension of gullies and badland areas.The proposed measures are based on protecting the potentially ac-tive margins of gullies and badlands through regrading of the

'micro-cliffs typical of badland edges, revegetation, and strictexclusion from cropping and grazing.

55


In general, the first priority should be to conserve exist-ing cropland and grazing land through sound land use practicesand implemention of required conservation measures. Some fieldtesting of structures and recommended land management systemswill be required to achieve optimum effectiveness.Further detailsof suggested measures are given in the Land Use Plan.

For ease of implementation in the field, recommendations arerelated as far as possible to easily observable features such asslope gradient and soil depth. The following guidelines form thebasis of the conservation based land use recommendation units:

- 557. is taken as the upper s/ope limit of productiveagricultural land use, either for cropping or live-stock grazing although fuelwood or timber productioncould be considered on slopes in excess of thisgradient.

Special protection measures are required in areasbordering badland, or having moderate or severe gullyerosion.

- Arable cropping without physical conservation ispossible on slopes of up to 6 % gradient, providedsoils are not highly erodible.

Arable cropping with bunding can extend up to 25%slope gradient.

Terracing can extend arable cropping to 557. slopegradient, provided soil depth is adequate. Fuelwoodplantation or perennial cropping, however, is thepreferred use on such land.

Land with shallow soils (<25 cm depth) is recom-mended for restricted grazing. The degree of limita-tion increases, and the effective carrying capacitydecreases with increasing slope gradient up to a max-imum of 55%.

4.4.1. Conservation Based Recommendation Units

The 13 recognized soil conservation based recommendationunits are described in terms of constraints and land use optionsin Table 4.5 . Units are listed according to decreasing intensityof recommended land use or increased conservation requirements

56


Table4.5

Conservation Based Recommendation Units

Slip/ Sheet Recommended Land Use

Soil Gully Erosion Vertic Arable Cropping Perennial Livestock Grazing Fuel

Slope Depth Hazard Loss Soil Wetland Cropping

(cm) Class (t/ha/an)

A <6 )25 nil/sl <30 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ag <6 >25 mod/sev <30 llo No Yes, with gully protection Yes Yes, gully protect. Yes

As 6-13 )25 nil/s1 <30 No No Yes, with grass/tree strips Yes Yes

Asg 6-13 )25 mod/sev <30 No No Yes, with grass/tree strips Yes Yes, uily protect. Yes

and gully protection

Ab 6-25 >25 nil/sl 30-75 No No Yes, with bunds Yes Yes Yes

Abg 6-25 )25 od/sev 30-75 Ro No Yes, with bonds Yes Yes, gully protect. Yes

and gully protection

Ad <8 >25 nil/s1 any Yes No Yes, broadbids reca ded No Yes

Adg <8 )25 mod/sev any Yes No Yes, with broadbeds No Yes, gully protect.

and gully protectiom

FP >25 >50 any any No No Possibly, with terraces Yes Yes, with exclusion Yes

and gully protection from gully areas

fir <55 <25 any any No No No Yes, restricted

Gw <8 any any any No Yes No Na Yes, seasonal

6W < 8 any any any No Yes No No Unly in exceptionally No

dry periods

any any badland any No No No No, some limited Limited,

>55 <50 any any No No cut and carry on badland

57

Note: In the unit codes letters refer to recc.7.,25C:d use:

A = Arable Cropping, 6 = Grazing, P = Perennial Cropping, F = Fuelwood/Timber production, I = Exclusion

Lower case letters refer to required conservation measures or restrictions on grazing:

g = gully protection, s = strips, b = bunds, r = restricted grazing, W = permanent wetland; w sea al uetland


and are coded according to suitability for arable (A), perennial(P), grazing (G) and fuelwood (F) uses. Potentially arable unitsare also generally suitable for perennial crops, grazing of fuel-wood production, with the exception of Ad, where drainage condi-tions are a constraint to most perennials.

Summary descriptions of the conservation based recommenda-tion units are as follows:

Unit A (431 097 ha, or 39.87. of the land of the study area)comprises flat or gently sloping land with no significant soil orwetness constraints and a low hazard of erosion, either from slipor gullying or from sheetwash. This land is recommended foreither arable or grazing use without any special conservationmeasures.

Unit Ag (186 412 ha; 17.27.) has similar physical charac-teristics to unit A except for a moderate to severe risk of gullyor slip erosion. This unit is also recommended for either arablecropping or grazing but measures must be taken to prevent exten-sion of existing gullies and degraded areas. Checkdams should beconstructed in gullies to trap eroding sediments and prevent fur-ther extension, and the margins of gullies and of any badlandareas should be protected through exclusion of crop and grazingactivities. These exclusion areas reduce the proportion of theunit that can be effectively used for cropping or grazing.

Unit Az (13 841 ha; 1.37.) has comparatively slight risks oferosion and is recommended for arable cropping or grazing. Physi-cal conservation measures are generally not required although ap-propriate biological measures are recommended to maximise groundcover during the cropping season. Grass or tree strips, plantedalong the contour, are advised for arable cropping.

Unit Asg (14 410 ha; 1.27.) is similar to As with additionalproblems of gully or slip erosion hazard. Arable cropping isrecommended with grass or tree strips aligned along the contourand protection is required for gully and badland margins for botharable and grazing uses. Appropriate measures for gully and bad-land protection are identical to those recommended for unit Ag.

Ab (11 306 ha; 1.07.) has generally steeper slopes andhigher calculated erosion losses than the units previouslydescribed. Bunding is recommended for arable cropping in theseareas, together with grassed waterways or hillside drains toremove excess surface water. Bunds may be constructed of earth orstones and the former should be grassed to assist stability. Sitespecific recommendations as to the most effective design of bund

58

Havkoc-) and Putaiira/Chapter 4 Soil Erosion and Conservation

(con tour, graded or "fanya Juu" type) and the appropriate spacinQshould be formulated in cooperation with the local agriculturaletension service. This land is al-so recommended for grazing.

Abg (74 ha; 6.7/.) is also recommended for arable crop-ping with bunds. However, because of the high risk of slip andgully erosion, protection measures are required for isistindgullies and badiand margins, as recommended for unit Aq. Grazingis al-so recommended, given gully protection and exclusion fromprotected areas.

Unit Ad (16 910 ha; 1.4%) comprises Yertisols and relatedsoils with limitations of internal drainage. The land is recom-mended for arable cultivation, and yields of most crops can besubstantially increased by broadbed or ridging techniques(Section 6.3.3, p.). Unit Ad is aleo good grading land, but isnot recommended for perennial cropping or fuelwood production dueto the drainage limitations.

Unit Ad g (V 480 ha; 0.9%) also comprises Vertisols and ver-tic Cambisols, which are located on sloping sites which have ahigh risk of slip and gully erosion. Appropriate stabilisationme-asures are required around gullies and badland margins (seeunit Ag).

Unit FP (16 165 ha; 1.57.) is recommended for fuelwood plan-tations or for perennial crops. Arable cultivation is possible ifterraces are constructed. Trees or perennial crops shouldplanted on micro or 'eyebrow terraces. Livestock grazing shouldbe strictly managed on a rotational hillside closure basis. Gullyprotection measures should be implemented where required.

Gr (147 803 ha; 13.6%) has soils which are too shallow forany form of cropping. This land can be used for grazing althoughforage yields are expected to be lo w and in some areas periodicclosure may be required in order to limit further soil erosionand allow forage supplies to regenerate. Any gullies should bestabilised and protected.

Gw (26 601 ha; 2.5%) land is seasonally waterlogged and canonly be usad for grazing outside the rainy season. Some local isedcropping may be possible with flood protection and drainage im-provements.

GW (10 013 ha, 0.9%) is lar:! which 15 normally inundated andcan only be used for grazing during exceptionally dry periods.

59


X (124 607 ha; 10.67.) is badland or land with a combinationof very steep slopes and shallow soils from which crops and live-stock should be strictly excluded. Some limited planting of fuel-wood or forage trees is possible in the limited remaining pocketsof soil. In the less severely affected areas of badland, somelimited reclamation may be possible through construction ofcheckdams to trap eroding sediments. Any forage produced can beharvested on a cut and carry basis.

sribui*n of os rvatiThe distribution of conservation based land use recommenda-

tion units is shown on Map 7. At the mapping scale employed mostof units are mapped in complex association and it is usually notpossible to target recommendations on a particular land area. Forease of presentation, only the dominant recommendations for eachmapping unit are given on the map.'5

A summary of the distribution of the most intensive recom-mended land uses in the whole of Haykoch and Butajira is given inFigure 4.1. For generalised indicative land use planning which isthe eventual objective of the present study, the gross areas andrelative proportions of recommended land uses by Planning Zoneare useful and given in Tables 4.6 and 4.7. A more detailedbreakdown of conservation based recommendations by ServiceCooperative is aiven in Appendix G (p. 160 ).

5. The dominant recommendation shown on the map may only be ac-count for 507. of some of the complex units. Omission of some ofthe minor components sometimes leads to a slightly optimisticoverall assessment of the unit. However, the composition of com-plex mapping units is fully taken into account in the calcula-tions of areas of each recommendation.

60

ed Recommendation Units


Figure 4.1

Conservation Based Recommended Land Uses

Ai: As .Lyre (2.x ) NArable'GUI130P rod k

Note: The most intensive recommended land use is shown

The aggregated data in Figure 4.1 show that 40 % of Haykochand Butajira is suitable for cultivation of annual crops withoutany particular conservation measures, and that 70 % of the Awrajais suitable for arable cultivation if the recommended conserva-tion measures are implemented. In the mixed farming systemsprevailing in the Awraja, much of this potentially arable landwill have to be allocated to grazing, and the degree of competionbetween cropping and grazing uses is presently becoming moreacute (Harris, 1989). The grazing areas shown on Figure 4.1,which are not suitable for cropping, mainly comprise rocky landor land with shallow soils and are expected to have la w forageproduction potential and low carrying capacity. The exclusionareas include badland, steepland and land which is permanentlyinundated.

61


1oble 4.6

Distribution of Conservotion Dosed humiliation hits

(ireas in bectores)

62

Planninglone A Ag As Asg Ab Ak, id Ado Fp 6r X 6r 61

1 9508 273 0 1523 5786 4978 0 0 2780 0 14037 17092 56

2 2464 491 0 1460 990 17310 0 407 183 0 3785 3988 0

3 1734 9922 0 2584 3918 22970 5618 4073 14 0 19037 4534 0

4 5589 14150 0 3075 0 5140 0 0 7387 0 22618 5688 196

5 25000 41039 0 0 0 18588 0 0 4873 1053 3120 13799 0

6 117493 48314 0 5765 610 2640 1025 0 126 1547 18434 24217 64747 98258 12752 13841 0 0 716 0 0 0 751 14139 17422 0

8 57619 37092 0 0 0 1348 10266 0 0 9494 15070 11692 32879 99944 16404 0 0 0 224 0 0 0 6727 9633 40984 0

10 13483 969 0 0 0 414 0 0 0 I 1306 8490 0

Total 431097 186412 13841 14410 11306 74333 14910 9480 16165 26401 124599 147803 10013

Toile 4.7

Distribution of Conservotioo lose: Recoroendoties Units

(2 of total area of Planing Zones)

Planninglone Al As As Ab Aig Al Aig Fp 6r X 6r 61

1 17.0 0.5 0.0 2.7 10.3 8.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 25.1 30.5 0.12 7.7 1.5 0.0 4.6 3.1 54.3 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.0 11.9 12.5 0.03 2.2 12.5 0.0 3.3 4.9 28.9 7.1 11.4 0.0 0.0 24.0 5.7 0.04 8.1 27.8 0.0 4.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 32.1 8.3 0.35 23.1 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.0 3.5 12.1 0.06 50.3 20.7 0.0 2.5 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 3.7 7.9 10.4 2.87 61.2 7.9 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 10.5 10.8 0.08 39.5 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 10.3 8.0 2.39 57.5 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 5.5 23.5 0.010 54.7 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 34.4 0.0

Arrua 39.8 17.2 1.3 1.3 1.0 6.9 1.6 0.9 1.5 2.5 11.5 13.6 0.9


In the Gurage Mountains (PZ 1) steeply sloping escarpmentsand associated hills, often with shallow soils, limit the recom-mended land use to restricted grazing or exclusion on more than50 % of the land. More than 9 000 ha of land, located mainly onthe plain to the west of Butajira, is suitable for arable crop-ping without physical conservation measures, and a further 10 BOOha, mainly on the summits and on localised benches of moderateslope, can be recommended for arable cropping with bunds. Thehigh rainfall of this zone makes it particularly suitable forperennials, which could be grown in combination with bunded an-nual crops, perhaps using alley cropping.

The Gibiso Upland (PZ 2) comprises an undulating to rollingplateau, on which conservation bunds are required for cultiva-tion of annual crops. Most of this land also requires protectionaround gullied and stripped areas to prevent further encroach-ment. Only relatively minor parts of this zone can be used forcultivation without physical conservation measures. 12 % of thezone, mainly consisting of steep slopes with shallow soils, isexcluded from productive use, and a similar area is onlysuitable for restricted grazing.

The Bui Upland (PZ 3) adjoins PZ 2 and also has a rollingtopography in its upper reaches. Badland is much more extensivein this zone, accounting for almost one quarter of the totalarea. Some limited planting of trees or forage shrubs may be pos-sible on many of these badland areas but these should be onlyharvested on a cut and carry basis and the badland should beclosed ta other productive uses. Approximately one third of PZ 3can be cultivated for annual crops if conservation bunds are con-structed and most of this land requires additional protectionaround the margins of gullies and badland areas. A further 14 700ha of vertic soils would benefit from drainage improvement and a

somewhat smaller area can be used for arable cropping withoutphysical conservation (excepting protection of gully and badlandmargins).

The Wilbareg Upland (PZ 4) is even more degraded, with al-most one third of its total area comprising badland only suitablefor very limited tree or forage planting. Protection of gulliesand badland margins is required on most of the potential arableland in the zone but no additional physical conservation isneeded on approximately 25 000 ha. An area of more than 7 000 ha,located on the less steep escarpments with deep soils, is recom-mended for perennial crops or for fuelwood plantations.

63


Conversely, the proportion of the Negele Footslopes (PZ 5)which can be used for annual cropping is much higher. More than60 % of this zone, located mainly on the lower footslopes butalso occurring in the upper part of the PZ, can be used for cul-tivation of annual crops without physical conservation, althoughprotection is required around gullies in some areas. A further 17Y. of the zone, comprising the slightly more steeply sloping landof the upper foothills and valley sides on the upper plateauarea, requires bunds for the cultivation of annual crops. Theshallow soils of the escarpment are only suitable for restrictedgrazing or, preferably, for forage production on a cut and carrybasis. Some of the deeper soils on Mount Duro are suitable forfuelwood or for perennial crops.

The extensive Koshe Plain (PZ 6) is also dominantly suitablefor cultivation of annual crops without physical conservationmeasures. More than 50 % of the zone, or approximately 117 000ha, is potentially arable land on which physical conservation isnot required, and on a further 21 % arable cropping can be recom-mended provided the margins of gullies and badland areas areprotected. Approximately 10 % of the zone comprises shallow soilswhich are only suitable for restricted grazing, while much of thearea around Lake Abaya is suitable for dry season grazing.

Further south, the Alaba Plain (PZ 7) also consists of aflat or gently sloping area, approximately 70 % of which can berecommended for arable cropping without any physical conservationmeasures. A further 9 % of the zone, located in the extreme southwhere slopes are slightly steeper, requires grass strips alignedalong the contour to safeguard annual crop land. 10 % of PZ 7comprises rocky hills which are only suitable for rough grazing,while a similar area, located in degraded valleys, should be ex-cluded from productive use (with the possible exception oflimited tree and forage planting).

The Ziway Plain (PZ B) has a similar pattern of recommendedland use to the previous two Planning Zones, although a greaterproportion of land recommended for arable cultivation requiresprotection from gully or badland encroachment. More than 9 000ha of land in this zone is wetland that is suitable for grazingin the dry season.

The Haykoch Plain (PZ 9), comprising the hottest and driestpart of the wraja, also consists dominantly of land which ispotentially arable on which physical conservation measures arenot required. Most of the remaining land, particularly the rockyhills around Lake Shala, can only be recommended for restrictedgrazing, and due to the shallow soils and dry conditions, forageyields are expected to be low.

64


The Aje Hills (PZ 10) comprise a rocky volcanic complex witha very limited potential for livestock grazing and a gentle west-ern footslope, comprising slightly more than half of the zone,which is suitable for cultivation of annual crops without anyphysical conservation measures.

4.4.3. Summary of Conservation Measures Required

Table 4.8 gives a summary of the conservation measures re-quired on the arable land in each Planning Zone. Bearing in mindthe fact that much of this land will be allocated to grazing,rather than cropping, and the limitations imposed by the scale ofthe soil survey, areas are quoted as relative proportions ratherthan in hectares.

Table 4.8

Conservation Measures Required on Potential Arable Land

(% of arable area requiring specified measures)

None Gully Grass Strips+ Bunds Bunds+ Drainage Drain/Badland Strips Gul./Badl Gul./Badl. Gl/Bdl

Protection Protection Protection Protn.

1 43 1 0

,-) 11 2 0

3 3 18 0

4 17 58 0

5 30 48 0

6 67 27 0

7 78 10 11

B 54 35 0

9 86 14 0

10 91 7 0

65

--), 0 0,c,

6 4 75 0 4

5 7 41 10 16

9 0 16 0 0

0 0 ,, 0 0

3 0 , 1 0

0 0 1 0 0

0 0 1 10 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 3 0 0

Awraja 57 25 2 10

Planning Conservation MeasuresZone

Haykoch and Butajira/Chapter 5: Land Suitability for Crops

5. LAND SUITABILITY FOR CROPS

5.1. INTRODUCTION

Assessment of the suitability of individual crops is carriedout in order to predict the productive performance of existingfarming systems and to screen the development potential of anycrops which are new to the area or which are currently underutil-ized. The output of this evaluation informs the user which cropsare best physically suited for the arable areas identified inChapter 4.

Evaluation of crop suitability is tested at three levels ofmaterial inputs. The low input level corresponds to the use oflocal, unimproved, seed varieties, no fertilizers or otheragrochemicals, and no conservation measures. The interm.Aiate in-put level implies some use of fertilizer and improved seed andpossibly of other agrochemicals. However, these inputs areusually not applied in optimum quantities, either due to limitedavailability, shortage of funds for purchase or lack of manage-ment expertise. The high input level, which may only be achievedon the more efficient Producer Cooperatives and State Farms, im-plies a much more efficient utilization of fertilizer and otherinputs giving correspondingly higher crop yields.

The present Chapter gives the distribution of landsuitability classes for 29 crops in Haykoch and Butajira. Thesesuitabilities are based on the intermediate level of inputs,which is considered a realistic target to which the averagepeasant farmer or Producer Cooperative should aspire. There aregenerally only minor differences in the distribution of landsuitability classes for the same crop between the intermediateand low level of inputs. The specific impacts of changes in inputlevel and of land improvements on suitable areas and potentialproduction are evaluated in Chapter 6.

The crops assessed include all the principal subsistencecrops of Haykoch and Butajira, together with a number of cashcrops, some of which are already grown, and some of which are asyet untested in the Awraja. The evaluation procedure, which isdescribed more fully in Section 3.5 (p. 43 ) involves a combina-tion of the assessments of climatic and soil suitability, withadditional considerations of workability and erosion hazard. Toaccount for interannual variability of rainfall regime, evalua-tion is normally based on 75 % reliable crop growing periods.(i.e. the growing period which is exceeded in three out of fouryears).

66


Analysis of the results of the intermediate stages in landsuitability determination provides a useful insight into the na-ture of the constraints governing the final classification. Thefollowing section (5.2), briefly analyses the results of theclimatic assessments. For a more detailed analysis of specificproblems, individual land quality assessments can be retrievedfrom the GILES data base.

5.2. CLIMATIC SUITABILITY

The assessment of climatic suitability is common to alllevels of inputs and is based on the land qualities temperature,moisture availability and frost hazard. Table 5.1 gives the dis-tribution of climatic suitability classes for all the cropscovered by the evaluation.

Table 5.1

Climatic Suitability

(% total area of Haykoch and Butajira)

67

Crop Si S2 53 64

Sorghum 11 8 33 10 39Maize 20 9 25 9 37Wheat 25 23 17 8 27Barley 34 32 7 5 22Teff 26 19 35 4 16Finger mille,Fieldpea

2820

3436

207

615

13

Haricot bean 15 34 20 11 20Horsebean 25 43 5 8 19

Chick ea 66 20 4 4 6

Lentil 66 20 5 4 6

Vetch 66 20 5 4 6

Flax 24 21 27 9 21

Niger Seed 0 8 19 12 61

Sunflower 0 7 40 20 33Sesame 0 0 23 41 36Soybeans 0 4 33 21 42White potato 5 16 8 34 38Sweet potato 0 0 15 17 69Pepper 0 8 15 36 41

Shallot 0 0 ,4 22 75Tomato 5 9 17 24 45Cabbage 8 15 16 7 54

Ensete 4 15 24 16 42CoffeeSisal 10 28 49 5 9


In general, climatic conditions in Haykoch and Butajira aresuitable for a wide variety of crops. The principal climatic con-straints are low temperatures and associated frost hazard at highaltitudes and short growing periods (LePs) in the drier areas on

the rift valley floor. Therefore the small grain cereals such aswheat, barley and teff, which have shorter growth cycles and arebetter adapted to cool conditions, are suitable over more exten-sive areas of the Awraja than maize and sorghum, in spite of thedominance of maize in terms of area actually cultivated. Only thewetter areas of the western and eastern highlands are climati-cally suited to perennials such as coffee and ensete, but landsuitable for sisal extends onto the drier areas on the rift val-ley floor.

5.3. RESULTS OF LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION

The distribution of land suitability classes of the 29 cropsevaluated is given in Table 5.2. Areas are expressed as percent-ages of the total area of the Awraja. The spatial distribution ofsuitability classes is presented on the combined land suitabilitymaps for cereals, pulses, oilseeds, perennial crops and horticul-tural crops at 1:250 000 scale (Maps 8,9,10,11 and 12respectively).

For planning purposes and for modelling farming systems andpopulation support capacity, the distribution of suitable cropsby Planning Zone (PZ) is essential. In the following subsections(5.3.1 - 5.3.5) the zonal crop suitabilities are discussed, withparticular reference to determining which crops are the mostsuitable and to defining the physical constraints affecting theirsuitability. While most of these constraints are relatively per-manent (e.g. soil depth, slope), some constraints may be overcomethrough land improvements or increases in input level (Chapter 6)For clarity of presentation in the tables summarising cropsuitability (Tables 5.3 - 5.8) any land having a suitabilityclass of S3 or higher is regarded as "suitable". Thus very mar-ginal land (S4) is grouped with not suitable land (N), althoughsuch land may have ta be cultivated in cases of severe landshortage. A full listing of crop suitability classes by PZ isgiven in Appendix H (p. 164 ).

68


Table 5.2

Crop Suitability at Intermediate Input Level

total area of Haykoch and Butaiira)

Cereals

Table 5.73 gives the percentage of land suitable for cerealcrops under lo w inputs in Hay koch and Butajira and its componentPZs. Text mapa, 7, 8, 9 and 10 show the distribution of suitableland for maize, wheat, barley and teff respectively.

CropLand Suitability Class

Si S2 S3 84

Sorghum 2.5 10.8 29.3 12.3 45.1Maize 1.0 3.4 35.0 12.2 48.3Wheat .J., 25.7 15.6 10.7 42.9Barley 6.6 34.3 9.7 6.6 40.9Teff ' 5.6 20.9 23.4 3.8 41.2Finger millet 1.3 31.7 16.8 5.6 44.5Fieldpea 2.6 27.8 13.3 13.5 42.8Haricot bean 1.8 28.3 16.1 11.7 42.0Horsebean 3.3 34.9 10.7 9.7 41.3Chickpea 5.5 33.2 13.2 9.1 39.0Lentil 5.5 33.4 13.3 9.2 38.7Vetch 8.5 30.6 20.3 1.9 38.7Flax 4.5 25.5 20.8 9.1 40.1Nigerseed 0.1 4.1 11.7 12.2 71.8Sunflower 0.0 4.9 29.7 16.5 48.9Sesame 0.0 0.0 19.1 23.8 57.1Soybean 0.0 0.4 27.7 19.2 52.7Groundnut 0.0 0.0 1.3 31.8 66.9Potato 0.3 . - 4.5 29.1 60.3Sweet potato 0.0 0.0 11.5 17.9 70.6Pepper 0.0 4.3 10.4 29.0 56.4Shallot 0.0 0.0 1.2 14.0 84.8

4.Tomato 0.8 4.4 12.3 -,-,4,-0 59.7

Cabbage 0.3 6.2 13.1 9.0 71.3Tobacco 0.0 0.0 5.8 14.3 79.9Cotton 0.0 0.0 1.3 31.8 66.9Ensete 0.0 8.5 20.3 9.5 61.7Coffee 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.5 91.4Sisal 0.1 17.0 34.2 4.6 44.2

69

Haykoch and Butaj ra/Chapter 5: Land Suitability for Crops

Map 7

Land Suitability for MaizeIntermediate level of inputs, no land improvements

70

Haykdch and Butaiira/Chapter 5: Land -Suitabilit for Crops

Table 5.3

Land Suitability for Cereals at Intereediate Input Level

(% of total area of study area or Planning lores

Approximately half of Haykoch and Butajira is suitable forthe small grain cereal crops of teff, barley, finger millet andwheat. Due to low temperature constraints at high altitude andshort growing period constraints in the drier areas, slightlylesser areas are suitable for sorghum and maize although the lat-ter cereal is the most extensively grown in the Awraja.

The long season cultivars of maize and sorghum currentlygrown in the wraja require long growing periods and the evalua-tion is particularly sensitive to the use of the 75 % reliableLGP. Substitution of the median (50 % reliable) LGP in theevaluation substantially increases the area of land suitable formaize in the drier zones of the Awraja as shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4

Land Suitable for Maize based on two L6P reliability levels

(7. of total area of study area or Planning Zones

71

Planning Zone

Crop Haykoch & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Butaj ira

Wheat 46 34 64 40 39 73 67 57 58 17 30

Sorghus 43 12 2 34 29 62 69 59 57 19 37

Maize 40 15 11 35 31 53 61 56 53 18 35

Teff 55 30 65 70 46 77 73 74 69 21 57

Barley 51 39 70 40 40 74 69 70 58 24 41

Plillet 50 12 0 25 33 58 70 75 60 52 60

Plann ng Zone

L6P Haykoch & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Butajira

751 reliable 40 15 11 35 31 53 61 56 53 18 35

501 reliable 46 15 15 35 34 56 61 62 53 47 55

Ha'/Voch and Butajira/Chapter 5: Land Ei tabili.ty fnr Ernpa-

Map E

Land Suitability fnr WhoaatIntermediate lev'el of input:, no land improvemantE


Map 9

Land Suitability for BarleyIntermediate level of inputs, no land improvements

. .

73

S334/N

'82

Hay koch and Butaiira/Chapter 5: Land Suitability for Crops

These reeuits impl,/ that in choosind maize as their majorsubsistence crop, farmers in the drier parts of Haykoch and

Dutajira accept a considerable element of risk, and that cropsmay fail in poor years, a fact that is confirmed by the field ob-servations of the Socioeconomic Survey (Nair and Adugna Lib-sework, 1999). The use of short season cultivars of maize andsorghum is a promising option for reducing this risk and thepotential impact of this intervention is assessed in Section6.3.1 (p. ).

In the Gurage Mountains (PZ 1) the temperate cereal cropsare the most suitable. Common steep slopes limit the total areasuitable for arable cultivation togehly around 40 74 of the zoneand the high altitude areas (above 3 000 m) are only suitable forbarley. Wheat and teff are suitable in about one third of the F2,while land suitable for maize and sorghum is confined to thP,lower altitude plain west of Butaiira.

Approximately tvJo thirds of the Gibiso Upland (PZ 2) issuitable for barley wheat and teff, with the former tHO cropsbeing the most suitable. Due to constraints of altitude and as-sociated low temperaturea, only very limited parts of this zoneare suitable for maize and sorghum.

Teff is the most extensively suitable crop in the Elul Upland(PZ 3) as it is best adapted to the poorly drained Yertisolswhich cover significant parts of the zone. In the absence ofdrainage improvements (which are considered in Section 6.3.1; p.)only 25 to 40 7/. of P2 7 is suitable for the remaining cerealcrops.

The extensive badland in the Wilbareg Upland (PZ 4) limitsthe extent of suitable land for all crops. Teff, barley and wheatare the most auitable cereala, being suitable in around 40 X ofthe zone. The remaining cereals are suitable in approximately 70%of the Wilbareo UPland.

Convely, tho= relatively favourable soil and climatic con-ditions on the Negele Footslopes (PZ 5) result in abundantsuitable land for a variety of crops. Approximately threequarters of the zone is suitable for teff, wheat and barley.Somewhat lesser areas are suitable for sorghum and maiZE due toLSE constrainf=; on the lov4er par t. of the footslopee .. nd HUE totemperature limitations in the higher altitude areas.

74

Haykoch and Butajira/Chapter 5: Land Suitabil for Ornp=.

Map 10

Land Suitability for TeffIntermediate level of inputs, no land improvements

"

' /"+*

. -+et++

75

S1/824;, 83

84/N

. . . . . . .

.


Similarly, extensive areas of the Koshe Plain (PZ 6) aresuitable fmr cultivation of cereals and other annual crops.Around 40 to 70 74 of the zone is suitable for all the cerealsevaluated. Teff is marginally the most extensively suitablecereal crop.

On the Alaba Plain (PZ 7) short LGPs restrict areas suitablefor long season varieties of maize and sorghum to a little overhalf the zone. Finger millet is the best adapted cereal for thisarea although extensive areas are also suitable for teff, barleyand wheat. The area suitable for maize increases if evaluation isbased on median LSE (Table 5.4).

Further north, on the Ziway Plain (PZ 8) teff is suitablein approximately 70 '4 of the total area and is also a major com-ponent of the farming system (Section 2.5.2; p. ). The remainingcereals are suitable in 50 to 60 X of the area, with short LGPslimiting suitability in the south of the zone.

On the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9), which is the driest part of theAwraia, only finger millet is suitable over extensive areas. Thesuitable land for the remaining cereals is limited by short LGEsto around 20 7/. of the zone. The area suitable for maize, which isthe dominant cereal actually cultivated in the zone, increases toalmost 50 Y. of the EZ if evaluation is based on the median LGE(Table 5.4).

Millet is also the most extensively suitable cereal in theAje Hills (PZ 10), where extensive rockland limits the suitablearable area to around 40 X of the zone. Short LGEs are an addi-tional constraint, and the area suitable for maize increases sub-stantially if evaluation is based on the median LSE (Table 5.4).Maize is the dominant crop cultivated on the State Farm in the

Pulses

Land suitable for pulse crops is shown in Table 5,5. TetMap 11 illustrates the land suitable for haricot bean, which iathe dominant pulse grown in the Awraja.

76


Table 5.5

Land Suitability for Pulses at Intermediate Input Level

(Z of total area of study area or Planning Zones

Planning Zone

Pulses are not ubiquitous elements of the farming systemsin Haykoch and Butaiira but haricot bean is important in thelower drier areas, while chickpeas, lentils and horsebean aredrown in the western uplands (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989;Adjei-Twum and Gure Kumssa, 1989). Fieldpeas, haricot beans andhorsebeans are typical mehr season crops, but the remainincpulses are sometimes drown on residual moisture, after the mainrains have ceased.

Generally, vetch, chickpea and lentil, which have the short-est LGP requirements, are the most extensively suitable pulsecrops. Vetch is better adapted to higher altitudes and issuitable in nearly 60 'J. of the Awraja. The remaining pulses aresuitable in 40 to 50 7. of the wraja, with fieldpeas and horse-bean being the most suitable crops in the upland areas (PZs1,2,4 and 5) and haricot bean and horsebean being better suitedto the lower areas (PZs 6,7 and B). Chickpea, lentil and vetenare the only pulsee which are extensively suitable on the dry

Haykoch Plain (PZ 9), but the area suitable for haricot bean isexpected to increase if evaluation is based on a median LGP es-timation (see the example for maize, Table 5.4, p. ). The im-plication is that haricot bean can be grown in P2 9 provided a

fairly high risk of crop failure is accepted. This predictionreflects the actual farming practice in the zone.

77

Crop Haykoch & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Butajira

Fieldpea 44 34 64 40 39 75 51 57 55 19 44

Haricot bean 46 19 18 37 37 73 69 67 55 20 45

Horsebean 45 34 64 40 40 76 69 67 55 20 45

Chickpea 52 24 53 36 16 72 61 73 63 56 64

Lentil 52 25 54 37 17 72 61 73 63 56 64

Vetch 59 30 65 58 40 81 70 77 67 57 64


Nap 11

Land Suitability for Haricot SeanIntermediate Level of Inputs, No Land Improvements

78


5.3.3. Oilseeds

Table 5.6 gives the proportion of suitable land for oilseedcrops in each Planning Zone.

Table 5.6

Land Suitability for Oilseeds at Intermediate Input Level

(i of total area of study area or Planning Zones

Planning Zone

Crop Haykoch 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Butajira

Flax 51 34 64 40 39 76 69 68 55 33 43

Nigerseed 16 21 38 38 30 36 30 1 1 0 4

Sesame 19 0 0 0 0 6 5 38 56 36 3

Soybean 78 0 0 9 14 26 50 42 49 12 25

Sunflower 35 12 0 25 32 54 65 40 46 6 30

Groundnut 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 0 0

Oilseeds are not a major component of any of the farmingsystems in Haykoch and Butajira, but flax and nigerseed are grownlocally in small amounts. The remaining four oilseeds areevaluated to determine if they have potential for development inthe Awraja.

Flax is the most extensively suitable oilseed in the Awrajaas it tolerates the cool conditions of the highland areas (P2s 1,2, 3, 4 and 5) and has a comparatively short LGP requirementwhich also makes it suitable on much of the Kolla plains (PZs 7,

and 9). Land suitable for nigerseed, however, is mainly con-fined to the Noina Dega and Lower Deq4R agroecological zones whichoccur in PZs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. more limited There is con-siderable potential for sunflower and soybean on the lower plainsof PZs 5, 6, 7 and B but suitability is limited by short LGPs inthe driest areas (PZ 9). Land suitable for sunflower also ex-tends into the Noina Deca areas of PZs 1, 3 and 4. There islittle potential for development of groundnuts.

79

Hay koch and Butajira/Chapter 5: Land Suitability for Crops

5.3.4. Horticultural and Cash Crops

Table 5.7 gives the suitable areas for S horticultural andcash crops, some of which are cultivated in Haykoch andButajira.

Table 5.7

Land Suitability for Horticultural and Cash Crops at Intermediate Input Level

(X of total area of study area or Planning Zones

Potato and pepper (chillies) are important cash crops insome the Haykoch and Butajira farming systems (Section 2.5.2, p.

17 ). With the exception of cotton, which was not recorded in thestudy area, the remaining crops are locally cultivated, usuallyaround homesteads.

Most horticultural crops are constrained by short LGPs inthe Kolla Plains and only cabbage, potato and shallot are welladapted to higher altitude conditions. The Noina Deqa PZs of theBui and Wilbareg Uplands, the Negele Footslopes and the KoshePlain (PZs 3, 4, 5 and 6), and the Noina Dega part of PZ 1 arebest adapted to a range of horticultural crops, of which cabbage,tomato and chillie pepper are the most extensively suitable. Athigher altitudes cabbage and potatoes are the most suitable, withland suitable for shallot limited to areas with particularly longgrowing periods. Only minor areas of the Kalla Plains (PZs 7 and

and none of the drier Haykoch Plain (PZ 9) are suitable for

80

Planning Zone

Crop Haykoch t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Butajira

Potato 11 27 52 18 12 33 11 1 4 0 3

Pepper 15 18 2 35 25 57 17 8 1 0 ' 5

Shallot 1 12 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cabbage 20 36 70 40 35 46 32 4 1 0 4

Tomato 18 19 8 37 32 58 22 8 14 0 3

Sweet potato 12 4 0 18 19 37 25 4 1 0 2

Tobacco 6 0 0 9 8 17 8 3 8 0 2

Cotton 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 4 0 0


cultivation of horticultural crops under rainfed'conditions. Thepotential of some of these crops under irrigated conditions isdiscussed in Section 6.3.2 (p. 90 )-

5.3.5. Perennial Crops

The distr bution of land suitable for perennial crops isgiven in Table 5.8. Map 12 shows the distribution of landsuitable for ensete (Ensete ventricosum).

Table 3.8

Land Suitability for Perennial Crops

(1 of total area of study area or Planning iones

Ensete is a specialised food crop cultivated in certainareas of the north western highlands (PZs 1, and 2), where it isa significant part of the crop mix in the farming system (Table2.8, p. C.) ), and to a lesser extent on the Negele Footslopes (PZ5). This distribution is reflected in the results of land evalua-tion, which show PZs 5,2 and 1 having the most suitable land forensete. Short LGPs are the major constraint to enset cultivationin the lower areas, and poor soil drainage limits the suitablearea in PZ 3.

Coffee is less suited to higher altitudes than is ensete,and requires warmer conditions with long LGPs. Such conditionsare mainly confined to the middle section of the NegeleFootslopes (PZ 5), although significant parts of the westernhighlands are rated as very marginally suitable (Appendix H; p.

164 ).

81

Planning lone

Crop Haykoch & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Butai ira

Ensete 13 25 55 14 20 55 14 3 0 0 8

Coffee 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0

Sisal 51 12 0 22 34 60 70 77 60 58 60

Haykoch and Butaj ra/Chapter 5

Map_12

Land Suitability for EnteTraditional inputs and Manademenf

: Land Suitabil ty fflr CrDP'-;

82

Haykoch and Sutajira Chapter 6: Impact of Interventions

6. IMPACT OF INTERVENTIONS

6.1. IMPORTANCE OF YIELD IMPROVEMENT

In the highlands of Ethiopia increasing pressure of popula-tion on resources has resulted in a situation where future demandfor food and cash crops cannot be met by a simple expansion ofcultivated area if present levels of productivity are maintained(FAO, 1988). This is certainly true in Haykoch and Butajirawhere most of the suitable and marginally suitable areas are al-ready under cultivation and relatively easy access to the largeurban market of Addis Ababa exerts an additional pull on theproduce of the Awraja. The key to meeting future demand and tosatisfying the Government's major objectives of food self suf-ficiency and increased cash crop production therefore lies in in-creasing crop productivity per unit area of land. These increasesmust be achieved through interventions in the present farmingsystems to boost crop yields and improve their productivity. Forevaluation purposes, interventions can be separated into:

increases in the level of inputs

improvements in the land, or in the technology of land use

The present Chapter gives an outline assessment of the im-pact of interventions which are considered appropriate to thefarming systems operating in Haykoch and Butajira. Through usingland suitability classes as estimaters of crop yield, the produc-tion impact of interventions is calculated and areas are iden-tified for targetting of specific land improvements. Economic im-pacts of these measures are analysed in the Land Use Plan(Sutcliffe and Bahiru Melasse, 1989).

In accordance with the actual situation in the Awraja, in

which farming is mainly carried out by individual farmers andProducer Cooperatives, priority is given to evaluation of cropsuitability under intermediate inputs with minor land improve-ments which are within the capacity of farmers to implement. Forcompleteness, three of the more important cereal crops, maize,wheat and teff, are also evaluated under high inputs.

To be fully effective, suggested interventions must be ac-companied by improvements in agricultural management and theavailability of extension advice is a prerequisite to largescale implementation.

83

Haykoch and Butajira: thapter 6: Impact of Interventions

6.2., IMPACT OF INCREASES IN THE LEVEL OF INPUTS

The majority of farmers in Haykoch and Butajira arepresently operating under a "low input" situation in which onlyvery limited use is made of fertilizers, improved seeds or otheragronomic inputs.

Proposed increases in inputs should be pitched at a levelwhich is realistic for the farmers. An increasing number offarmers are no w using fertilizers in the Awraja, particularlythose operating within Producer Cooperatives, while improved seedvarieties and herbicides are used to a more limited extent. Cur-rent Government policy gives priority to distribution of fer-tilizers, improved seeds and other inputs to surplus producingWeredas which account for four of the Weredas in Haykoch andButajira, and the assumption can be made that a situation of an"intermediate input level" will gradually replace the presentone. This intermediate input level involves some use of fer-tilizers, improved seeds and possibly other agrochemicals butthese are rarely applied in optimum quantities, either due toavailability, shortage of funds for purchase, or lack of manage-ment expertise. The intermediate input level is used as the stan-dard for the crop suitability evaluations in this study.

The "high input level", which is more appropriate to StateFarms and possibly to the more progressive Producer Cooperativesentails a much more efficient utilization of fertilizer and otherinputs with correspondingly high crop yield levels.

The previous chapter (5) evaluated the suitability of a num-ber of crops at the intermediate input level. In the absence ofland improvements, the changes in distribution of landsuitability classes resulting from alteration of input level arerelatively minor but major production increments result from in-creases in the maximum achievable yield under varying inputlevels. Based on standard maximum achievable yields (Adjei-Twum,1987), Table 6.1 compares predicted crop yields under low, mediumand high levels of inputs in four Planning Zones of Haykoch andButajira based on the dominant land suitability class in eachzone.

84

Haykoch and Butaj -a: Chapter 6: Impact of interventions

Table 6.1

Impact of Input Level on Crop Yields by Planning lone

Indicative Yield by Planning Lone (G/ha)

Crop

The figures in Table 6.1 ind cate yield increments of be-

tween 20 % and 50 % on lo w input yields if intermediate inputsare applied. Similar increments have been recorded in trialsusing limited amounts of fertilizer by the Ministry of Agricul-ture. Application of high inputs results in further substantialyield increments of up to 66 % of intermediate input yields.

LAND IMPROVEMENTS AND AGRONOMIC INTERVENTIONS

Land improvements, which should normally be implemented inconjunction with increases in input level to be fully effective,need to be directed to areas with specific constraints which aresusceptible to amelioration. A distinction is made between "minorland improvements", which can be implemented by Producer Coopera-tives and individual farmers, and "major land improvements",which require specialist knowledge and significant capital in-vestment. The principie constraints in Hay koch and Butaiira whichare expected to respond to land improvements or agronomic inter-

ventions are:

moisture avai lability (short crop growing periods)

poor surface drainage on Vertisols

85

2

Low Medium High

5

Low Medium High

6

Low Medium High

7

Low Medium High

Maize 6 9 14 10 15 24 10 15 24 10 15 24

Wheat 12 16 22 12 16 22 12 16 22 12 16 22

Teff 6 7 9 8 10 13 8 10 13 6 7 9

Barley 7 9 12 10 13 17 10 13 17 10 13 17

Haricot bean 6 7 8 8 10 11 8 10 11 8 10 11

Flax 4 5 7 5 7 10 5 7 10 5 7 10

Pepper 8 11 19 12 19 32 8 11 19 8 11 19

Potato 84 126 196 60 90 140 22 54 84 22 54 64

Haykoch and Butajira: Chapter 6: Impact of Interventions

- slope and associated erosion risk(with n certain limitsof gradient and soil depth)

The impact of the following interventions on the suitabilityand potential production of selected crops is assessed in thepresent chapter:

Use of short maturing crop varieties

Irrigation

Surface drainage

Soil conservation

Drainage and physical conservation are both 'land improve-ments' as defined in the FAO land evaluation methodology (FAO,1976). In areas with short growing periods, the constraint caneither be addressed through a land improvement (irrigation) orthrough an agronomic intervention (varietal selection). The lat-ter option is considered more broadly applicable although smallscale irrigation may be considered for particular locations.Inthe following subsections, the areas likely to benefit from theseinterventions are indicated and the production impact of theproposed interventions is evaluated for different PlanningZones.

6.3.1. Use of Short Maturing Crop Varieties

Approximately two thirds of Haykoch and Butaiira has a reli-able growing period of less than 90 days. However the tradi-tional long season varieties of maize which are the dominant sub-sistence crops in these drier areas require a growing period ofat least 100 days for growth and maturity. There is therefore a

high risk of failure of the main subsistence crop in the theseareas. The introduction of shorter maturing varieties of maize,such as K.-gtuman.i, which can mature in 90 days at the altitude ofthe rift valley floor, can substantially reduce the level of riskto farmers and guarantee an enhanced and more stable level ofproduction. Map 13 shows the areas likely to benefit from the in-troduction of Kati_cmani or similar short maturing cultivars ofmaize.

6. The minimum growing period experienced in 75 % of years

86

Haykoch and Butajira: Chapter en: Impact of Interventions

Map 13

Areas benefittino from Short Season Maize Varieties

67

Haykoch and Butaiira: Chapter 6: Impact of Interventions

Table 6.2 gives the areas of land benefitting for thisagronomic intervention in each Planning Zone, and Figure 6.1shows potential production increments, assuming all these areasare planted to short maturing varities.

Table 6.2

Areas benefitting from Short Season Maize Varieties

(by Awraja and Planning Zone)

Planning Zone

Awraja 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

hectares 142143 -1433 -2606 12599 1418 12534 21446 25716 14614 52661 5189

% of PZ 12.1 -2.6 -8.2 15.9 2.1 11.6 9.2 16.0 10.0 30.3 21.0

%al

Figure 6.1

Potential Production Increments from Introduction of Short Season Maize Varieties

-i0"i 2 3 4 3

ng Zone

88


Both Map 13 and Table 6.2 clearly show that the drier areason the rift valley floor are most likely to benefit from the in-troduction of short maturing maize varieties. More than 30 % ofthe Haykoch Plain (PZ 9) shows a favourable response and between10 % and 25 % of PZs 7, e and 10 should also benefit. A positiveresponse to this intervention is also indicated in the lowerparts of the Negele Footslopes (PZ 5) and the Bui Upland (PZ 3).At higher altitudes in the Deqa agroclimatic zone ( PZs 1 and 2),a negative impact is indicated because the cool conditions arenot suitable for short maturing varieties.

The pattern of potential production increases (Figure 6.1)parallels the zonal impact. Widespread introduction of shortmaturing maize in PZ 9 results in a production increment of al-most 200 % over the average yield obtained using the present longseason varieties is indicated, and, perhaps more importantly, thefarmer can rely on obtaining a reasonable yield in all but thedriest years. The potential increment in PZ 10, where large areasare planted to maize on the State Farms is also in excess of 100Y. of the base yield, while more modest impacts are indicated inthe other Woina Deqa Planning Zones (3,4,7,S).

6.3.2. Irrigation

Irrigation is a relatively costly but more reliable tech-nique for ameliorating the moisture constraint in areas withshort growing periods. The use of irrigation is constrained bywater availability in addition to the area of land which can beirrigated, and for these reasons irrigation is more suited tohigh value crops grown on an intensive basis for cash sale.

A study at the reconnaissance level can only give a verybroad indication of the areas where irrigation may be considered.Availability of water for irrigation is not considered in the as-sessment, and investigation of this aspect is an obvious prereq-uisite to any recommendation for irrigation development. Smallscale surface irrigation by Producer Cooperatives or peasantfarmers is considered in the assessment and the requirements forlarge or medium scale schemes are generally more stringent unlessspecialised measures such as overhead irrigation are planned. Theprincipal value of this assessment is to eliminate areas whereirrigation is not suitable and to identify, on a largely qualita-tive basis, the PZs where the impact of irrigation is likely tobe greatest, given the presence of adequate water supplies.

Map 14 shows the distribution of land likely to benefit fromirrigation of chilli pepper, and Table 6.3 shows a comparison ofthe impact of irrigation of chilli pepper and maize, for thevarious PZs.

89

90


Map 14

Land benefittin from Irrigation of Chilli Pepper


Table 6.3

Comparative Impact of Irrigation on Maize and Chilli Pepper

(% of total areas of Awraja and Planning Zones benefitting)

For maize the potential benefits from irrigation are higheston the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9) and the Aje Hills (PZ 10). For chillipeppers, which are more stringent in their moisture requirements,benefits from irrigation are indicated in more than half the to-tal areas of all the PZs of the rift valley floor. Comparing thefigures in Table 6.3 with those in Table 6.2 (p. 88 ) the intro-duction of short maturing varieties would have a greater poten-tial impact than irrigation on maize production.

6.3.3. Drainage

Surface waterlogging, poor internal drainage and relatedpoor topsoil aeration are particular problems affecting Vertisolsand related soils on flat or gentle slopes. Such waterlogged con-ditions, which often persist through the Kremt rains restrictcrop choice and delay planting of more sensitive crops such aswheat. These planting delays may lead to additional hazards ofmoisture stress as crops reach maturity. Local farmers frequentlygrow wheat on small ridges, which partially alleviates thedrainage problem but the use of broadbed and furrows, constructedwith an adaptation of the traditional Maresha plough (Jutzi. An-derson and Abiye Astatke, 1967) may be more effective. Evidencefrom north Shewa (Getachew Asamanew et al, 1988) shows broad bed

91

PlanningZone

Maize ChilliPepper

1 0.5 0.12 3.8 0.0: 1.7 0.24 5.0 10.05 2.8 10.66 6.3 51.97 7.3 68.1e 1.1 59.19 31.0 57.110 19.4 55.7

Awraja 8.2 38.1

Haykoch and Butaiira: Chapter 6: Impact of Interventions

and furrows constructed by the modified plough to be sig-nificantly more effective than traditional hand made raised bedsin improving drainage and raising crop yields on Vertisols. This"broad bed and furrow maker" has now been extensively tested inthe Ethiopian Highlands and is available to cooperatives and in-dividual farmers at reasonable cost.

Delineation of the areas potentially benefitting from minordrainage improvement in Haykoch and Butai ira was made by overlay-ing the land suitability maps for a test crop (wheat) with andwithout drainage improvements. The results, shown in Text Map15, indicate the areas where the land suitability class is im-proved by the proposed drainage measures.

Table 6.4 gives the areas of each PZ likely to benefit fromdrainage improvement, and Figure 6.2 gives estimates of thepotential production increments which could be expected fromwidespread adoption of broadbed and furrow techniques in theseareas.

Table 6.4

Areas benefitting fro' Drainage Improvement

(by Awraja and Planning Zone)

Planning Zone

10

92

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 407 14438 0 0 491 0 10267

0 1.3 18.2 0 0 0.2 0 7.0 0

Awraja

hectares 25604

% of P7 2.2


Map 15

Areas benefitting from Minor Drainage Improvement

41

.91.024711,

93

1-

chargeriproved


Fiaure 6.2

Potential Production Increment of Wheat from Minor Drainage Improvements

P1

The results suggest that a total area of approximately 25000 ha would benefit from minor drainage improvements, such asthose implemented by the broad bed and furrow maker. More thanhalf this area is located in the Bud Upland (PZ 3), an area whichmainly consists of a gently undulating Vertisol upland dissectedby eroded valleys. Most of the remaining area where drainage im-provement may be effective is located on the Ziway Plain (PZ 8),immediately north of Lake Ziway. Widespread adoption of drainageimprovements on this land could result in maximum productionincrements for wheat of around 40 % in PZ 3, and slightly lessthan 20 % in PZ 8. The Vertisols occurring in the Wilbareq Upland(PZ 4) are relatively light textured (clay loam) at the surfaceand may not respond to surface drainage improvement.

6.3.4. Conservation

Soil loss through erosion is one of the major long term con-straints to sustained cultivation in the Ethiopian Highlands. Inaddition to vegetative control measures, which may be sufficient

94

eie


to reduce erosion to within acceptible limits on gentle slopes,land forming through bunding or terracing is required for sus-tained cropping on steeper slopes.

Bunds and related drainage structures, together with simplegully control structures can be constructed by individual farmerswith advice from the local Development Agents. These measures aretherefore regarded as minor land improvements. In the presentevaluation bunds are required for cropping on slopes in excess of13 % and are assumed to be effective in controlling sheetwash onslopes up to 25 % gradient. Above 25 % terraces are required forarable cropping. Terrace construction is assumed to be beyond thecapacity of individual farmers to implement and is regarded as amajor land improvement.

No direct impact of minor conservation measures on distribu-tion of crop suitability classes was recorded in Haykoch andButajira. This is due to the fact that, in spite of reductions inestimated soil loss, further constraints such as shallow soildepth or poor nutrient status still limit crop productivity.Major conservation measures have some impact on land suitabilityfor teff, as shown on Map 16 and in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5

Impact of Major Soil Conservation on Land Suitable for Teff

(Gain in Suitable Land by Awraja and Planning Zone)

Awraja Planning Zone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hectares 14726 2599 786 21 7387 3806 127 0 0 0

7, of PZ 1.3 4.6 2.5 0.0 10.7 3.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Land becoming suitable for arable crops following major con-servation comprises steep slopes (>25%) with sufficient soildepth to allow terracing and also areas with moderate or severegully erosion, which are assumed to stabilised. The main impactof major conservation measures is in the degraded Wilbareg Upland(PZ 4) and on moderately steep slopes with shallow soils in PZs1, 3 and 5. As expected, soil conservation measures have nomeasurable impact on the flat plains of the rift valley, whereoutlying hills invariably have very shallow soils.

95


Map 16

Land under Teff benefitting from major Soil Conservation Measures

:: ...

96


6.4. CONCLUSIONS

The most extensive ameliorable constraint to sustained highcrop production in Haykoch and Butajira is the length and rela-tive unreliability of the crop growing period. This constraintprevails over most of the rift valley plains and is particularlyserious on the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9). Traditional long seasonvarieties of maize, which is the dominant subsistence crop inthese areas, are not well adapted to these conditions and cropfailures are common, which is one reason why farmers keep largenumbers of livestock as an economic hedge against crop failure(Table 2.13, p. 22 ). The widespread adoption of short maturingmaize varieties is the intervention most likely to have a sus-tained impact on agricultural production in the wraja. Introduc-tion of these improved varities should be matched by the spreadof other "intermediate inputs" such as fertilizers and possiblyherbicides. Irrigation can be developed on a small scale basiswhere suitable topographic and soil conditions and waterresources are located, but its development is probably onlyeconomirally justified for high value horticultural or other cashcrops.

More locally, and particularly on the Bui Upland (PZ 3)

adoption of broad bed and furrow techniques on Yertisols can ex-tend the effective cropping season and boost the production ofcrops such as wheat, maize and vegetables. The impact of soilconservation is less readily apparent and it is expected thatfurther more detailed surveys would reveal more extensive areaswhere the benefits of bunding and terracing could bedemonstrated. From the present study, improvements due to conser-vation are identified in both the western and eastern highlandzones, and particularly in the highly degraded Wilbareg Upland(PZ 4).

Haykoch and Outajira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

7. POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY

7.1. CONCEPTS AND APPROACH

The primary purpose of evaluating the land resources ofHaykoch and Butajira is to direct strategies towards overcomingconstraints and to meeting the needs of the people. Thesestrategies are formulated in the land use plan (Sutcliffe andBahiru Melasse, 1989) and land evaluation supplies the geographi-cal framework through which they are directed. Population supportcapacity (PSC) analysis aims to define the basic needs of thepeople in terms of cropland for subsistence and appropriatelevels of surplus production, and forage for the livestock whichforms an integral part of the farming systems. An additionalbasic need, for fuel, is treated in the land use plan.

PSC analysis is based on sustainable land uses. The conser-vation based land use recommendation units (Table 4.5, p. 57Map 6) provide the physical basis of the model, while the farmingsystems (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989) provide the frameworkfor modelling of land uses. Crop yield estimates are based on theresults of land suitability determination for the component cropsin the farming systems. The analysis therefore establishes an ef-fective linkage between physical and socioeconomic resource sur-veys, and between land evaluation and planning and policy making.

The results of this assessment are expressed in terms of thepotential supply of cropland and forage relative to the needs ofthe population and their livestock. Details of the methodologyused are given in Appendix F (p. 146 ) for the cropland deter-mination and in a seperate Consultant's report (Harris, 1989) forthe forage determination. Section 3.6 (p. 45 ) gives an overviewof the methodology, while the present Chapter presents and dis-cusses the results obtained at the Planning Zone and ServiceCooperative level. All the PZs are covered by the evaluation ex-cept PZ 10, which wholly comprises State Farms and forest land.In order to gain an insight into the ecology of the farming sys-tems of Haykoch and Butajira, some of the results arising fromintermediate stages of the analysis are also presented and dis-cussed.

Due to the limited intensity of the field surveys and thescale at which maps were produced (1: 250 000) the limitations ofthe results of PSC analysis must be fully appreciated. Their mainusefulness is in indicating, at the level of the Service Coopera-tive, which areas are particularly critical in terms of popula-tion pressure on resources, and which areas have potential forsurplus production. This information can be used to achieve amore effective chanelling of resources to meet certain develop-ment objectives such as food self sufficiency, and to plan a more

98

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

equitable allocation of AMC quotas. In particular it can be usedas a framework for consultative planning at a more detailedlevel. The limitation of scale however, precludes the use ofdirect use of PSC results for farm or field scale planninci.

7.2. INTERMEDIATE RESULTS

Some of the intermediate results emerging during modellingare useful in analysing the various interactions present in thelocal farming systems, and in assessing the validity of the PSCmodel, based on theoretical requirements and an idealised landuse situation, by comparison with actual land use in the studyarea.

The relative areas of cropland required for subsistence andto meet AMC quotas give an indication of the comparative landproductivity and of the efficiency of farming systems in meetingthese basic needs. Additionally, comparison of calculated landrequirements with crop areas measured during the SocioeconomicSurvey provides a Valuable check on the applicability of the PSCmodel to the actual land use situation.

Table 7.1 compares the calculated areas required for crop-ping at the low and intermediate levels of inputs between dif-ferent Planning Zones, and also with land holdings and croppedareas recorded on a sample basis by the Socioeconomic Survey(Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989).

Table 7.1

Comparison of Land Requirements with Actual Cropped Areas (ha)

Note: Data on cropped areas and total land holdings arebased on sample household surveys (Nair and Adugna Libsework, 1989).

1/. Including 0.2 ha of land for AMC quota under low inputs and 0.15Fa under intermediate inputs. Also includes additional cash crop land of0.05 ha in PZ 5, 0.2 ha in PZ 6 and 0.1 ha in PZ 7, based on presentcropping practices.

99

PZ

Land Requirementfor crops 1/

Low Interm.

LandUnderCrops

TotalLand

Holding 2/

1 1.6 1.35 1.0 1.04 1.6 1.35 1.0 1.03 2.1 1.55 1.8 1.74 2.3 1.65 1.0 1.05 2.05 1.4 1.1 1.06 r:, ..",..._ 1.55 1.8 1.87 1.9 1.35 2.0 1.98 2.1 1.45 3.7 3.79 3.9 1.75 2.6 2.8

Ha', koch and Butajira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

Betweeen 90 % and 100 % of the total land holding is und2rcrops. with little land apparently being devoted tu fallow. Thisallocation suggests considerable land pressure. Grazing land iscommunal in Hay koch and Butajira and is excluded from the totalsin Table 7.1.

In PZs 3, 6 and 9 the land under crops, as recorded in thehousehold surveys, lies between the calculated requirement underlow and intermediate input levels. In PZs 1,2,4 and 5, farmersare allocating less land to cropping than the estimated minimumrequirement, even if intermediate inputs are applied, which im-plies that people are subsisting on less than the recommendedminimum calorie intake, or t. ha income is acquired from nonagricultural sources. Conversely in PZs 7 and S farmers are cul-tivating more land than is needed to meet minimum requirements atthe low input lev:ul. by a considerable margin in the case of EZS.

These observations of current allocation of cropland can bepar"'!: ly explained by the final resulta of PSC analysis which arepresented in Section 7.4. PZs 1 and 4 are the most short ofsuitable cropland and these are the zones where the least land ispresently cropped. Conversely, in PZs 7 and 8, which have thelargest cropped areas per household, availability of cropland israrely a limiting factor.

.3 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY

The regional distribution of population support capacitywithin the Awraja is illustrated in Map 17 with respect toavailability of cropland and in Map 18 with re's' pect to pressureon forage resources. Both these maps are based on the results ofanalysis carried out at the Service Cooperative level.

Map 17 shows the distribution of SCs classifed according totheir cropland status in 1989. "Critical" SCE are short ofcropland relative to the needs of their populations even if in-termediate inputs, such as fertilizer and improved seed, are sup-plied. "Adequate" SCs are theoretically able 'Lo provide thecropland needs of their populations at the low input level andmay have potential for surplus production if higher inputs aresupplied. "Medium" SCs are able 'Lo subsist at the intermediateinput leve],, but have limited potential for surplus production.

100

Haykoch and Butaiiraf Chapter 7: Population Support Capac ty

Population Support Capacity of Croplandby Service Cooperative

Map 17

101

Adequate.. .... ,

. narg 1

Cr it 1. .................. . .


The distribution of SCs according to cropland availabil tyclosely reflecta the physical conditions in the Awraja. The vastmajority of critical SCs are located in the western highlandswhere areas suitable for cropping are constrained by steepslopes, shallow soils and the presence of degraded areas.

Population density in these areas is also relatively high(Table 2.11, p. ), imposing a greater pressure on the scarcecropland resource. Isolated critical SCs also occur in the southof Haykoch and Butajira but there is no apparent shortage ofcropland on the flat or gently sloping plains of the rift val leyfloor.

Map 18 shows the qualitative results of the assessment offorage resources. These results should be interpreted within theperspective of an overall deficit of forage equivalent to ap-proximately 25 of the requirements of the current livestockpopulation (Harris, 1989). The greatest concentration of landwith the highest grazing pressure is in the south of the Awraja,to the south of Alaba Kulito and the rift val ley lakes. Otherpockets of high grazing pressure occur on the plain and upland tothe east of Butaj ira and on the degraded ridges west of Wilbareg.Most of the northern half of the wraja experiences medium graz-ing pressure, while pressure is comparatively less in the southcentral area.

102


Map 18

Grazing Pressureby Service Cooperative

Source: Harris, 1989


7.4. POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY OF PLANNING ZONES AND SERVICECOOPERATIVES

7.4.1. Croaland Balance bx_Planninq Zone

A quantitative comparison of the balance of croplandavailability by Planning Zone is given in Figure 7.1 for both thelow input and intermediate input scenarios based on the projecteddemand in 1989, 1999 and 2014.

From Figure 7.1 the PZs with serious pressure on croplandresources can be clearly identified. The Gurage Mountains (PZ 1)and Wilbareg Uplands (PZ 4) have an overall current deficit ofcropland equivalent to 40 - 50 % of the total cropland require-ments of the population under a lo w input situation. This deficitrises to more than 70 % by the year 2014, assuming normal popula-tion growth and the situation is only partly improved by an in-crease in inputs to the intermediate level. The Koshe Plain (PZ6) also shows a slight cropland deficit in 1989 under lo w inputsbut this becomes a moderate surplus if intermediate inputs areapplied, while the situation on the Negele Footslopes is slightlymore favourable. The cropland situation in the remaining PZs ismuch more favourable, with the Ziway and Haykoch Plains (PZs 8and 9) having an apparent sufficiency of cropland beyond 2014,and the upland PZs of the Gibiso Upland (2) and Bui Upland (3)having sufficient cropland beyond 1999.

The results of this assessment ignore the demand for grazingland for the livestock which is an integral part of the farmingsystems of the area. Caution must be exercised in drawing conclu-sions from analysis of cropland availability alone. The livestockforage supply situation is assessed by Planning Zone in the fol-lowing Section.

104

Hay koch and Butaiira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

Figure 7.1

Cropland Availability Relative to Requirementsin 1989, 1999 and 2014

Lo w Inputs

200

100

105

Plannin ZoneZ3 1989 199S E 2014

Intermediate Inputs

P1zLr1ninI Zone1989 k 195;9 L4 2014

110

otik, 00 044 0,,

1 ;p ON

ol It 11'4i., 4S,,,, .0, .41.*,,,,, .4116,4. .A111., .

:,..!..4

-100 2 34 5 7

Haykoch and Butajira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capac ty

7.4.2. Balance of Forage Resources and Livestock CarryingCa_pecity

Based on the analysis of forage resources from current dis-tribution of land use in Haykoch and Butajira (Harris, 1989) ,

Figure 7.2 shows the grazing pressure, or surplus or deficit oflivestock carrying capacity relative to recorded livestock num-bers, in each of the Planning Zones.

Figure 7.2

Current Stocking Load Relative to Carrying Capacity

140120-180-80-60-40-20-

-401 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Planning Zone

Source: Derived from Harris (1989)

The most serious grazing pressure occurs on the Alaba Plain(PZ 7), which is overstocked by a staggering 1207. of the es-timated carrying capacity. Overstocking is also apparent to amore modest degree on the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9) and the NegeleFootslopes (PZ 5). Forage supplies averaged over the year are

7. This assessment takes account of forage supplies both fromcrop residues and natural graze and browse. Crop residues accountfor more than 60 Y. of total forage supplies.

106


adequate in the remaining P-Es although there are seasonaldeficits in PZ 1 during the months of June to October when foragesupplies are generally at their most critical (Harris, 1989).

7.4.3. Overall Resource Balance and Population Need

The needs for cropland to supply subsistence food and areasonable surplus for commercialization, and the forage needs oflivestock, are complementary components of the rural economy andcannot be treated in isolation. To be self sufficient, each unitevaluated should have a sufficiency of cropland and forageresources and additionally a supply of fuel. However, the step-wise allocation of land assumed in PSC modelling, in whichpriority is given to cropland does not always reflect the actualsituation in Haykoch and Butaiira and apparent cropland surplusesmay not exist in practice due to competition for this land fromlivestock grazing. This situation is particularly true in therift valley PZs (7, 8, and 9) where the high level of risk as-sociated with rainfed cropping (Table 5.4, p. 71 ) encouragefarmers ta keep relatively large livestock herds (Table 2.13, p.22 ). Additionally, due to recent increases in prices and thepresence of a ready market for animals and animal products in Ad-dis Abeba and the townS in the rift valley, livestock produc-tion is often a more attractive economic activity than productionof crop surplusses. Thus in many areas which have an indicatedsurplus of cropland as shown in Figure 7.1, farmers commonlyreport a shortage. The study of livestock and forage resources(Harris, 1989) revealed a consistent pattern of encroachment ofcropland into areas which had been traditionally used for draz-ing, and a fall in livestock numbers throughout the wraja.

Bearing in mind these incentives influencing land use inthe Awraja, and also the reconnaissance nature of the surveys onwhich this evaluation is based, care must be taken in drawingsweeping conclusions about cropland availability. The data baseon livestock and forage resources is also weak, which explainsthe non quantitative expression of grazing pressure.

7.4.4. Population Support Capacity of Service Cooperatives

The Service Cooperative is the primary unit used in modell-ing of population support capacity. Because of the level ofdetail of the survey information on which this evaluation is

based, care must be exercised in interpreting results for in-dividual SCE. However, results can be used to give approximaterankings on the basis of available cropland resources and to

107


identify arcas of potential surplus production and areas whichare particularly critical with respect to supporting theirpopulations.

Figure 7.3 shows the number of SCs which are criticallyshort of cropland in the years 1989, 1999 and 2014, together withthe balance of SCs which are apparently not critical in 2014. SCsare grouped by Planning Zone and the situations under low and in-termediate inputs are illustrated seperately. The histograms showthe cumulative numbers of SCs which become critical in the yearsindicated. SCs in the "< 1989" class have already exceeded theircropland support capacity.

Under the low input situation a total of 47 SCs, equivalentto 30 % of the SCs in the wraja, have already exceeded theircropland support capacity. In a further 16 SCs the croplandresources are approximately equivalent to the demands of thepresent (1989) population. By the year 1999, 84 SCs, or just overhalf the total number, will be critically short of cropland, andonly 39 SCs can support the 2014 population, given currentpopulation growth projections and low input technology.

Increasing the level of inputs results in some substantialimprovements in the population support capacity of SCs, although29 SCs have exceeded their supply of cropland prior to 1989. 103SCE (65 Y. of the total) have sufficient cropland under inter-mediate inputs to sustain their populations beyond 1999 but only69 (44%) have adequate cropland for their 2014 populations.

The distribution of SCs according to classes of relativegrazing pressure is shown in Figure 7.4. Approximately 28 % ofSCs have high grazing pressure and in 23 % grazing pressure isrelatively low.

108


Figure 7.3

Cropland Support Capacity of Service Cooperativesby Planning Zone

i) Lo w Inputs

ii) Intermediate Inputs

40

30 -

20-

10

Pla.nnin one<1989 PS3 1989 4 1999 Oi 2014 MC

109

P1nnin. Zone<1989 1989 1999 2014 1111 N.0

Note: The bars indicate the total number of SCs which are critically short of

cropland in the year indicated. "<1989" implies that the SC has already ex-

ceeded its cropland carrying capacity. N.0 indicates the number of SCs which

are not critical in 2014.


Fi_gre 7.4

Distribution of Service Cooperatives according to Relative Grazing Pressure

Planning ZoneLow R1 Medium High

The spatial distribution of critical and adequate SCs withrespect to cropland availability is shown on Map 17 (p. 101 )

while Map 18 (p. 103 ) gives an indication of relative grazingpressure. The frequency distribution of SCs illustrated inFigures 7.3 and 7.4 closely parallels the total cropland resourcebalance by Planning Zone which was shown in Figure 7.1 (p. 105 ).

In the following subsections (7.4.5 - 7.4.13) SCs are rankedaccording to cropland support capacity within each Planning Zoneand additional information is given on relative grazing status.The reasons for the PSC distribution within the zone are brieflydiscussed and the major constraints indicated. Some recommenda-tions directly arising from PSC analysis are outlined. A moredetailed account of constraints and strategies at the zonal :Le'-,'el

is given in the Land Use Plan (Sutcliffe and Bahiru Melasse,198?).

110

Hay kochi and Butajira/ Chapter 7: Populat.in Support Capacity

7.4.5. Planning Zone 1: Guragg Mountains

PZ 1 is the most criti-cal part of Haykoch andButajira with respect taavailability of suitablecropland. This is mainly dueta the steep slopes of theGurage escarpment, whichdominate the PZ but are un-suitable for cropping.Inspite of a farming systemswhich includes 15 7. of en-sete, resulting in a com-paratively low land require-ment of 1.6 ha perhousehold, 7 of the S SCsin the zone are classifiedas critical with respect tocropland in 1989, and allare critical by 1999, evenif intermediate levels ofinputs are supplied. Most ofthe SCs suffer medium graz-ing pressure.

Table 7.2 gives a rank-ing of the SCs in PZ 1 indecreasing order of theiravailable cropland resourcesrelative to population need.

Due to the unfavourabletopographic and soil condi-tions, strategies to dealwith the critical population

111

support capacity in this PZare limited. Application of intermediate inputs helps to reducethe deficit but in only one case is self sufficiency achievedbeyond the year 1989. Increasing the proportion of ensete in thecrop mix is the most promising technique for increasing the totalcarbohydrate production per unit area and hence reducing the landrequired for subsistence. Ensete is suitable in 25 Y. of the PZ(Table 5.8,p. 0 ) and is already a component of the diet of thepopulation. Suitable techniques for reducing the forage deficitinclude making better use of crop residues, including enseteleaf, and cut and carry harvesting of forage from steep areaswhich are closed to grazing.


Table 7.2

PZ 1: Population Support Capacity of Service Cooperatives

Key to PSC Classes:

3 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19994 Cropland availability = Requirement of the population in 198?5 Cropland availability < Requirement of the population in 1989.

1207 KESHET HOGNETAT 1 20 4 3 Medium Low

1208 ACHEBER -9 8 4 4 Critical Medium1105 KOTA -37 -26 5 5 Critical Medium1203 DEMU -38 -26 5 5 Critical Medium1104 SOST AMBA -42 -31 5 5 Critical Medium1004 ABZANDA KOTA -48 -38 5 5 Critical Medium1110 YEWEDO GEBEYA -56 -48 5 5 Critical Medium1111 MEKICHO -63 -56 5 5 Critical Medium

112

SC No. SC Name Surplus/Deficit PSC Cropland Grazing

Cropland in 1989 CO Class Status Pressure(1989)

Low Interm, Low Interm.

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacit';'

Plann nq Zone 2:Gibiso Upland

The undulating androlling terrain of theGibiso Upland is generally-Auifed to cultivation,provided the required con-servation measures are ap-plied. With the same cropmi x as that in P2 1,cropland ia generally ade-quate to meet current re-quirements, particularly ifintermediate levels of in-puts are supplied. Assumingnormal rates of populationgrowth, however, all 5 com-ponent SCa will be criti-cally short of croplandbefore 2014. In common withP2 1, grazing pressure iamedium in all but 1 of theSCs. Table 7.3 ranks the SCain PZ according tocropland availability rela-tive to population need.

In general crops on theGibiso Upland should respondwell to application of fer-tilizers and other inter-mediate inputs andreasonable surplusses ofgrain crops can be expectedunder these conditions. In-

113

PZ

' ;et.'

; . .

"

tkhrtev,Akeee t*. ;."* ; . . ... "

S' . ; "-

'

:

" " ; ' ".... : .

s; s s; ..+s.

. : $: . .

: : .". ". .5.

* s. '. . -

e 4 }' $ ee. $$. e{e e

t3f:;<k*.. "

4.

;. . `:*4;S:,:s. ,

:$$ 7r. .. ...

creasine the proportion ofensote in the crop mi> reduces the area needed for staple foodcrops and aasists in 50ii conservation. Techniques to improve theforage aupply situation are similar to those recommended for F21.

.


13051306130113041206

Table 7.3


GIBISOCHOBANA MESIDOGURANDAAMAWTIEFATO BALE WIELD

Surplus/DeficitCropland in 1989 (%)

Low Interm.

76 10966 9714 357 276 26

114

PSC CroplandClass Status

(1989)Low Interm.

Key to PSC Classes:2 Cropland adequate for 1999 population, becoming critical before 20143 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19994 Cropland availability = Requirement of the population in 1989

7.4.7. Planning Zone 3: Bui Upland

AdequateAdequateAdequateMediumMedium

GrazingPressure

MediumMediumMediumMediumLow

PZ 3 is characterisedby an undulating plain dis-sected by eroded valleys.Vertisols are a prominentsoil type on the plain andirreversibly degraded bad-land accounts for almost onefifth of the zone. In spiteof these physical con-straints, the Bui Upland hasthe lowest population den-sity of any of the highlandPZs (Table 2.11, p. 20 )

and cropland availabilityper household is fairlygood. All but 2 SCs havesufficient cropland to sup-port their current popula-tion at the lo w input level,and the remaining 2 SCsbeing self sufficient if in-termediate inputs are ap-plied. 3 SCs have sufficientsuitable cropland for their2014 population, and thisfigure increases to 5 if in-termediate inputs are sup-plied. Grazing pressure inthe zone is medium to lo'.Table 7.4 ranks the SCs ac-cording to cropland supportcapacity.

SC No. SC Name


As in Pi most of theSCs in the Bui Upland should be able to make use of fertilizersand other intermediate inputs to achieve reasonable productionsurplusses. Broad bed and furrow techniques should increase theproductivity of gently sloping or flat Vertisol areas. Badlandsshould be closed and planted with a low density of fuelwoodtrees, permitting grasses and other forage species to regenerate.Trees and forage can then be harvested on a controlled basis toalleviate fuel and fodder shortages.

Table 7.4


0203130713031202130212051201

EJERSSABECHEKIETERIE SILASSIEBUITIYA MARIAMWACHO MOREGEKELA

Key to PSC Classes:1 Cropland adequate for population beyond 20142 Cropland adequate for 1999 population, becominq critical before 20143 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19994 Cropland availability = Requirement of the population in 1989

115

1 1 Adequate1 1 Adequate1 1 Adequate-., 1, Adequate2 1 Adequate4 3 MediumQ 3 Medium

MediumMediumMediumLowMediumMediumLow

SC No. SC Name Surplus/Deficit PSC Cropland GrazingCropland in 1989 (%) Class Status Pressure

(1989)Low Interm. Low Interm.

204 312173 269154 245

81 14569 129-6-9

Hay koch and Butajira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

F' 1 ann Zonp 4; Wi It?

The Wilbareg Upland isthe most degraded part ofHay koch and Butajira and 30of the zone comprises bad-

land which is unsuitable forcrops or livestock grazing.The population density isalso the second highestamong the P-Ls, and the Wil-bareg Upland is the mostcritical zone with respectto availability of suitablecropland relative to popula-tion need. Table 7.5 summar-rises the cropland and graz-ing status of the 13 com-ponent SCs in PZ 4. All theSCs are presently criticalor marginal on croplandavailability under the lowinput level and only 2 SCsbecome non critical if in-termediate inputs are ap-plied. The PZ has a compara-tively low density of live-stock and grazing pressureis mainly low or medium.

Due to the extensivebadland areas and the severerisks of slip or gully ero-sion on much of the remain-ing area (Table 4.4, p. 54) strategies for addressingthe core problem of the

116

$ .424.

Z4. " '''' ''' ' '

o . , ,

*11,14*.L. ......: .. .. "":" .... .

,

:4.

$:"..

.........

zone, that of cropland shortage, are limited. Some of the higher,wetter parts of the zone in the west are suitable for ensete cul-tivation and, as ensete is already a familiar item in the diet ofthe local population, its cultivation should be extended as faras possible. However the undulating plains which comprise mostof the PZ commonly have imperfectly drained soils which are notsuited to ensote cultivation. Application of fertilizers andother intermediate inputs to these areas will increase yields butis not likely to solve the problem. Because the Vertisols haverelatively light textured (clay loam) surface layers, response todrainage improvement is limited. Most of the SCs in PZ 4 are inDolocha Wereda, which is classified by the Government as surplusproducing. However, any imposition of higher AMC quotas in theseSCs will further exascerbate the problems of the zone in support-ing its population.

Hay koch and Butai ira/ Chapter 7; Popu 1 ation Support Capacity

Table 7.5


0811 WERABET 4 46 4 2 Medium Low0810 BILA WANJA -8 28 4 3 Medium Medium1009 GORATITI DANECH -31 -4 5 4 Critical Medium0814 AMBERICHOKITE e -34 -9 5 4 Critical Low0809 MEKAKELEGNA DEM -36 -11 5 5 Critical Medium0802 DILAPA -47 -26 5 5 Critical Medium0813 ADDIS BIRHAN -47 -26 5 5 Critical Low1005 WORABE DATE WOZ -47 -27 5 5 Critical Low1002 ARATBER ANSMEBE -58 -42 5 5 Critical Medium0812 FUGE DILAPA -60 -45 5 5 Critical Low0804 GOLANA SHEMETO -63 -48 5 5 Critical Low0805 KORO GALIE -64 -49 5 5 Critical Medium0815 YEDIE SABOLA -90 -86 5 5 Critical Low

Key to PSC Classes:

1 Cropland adequate for population beyond 20142 Cropland adequate for 1999 population, becoming critical before 20143 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19994 Cropland availability = Requirement of the population in 19895 Cropland availability < Requirement of the population in 1989

Arresting the problem of land degradation is of crucial im-portance in the Wilbareg Upland. Bearing in mind the acuteshortage of cropland, the first priority should be to prevent anyfurther encroachment of badland or gullies into existing croplandareas. This can be achieved through a combination of protectionof badland and gully margins and stabilisation of areas of ac-tive gullying. Suitable techniques are described in the Land UsePlan (Sutcliffe and Bahiru Melasse, 1989). Badland areas can bedeveloped for fuelwood (low density planting) and forage produc-tion with harvesting on a cut and carry basis.

117

SC No. SC Name Surplus/Deficit PSC Cropland GrazingCropland 1989 (%) Class Status Pressure



7.4.9. Planning Zone 5: Negele Footslues

The Negele Footslopescontain a range of physicalconditions, from the Degaplateau that is conterminouswith the Arsi highlands tothe east, through the wet,commonly forrested, easternescarpment of the rift val-ley, to the intensively cul-tivated footslopes with deepfertile soils, which adjointhe poorer soils of thesemi arid Haykoch Plain.

Within this PZ, mostSCs are orientated northwest to south east so thatthey cover a number of theenvironments mentionedabove. Thus the SCs, andtheir component Peasant As-sociations, which often havea similar orientation, havesome flexibility in dealingwith adverse conditions suchas drought which may affectcertain parts of their area.

Table 7.6 lists the SCsin PZ 5 according to theirrelative abundance ofcropland and their grazingpressure. The majority ofSCs have sufficient cropland

: k ^

:^. ..*: ;0'e.

* :

k14: : :

118

for their present population, even under low inputs, althoughmost become critical before 2014. Increasing the level of inputssubstantially improves this situation. The most critical SCs withrespect to cropland availability are all situated in the south ofthe PZ (Map 17, p. 101 ). The Negele Footslopes have the secondhighest livestock population density in the wraja and grazingpressure is high in half the SCs in the PL.

The favourable physical conditions and good accessability ofmost of this zone makes it particularly well suited for target-ting of fertilizers and other intermediate inputs to achieveproduction of crop surplusses. Recognition of the Weredas of ArsiNegele and Shashemene as surplus producing by Government is con-sistent with their productive potential, but production must keeppace with population growth or most of the PZ will not be surplusproducing by the year 2014. The concentration of SCs where

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capac

population pressure on resources is relatively high, in the southof the zone, may be partially offset by opportunities for off -farm employment in the nearby towns of Shashemene and Awasa.

Table 7.6PE 5: Population Support Capacity of Service Cooperatives

SC No. SC Name Surplus/Deficit PSC CroplandCropland 1989 (%) Class Status


Key to PSC Classes:

1 Cropland adequate for population beyond 20142 Cropland adequate for 1999 population, becoming critical before 20143 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19994 Cropland availability = Requirement of the population in 19895 Cropland availability < Requirement of the population in 1989

Pressure of forage resources is probably a more seriousproblem at present than shortage of cropland. Livestock densitiesare high and there may be scope for effecting a control led reduc-tion of numbers, particularly as rainfed cropping is relativelyreliable in most of the PE. Sowing legumes under maize, which isthe dominant crop in the zone can substantially increase both thequantity and quality of the total forage resource (Harris, 1989),and there are opportunities for promoting cut and carry forageproduction through closure of steeper escarpment areas where highrainfall should enhance yields.

0406 SODKO0408 KELO DURD0403 DEDEBANA AWADI0509 FAJI NETI0409 GODE0407 DURO HULUKA0405 MELKA BUTA0402 MEJA WERKA0502 KERARA KERSO0401 ASHALENA WAY()0505 UVENSO SHIFA0510 FAJI AKABABI0501 JIGESA0512 ABICHA0514 BULCHANA0511 HARABATE SHUMKA0504 WONDO GENNET0506 ALELO

119

GrazingPressure

148 263 1 1 Adequate High121 224 1 1 Adequate Low83807568

169164156146

7,,-.,,_7,,,),

1

1

1

1

AdequateAdequateAdequateAdequate

HighLowLowLow

58 132 2 1 Adequate High43 110 2 1 Adequate Medium20 75 3 2 Adequate Medium1714

7

716657

371

7,,7,,2

AdequateAdequateMedium

HighMediumHigh

6-0

5

4644

7,,,

MediumMedium

LoWLow

-19 18 5 3 Medium High-21 16 5 3 Medium High-25 10 5 4 Critical High-42 -15 5 5 Critical High

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 7: Population Support CapaCity

7. ..... Zone 6: Koshe Plain

The Koshe Plain is thelargest P2 in Haykoch andButajira, both in terms ofarea and population, andalso supports the highestpopulation density in theAwraja. Physically the zonecomprises a gently slopingplain, interrupted by paral-lel ridges. The farming sys-tem is dominated by maize,wheat and sorghum withchilli pepper being an im-portant cash crop.

Table 7.7 ranks thecomponent SCs of PZ 6 ac-cording to croplandavailability relative topopulation need. There is awide variation in croplandavailability of individual

In 1989, 40 X of SCsare able to supply croplandneeds under low inputs andthis proportion increases to65 74 if intermediate inputsare supplied. In 1999 be-tween 55 X and 70 X of SCsare critical with respect tocropland, depending on thelevel of inputs applied, andonly 7 X - 24 74 can supplythe cropland needs of theirpopulations in 2014. The

120

most critical SCs are located in the higher , north western partsof the zone, adjoining the Gurage Mountains (PZ 1) and Mi]. baregUpland (P2 4). Most of the PZ experiences medium grazing pres-sure, but in about 30 Y. of the SCs, located to the east ofSutajira town, grazing pressure is high. SCs with high grazingpressure in PZ 6 also have acute shortage of cropland.

The dominantly flat and gently sloping topography of PZ 6 isfavourable for use of fertilizers and other intermediate inputs,the application of which should promote the production of cropsurplusses in the better endowed SCs and help to alleviate thesituation in those that are more critical. With the uneven dis-tribution of cropland and forage resources relative to populationrequirements, some realignment of SC boundaries should be con-sidered within the Wereda of Meskana Mareka, to the east ofButajira.

Haykoch and Butaii/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

tribution of cropland and forage resources relative to populationrequirements, some realignment of SC boundaries should be con-sidered within the Wereda of Meskana Mareka, to the east ofButaiira.

Table 7.7


SC No. SC Name Surplus/Deficit PSC Cropland GrazingCropland 1989 (%) Class Status Pressure

(1989)Lo w Interm, Lou Interm.

1113 SEMIEN KOSHE 174 288 1 1 Adequate0206 DUGDA BALEWOLD 1 463 ,17/O .7 1 1 Adequate

MediumMedium

0204 REFENSSO 131 228 1 1 Adequate Low0714 GETEM 105 190 , 1 Adequate Medium1112 GATO 96 178 ?, 1 Adequate Medium0909 MEDADE BUDETI 80 155 ?

<_ 1 Adequate1106 KOSHE 79 153 2 1 Adequate

HighMedium

1204 ADELIE 71 142 ,<._. . 1 Adequate Medium

0904 TURATTO AKABABI 60 127 <:. 1 Adequate0711 W ?OTETA 55 120 <_ 1 Adequate

HighMedium

0903 TURA SEDESTTO 46 107 ?<_ 2 Adequate High

1008 COTO AKABABI 34 91 ?, ?, Adequate Hicjh0722 BESHENO 32 88 3 ?, Adequate Low0723 HANTEZO 29 83 3 ?

,_ Adequate0902 METTO AKABABI LA., 70 ,

,> ?, AdequateMediumMedium

0719 EREGDINA TUKA 17 66 3 ?, Adequate High0901 SHEFODA 12 59 3 2 Adequate Medium0803 EBOT GOGORA -3 38 4 i: Medium Medium0713 ADASHA -4 36 4 2 Medium Medium0717 BERCHO -10 ,,,.4/ 5 3 Medium0807 NADUGNE ENKAT -13 ,,

5 3 MediumHigh

4O Medium0711 MENZO FETTEN -17 18 .

3 Medium Medium0808 NADUGNE DIJO -18 17 .

3 Medium Medium0718 KORE -19 15 5 7, Medium Medium1102 ENSENO -20 14 5 3 Medium Medium1108 AKAMUJA -21 12 5 3 Medium High0801 KUTYO SABOLA -21 12 5 3 Medium Medium0715 GETTEM ZIKO -27 3 5 4 Critical Medium0716 GUTANCHO -28 3

.4 Critical Medium

1107 JULIE -31 __? 5 4 Critical Medium1006 ELOS AKABABI -44 -20 5 5 Critical Medium1115 HAMUS GEBEYA -15 -23 5 5 Critical0806 DENGIE LASH 0-48 -27 5 c Critical

MediumHigh

1103 DOBENA -55 7, a5 CriticalJO High

1109 KUNO GEBEYA -61 -44 5 5 Critical Medium1001 WOLIYA AGODEBOZ -61 -45 5 5 Critical1114 GOGETI -63 -47 5 5 Critical

HighLow

0910 SHANKA BATCHA -64 -50 5 5 Critical Low1101 MESKAN GETEMA -66 -51 5

.0 Critical High1007 GERBI BER AKABA -67 -53 .

,, 5 Critical Medium0911 GEBABA RAYYTURA -73 -62 5 5 Critical High1003 BURAKO AKABABI -76 -66 5 5 Critical Medium

Key to PSC Classes:

1 Cropland adequate for population beyond 2014Cropland adequate for 1999 population, becoming critical before 2014

3 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19994 Cropland availability = Requirement of the population in 19895 Cropland availability < Requirement of the population in 1989

121


With the dominance of maize in the farming system,widespread undersowing of legumes is the most promising strategyto alleviate the forage shortage. Details of suitable legumespecies and of other relevant forage production techniques aregiven by Harris (1989).

7.4.11 Planning Zone 7: Alaba Plain

The Alaba Plain is a

flat or gently sloping plainlocated in the south of theAwraja and interrupted byoutlying hills. This is oneof the three Kolla PZs inwhich livestock rearing isarguably the most importanteconomic activity, and theAlaba Plain supports thehighest livestock density inHaykoch and Butajira. Thecropping system is dominatedby maize.

Component SCs in PZ 7

are ranked according tocropland support capacity inTable 7.8. Most SCs haveadequate suitable croplandfor the present population,and if intermediate inputs.are applied only 1 out ofthe 28 SCs is critica],.Given intermediate inputs,more than half of the SCs onthe Alaba FI am can supplythe cropland needs of thepopulation. However parts ofthis zone are subject todrought risk and fooddeficits may be expected indry years. The Alaba Plain

122

is grossly overstocked rela-tive to livestock carrying capacity and more than 75 Y. of thehave high grazing pressure.

Haykoch and Butaiira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

T.E.t b.1tr7_,


SC No SC Name Surplus/DeficitCropland 1939 (%)

Low Interm.

0609 EJERSA AKABABI 4210613 ALEMTENA AKABAB 3010615 WAKA BUTE AKABA 2360614 KOBO AKABABI 2210699 No Service Coop 1750709 ODANA MENO 1600508 KUBI 1530601 AWARA AKABABI 1120513 WTE BURRA 1090503 MEJA 1090507 KORE 1040707 TEFO iro0706 KONICHA 970611 SHEWAKO ALABA 870602 AJE AKABABI /70612 LOKERABA AKABAB 740720 MEKALA 710704 ANSHA 380605 SENBETE SINKELE 7,,330701 BEDENE 270702 SHEKETENA WOLDI 180721 ANDEGNA TUKA 130603 BASA BASA 110703 KUFEE -30705 GUBA SHERERO -30706 LENDA0617 BINTANEGURI -210404 ROPI AKABABI -51


(1989)Low Interm.

633 1 1 Adequate Medium464 1 1 Adequate High373 1 1 Adequate High351 1 1 Adequate Medium287 1 1 Adequate Low266 1 1 Adequate Medium256 1 1 Adequate High198 1 1 Adequate High191 ,,4 1 Adequate High193 z 1 Adequate Medium190 -7,,_ 1 Adequate High133 --.

,._ 1 Adequate High178 -)

.,_ 1 Adequate High164 ,:,

,_ 1 Adequate High152 2 1 Adequate High145 --

,_ 1 Adequate High141 '- 1 Adequate High94 ',:. ,7,

,_ Adequate High88 ,3 -7,

.,_ Adequate Medium79 3 -7,

,_ Adequate High66 3 2 Adequate High60 ,3 -.7,

,_ Adequate High56 3 ,

- Adequate High7,74 High, 2 Medium36 1 -7- Medium High31 4 3 Medium High11 5 3 Medium High,,-3z. 5 5 Critical High

Key to PSC Classes:

1 Cropland adequate for population beyond 20142 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 20143 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19991 Cropland availability = Requirement of the poklation in 19895 Cropland availabilitY < Requirement of the population in 198?

Strategies for improving the population support capacity inPZ 7 should first focus on the critical livestock situation. Asoverall livestock density, at 190 TLU/ha, is considerably greaterthan that in other PZs (Table 2.13, p. 22), including those witha higher risk of crop failure due to drought, there should be

considerable scope for a control led reduction of stock numbers,perhaps linked to a rationalisation of herd and flock compositionas recommended by Harris (1989). Efforts should also be made to

123

GrazingPressur&


increase forage production in this zone and undersowing oflegumes is the most effective technique, given the dominance ofmaize in the cropping system.

Most of the PZ should react favourably to application offertilizers and other inputs although there may be problems ofwastage in cl ry years and possible problems of phosphate fixationon Andosols. In general this zone should not be a priority areafor fertilizer promotion, but any inputs that are introducedshould be linked to the use of short season maize var eties whichsubstantially reduce the risk of crop failure.

7 fling Zone__B.A_yksly_ Plain

The Ziway Plain com-prises the northern part ofthe rift val ley floor andconsists of a mainly flatplace, occasionally dis-sected by degraded riverval ley. The northern part ofthe zone has a stronglyunimodal rainfall pattern,with little Belg rains butwith a more reliable kremtthan further south. Maize isthe dominant crop grown, butsignificant areas are alsoplanted 'Lo teff and haricotbean. Human and livestockpopulation densities arecomparatively low although,in common with the otherKolla P2s, the number oflivestock per household iscomparatively high.

Tibie 7.9 gives thecropland support data andgrazing status for the com-ponent SCs in PZ 9. With anabundance of flat land and alow population density,there is no shortage ofavailable cropland in 1989indicated, and all but oneor two SCE (depending un in-put level) have sufficientcropland for their 2014

124

.." .;* .. .

.... ... , . " ,:'

,. . :: .

. : .:::.:.:.:::: . ,:,..,,:.,

" ""*".::;' .. ,;<;,,".. :.

population. Grazing pressure is medium throughout the P]..

Haykoch and Bu ta -a/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

PZ 9: Population Support

Tsble 79

Capacity of Service Cooperatives

SC No, SC Name Surplus/Deficit PSCCropland 1989 (%) rlass

Low interm. Low Interm.

Cropland GrazingStatus Pressure(1989)

0205 WOY0 GABRIEL 454 703 1 1 Adequate Medium0211 GUSSA 305 486 1 1 Adequate Medium0201 GIRA GONA 286 459 1 1 Adequate Medium0213 KORKE ADI 264 427 1 1 Adequate Medium0305 ZIWAY AKABABI 250 407 1 'i Adequate Medium0102 DODO 282 381 1 1 Adequate Medium0104 BERTA 218 360 1 1 Adequate Medium0105 LAFENSA 193 325 1 1 Adequate Medium0210 1"AFA ELA ,1 26,-4,,,. 1 1 Adequate Medium0103 RADO 164 .-6,L.68 1 1 Adequate Medium0101 AMBULE 164 283 1 1 Adequate Medium0301 ABOSA AKABABI 150 262 1 1 Adequate Medium0212 MUKUYE 128 280 'i 1 Adequate Medium0202 KILTO BILBILA 126 227 1 1 Adequate Medium0207 ELA MICHAEL 1,,

iz-. 221 1 1 Adequate Medium0208 BORLA CHEFFE 30 89 8 2 Adequate Medium0209 BORLA DALACHA 20 73 3 2 Adequate Medium

Key to PSC Classes;

1 Cropland adequate for population beyond 20142 Cropland adequate for 1999 population, becoming critical before 20113 Cropland adequate for 1289 population, becoming critical before 19994 Cropland availability s Requirement of the popUlation in 19895 Cropland availability < Requirement of the poPulation in 1987

With its favourable physical conditions, low population den-sity, and accessability to the urban markets of Addis Abeba andLhe towns of the rift valley, the Ziway Plain can be caen as apotentially surplus producind area to which improved inputs canbe channelled to boost yield levels. The use of short maturindmaize varieties such as itumani. should he 1. to stabilise yieldlevels and should be encouraged. Broadbed and furrow techniqueswill improve levels of production on the limited area of Ver-tisols present in the zone.

The situation with respect to forage supply is lessfavourable. Widespread introduction of undersown legumes is

likely to yield maximum benefits in terms of increased produc-tion, and farmers may be persuaded to reduce total livestock num-bers once a more stable cropping system, based on improvedvarieties and increased input levels, is introduced.

125

Hykoch and Butaiirai Chapter 7:: Population Support Capacity

7,4.,17!___Plarlakag, Zone : Haykoch Plain

The Haykoch Plain com-prises the lowest part ofHay koch and Butaiira and ischaracterised by reliablecrop growing period of lessthan 90 days. The terrain isdominantly flat but soilsare frequently coarse tex-tured with limited waterholding capacity, and theplain is interrupted by bar-ren, rocky hills. It is inthis zone that live'=.for:kof comparatively greatestimportance and eachhousehold owns an ave,age of15 TLUs, which is 50 % morethan in any other zone. Inspite of the low and unreli-able rainfall, maize is .hedominan t crop, and cropfailures are very common.Human population density isthe lowest in the Awraja.

Table 7.10 lists theSCs of PZ 9 with theircropland support capacityand grazing status. Due tathe low population densityand extensive flat land, allbut one of the SCs have ap-parently adequate croplandfor the current populationand more than half the SCs

124

can sustain the population in 2014, iven the supply of inter-mediate inputs. Crazing status is also relatively favourable andmore than half the SCs have relatively low grazing pressure.

In spite of the apparently favourable cropland status ,theHaykoch Plain must be seen as a marginal area for rainfed crop-ping due to the high risk of crop failure in dry years. Withrelatively poor soils, and water supplies of questionablequality, it is doubtful if irrigation could be developed economi-cally in this zone on any significant scale. Introduction ofshort maturing varieties of maize is the best technique fordecreasing the risk of crop failure and for substantially in-


creasing the average level of production (Section 6.3.1, p. 86),although risk of failure will not be eliminated in dry years.Substitution of more drought resistant crops such as sorghum orfinger mil let are further options or risk minimization. Under-sowing of legumes under maize or sorghum can help to alleviatethe forage shortage, and natural graze and browse should be con-served through the avoidance of overgrazing. The Haykoch Plainhas considerable potential for expansion of tourism around therift valley lakes.

Table 7.10P.?. 9: Population Support Capacity of Service Cooperatives

No. SC Name Surplus/DeficitCropland 1989 (%)

0306 BULBULA AKABABI 11580411 DAKA LANDANO 2480907 JEDO ADABABI 2170906 TATEKE BEDEGETE 1940905 BORA KOBULECH 1450308 REPI WERANSA 1380302 GOBJECH DESTA 1300410 DELI (DOLE) 1260303 BOREMO ANKOROSA 1090710 AJO HULUKO 1050412 JIDO FIKE 1000307 OETU AKABABI 990304 ANENO AKABABI 900404 NANO WEY0 710610 KERENSA AKABABI 340608 SHALA ABABABI ,,JL0908 JEDO DESEFA 260616 ELALA AKABABI 210607 SENBETE SHALA 110606 ROPI SHALA AKAB -10

1684 1

394 1349 1

317 1

247 1

238 1226 1221 1

196190 2183182 2170116 290 388 379 372 358 3

5

Key to PSC Classes:

1 Cropland adequate for population beyond 20142 Cropland adequate for 1999 population, becoming critical before 20143 Cropland adequate for 1989 population, becoming critical before 19991 Cropland availability = Requirement of the poOlation in 19895 Cropland availability < Requirement of the population in 1989

127


(1939)Low Interm.

1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate1 Adequate,:. Adequate,L Adequate-:., Adequate,I,, Adequate,, Adequate7..., Medium

GrazingPressure

MediumLowLowLowLowLowLowLowLowLowLowMediumLowMediumMediumLowMediumLowHighLow

Low Interm.

Hay koch and Butajira/ Chapter 7: Population Support Capacity

7.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Haykoch and Butajira has a current population of ap-proximately 1.4 million, giving a gross population density of 130persone /km-'2 of la id area. The vast majority of this populationis dependent on agriculture for their survival and income. Thefarming systems which form the basis of the subsistence economyare agropastoral, with livestock becoming progressively more im-portant in the lower drier areas where rainfed cropping is lessreliable. Because livestock is an integral part of the farmingsystems, availability of forage supplies, in addition toavailability of suitable land for cropping, is essential for theself sufficiency of the population.

The present situation in the Awraia is characterised by lo'crop and livestock productivity, competition for land betweencropping and grazing uses and an overall forage deficit equiv-alent to 25 X of the requirements of the present livestockpopulation (Harris, 1789). In parts of the Awraja land degrada-tion is extensive.

There are clear zonal differences in population supportcapacity within Haykoch and Butajira which can be related tospecific constraints within each Planning Zone. The Western High-lands are the most critically short of cropland, largely due tothe occurrence of steep slopes, shallow soils, or degraded bad-land areas. Within the highlands, the Gurage Mountains (PZ 1) andthe Wilbareg Upland (P2 4) are the worst affected areas, with theGibiso Upland (PZ 2) and the Bui Upland (P2 3) generally havingadequate cropland due to dominance of less steep slopes and, inthe latter case, to a lower population density. On the AlabaPlain (P2 7) high livestock densities result in an acute forageshortage, and in all the Kolla P2s (7,8,9) rainfed cropping issubiect to risks of crop failure in dry years, a problem that ismost severe on the Haykoch FI sin (P2 9) where rainfall is i-helowest in the Awraja. On the Koshe Plains (F2 6) and NeqeleFootslopes (P2 5) there is considerable variation between popula-tion support status of cropland and forade between individualService Cooperatives.

One of the principal outputs of population support capacityanalysis is a classification of Service Cooperatives accordingto potentials and constraints in relation to population need.This classification can be used as a basis for selecting SCs forallocation of material resources and to provide a logicalframework within which a more detailed planning procedure, suchas Service Cooperative Consultative Planning can operate.

128


Recommendations arising from this analysis aim to achieveself sufficiency in staple food crops and the production ofsurplusses to meet AMC targets and to generate cash income,throughout the wraja. As there is already competition for land,the situation can only be improved through raising productivity,per crop and per animal, by supply of improved inputs and im-proved management. The rapidly growing population, which isproiected by the PSC model at a growth rate of 3.07. per annum,will pose an increasing strain on the resources of the area underpresent levels of technology, even if intermediate inputs areadopted on a large scale basis. Increases in input level must becombined with a policy of population control to provide a longterm solution to the problem of population pressure on resources.

A number of recommendations are directed to specific Plan-ning Zones. Crop yields could be stabilised at a higher level inthe rift valley PZs (7,8,9) by the introduction of short maturingmaize varieties such as Katumani. In the western highlands, par-ticularly in PZ 1 and parts of PIT 4, increasing the proportion ofensete in the crop mix could reduce the cropland required toproduce sufficient calories for subsistence. The most promisingtechniques for reducing the forage deficit generally involve acloser integration between cropping and stock rearing activities.Undersowing maize and sorghum with legumes is likely to have themost impact (Harris, 1989), particularly in the rift valley andin PZs 5 and 6, here maize is the dominant crop grown. Stabi-lization of crop production through the introduction of shortmaturing varieties may make a reduction in total livestock num-bers more feasible, particularly in overstocked areas like theAlaba Plain (PZ 7). In the western and eastern highlands closureof steeply sloping areas, accompanied by cut and carry harvestingof forage should have a substantial impact on total supplies.Closure, with cut and carry harvesting should also be extendedto the extensive badland areas in PZs 3 and 4.

Conservation of soil and of natural grazing and browse isimportant throughout the raja to ensure the sustainability ofexisting farming systems and to prevent further losses of produc-tive crop and grazing land. Soil conservation is particularly im-portant in the western highlands (mainly PZs 3 and 4) tostabilise areas of existing badland and to prevent furtherencroachment. Prevention of further pasture degradation is ofgreatest importance on the Haykoch Plain (PZ 9), where oppor-tunities for reliable rainfed cropping are most limited.

Further detailed proposals for development of Haykoch andButajira are contained in the Land Use Plan (Sutcliffe and BahiruMelasse, 1989).

129

APPENDIX A

SERVICE COOPERATIVES BY WEREDA

3 ZIWAY AKABABI

3-01

3-02

3-03

3-04

3-05

3-06

3-07

3-06

3-96

4 ARE' NESELE

4-01

4-02

4-03

4-04

4-05

4-06

4-07

4-08

4-09

4-10

4-11

4-12

4-98

Ambole

Dodo

Rado

Berta

Lafensa

Gira Sona

Kiltu Bilbila

EjerssaRefensso

Woyo Gabriel

Duda BalewoldEla Michael

Borka Cheffe

Borka DalachaAta ElaSussa

MukuyeKorke Adi

Meki Town

Aboca Akababi

Bobjech DestaBoremo Ankorosa

Aneno AkababiZiway Akababi

Bulbula AkababiOetu AkababiRepi WeransaIrrigation Scheme

Ashalena WayoMeja Werka

Dedebana AwadiNano Weyo

Melka ButaSodko

Duro HulukaKelp Durd

BodeDeli

Daka LandanoJido FikeNegele Town

5-01

5-02

5-03

5-04

5-05

5-06

5-07

5-08

5-09

5-10

5-11

5-12

5-90

5-985-99

6 SIRARO

6-01

6-02

6-03

6-04

6-05

6-06

6-07

6-0S

6-09

6-10

6-11

6-12

6-13

6-14

6-15

6-16

6-17

6-90

6-72

6-93

6-97

6-98

6-99

Jigesa KersoKerara Kerso

Meja

Wondo Benetlivens() Shifa

AleloKore

Kubi

Faji Neti

Faji AkababiHarabate Shumka

AbichaWote Burra

BulchanaState Farm

Kuyera Town

Shashemene Town

Aware AkababiAje Akababi

Basa BasaRopi Akababi

Senbete SinkeleRopi Shala Akababi

Senbete Shala

Shala Akababi

Ejersa Akababi

Kerensa AkababiShewako Alaba

Lokeraba AkababiAlemtena AkababiKobo Akababi

Waka Bute AkababiElala Akababi

BintaneguriState Fart

Wildlife Sanct.Forest Reserv,

State FarmState Farm

No Seryice Coop.

Area (ha)

8493

5084

6432

10505

5646

9016

2921

2471

4185

5646

3651

4297

5926

9410

3061

5112

393

1179

14057

6825

5477

3005

7415

6376

8146

5814

7523

5505

3426

4691

3398

8904

4859

4859

5983

2500

12 75 2

3511

10955

2471

1486

14691

WEREDA SC Area (ha) WEREDA SC

1 BORA 44717 5 SHASHEMENE

1-01

1-02

1-03

1-04

1-05

2 DMA

2-01

2-02

2-03

2-04

2-05

2-06

2-07

2-082-09

2-10

2-11

2-12

2-13

2-99

8005

11123

8764

9325

7500

100049

135396067

8904

3651

10365

10309

9837

6797

3539

7078

4241

6376

8089

1207

93564

10618

5084

5505

5674

1334221545

1275212022

7022

95611

3735

3986

5730

5842

3567

9943

10758

11825

4382

9662

6741

18455

983

7 ALABA

7-01

7-02

7-03

7-04

7-05

7-06

7-07

7-08

7-09

7-10

7-11

7-12

7-13

7-14

7-15

7-16

7-17

7-18

7-17

7-20

7-21

7-22

7-23

DALOCHA

8-01

8-02

8-03

9-04

8-05

8-06

8-07

8-08

8-09

8-10

8-11

8-12

8-13

8-14

8-15

LANFARO

9-01

9-02

9-03

9-04

9-05

9-06

9-07

9-08

9-09

9-10

9-11

9-98

9-99

Bed ene

Sheketena Woldi

Kufee

Ansha

Buba ShereroLenda

Tefo

Konicha

Odana MenoAjo HulukoWoteta

Menzo Fetten

AdashaGetem

Getem ZikoGutancho

BerthaKore

Eregdina Tuka

MekalaAndeona Tuka

Bes heno

Hantezo

Kutyo Sabola

Dilapa

Ebot BoyeraSolana Shemeto

Koro GalieDengie Lasho

Nadugne Enkat

Nadugne DijoMekakelegna De;

Bila Wania

Werabet

Fuge DilapaAddis Berhan

AmberichokiteYedie Sabola

Shefoda

Metto AkababiTura Sedestto

Turatto Akababi

Bora KobulechTateke Bedegete

Jedo Akababi

Jedo DesefaMedade Budeti

Shanka BatchaSebaba Raytura

State FarmState Farm

5674

4943

2865

2668

4129

2724

5028

2752

6685

16236

7668

1404

2528

5505

2500

2443

3117

3005

4438

4016

2387

9691

4297

4578

3575

7410

2668

2528

4073

3679

3005

3511

4971

9662

6685

3651

4943

5674

10365

12162

5983

5561

2134

4241

5421

2752

8146

3651

1797

1825

5505

10670 10 SILTI 49630

10-01 Woliya Agodeboz 266810-02 Aratber Ansmebe 7780

10-03 Burako Akababi 5955

10-04 Abzanda Kota 4971

10-05 Worabe Date Woz 7893

10-06 Eles Akababi 6657

10-07 Gerbi Ber Akababi 3792

10-08 Boto Akababi 4634

10-09 Goratiti Danech 5280

11 MESKAN & MAREKO 85303

131

WEREDA SC

12 SODO

Meskan GetemaEnseno

Dobena

Sost AmbaKota

Koshe

Jolie

Akamuja

Kuno GebeyaYewedo 6ebeyaMekicho

Gato

Semien Koshe

Gocleti

Haius Gebeya

Butajira Town

Kela

Bui

Demu

AdelieWacho Moreoe

Fato Bale WieldKeshet Hognetat

Acheber

GurandaTiya Mariam

Terie Selassie

Amawtie

GibisoChobena Mecido

Bechekie

2500

7921

4410

7078

7443

6938

3623

5730

3286

5702

5084

9241

9634

1292

3764

1657

Area (ha)

73310

16713

9185

6320

11488

5505

4662

7134

12303

8988

14971

11882

4719

6067

7443

12247

66317

LAKES 94354

WEREDA SC Area (ha) WEREDA SC Area (ha)

11-01

11-02

11-03

11-04

11-05

11-06

11-07

11-08

11-0?

11-10

11-11

11-12

72633 11-13

11-14

11-15

11-99

12-01'1

12-04

12-05

12-06

12-07

12-08

69543 13 KONDALTITI

13-01

13-02

13-03

13-04

13-05

13-06

13-07

1

73 7

3 73

. 73

73SS

SSM

SS7.

1" S

SS:I

S D

.= S

aC

O (

f) C

O C

O C

O C

O 1

7:1

cr; C

O C

O -

7.1

-071

77

71 7

7. 7

1 -1

7 7.

1 -7

3 "1

'31

1..7

CA

CA

roC

te_

n(.

4 C

A 1

-..)

ro r

or.

) ro

r 41

,1 r

..;11

".:1

NI 1

-,I

7-1

r.41

1-`

1,3

14 N

.::C

4 C

.4(.

4 1,

3 N

)/..

.) H

...I

ro

CO

L O

7.)

ii Ir

0, 0

,-.

.1V

CA

CO

co C

Oo

0,cr

;ro

rO

0 0

CO

ul

r.)

0 1-

, CO

0O

D 0

cD 0

0C

.) 0

CO

0)

ro1,

3o

0 0

0 0

0 C

., C

s, c

D 0

0 0

0 0

0o o

1-4

C4

Cr.

.co

CO

0o

1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 cD

0 0

0 C

r, c

D0

-00

Ct..

0 c

DC

.) 0

C)

0 0

0 .0

c7.

.) 0

0 c

D 0

0 0

CF,

0 0

CA

CO

0 0

-P

i17

1

1 1

co-0

CO

,0ir

0(.

00

0 o

o 0

0 o

r.)

0 o

0 0

o 0

,) C

O 0

o0

Ot c

o O

. o C

r.. o

cri

jcc"

")h.

)cD

com

Lr4

,- 0

0,1

0F-

1

1O

I-4

1

coC

OI

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 "0

0 0

0 0

0 0

C.)

0C

) 0

0 0

0 0

CA

0 -.

1 0

0 0

0 -G

.0 0

0 0

0 0

(D

CO

0 0

K:7

I")

C11

0 0

cD 0

.00

1

11

Cr

F-,

1

Ct

o-0

-0

-.0

0 0

0o

rro

r-00

0000

0000

o cr

.. o

Cr-

0 0

0 C

) 41

, 0 C

., 0

C.)

0 0

0 0

C)

C.n

O-1

1"...

1o

r...1

Q. 0

, c.D

.N

) C

.--

1

--;

.0o

I1"

...1

-C1

I

0 0

0 0

c) 0

0 0

co

o <

-2, 0

oo

oo

0 o

0 0

0 .C

D 0

0 0

0 0

0 C

.)C

....!

C.4

Cr,

0C

.>o

0 C

.,Q

.. 0

CO

I

I

Ir.

..)0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

C)

0 0

0 C

., C

..". C

`, C

., 0

0 0

0 0

0C

., 00

0000

0000

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0C

:F 0

C.,

0 0

0 I

C.n

I

0 0

0 C

D 0

.0 0

o 0

0 0

o 0

o o

Ci 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

C>

0 C

.. C

., cD

0 0

0 0

cD 0

0cD

0 o

0 0

0 o

.o

rr...

fi

11>

TPD

7).1

.../.3

>r-

r-r-

r-f-

r-r-

r-r-

r-r-

r-r-

r-r-

i-r-

r-r-

r-w

rxw

torz

w,:r

ww

ww

.<<

cinc

:-..<

<<

<<

ccc-

cn,-

_-<

.,:r.

..)ro

N.)

ror_

n

C.,4

1,31

--D

- C

A C

A C

.-1N

) N

3f-L

1-..

CA

N.1

1-c.

iLA

N.)

(...1

1%)1

-` C

.-1N

)1,

)

CA

NJ

r...)

U1,

..-r1

U1

e_n

r-r1

U1

r-n

CO

`01.

.rC

OC

),"_

71r,

0ON

)000

,00,

-n00

0000

00JC

.)0,

0000

0001

%)0

1L40

3\11

-,r-

A,.j

r.),

...1

O

C.I1

C1

`.1

0000

000

000

Q00

0000

`-0-

0--0

0r-P

CO

I-L

0000

0000

0000

0000

t_11

00 0

3000

000

000Q

0,-_

-,0

Cr.

0000

000

r_n

Q G

OO

C.0

00--

CN

- 00

o 0

0000

CN

CA

CA

000

0000

000-

0i-,

t_-J

00 C

D 0

0 r.

)000

0000

0000

CO

00-.

0000

C)0

0-A

0000

0000

0000

0000

00.0

)-L0

0000

°00,

1N)0

1-,1

0000

0000

0000

C)0

000

CA

CA

CA

Q.!

0000

0000

0000

000c

ocol

-fr-

or_n

A-A

1--o

-01-

-L00

00l-L

0000

c_)0

00,-

-,00

c000

-000

0000

0000

-000

0000

0000

0000

0n-L

I-'0

0000

0001

-.00

0000

O,0

C)0

0000

0000

00,..

1000

0000

00Q

0,;.

!

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 C

) 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

00

0 0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 C

-) 0

C. 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

,0 0

00

0 0

0.C

rc-)

Soil Composition by Land Txpe (%)MappinciUnit 100 75 50 50 25 25 .,cLLJ '?c<_.!

431 0 44 0 0 3 0 O 04321 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 04322 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 04323 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 04411 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 04412 ,,Lj 0 0 0 0 0 0 04413 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 04421 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 04422 0 0 44 57 0 0 0 04423 0 0 42 3 0 0 0 0413 0 0 54 5 0 0 0 04441 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 04442 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445 0 0 43 ":,'

L-A- 0 0 0 0446 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0451 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0452 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0453 0 0 53 2 0 0 0 0471 0 0 19 29 0 0 0 0472 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LAKE 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 085 0 0 12 101 0 0 0 0V1 0 0u 0 0 68 0 0 0V122 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 047 0 0 19 29 0 0 0 04323 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0L314 0 49 0 0 1 0 0 0L132 0 31 0 0 1 0 0 0L131 0 31 0 0 1 0 0 08113 0 , -), 0 110 84 0 0P322 0 106 0 0 -:,, 0 0 0P323 0 0 1 106 0 0 0 0

134

APPENDIX C

CODING OF LAND CHARACTERISTICS

Soil-physical characteristics:

very poorly drainedpoorly drainedimperfectly drainedmoderately wellwell draihedsomewhat excessively drainedexcessively drainednot available

coarse sandsandfine sandloamy coarse sandloamy sandloamy fine sandsandy loamsandy clay loam1 0 a fr:silt loamsiltsilty clay loamclay. loamsandy claysilty clayclay'clay (montmorillonitic)n.a. (due to lithic contact)variableloam + clay loamloam + silt loam + silty clay loam + clay loamsandy loam + sandy clay loamclay* loam + claysandy clay loam.+ loam + silty loam + clay loam

25 clay loam (montmorillonitic)26 clay loam + clay (montmorillonitic)

Mineral Fragments of TopsoilMineral Fragments of Subsoil

(gravel, stones and boulders in the soil)

1

2

34

5

9 n.a. (due to lithic contact)

135

1) Drainage

1

234

5

679

) Topsoil - texture3) Subsoil - texture

1

2345

6789

101112131415161718192021222324

none 0few 0-15frequent 15-40very frequent 40-75abuhdant > 75

10) Rockiness1 non rocky2 slightly rocky3 moderately rocky4 rocky5 very rocky6 extremely rocky7 rock outcrop

11) Erosion status (present situation)

1 non stony < 0.1% stonesnon gravelly < 3% gravel

2 non stonY < 0.1% stonesgravelly . . 3% gravel

3 stony 0.1- 3% stones4 very stony 3-15% stones5 exceedingly stony 15-50% stones6 very exceedingly stony >50% stnnes

1 none2 slight sheet/rill3 moderate sheet/rill4 severe sheet/rill5 slight gully6 moderaté gully7 severe qullY8 slight Shee't/rill/gully9 moderate sheet/rill/clully

10 streambank11 badland

< 0.1% rocks0.1 -2% rocks2 - 107L rocks

10 - 25% rocks25 - 50% rocks50 - 90% rock

> 90% rocks

6) Effective rooting depth (soil depth + impenetrable laxers)

1 Lithosol < 10 cm2 very shallow 10- 25 Cffl

3 shallow 25- 50 cm4 moderat.deep 50-100 cm5 deep 100-150 cm6 very deep

not' available> 150 cm

7) Flash flooding (physical attack by surface flooding)

1 none2 exceptional once every few years,1) common >= 1 time per season

8) Flooding1 none2 exceptional3 exceptional-frequent4 frequent5 permanent

9) Surface stoniness

12) Slope (mean maximum)1 < %

4 4- 6 %6- 8

6 8- 137 1.3-250 25- 409 40- 55

10 55-10011 > 100

13) Relative topographic situation

1 ridge crest/summit2 upper slope3 middle slope4 lower slope5 valley bottom6 extenSive plain of low relief

14) Groundwater Level< 25 cm seasonal< 25 cm perennial

3 25- 50 cm seasonal4 50- 75 cm5 75-100 cm6 100-150 cm

150-300 cm0 > 300 cm9 not available

15) Topsoil Consistence1 loose / non sticky2 hard / non sticky3 hard / sticky4 very hard/ s'ticky9 nof available

16) Dulk Density1 low2 medium3 high

Soil-chemical characteristics:

17) Organ:c Matter of Topsoil (weight-%)

1 low 1

2 medium 1-33 high4 vel'y high ). 549 nof available

18) N-t of Topsoil (%)low 0.10

2 medium 0.10-0.153 high 0.15-0.254 very high » 0.259 n.a. (due to lithic contact)

1 g/cc1-1.6 r)/cc> 1.6 g/cc

137

19) P-avail of Topsoil (ppm)

1 low < 1 ppm ( < 2 kg/ha)2 medium 1-2 ppm (2- 5 kg/ha)3 high 2-5 ppm (5-11 kg/ha)4 very high >5 ppm ( >11 kg/ha)

20) pH (H20) of Topsoil21) pH (H20) of Subsoil

22) CEO (me/100g)

23) Ña-exc of Topsoil ("ESE")

24) Ña-exc of Subsoil ("ESE")

1 low < 62 medium 6-153 high 15-304 very high > 30

not available

25) Electrical Conductivity (EC) of Topsoil

26) Electrical Conductivity (EC) of Subsoil

1 non saline < 2 mmhos/cm22 slightly saline 2- 1 mmhos/cm23 moderately saline 4- 8 mmhos/cm24 strongly saline 8-12 mmhos/cm25 very strongly saline 12-16 mmhos/cm26 extremely saline >16 mmhos/cm29 not available

1 very strongly acid < 4.52 strongly acid 4.5-5.23 moderately acid 5.3-5.94 slightly acid 6.0-6.65 neutral 6.7-7.36 moderately alkaline 7.4-8.07 strongly alkaline > 8.09 not ajiailable

1 very low2 low3 medium4 high9 noi available

< 5 me/100u5-10 me/1006

10-20 me/100g> 20 me/1006

138

APPENDIX

D

LAND

CHARACTERISTIC

RATINGS

OF

LAND

TYPES

1 2 3

No.

drain,

texture

top

sub

4 5 6 7 S 9 10

11

12 13

14

cse.

frags.

eff.

flood

flood

stones

rocks

gully

slope

topo

groundtop

sub

depth

flash

normal

badland

posn.water

1 6 1 7

11

3 1 7

1 1 5 1

2 2 5 3

9 3 7

9 6 7

9 979 1

0

3 7

7 1 6 7

7 3 7

7 9 7

7 10

7

7 3

7 3

137995

139

3'47' 4

1 1 5

1 1 5

1 1 5

1 11

77

6,3

76

Li

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 6 6 6 5 5

18 18 9 2 9 9 9 9 9 9

18 18 9 2 18 18 18 18 18 18

9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 4 4

9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 9 9

1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 -)

1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 3

7 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1

11 12 13 14

5 7 3 2

7 9 13 17

18 18 17 17

4 4 2 1

9 9 212

4 n5

1 1 1

1 1 1

3 3 3

1 1 1 1 1

15 16 17

2 3 ,-, .

17 13 13

17 17 17

1 2

1

4 2

7

6 6

1 1

1 1

1 2

1 1

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

3 2 2

7 Q2.7, 4 3

13 17 17 13 13 17 15

17 17 17 17 17 17 17

4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

..) 2 2 ' 2 2

5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6

i1 1 1 1

1 4 1 1

i i1 1 3 1 2 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

25 26 ., 28

2 2 5 1

20 20 10 9

17 17 10 23

1 1 1 1

1 1 2 1

6 6 6 2

1 1 1 1

3 1 1 4

1 1 1 1

1 1 1

25

2 16

23

1 1 3 1 2 1

30

4 5 23 1 1 6 1 4 1

31

7'7 ,,,_33 34

7P

2 4 4

8 5 5 5

24 7 13 13

1 2 1 1

1 2 1 4

6 6 5 5

1 1 1 1

4 1 3 1

1 3 1 1

1 1 1 1

36

77 ...,

4 6

5 5 5

5 10 5

1 1 1

1 1 1

6 6 6

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

38 39

5 4

5 10

9n7L

Q

1 433511 6

1 3

1i

1 1

41

4 5

10 2

23

7, .i.

1 1

1 1

5 6

1 1

1 1 1 1

42 43

2 4

16 5 07 LQ

2 i 2 1

6 6

1

44 45

4 .J

13 5

23 5

1 1

3 4

6 .0

31,

1 L 1 1

46 47

3 4

10 5

13 23

1 1

4 1

s 5

1 1

1 1

1 i 1 1

48 49 50 ,5 1

6 4

7, 4

2 5 5 2

2 10 22 2

1 1 4 4

1 I 4 4

6 6

7 ..,

17, :

I

1 1 2 4

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

52

5 5 5 4 4 5 1 1

53

5 5 5'

1 6 1 1 1

54

5 5 9 1 1 6 1 1 1 1

55

2 9 10

1 1 3 1 4 1 1

56

4 5 7 4 4 6 1 1 3 1

57

5 5 9 1 1 6 1 1 1.

1

58

5 5 9 1 2 5 1 1 1 1

5

5 5

4 7 6

2 3

1 2 6

2 1 5

1 5

2 4 7

4 5 7

2 5 7

1 5 7

6 7

6 7

6 7

7 5

9 5

7 6

7 7

1 1

3 2

3 3

6 7

6 7

6 7

3 7'

4 7

1 7

55 7

6 7

6 7

4 7

3 77

32

5L

66

5

140

No.

59

1 4 3

drain, texturetop sub

5 5 13

4

cse.

top

1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

frags. eff. flood flood stones rocks gully slope topo ground

sub depth flash normal 6adlend posn.water

7, 5 1,-,

4 1 1 53 4 7

60 5 5 16 3 2 6 1 1 1 1 8 2 2 7

61 4 10 23 3 2 6 1 1 1 1 5 2 3 7

62 5 10 23 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 8 1 6 7

63 5 8 8 1 3 1 1 2 1 8 2 6 7

64 4 10 23 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 8 2 6 7

65..

5 22 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 8 3 6 7

66 5 5 23 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 6 3 3 7

67 5 5 23 3 2 6 1 1 1 1 8 3 4 7

68 5 10 23 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 8 10 3 7

69 5 5 7 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 7

70 4 5 9 4 4 6 1 1 3 1 8 2 3 7

71 5 5 9 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 6 7

72 4 5 20 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 5 ' 6 7

73 5 5 9 4 4 6 1 1 1 1 8 3 6 7

74

75

4

5

5

5

16

9

1

5

1

3

5

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

6

8

7,5

?

--6

7

7

76 5 7 18 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 7

77 3 5 16 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 8 3 4-,,

78 4 5 23 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 8 3 2 7

77 .3 5 16 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 8 2 4 7

BO 2 5 9 1 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 6 4

81 3 13 16 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 6 5 3 7

82 4 5 16 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 7

83 3 16 16 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 8 6 4 7

84

85

3

4

5

10

23

13 1

1

1

6

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 25 -

3

3

2

1

7

7

86 3 15 16 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 6 6 4 7

87 5 5 13 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 7

88 5 10 23 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 7

89 5 5 20 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 7

90 5 13 16 3 4 6 1 1 2 1 6 3 6 7

91 4 13 16 3 4 6 1 1 2 1 6 7 3 7

92 5 13 16 3 4 3 1 1 2 1 6 3 4 7

93 5 8 13 3 4 6 1 1 2 1 6 4 4;

94 4 10 12 3 4 4 1 1 2 1 7 6 2

95 5 13 16 4 4 3 1 1 4 17 5 6 7

96 5 13 16 2 4 5 1 1 7 6 7,7

97 5 9 13 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 8 7 4

48 5 10 13 3 4 6 1 1 2 1 7 6 4 799 5 5 16 1 1 5 1 1 1 1

7, 8 2 7

100 5 13 16 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 8 3 2 7

101

102

5

4

,/

10

12

16

1

1

1

2

4

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

6

8

6

4

4

7

7

103 5 12 12 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 6 3 6 7

104 5 13 13 1 .'S 5 1 1 1 6 5 3 7

105 5 5 16 .... 3 5 1 1 3 1 9 8 3 "7

106 9 10 16 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 7 E 3 7

107 i 13 16 3 3 5 1 1 3 1 9 10 2 7

108 5 5 16 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 6 6 3 7

109 3 12 16 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 7

110 3 13 13 3 4 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 4 5

111 4 18 18 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0

141

No 15 16

cons. B.D.17

0.M.18N

19P

20pH

top.

21

sub.

22CEC

23 24ESP

top. sub.

25EC

top.

26

sub.

1 9 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 22 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 5' 9 9 23 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 24 1. 3 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 25 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 26 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 27 9 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 28 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 29 1 9 4 1 1 4 9 4 1 9 1 2

10 1 9 4 1 1 4 9 4 1 9 1 211 1 9 4 1 1 4 9 4 1 9 1 212 1 9 4 1 1 4 9 4 1 9 1 213 2 2 2 2 1 4 6 4 1 1 1 414

15

3

2

2

2

2,-.

2

1

2

1

34

66

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

416 1 2 3 2 1 4 5 4 1 1 1 417 2' 2 ,.'" 2 1 6 7 4 1 2 1 418 2 2 2 2 1 4 6 4 1 1 1 419 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 420 2

,2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 4

21 1 ,. 2 2. 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 4

22 1 2 2 2 2- 4 4 4 1 1 1 423 2 2 2 ';' 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 4

24 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 425 1 2 3 3 1 4 6 4 1 z 1 4

26 1 2 3 3 1 4 6 4 1 2 1 427 2 2 1 1 6 7 4 1 1 1 2

28 1 22). 2 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 229 1 2 2 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 2

30 1 2 2 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 231 1 2 2 1 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 23233

1

1

21

2

2

3

3

2

1

4

4

4

5

-.)

4 1

4

2

1

1

2

2

34 1 2 2 1 1 4 5 4 1 1 1 2

35 1 2 2 1 2 5 7 3 1 1 2

36 1 2 2 3 1 5 7 3 1 1 1 2

37 1 4 2 1 1 5 4 4 1 1 1 2

38 1 2 3 3 3 6 7 4 1 1 1 2

3,9 1 2 1 1 4 5 4 1 1 1 2

40 1 2 3 3 1 4 5 4 1 1 1 2

41 1 2 3 1 5 7 3 1 1 1 2

42 1 2 2 3 2 4 4 2 1 4 1 2

4344

45

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

'12

2

2

1

3

4

7

5

5

7

3

3

4

1

1

1

3;

Li ,1

1

2

.,.

2

46 1 2 3 3 1 3 5 4 1 1 1

-'47 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 1

1

1

48 1 2 2 3 1 5 7 3 1 1 2

49 114 2 2 1 4 7 4 1

'-'

1 2

50 1 2 3 3 1 6 7 4 1 4 3 3

51 1 2 3 3 1 6 7 4 1 4 3 3

52. 1 '2 3 3 1 6 7 4 1 4 3 3

53 1 2 2 2 1 6 6 4 1 1 1 3

54 1 2 2 2 1 6 6 4 1 1 1 3

55 1 2 2 1 2 7 7 4 2 2 1 3

56 1 2 2 1 4 6 7 4 1 2 1 3

57 1 2 2 2 1 5 6 4 1 1 1 3

58 1 2 2 3 1 5 7 4 1 1 1 3

142

No 15 16cons. B.D.

17

O.M.18

N

19

P

20pH

top.

21

sub.

22

CEC

23 24

ESP

top. sub.

25EC

top.

26

sub.

59 1 2 2 1 2 4 5 3 1 2 1 3

60 1 1 3 3 2 5 4 4 1 2 1

61 1 1 3 3 2 5 4 4 1 2 1

62 1 1 3 3 2 5 5 3 1 2 1

63 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1

64 2 1 2 2 1 4 5 4 1 3 1 2

65 1 1 3 3 2 5 6 4 1 2 1 2

66 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 4 1 1 1 2

67 1 1 3 3 2 5 4 4 1 2 1 268 1 1 3 3 2 5 5 3 1 1 1 2

69 1 1 4 3 2 4 6 4 1 3 1 2

70 1 1 3 3 2 5 5 3 1 2 1 2

71 2 1 3 3 2 5 6 4 1 2 1 2

72 1 1 3 3 2 5 4 4 1 2 1 2

73 1 1 3 3 2 5 5 3 1 2 1 274 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 4 7 3 1 275 1 1 2 1 1 5 6 2 I 1 1 276 1 2 2 2 1 5 6 4 1 1 1 377 1 2 2 1 1 4 6 3 1 2 1 4

78 1 2 2 1 1 4 6 3 1 2 1 4

79 1 2 2 1 1 4 6 3 1 2 1 4

BO 10. 2 2 2 7 7 4 7 3 5 3

81 1 2 2 2 2 3 7 3 -1 1 1 2

82 2 . 4 3 2 5 5 4 1 1 1 2

83 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 28485

2

1

0.2

,0

4

2

3

4

2

4

5

4

4

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

86 2 2 4 3 2 5 5 4 1 1 1 2

87 1 2 2 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 1 2

88 1 2 2 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 1 7

89 1 2 3 3 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 29091

1

1

22

33

33

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

,

92 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1

93 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 2

94 10. 3 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 2

95 1 2 4 3 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 2

96 1

22 7 0 3 3 4 1 1 1

,4

97 1 2 2 I '. 5 4 1 1 1 1 7c9899

1

1

2

23

23

1

2

1

4

3

4

4

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

T):

4

100 2 2 2 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 2101102103

2

1

1

2,.

2

3

2

1

3

2

4

3

2

4

5

3

4

6

3

4

4

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

,40

2104 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 2105106

1

1

204

4

3

3

3

i1

7 ..

3

,4

3

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3107 1 2 3

7, 1 i 5 4 1 1 1 3108 1

0L 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 3

109 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 1 3110111

1

9

2

9

,4

9

1

92

94

9

4

9

4

9

1

9

1

9

1

9

3

2

APPENDIX E

ASSESSMENT OF SHEET EROSION HAZARD

The sheet erosion was calculated by an erosion estimate model, adapted fromthe Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) by Wischmeier and Smith (1978),modified to the conditions in the Ethiopian highlands by Hurni (1985). The an-nual soil loss by sheet erosion is calculated by:

= R f KfLfS*Cf P

where: A = total soil loss (t/ha/yr)R = rainfall erosivity factorK = soil erodibility factorL = slope length factorS = slope gradient factorC = land cover factorP = management factor

The values of the rainfall erosivity factor, slope length factor, slopegradient factor, land cover factor, and management factor are taken empiri-cally by Hurni at trial plots in various parts of the Ethiopian highlands, thequantitative soil erodibility factors are based on the FAO soil degradationassessment methodology and were adjusted to this erosion model. All values arelisted.

Rainfall eros vity factor:

R = 0.55 I: annual precip OR (mm)

Soil erodibility factor:

K = 0.10 , if the sail type is:

Cambisols: humic (5h)Gleysols: calcaric(Gc) or humic (Gh) or mollic (Gin)Phaeozems (H)Lithosols (I)Fluvisols: calcaric (Jc)Nitosols: humic (Nh)Regosols: calcaric (Rc)Andosols: humic (Th) or mollic (Tm)

143

K = 0.15 , if the soil type is:Cambisols: chromic (Sc:) or dystric (Bd) or eutric (Be)

or gleyic (bu) or calcioGleysols: dystric (6d) or eutric (Ge) or plinthic (6p)Fluvisols: dystric (3d) or eutric (je)Luvisols: chromic (Lo) or gleyic (Lg) or calcic (Lk)

or orthic (Lo) or ferric (Lf)Regosols: dystric (Rd) or eutric (Re)Planosols: humic (Wh) or manic (Wm)

K = 0.20 , if the soil type is:Cambisols: vertic (By)Luvisols: albic (La) or plinthic (Lp) or vertic (Lv)Vertisols (V)Planosols: dystric (Wd) or eutric (We) or solodic (Ws)

High surface stoniness decreases this factor by 0.05.

Slope length factor:

A standard factor of 2.5 is used.

Slope gradient factor:

slope gradient

0.1 < 1

0.1 1 - 2

0.2 2- 4.0.35 4 - 6

0.6 6- 8

8 - 13L. 13 - 25

25 - 404.2 40 - 555.5 55 -100

10 >100 %

5) Land cover factorg

Coffee, tea, banana,citrus, ensete .01

Faddy rice, sugarcanepineapple, sisal, grape .05

Sorghum, maize, milletsweet potato .10

Wheat, barley, oats,beans, peas, lentils, vetch,soybeans, niger seed,pepper, tomatowhite potato, groundnut

6)

For the non-land use specific and non-management specific estimate of sheeterosion hazard, the values 0.15 (for the land cover) and 0.80 (for the manage-ment) were taken.

145

sesame, sunflower, safflowerflax,

cotton, tobacco .15Upland rice,

cabbage.20

.20

Teff, shallot .25

Dense grass cover .01

Nondense forest .01

Degraded grass cover, .05

Continuous fallow 1.00

Management factor:

Mulch application .60

Dense intercropping .70

Strip cropping .80

Contour ploughing .90

Up and down ploughing 1.00

APPENDIX F

CROPLAND SUBMODEL FOR POPULATION SUPPORT CAPACITY

The cropland submodel compares the total cropland require-ments per family with the suitable cropland available. Thisanalysis is carried out at the Planning Zone and Service Coopera-tive level, for both a 'low' and 'intermediate' level of inputs,and for the requirements of the population in 1989, 1999 and2014. PZs and SCs are then classified according to the ability oftheir cropland resources to meet the needs of the present and fu-turo population. The principles of the model are illustrated inFigure 3.2 (Chapter 3 p. ).

Cropland requirements are estimated for 9 PZsl accordingto the needs of:

A basic subsistence diet, with a daily intake of 2 000KCal per adult.

An AMC quota, of between 1 and 2 0/ household.

An area for additional cash crops

The requirements of the population for cropland are calcu-lated using global parameters for each PZ. Assessment is carriedout in the following stages:

Definition of annual Calorie requirement of an averagehousehold

Formulation of indicative crop mixes

From yield information, calculation of the net produc-tion of each crop mix (expressed in KCals) in 1 ha (at lowand intermediate input levels).

Determination of land required by the indicative cropmixes to supply the Calorie requirements in '1' above.

Addition of areas required to satisfy AMC quotas.

6. Calculation of additional cash crop areas,

--------------------1. PZ 10 consists wholly of State Farms and forest land and isexcluded from the evaluation.

146

The suppl2L of suitable arable land is determined seperatelyfor each SC from the Conservation based Land Use RecommendationUnits (Stage 7). In Stage 8, by matching the supply of croplandwith the demand of the population, the population supportcapacity with respect to cropland is assessed for the years 1989,1999 and 2014.

qIaaP 1

Table A3.1 gives the annual Calorie requirements for anaverage household in each Planning Zone. Data on averagehousehold size and composition is taken from the report on theSocioeconomic Survey of the area (Nair and Adugna Libsework,1989). Averages of data are taken where more than one farmingsystem occupies a particular PZ.

Table Al.!

Annual Calorie Requirements per Household

147

Household Age Structure Annual CalorieSize >15 11-15 <11 Requirement (x10)

1 6.4 2.4 1.2 2.8 7.472 6.4 2.4 1.2 2.9 2.47*-..:; 6.8 2.8 1.1 2.9 7.744 7.0 3.4 0.9 2.7 2.995 7.2 7.0 0.7 2.6 7.91L7.8 2.0 0.8 7,,' 4.017 7.0 2.9 0.8 2.--, 7,792--,..-, 2.8 0.8 7.7 2.869 10.7 7.8 1.1 5.9 5.51

Assumptions: Daily Calorie requirement per adult = 2 000

Average consumption in 11-15 year age group 80%adult ration

Average consumpt 1 in 0-10 year age group = 50%adult ration

Indicative crop mixes were defined for each PZ based on thefield observations of the socioeconomic and agroecology surveys,taking some account of the dominant land suitability classes forcrops defined in the present study. Crop mixes, and dominant landclasses within the range 81-84 are listed in Table A3.2.

Indicative Crop Mixes by Planning Zone

PZ Crop % of Total Dom. Suit.Crop Area Class

1 Barley 45 82

Wheat -25

Teff 10Horsebean 5Ensete 15

? Barley 45Wheat.Teff inHorsebean 5Ensete 15

3 TeffWheatMaize 20Chickpea 10Lentil 5

4 MaizeTeffWheatChickpeaFlax 5

5 Maize SOTeffWheat 20Horsebean

Maize 50SorghumWhet 15Haricot bean 10Lentil

Maize 75Sorghum 10Tef-F 10Haricot bean 5

6d Maize 40Teff :-0Sorghum 15Haricot bean 15

Maize 70Teff 10Haricot bean 20

148

6,C.

6,83

82828382

Si

S26,S382S2S4S7

83

82

6-76,82

S352S36,848383

Stage 3

The productivity of the crop mix in each PE is cal culatedfrom .ha net crop yields and the proportional areas under eachcrop. Net yields, expressed in Quintale per ha, are then con-verted to KCals for calculation of the land requirements for Sub-sistence

Determination of the productivity of each crop mix iscarried out in the following steps:

calculation of crop yields according to suitability class

and input level (see Table A3.3)

deduction of seed requirement

adjustment of yields according to the proportionate areasunder each crop

correction for post harvest losses and raw productconversion factors.

calculation of net calorie yield (Table A3.4)

Correct estimation of crop yield is one of the most criticalsteps in modelling of population support capacity (ESC). As thisanalysis is carried out as part of a land evaluation study,yields predicted from land classification are used as the basisfor calculations. However, when compared to actual yields re-corded in the socioeconomic survey, the results of land evalua-tion tend to overestimate yields in the higher suitabilityclasses (Si and S2). This overestimation could be explained bydeficiencies in management which prevent farmers taking full ad-vantage of high quality land. Another difficulty is in applyingthe sustained predicted yield (taking such factors as erosionhazard into account) with the actual yield in a defined year,which is not dependent on hazards of erosion (but may be affectedby present erosion status).

In order to solve the first of these two problems and tobring the yields used in PSC modelling more closely in line withthose recorded in the field, the predicted crop yields in landsuitability classes Si and 82 are reduced to 707. and 607. respec-tively of the estimated maximum yield under the stated level ofinputs (Adjei- Twum, 1987). The predicted yields on S3 and S4land are 507. and 307. of the potential maximum respectively.

149

Taking account of the dominant suitability classesTable '3.2, Table 2.3 gives the predicted yields of the con-stituent crops in the crop mix in each PZ. Yields recorded by thesocioeconomic survey are shown for comparison.

Table A3

Indicative Crop Yields by Dominant Suitability Class

(0/ha)

Sorghum 7 10 4 6 7-10Maize 10 15 69 10-19Wheat 10 14 8 12 8-10Barley 8 11 7 9 4 5 9Teff 8 10 7 8 6 7 3 4 6-10Horsebean 9 10 8 8Haricot bean 7 8 6 7 5-11Chickpea 4 5 3 4 .7,,_ '7 4Lentil 9 10 4Flax 4 6 4 5Ensete 40 37

Notes: 1/. 'L and 'I' refer to lo w and intermediate levels ofinputs respectively.

2/. Socioeconomic yields are based on farmer recall for anormal rainfall"' year.

The seed requirements, correction factors for post harvestlosses and waste in edible portion, and calorie con tents of thecrops analysed are given in Table 43.4.

150

Dominant Suitability Class 1/ SES Yield 2/Crop Si 82 83 , 54

Crop

SorghumMaizeWheatBarleyTeffHorsebeanHaricot beanChick peaLentilFlaxEnsete

Table A3.4

Determination of Net Yields

--Seed Post Harvest Fa w Product

requirement Loss Conversion(0/ha) (X)

151

KCals/0Edible Portion

10 90 340 00010 85 360 00015 75 3:75 00015 65 330 00020 95 340 00015 100 345 00015 100 345 00015 100 365 00015 100 360 0005 30 885 0000 100 200 000

Sources: Seed requirements from Socioeconom cs Report (Nair andAdugna Libsework, 1989).

Post harvest losses and raw product conversion factorsfrom Eichberger (1968)

Calorie contents of edible portions from Agren andGibson (1963)

Net Calorie yields for the proportionate areas of each cropin the crop mix are added ta determine the Calorie yield perhectare.

The net land requirement for subsistence is cal culated bydividing the Calorie requirement of an average householdin each Planning Zone by the net Calorie yield from 1 haof the Planning Zone indicative crop mix.

The above cal culations are carried out separately for thelo w and intermediate levels of inputs. Table A3.5 gives the netCalorie yields of the indicative crop mixes and the resultingsubsistence land requirements for each Planning Zone. Higheryields at the intermediate input level result in a lower land re-quirement for subsistence.

Stacie 5

Analysis of data from the Socioeconomic Survey revealed nosignificant differences between AMC quotas imposed either accord-ing to farming system or to whether or not the Peasant Associa-tion sampled vas included in a Wereda classified as "surplusproducing". The average land area required to satisfy the AMCquota was 0.2 ha under low inputs and 0.15 ha under intermediateinputs and these figures are applied to the ESC models for allPlanning Zones. Depending on crop mix and land suitability, thesearea correspond to a production of between 1 and 2.5household.Areas required for AMC quotas are added to the areasrequired for subsistence in Table A3.5.

t ags2

The requirement for additional cash crop land is is es-timated from observations on current land use by theSocioeconomic Survey. Chilli peppers and potatoes are the cashcrops which are important in certain Planning Zones of Haykochand Butajira and the average areas planted to these crops aregiven in Table 65.5.

Fallowing is practiced to only a very limited extent inHay koch and Butaj ira, and fallo land did not account for morethan 574 of total holding in any of the farming systems describedby the Socioeconomic survey. The requirements for fallo land arenot well established for tropical highland agroecosystems withrelatively fertile soils, and a specific requirement for fallowland was not included in this assessment.

Table A3.5

Land Requirements for Crop Production by Planning Zone (ha)

Cals.produced Land Required AMC Quota Cash Crop Total LandPZ per ha (x106) for Food Crops Area Area Required

Low In ter, Low in ter, Low In ter. Low In ter,

I 2.57 2.02 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.15 0.0 1.6 1.35,- 2.54 2.98 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.15 0.0 1.6 1.352 1.94 2.72 1.9 1.4 0.2 0.15 0.0 2.1 1.554 1.92 2.75 2.1 1.5 0.2 0.15 0.0 2.3 1.655 2.20 3.17 1.8 1.2 0.2 0.15 0.05 2.05 1.46 , ,-- 3.31 1.8 1.2 0.2 0.15 V.L. , .,,., 1.557 2.35 3.51 1.6 1.1 0.2 0.15 0.1 1.9 1.358 2.08 2.97 1.9 1.3 0.2 0.15 0.0 2.1 1.459 1.48 2.17 3.7 2.6 0.2 0.15 0.0 3.9 2.75

152

qtacla

The net arable land is determined for each PZ and SC fromthe Conservation Based Land Use Recommendation Units, which aredefined in Section 4.4 (p. ). Distribution of these units by PZis given in Tables 4.6 and 4.7 (p. ) and distribution by SC isgiven is Appendix G (p.). Net cropland areas are derived from theunits suitable for cropping by deducting the areas occupied byconservation structures or crop exclusion zones around gullies orbadland areas. Thus a net utilization factor is assigned to eachConservation Based Land Use Recommendation Unit asfollows:

Stagg 8

Matching of net arable areas with the cropland requirements(including the fallo requirement where relevant) is carried outassuming an annual population growth rate of 75.0Z proiected forthe years 1989, 1999 and 2014 from baseline census data for1984.. The calculations were run on an IBM PC-AT computer using'Lotus 1-2-3 software and the results are presented in TablasA3.6 for the lo w input and intermediate input situations in the9 PZs. The surplus or shortfall in available cropland relativeto the needs of the 1989, 1999 and 2014 populations is calcu-lated, and SCs and PZs are allocated a numerical class as fol-lows:

Class 1 The cropland resources (of the SC or PZ) aresufficient to supply the needs of the population in

2014.

Class 2 The cropland resources are adequate for the1999 population, but, given the stated crop mix and levelof inputs, a critical shortage will develop before2014.

153

Unit Net Utilization Unit Net Utilization

(V) (%)

A 100 Adg 90Ag 90 FE 0As 90 Gw 0

Asg 80 Gr oAb ?0 GW 0

Abg SO X oAd 100

Class 7. The cropland resources are adequate to supportthe present (1989) population, but a critical shortagewill develop before 1999.

Class 4 The cropland resources are barely adequate tosupport the needs of the present population.Population support capacity is between 904 and 110%of the current number of rural househoLds.

Class 5 Cropland resources are already criticallyshort relative to the needs of the population. Populationsupport capacity is less than 90% of the current(1939) number of rural households.

The status of each Service Cooperative with respect topresent (1989) requirements. Critical SCs are short of cropland,even if an intermediate level of inputs is supplied. Marginal SCEhave adequate cropland under intermediate inputs but are short ofcropland under the low input situation. Adequate SCs should notbe presently short of cropland, irrespective of input leve]..

The results of this assessment should be interpreted in arelative, rather than an absolute sense due to weaknesses in thedata base resulting from the small survey scale and the smallnumber of households sampled in each farming system.

154

155

Cropland Support

Net RequiredNo. of Total Arable /

Table 03,6

Service Cooperatives

Nurser of Households PSG Class Status

Capacitp of

CroplandHousehold (ha)

SC No. SC Nap PAs Area (ha)land (ha) Low Inters. 1989 1999 2014 Low Inters. in 1989

PLANNING ZONE 1: WAGE MOUNTAINS

1004 ADZANDA KOTA 3 4971 2200 1.6 1.35 2643 3552 5534 5 5 CRITICAL1104 SOST AMDA 3 7078 1434 1.6 1.35 2086 2803 4367 5 5 CRITICAL1105 KOTA 5 7443 3780 1.6 1.35 3758 5051 7869 5 5 CRITICAL1110 YEWEDO GEBEYA 5 5702 3260 1.6 1.35 4629 6221 9692 5 5 CRITICAL1111 MEKICHO 4 5084 171? 1.6 1.35 2877 3867 6024 5 5 CRITICAL1203 DEMU 5 6320 1436 1.6 1.35 1443 1910 3022 5 5 CRITICAL1207 KESHET HOGNETAT 1 7134 2474 1.6 1.35 1534 2061 3211 4 3 MEDIUM1208 ACHEDER 6 12303 3352 1.6 1.35 2291 3079 4796 4 4 CRITICAL

TOTAL 35 56035 20155 1.6 1.35 21261 28573 44516 5 5 CRITICAL

PLANNING ZONE 2: GIBOSO UPLAND

1206 FATO BALE WIELD 2 4662 2137 1.6 1.35 1257 1689 2631 4 3 MEDIUM1301 SURANDA 6 8988 6062 1.6 1.35 3318 4459 6947 3 2 ADEOUATE1304 AMAWTIE 3 4719 1936 1.6 1.35 1128 1516 2362 4 3 MEDIUM1305 GIBISO 4 6067 4829 1.6 1.35 1711 2300 3583 2 2 ADEQUATE1306 CHOBANA MESIDO 5 7443 1209 1.6 1.35 1586 2131 3320 2 2 ADEQUATE

TOTAL 20 31879 19173 1.55 1.35 8949 12095 18813 2 2 ADEQUATE

PLANNING ZONE 3: DUI UPLAND

0203 EJERSSA 7 8904 6301 2.1 1.55 988 1327 2068 1 1 ADEQUATE1201 KELA 13 16713 7359 2.1 1.55 3851 5176 8063 4 3 MEDIUM1202 BUI 4 9185 572? 2.1 1.55 1511 2030 3163 2 1 ADEQUATE1205 WACHO MOREGE 5 5505 3626 2.1 1.55 1844 2479 3862 4 3 MEDIUM1302 TIYA MARIAM 9 11971 10319 2.1 1.55 2906 3906 6085 2 1 ADEQUATE

1303 TERIE SILASSIE 9 11882 7954 L. 1.55 1485 2000 3117 1 1 ADEQUATE

1307 DECHEKIE 7 12217 7118 2.1 1.55 1241 1672 2604 1 1 ADEQUATE

TOTAL 54 79407 48405 2.1 1.55 13832 18590 28962 2 1 ADEQUATE

PLANNING ZONE 4: WILBAREG UPLAND

0802 DILAPA 3 3545 2502 1.65 2036 2736 4262 5 CRITICAL0801 GOLANA SHEKETO 3 2668 1150 L.d 1.65 1683 2262 3524 5 5 CRITICAL0805 KORO GALIE 3 2528 1311 2.3 1.65 1567 2106 3282 5 5 CRITICAL0809 MEKAKELESNA DEM 3 3511 2452 1.65 1661 2236 3483 5 5 CRITICAL0810 BILA WAWA 4 4971 3496 ' 1.65 1658 2228 3471 4 3 MEDIUM

0811 WERADET 4 9662 3922 2.3 1.65 1633 2195 3420 4 2 MEDIUM

0812 FUGE DILAPA 3 6685 1838 2.3 1.65 2018 2712 4226 5 5 CRITICAL0813 ADDIS B1000N 3 3651 1725 2.3 1.65 1419 1907 2971 5 5 CRITICAL0815 TEDIE SABOLA 5 5674 511 2.3 1.65 2252 3027 4716 5 5 CRITICAL0814 AMBERICHOKITE 3 4943 2531 2.3 1.65 167? 2256 3515 5 4 CRITICAL1002 ARATBER ANSMEDE 3 7780 2867 2.3 1.65 2996 4026 6272 5 5 CRITICAL1005 WORABE DATE WOZ 3 7893 2938 2.3 1.65 2428 3262 5083 5 5 CRITICAL1009 GORATITI DANECH 3 5280 1840 2.3 1.65 1158 1556 2125 5 4 CRITICAL

TOTAL 43 68841 29385 2.3 1.65 24191 32510 50650 5 5 CRITICAL

156

Net Required CroplandNo. of Total Arable / Household (ha)

Nuaber of Households PSI Class Status

SC No. SC Male PAs Area (ha)Land (ha) Low Intern, 1989 1994 2014 Lo w Intera. in 1489

PLANNING 700E 5: HEGEL?, FOOTSLOPES

0401 ASHALENA 0040 3735 2755 2.05 1.4 1155 1550 2115 3 2 ADEQUATE

0402 MEJA WERKA 4 5998 2521 2.05 1.1 859 1154 1799 2 1 ADEQUATE

0403 DEDEBANA AWAD1 1 5750 435? 2.05 1.4 1159 1559 2427 2 1 ADEQUATE

0405 MELKA BUTA 4 5567 3030 2.05 1.1 933 1251 1954 2 1 ADEQUATE0406 SOBRO 7 9945 7987 2.05 1.4 1550 2085 5245 1 1 ADEQUATE0407 DURO HULUKA 7 10758 5218 2.05 1.4 1515 2036 3172 2 1 ADEQUATE0408 KELO DURO 9 11825 7069 2.05 1.4 1560 2097 3267 1 1 ADEOUATE

0409 60DE J 4382 2334 2.05 1.4 652 876 1361 2 1 ADEOUATE0501 JIGESA 6 5084 4245 2.05 1.4 1452 2624 4088 4 2 MEDIUM0502 KERARA KERSO 7 6432 5541 2.05 1.4 2258 3035 4728 3 2 ADEQUATE0504 WONDO GENT 1 5646 2191 2.05 1.4 1425 1915 2983 5 4 CRITICAL0505 UVENSO SHIFA 11 9016 7586 2.05 1.4 3258 4372 6821 3 2 ADE0UATE0506 ALELO 4 2921 2921 2.05 1.4 2444 3284 5117 5 5 CRITICAL0509 FAJI NETT 6 5646 4587 2.05 1.4 1242 1664 2600 , 1 ADEQUATE

0510 FAJI AKABABI 4 3651 3615 2.05 1.4 1644 2209 3442 4 2 MEDIUM0511 HARABATE SHUMKA 5 4247 3146 2.05 1.4 1934 2599 4049 5 3 MEDIUM0512 ABICHA 6 5426 3318 2.05 1.4 1622 2180 3396 1 2 MEDIUM0514 BULCHANA 4 3061 2275 2.05 1.4 1374 1846 2876 5 3 MEDIUM

TOTAL 100 105608 74602 2.05 1.4 28533 38346 54742 3 2 ADEQUATE

PLANNING ZONE 6: KOSHE PLAIN

0204 REFENSSO 3 3651 2864 2.2 1.55 568 763 1199 1 1 ADEQUATE0206 DUGDA BALEWOLD 10 10309 7355 2.2 1.55 1273 1711 2665 1 1 ADEOUATE0711 MENZO FETTEN 2 1404 1342 2.2 1.55 732 983 1532 5 3 MEDIUM0711 WOTETA 4 7668 4975 2.2 1.55 1458 1960 3053 2 1 ADEGUATE0713 ADASHA

0714 GETEM

3

4

2528 25285505 4554

2.2, ,,st.1.551.55

1202

1013

1616

13622517

2121

4

4

2 MEDIUM

1 ADEOUATE0715 GETTEM ZIKO 3 2500 2464 2.2 1.55 1543 2074 3231 5 4 CRITICAL0716 SUTANCHO 3 2443 2443 2.2 1.55 1535 2065 3214 5 4 CRITICAL0717 BERCHO 3 3117 3014 2.2 1.55 1530 2057 3204 5 3 MEDIUM0718 KORE 3 3005 3005 2.2 1.55 1680 2257 3517 5 3 MEDIUM0719 EREGDINA TUKA 4 4438 3067 2.2 1.55 1195 1606 2503 3 2 ADEOUATE0722 BESHENO 3 9691 6385 2.2 1,55 2192 2946 4590 5 2 ADEQUATE0723 HANTEZO

0801 KUM SABOLA4

3

4297 3253

4578 2784

2.2, '.11..1.

1.551.55

1144

1608

1544

2161

2405

3367

3

5

2 ADEOUATE

3 MEDIUM0803 HOT 6060RA 10 9410 5913 2.2 1.55 2774 3728 5808 4 2 MEDIUM0806 DENGIE LASHO 4 4073 3104 2.2 1.55 2737 5679 5731 5 5 CRITICAL0807 WADU6NE ENKAT

0808 NADUGNE DIJO

4

4

3674 2696

3005 2638

2.2, ,4.41.551.55

1417

1458

1404

1960

2966

3053

5

5

3 MEDIUM

3 MEDIUM0901 SHEFODA 10 10565 6579 2.2 1.55 2674 3594 5600 3 2 ADEQUATE0902 METTO AKABABI 10 12162 5996 2.2 1.55 2272 3054 4757 3 2 ADEOUATE0903 TURA SEDESTTO

0704 TURATTO AKABADI

6

4

5983 5201

5561 48822.22.2

1.551.55

1623

1386

2181

1963

3348

2903

,,2

2 ADEOUATE

1 ADEOUATE0909 MEDADE BUDETI 9 8146 6880 2.2 1.55 1739 2357 3641 2 1 ADEOUATE0910 SHANKA BATCHA 3 3651 1517 2.2 1,55 1959 2605 4059 5 5 CRITICAL0911 GEBABA RAYYTURA 4 1747 1089 2.2 1,55 1841 2479 3862 5 5 CRITICAL1001 WOLIYA 060DEB02 3 2668 1580 2.2 1.55 1859 2494 5893 q 5 CRITICAL1003 PURAKO AKABABI

1006 ELOS AKADADI

4

6

5955 1795

6657 4087 , ,L.1.

1.551.55

3394

3291

4562

4423

7107

6991 5

5 CRITICAL

5 CRITICAL1007 GERD' BER ORADA 4 3792 1786 2.2 1.55 2460 3306 5151 5 5 CRITICAL1009 GOTO AKABADI 5 4634 3904 2,2 1.55 1320 1775 2765 2 2 ADEOUATE1101 MESEAN GETEMA 3 2500 1443 2.2 1.55 1971 2649 4126 5 5 CRITICAL1102 ENSENO 10 7921 7669 2.2 1.55 4343 5056 9093 5 3 MEDIUM1105 DOBENA 5 4410 3395 2.2 1.55 3547 4565 7112 5 5 CRITICAL1106 KOSHE 8 6938 5887 2.2 1.55 1499 2014 3138 2 1 ADEQUATE1107 JOLIE 4 3623 3046 2.2 1.55 2004 2694 4197 5 4 CRITICAL1108 AKAMUJA 5 5730 3600 2.2 1.55 2077 2792 4350 5 3 MEDIUM1109 KUNO GEBEYA 3 3286 1648 2.2 1.55 1909 2566 3998 5 5 CRITICAL1112 GATO 10 7241 8796 2.2 1.55 2041 2744 4274 2 1 ADEQUATE1113 SEMEN KOSHE 8 9634 7052 2.2 1.55 1172 1575 2454 1 1 ADEOUATE1114 GOSETI 3 1292 994 2.2 1.55 1211 1628 2536 5 5 CRITICAL1115 MANUS GEBEYA 6 3764 3476 2.2 1.55 2896 3892 6063 5 5 CRITICAL1204 ADELIE 11 11488 9315 2.2 1.55 2482 3336 5197 ' 1 ADEQUATE

TOTAL 218 226449 166078.5 2.2 1.55 79871 107339 167231 4 3 MEDIUM

157

Net Recuired CroplandNo. of Total Arable / Eousehold (ha)

Nusber of Households PSC Class Status

SC No. SC blase PAs Area (ha)Land (ha) Low Inters. 1989 1999 2014 Low Inters. in 1989

PLANNING ZONE 7: ALABA PLAIN

0505 MEOA 8 10505 6246 1.9 1.35 1577 2119 3301 2 1 ADEOUATE

0507 KORE 4 2471 2471 1.9 1.35 652 849 1323 2 1 ADE000TE0508 KUBI 5 4185 4149 1,9 1.35 864 1161 1808 1 1 ADEQUATE

0513 VTE BURRA 7 9110 5614 1.9 1.35 1414 1901 2961 2 1 ADEQUATE0601 AVARA AKABABI 7 6825 4590 1.9 1.35 1140 1531 2386 1 1 ADEQUATE

0602 AJE AKADABI 5 5477 3999 1.9 1.35 1176 1580 2461 2 1 ADEQUATE

0603 BASA BASA 4 3005 2812 1.9 1.35 1338 1798 2801 3 2 ADEQUATE

0604 ROPI AKABABI B 7415 4558 1.9 1.35 4940 6638 10343 5 5 CRITICAL0605 SENBETE SINKELE 8 6376 5505 1.9 1.35 2171 2918 4546 3 2 ADEQUATE

0609 EJERSA AKABABI 1 5505 4775 1.9 1.35 482 648 1010 1 1 ADEQUATE

0611 SHEWAKO ALADA 3 4691 2837 1.9 1.35 796 1070 1668 2 1 ADEQUATE

0612 LOKERABA AKABAD 4 3398 3300 1.9 1.35 1024 1376 2143 2 1 ADEQUATE

0615 ALEMTENA AKADAD 10 8904 5681 1.9 1.35 745 1002 1561 1 1 ADEQUATE

0614 1080 AKABABI 5 4859 3193 1.9 1.35 524 704 1097 1 1 ADEQUATE

0615 VAKA BUTE AKABA 6 4859 4719 1.9 1.55 738 992 1546 1 1 ADEQUATE

0617 BINTANEGURI 4 2500 1292 1.9 1.35 862 1159 1806 5 5 MEDIUM

0699 No Service Coop' 9 14691 9483 1.9 1.35 1813 2437 3796 1 1 ADEQUATE

0701 BEDENE 6 5674 5043 1.9 1.35 2090 2809 4376 3 2 ADEQUATE

0702 SHEKETENA WOLDI 4 4943 3970 1.9 1.35 1770 2379 3706 3 2 ADEQUATE

0703 KUFEE 3 2865 2865 1.9 1.35 1549 2081 3243 4 2 MEDIUM

0704 ANSHA 3 2668 2665 1.9 1,35 1019 1369 2134 2 2 ADEQUATE

0705 6UDA SHERERO 5 4129 3117 1.9 1.35 1695 2278 3519 4 2 MEDIUM

0706 LENDA 1 2724 2707 1.9 1.35 1528 2053 3199 4 3 MEDIUM

0707 TEFO 4 5028 4610 1.9 1.35 1201 1619 2522 2 1 ADEQUATE

0708 KONICHA 3 2752 2439 1.9 1.35 650 874 1562 2 1 ADEQUATE

0709 ODANA MENO 3 6685 5963 1.9 1.35 1206 1620 2524 1 1 ADEQUATE

0720 MEKALA 3 4016 3707 1.9 1.35 1110 1531 2386 2 1 ADEQUATE

0721 ANDEGNA TUKA 3 2387 2313 1.9 1.35 1073 1443 2248 5 2 ADEQUATE

TOTAL 142 148917 114702 1.9 1.35 37161 44941 77806 2 1 ADEQUATE

PLANNING ZONE 8: ZIWAY PLAIN

0101 AMBULE 6 8005 6062 2.1 1.45 1092 1468 2286

1

1 ADEQUATE

0102 DODO 8 11125 8701 2.1 1.45 1247 1676 2612 i ADEQUATE

0103 RADO 7 8764 7259 2.1 1.45 1508 1757 2738 1 1 ADEQUATE

0104 BERTA 9 9325 5508 2.1 1.45 825 1109 1728 1 1 ADEQUATE

0105 LAFENSA 7 7500 5709 2.1 1.45 927 1246 1912 1 1 ADEQUATE

0201 61RA 60NA 11 13539 11044 2.1 1.45 1362 1831 2852 1 1 ADEQUATE

0202 KILTU BILBILA 5 6067 4111 2.1 1.45 867 1165 1816 1 1 ADEQUATE

0205 V000 GABRIEL 7 10365 8605 2.1 1.45 740 994 1515 1 1 ADEQUATE

0207 ELA MICHAEL E 4887 6604 2.1 1.45 1419 1907 2971 1 1 ADEQUATE

0208 BMA CHEFFE 5 6797 3230 2.1 1.45 1175 1584 2469 3 2 ADEOUATE

0209 BORKA DALACHA 3 5539 1291 2.1 1.45 514 690 1075 3 2 ADEQUATE

0210 OEA ELA 6 7078 1974 2.1 1,45 875 1176 1833 1 1 ADEQUATE

0211 GUSSA I 4211 1941 2.1 1.45 228 307 478 1 1 ADEQUATE

0212 MUKUTE 6 6376 2914 2.1 1.45 609 818 1274 1 1 ADEQUATE

021: KORKE ADI 6 8089 6905 2.1 1.45 904 1215 1895 1 1 ADEQUATE

0301 ABOSA RARE 9 10618 7650 2.1 1.45 1456 1957 3049 1 1 ADEQUATE

0305 ZIVAT AKADADI 11 13342 8750 2.1 1.45 1191 1600 2493 1 1 ADEQUATE

TOTAL 118 144655 101261.1 2.1 1.45 16743 22502 55057 1 1 ADEQUATE

Note: State Faros, forest and Urban areas excluded

158

Net Required CroolandNo. of Total Arable / Household (ha)

Nusber of Households PSC Class Status

SC No. SC Nate PAs Area (ha)Land (ha) Low Intera. 1984 1449 2014 Low intero. in 1989

PLANNING ZONE 9: HAYKOCH PLAIN

0302 GOBJECH DESTA 5 5084 3834 3,9 2.75 428 575 846 1 1 ADEgUATE

0303 BOREMO ANKOROSA 5 5505 4158 3.9 2.75 511 687 1070 2 1 ADEQUATE

0304 ARENO AKABABI 5 5674 4046 3.9 2.75 545 732 1141 2 1 ADEQUATE

0306 BULBULA AKABABI 9 21545 18258 3.9 2.75 372 500 779 1 1 ADEQUATE

0307 ()ETU AKASHI 8 12752 7861 3.9 2.75 1014 1363 2124 2 1 ADEQUATE

0308 REPI WERANSA 10 12022 8190 3.9 2.75 882 1186 1847 1 1 ADEQUATE

0404 NANO lEY0 5 5812 4866 3.9 2.75 719 466 1505 2 1 ADEGUATE0410 DELI (DOLE) 5 9662 8195 3.9 2.75 929 1248 1444 1 1 ADEQUATE

0411 DAKA LANDANO 4 6741 4755 3.4 2.75 350 471 733 1 1 ADEQUATE0412 JODO FIKE 6 10455 6530 3.9 2.75 838 1126 1755 2 1 ADEQUATE

0606 ROPI SHALA HAS S 8146 3581 3.9 2.75 1021 1373 2138 5 3 MEDIUM0607 SENBETE SHALA 6 5814 4220 3.9 2.75 473 1307 2036 3 2 ADEOUATE0608 SHALA ABABADI 5 7528 2854 3.9 2.75 549 738 1151 3 2 ADEQUATE

0610 KERENSA AKADAEI 4 3426 2556 3.4 2.75 489 657 1024 3 2 ADEgUATE0616 ELALA AKABABI 6 5985 3300 5.4 2.75 694 959 1461 3 2 ADEQUATE

0710 AJO HULUKO 4 16236 8551 3.9 2.75 1047 1407 2192 2 1 ADEQUATE

0905 BORA KOBULECH 1 2134 1748 3.9 2.75 183 246 384 1 1 ADEQUATE

0906 TATEKE BEDEGETE 4 4241 4002 3.9 2.75 549 469 731 1 1 ADEQUATE

0907 JEDO ADABADI 4 5421 4255 3.9 2.75 344 463 721 1 1 ADEQUATE

0908 JEDO DESEFA 4 2752 1713 3.4 2.75 348 467 728 3 2 ADEQUATE

TOTAL 111 164465 107256.5 3.4 2.75 12591 16921 26562 1 1 ADEQUATE

APPENDIX G

CONSERVATION BASED RECOMMENDATION UNITS BY SERVICE COOPERATIVE

(,,iiFas in hect ares)

159

Conservation Based Land Use RecommendationsSC No. A Ag As Asg Ab Abg Ad Adg

PLANNING ZONE 1: GOUGE MOUNTAINS

FE Gm X(bad) X(steep) fir GM

Net

ArableLand

1004 435 168 0 653 252 1081 0 0 0 0 983 0 1341 56 22001104 1320 0 0 294 421 0 0 0 758 0 2359 0 1924 0 19341105 2568 0 0 0 1235 0 0 0 182 0 1338 0 1418 0 37801110 1896 0 0 351 842 407 0 0 0 0 1292 0 912 0 32601111 1629' 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 365 0 1151 0 1825 0 17191203 265 0 0 112 1200 0 0 0 1264 0 1657 0 1818 0 14361207 0 0 0 0 1832 1032 0 0 0 0 1685 0 2584 0 24741208 1292 105 0 0 0 2457 0 0 210 0 2370 0 5265 0 3352

TOTAL 3506 273 0 1522 5782 4977 0 0 2779 0 14055 0 17088 56 20155

PLANNING ZONE 2: GIBISO UPLAND

1206 0 0 0 287 990 1271 0 0 0 0 1264 0 849 0 2137

1301 712 133 0 783 0 5084 0 195 266 0 400 0 -1011 0 6062

1304 126 508 0 183 0 1727 0 0 517 0 1235 0 512 0 19361305 1179 7, 0 0 0 4518 0 210 14 0 112 0 224 0 4829

1306 245 42 0 0 0 4908 0 0 84 0 772 0 1390 0 4209

TOTAL 2462 490 0 1459 990 17308 0 406 981 0 3783 0 3986 0 19173

PLANNING ZONE 3: BUI UPLANB

0203 1488 3370 0 28 0 56 1713 0 0 0 2154 0 112 0 6501

1201 175 1853 0 1095 2865 2577 0 0 0 0 6938 0 1207 0 7359

1202 0 1551 0 933 814 3363 0 132 0 0 1720 0 617 0 5729

1205 0 1207 0 0 0 3174 0 0 0 0 0 0 1123 0 3526

1302 70 386 0 526 258 7823 0 5342 0 0 2054 0 515 0 10319

1305 Av

177LiQ 0 0 0 3714 983 4171 0 0 2485 0 252 0 7954

1307 0 1278 0 0 0 2261 2921 1576 14 0 3533 0 702 0 7113

TOTAL 1733 9918 0 2582 3917 22968 5517 9071 14 0 19034 0 4532 0 48405

PLANNING ZONE 1: WILBAREG UPLAND

0802 2078 421 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 903 0 56 0 2502

0604 603 723 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 280 463 0 1450

0805 337 985 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 985 0 112 0 1311

0809 0 1059 0 632 0 1264 0 0 0 0 575 0 0 0 2452

0810 898 1525 0 512 0 1025 0 0 0 0 1011 0 0 0 3498

0811 786 2268 0 455 0 912 0 0 0 0 5238 0 0 0 3922

0812 252 1762 0 0 0 0 0 0 821 0 3384 0 463 0 1838

0813 0 1917 0 0 0 0 0 0 765 0 855 0 112 0 1725

0811 0 568 0 0 0 0 0 0 3686 0 1418 0 0 0 511

0814 0 2682 0 49 0 98 0 0 63 0 2050 0 0 0 2531

1002 0 2212 0 365 0 730 0 0 326 0 2247 0 1299 0 2867

1005 0 2647 0 231 0 453 0 0 856 0 2605 0 1083 0 2938

1009 632 100 0 414 0 646 0 0 266 0 632 0 2093 196 1840

TOTAL 5586 19145 0 3072 0 5138 0 0 7383 0 22333 280 5686 196 29385

160

Conservation Based Land Use RecoosendationsSc No. Ag As Asg Ab Abg Ad Ad g

PLANNING ZONE 5: NEGELE FOOTSLOPES

FP Gw X(bad) X(steep) Sr OW

NetArableLand

0401 0 2949 0 0 0 126 0 00000660 0 2755

0402 786 1853 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 1264 0 2521

0403 589 3602000660 0 0 0000877 0 4359

0405 0 2668 0 0 0 786 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 3030

0406 0 5618 0 0 0 3539 0 0 189 0 0 0 596 0 7887

0407 0 4213 0 0 0 1783 0 0 1959 0 1629 0 1172 0 5218

0408 0 4971 0 0 0 3244 0 0 1537 0 1306 0 765 0 7067

0409 0 1376 0 0 0 1376 0 0 814 0 814 0 0 0 2339

0498 0 737 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245 0 665

0501 1348 2253 0 0 0 1109 0 0 98 0 0 0 294 0 4245

0502 1797 2837 0 0 0 1488 0 0 77 0 0 0 231 0 5541

0504 2191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 505 0 0 2949 0 2191

0505 2809 3785 0 0 0 1713 0 0 70 0 0 0 637 0 7586

0506 2921 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 2921

0509 224 2738 0 0 0 2373 0 0 77 0 0 0 231 0 1587

0510 3539 84 0 000 0 00000 28 0 3615

0511 3146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 1046 0 3146

0512 2050 1235 0 0 0 196 0 0 49 0 0 0 2394 0 3318

0514 2247 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 442 70 0 266 0 2275

0598 168 133 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 344

0599 117900 0 000 000 0 0 0 0 1179

TOTAL 24994 41032 0 0 0 18582 0 0 4870 1052 3819 0 13790 0 76788

PLANNING ZONE 6: KOSHE PLAIN

0204 1839 176 0 140 0 280 533 0 0 0 395 0 266 0 28840206 3153 4669 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1769 0 716 0 73550711 1292 5600000000 5600 0 13420711 3370 1783 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 1067 898 0 547 0 47750713 2528 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25280714 3792 610 0 91 0 182 0 0 0 421 407 0 0 0 45590715 2359 42 0 28 0 56 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 24640716 2443 00000000 0000 0 24430717 2092 985 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30190718 255600 0 0 0449 0 0000 0 0 50650719 969 2331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1137 0 30670722 3314 3412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1460 870 0 632 0 63850723 2078 1306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 870 0 42 0 32530801 2050 554 0 294 0 0 0 0 0 0 1320 0 295 63 27840803 1390 4445 0 653 0 0 0 0 0 0 421 421 659 1419 59130806 1544 1509 0 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 365 386 31040807 1125 17480000000176 42 0 568 0 26960808 2503 372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 266 0 35 0 26380901 1717 2036 00000 000 224701060 274 65790902 2830 3518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 3483 0 1938 0 59960905 4494 786000 000000 0 702 0 52010904 4655 252 000 0000 000 625 28 48820909 6741 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 140 906 35 68800910 0 1685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 660 660 372 274 15170911 421 568 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 329 10891001 842 0 0 323 533 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 912 0 15801003 1137 442 0 323 0 0 0 0 0 2247 0 0 787 1017 17731006 1039 2956 0 484 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 0 1384 554 40871007 870 294 0 0 0 814 0 0 0 786 0 0 85 940 17861008 3665 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 702 0 39041101 1123 0 0 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 912 0 14931102 7612 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 ' 21 76691103 2791 0 0 751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 863 0 3375

161

Conservation Based Land Use RecosoendationsSt No. ks Asg Ab Abg Ad Adg

Pi 6: WOW PLAIN (continued)

FP 6w X(bad) X(steep) fir SW

Net

ArableLand

1106 5280 674 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 0 646 0 58871107 1025 2078 0 133 49 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 308 0 30461108 2148 1039 0 646 0 0 0 0 78 0 194 0 1401 0 36001109 1278 105 0 344 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 344 1130 16481112 7949 941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 0 87961113 4227 3139 0 0000000 814 0 1453 0 70521114 969 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 168 0 126 0 4941115 3300 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266 0 34761199 786 0 0 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 575 0 10211204 7345 723 0 540 0 1109 0 0 0 0 926 0 842 0 43159999 0 2346 0 0 0 0 t 0 4 18112 589 0 667 0 2129

0

TOTAL 117472 48297 0 5759 610 2637 1024 0 126 8564 17222 1221 24194 6470 169229

PLANNING ZONE 7: ALABA PLAIN

0503 5814 0 0 0 0 540 0 0 0 63 1081 0 3005 0 62460507 2471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2471

0508 4073 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 414?0513 5351 224 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 1193 0 2563 0 5614

0590 3300 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 484 56 0 1242 0 33220601 3391 1320 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 98 14 1987 0 45900602 3658 379 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 112 990 0 39990603 2471 0 379 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 126 0 2812

0604 842 0 4129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1067 0 1376 0 4558

0405 5505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 814 0 54 0 55050609 4775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 646 0 4775

0611 2837 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1853 0 0 0 2837

0612 3342 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 3380

0613 196 196 5898 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 646 0 1966 0 5681

0614 1980 1341 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 842 0 688 0 3193

0615 4719 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 4719

0617 1292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1207 0 0 0 12920697 969 98 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 210 365 0 772 0 1102

0498 1488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1488

0699 3398 3412 3349 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3412 0 1116

0701

07022970

3932

2303

0

0

42

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

955

0

0

400

14 4 340979

0703 2865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2865

0704 2640 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2665

0705 3117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1011 0 0 0 3117

0706 2556 16800 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2707

0707 4389 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 0 0 0 4610

0708 2155 316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 0 0 0 2439

0709 1269

3707

1882

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0720

0

0

0

0

0

0

533

308

0

0

0

0 4 5397607

0721 1643 744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2313

T8TAL 96115 12747 13839 0 0 715 0 0 0 757 14563 126 17129 120414

162

Conseryation Based Land Use RecombendationsNet

ArableSC No, Ag As Asg Ab Abq Ad Adq FP Gil X(bad) X(steep) 6r 611 Land

PLANNING ZONE 8: ZIWAY PLAIN

0101 1790 452? 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 1432 0 0 56 6062

0102 3251 5737 0 0 0 323 28 0 0 646 646 0 491 0 8701

0103 2823 472? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308 308 0 275 98 7259

0104 4178 1116 0 0 0 407 0 0 0 0 2008 0 1615 0 5508

0105 2780 2647 0 0 0 0 547 0 0 421 210 0 484 407 5709

0201 9466 505 0 0 0 0 1123 0 0 1516 646 0 280 0 110440202 393 955 0 0 0 168 2724 0 0 0 1432 0 182 211 4111

0205 4248 4845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 533 365 0 372 0 86090207 1334 1306 0 0 0 449 3735 0 0 0 2106 0 98 857 6604

0208 1896 0 0 0 0 0 1334 0 0 3567 0 0 0 0 3230

0209 1123 0 0 0 0 0 168 0 0 561 1685 0 0 0 1291

0210 3047 2141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 533 0 175 1180 4974

0211 1221 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1741 0 0 478 19410212 1025 2099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1544 0 1706 0 2914

0213 4431 2640 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 365 224 0 330 0 69050299 758 0 0 0 0 0 308 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 1066

0301 5976 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1348 182 0 1250 0 7650

0305 7872 976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 4410 0 8750

TOTAL 57612 37085 0 0 0 1347 10261 0 0 9489 15062 0 11687 3287 102327

PLANNING ZONE 9: HATKOCH PLAIN

0302 2759 1200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1123 0 38390303 3609 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1285 0 41580304 3497 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1566 0 40460306 1825E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2556 0 0 730 0 182580307 6875 1075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 1629 0 2900 0 78610308 6882 1453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 84 3349 0 81900398 5646 379 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 21 912 0 57870404 3349 1685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 807 0 48660410 3771 4715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 0 0 765 0 81950411 2556 2443 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 421 0 0 1320 0 47550412 6530000000 00983 2485 828 7626 0 65300606 3581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 0 0 4199 0 35810607 4157 70 00000000 0 0 1587 0 42200608 2809 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 646 1853 0 2171 0 28340610 2556 00000000000870 0 25560616 330000 0 0000 00002682 0 33000710 6453 1710 0 0 0 224 0 0 0 617 1938 0 5091 0 83510905 174800 000000000 386 0 17480906 4002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 0 0 11 0 40020907 4255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 449 0 0 716 0 42550908 1713 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 0 702 0 17139998 1629 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 56 0 1629

TOTAL 99935 16398 0 0 0 224 0 0 0 6723 8697 935 40877 0 114872

PLANNING ZONE 10: AJE HILLS

0690 11787 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 421 0 344 0 119870692 3230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 0 32300693 393 769 0 0 0 414 0 0 0 0 1025 0 8153 0 1596

TOTAL 15610 969 0 0 0 414 0 0 0 0 1446 0 8777 0 16813

APPENDIX H

LAND SUITABILITY FOR OROPS

Intermediate Level of inputs; No Land Improvements

(areas in Hectares)

i) Entire Awraia

Sorghum 29094 127-22,2 344446 145379 531195Maize 12254 40507 412473 143357 568745Wheat 61060 302068 133743 125892 504573Barley 7764 403346 114073 100906 431364Te f 66271 246498 334671 44747 435149Finger millet 15477 373543 198118 66173 524025Fieldpea 30252 326885 156735 159312 504152Haricot bean 21046 333683 139375 138181 495051Horsebean 39122 410607 126117 114712 486778Chickpea 64944 391064 155723 106312 458797Lentil 64944 392658 156229 108286 455219Vetch 100569 360768 233814 21966 455219Flax 51970 299975 145078 107254 472059Niderseed 1313 43730 137718 143919 845656Sunflower 0 571,54 350050 194186 575746Sesame 0 . 115057 279980 672277Soybean 0 4777 325724 226587 620248Groundnut 0 0 15533 373976 737826Po tato 4016 67348 52991 342796 710185Sweet potato 0 1 135941 710766 830618Pepper 0 50178 111598 341061 663499Shallot 0 1 13897 164874 998564Tomato 9613 51743 150197 262437 703296Cabbage 3349 73570 154614 106109 339694Tobacco 0 O 68202 168406 940727Cotton O 0 15533 373976 787876Enaste 0 18546 134614 291679 732495Coffee 0 0 12907 87781 1076647Sisal 1011 200045 402171 54178 519931

163

Land Suitability ClassCrop Si 32 84 N

' Planning Zone

164

CropLand Suitability Class

SI 82 c.:;3 84 N

Sorghum 0 3992 2844 6306 42893Maize 0 0 3272 8750 39017Wheat 63 13221 5596 4782 32373Barley 0 9540 4171 5737 36587Teff 147 10489 6214 2598 36587Finger millet 0 165 6327 4375 45168Fieldpea 0 11542 7338 2654 34501Haricot bean 0 4048 6587 8813 36587Horsebean L-z 18459 358 4782 32373Chickpea 7897 12947 , 5070 2935 31186Lentil 0 9752 4297 7485 34501Vetch 0 9751 7099 4684 34501Flax 0 11949 6971 4782 3'2773Nigerseed 0 3543 3118 7787 36587Sunflower 0 0 6495 4375 45168Sesame o o 0 224 55814Soybean 0 0 224 10646 45168Groundnut 0 0 0 224 55814Potato 0 13267' 1436 8764 32373Sweet potato 0 0 2450 5189 43399Pepper 0 1584 8427 3595 42429Shallot 0 o 6664 16973 32401Tomato 0 1454 8981 8813 36587Cabbage 0 9147 11278 4424 31136Tobacco 0 0 168 10644 45224Cotton 0 0 0 224 55814Ensote o 3033 10884 3981 38139Coffee 0 o 0 9129 46910Sisal 0 o 6594 4023 45421

iii) Planning Zone 2

Land Suitability ClassCrop Si. 82 63 64 N

165

Sorghum 0 174 400 7710 23595Maize 0 61 3434 11327 17057Wheat 2307 10708 7493 3602 7773Barley 414 2063 14431 4585 10386Teff 301 2471 17935 786 10386Finger millet 0 0 o 667 31215Fieldpea 169 4508 15807 1439 9936Haricot bean 189 111 5533 15660 10386Horsebean 27,03 10912 7289 3602 7773Chickpea 9445 5385 7394 1682 7773Lentil 414 7295 14431 4803 9936Vetch 414 2296 17998 1235 9936Flax 189 4508 15807 3602 7773Nigerseed 0 300 11875 9318 10386Sunflower 0 o 0 891 30990Sesame 0 O 0 0 31882Soybean 0 0 0 891 30990Groundnut 0 0 o 0 31882Potato 0 9443 289 6966 8181Sweet potato 0 0 0 800 31081Pepper 0 0 667 7317 23897Shallot 0 0 3546 20154 8181Tomato 0 188 2359 18539 10793Cabbage 0 9444 12780 1474 8131Tobacco 0 0 0 667 31215Cotton 0 0 0 0 31682Ensete 0 1348 16074 3771 10688Coffee 0 0 0 7872 24009Sisal 0 0 0 LL-'L,,,/ 31215

166

iv)Planning Zone 3

Land Suitability ClassCrop 81 87 S4 N-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__

Sorghum 2415 12063 12626 27156 25147Maize 4269 4366 19368 3623 47781Wheat 9592 19598 2619 23771 23827Barley 9739 19570 2492 23729 23327Te ff 25337 24668 5386 273 23743Finger millet 7 3257 16516 9705 49922Fieldpea 8806 21572 1432 21088 26509Haricot bean 5175 10504 13574 23771 26383Horsebean 9789 21790 231 21333 26214Chickpea 17120 11573 231 17471 37012Lentil 17120 11811 231 17359 32386Ve.hch 23413 5518 17443 147 32336Flax 8609 21600 1601 24023 23574Nigerseed 1257 11772 17787 24979 24052Sunflower 0 5967 13813 29480 30147Sesame 0 0 28 7254 72129Soybean 0 26 7277 42001 30147Groundnut 0 0 28 18195 61187Potato 0 12119 2352 17401 47575Sweet potato 0 0 14248 33609 71552Pepper 0 5623 22464 2542 43778Shallot 0 0 3469 27191 48750Tomato 2296 5722 21004 2632 47703Cabbage 2977 7035 21839 1285 46271Tobacco 0 0 7162 21053 51194Cotton 0 0 -)0.,_,, 18195 61187Ensete 0 2780 7570 19045 49613Coffee 0 0 0 17134 62275Sisal 0 6 17408 12127 49866

y) Planning Zone 4

Sorghum 807 6667 12366 16362 32619Maize 1235 296 19740 12113 35407Wheat 2542 20072 4297 12064 29866Barley 2078 5338 3546 23785 34094Taff 2601 21856 6987 7443 29754Finger millet 0 5170 17605 925 36741Fieldpea 1699 21694 3644 12050 29754Haricot bean 976 9959 14199 13953 29754Horsebean 2542 21813 3005 11938 29543Chickpea 4136 21209 1903 11727 29866Lentil 2078 5914 3588 23167 34094Vetch 2078 5914 19368 7387 34094Flax 1699 20219 5119 11938 29866Nigerseed 0 2550 18132 14304 33855Sunflower 0 4713 17612 13792 32724Sesame 0 0 126 9894 58827Soybean 0 0 9571 25366 33890Groundnut 0 o 0 12549 56299Potato 0 3470 4627 26320 34424Sweet potato 0 0 13132 16046 39670Pepper 0 1448 16032 15266 36095Shallot 0 0 217 26067 42563Tomato 807 163 20793 12535 34543Cabbage 0 3792 20646 8160 36243Tobacco o 0 5653 20793 42401Cotton 0 0 0 12549 56299Ensete o 1250 12794 19929 34873Coffee 0 o o 16839 52008Sisal 0 o 237.30 9129 36488

167

Land Suitability ClassCrop 81 82 63 84 N

v. ) Planning Zone 5

Crop 81Land Suitability Class

84 N

168

Sorghum 6577 22435 38356 12429 28406Maize 5807 13228 38216 26818 24094Wheat 2:-7: 00 31817 23686 11938 17422Barley 15969 35257 26313 17134 13490Te ff 10927 43501 28602 7289 17844Finger millet 2296 26030 34901 17612 27324Fieldpea 17844 40279 23307 9599 17134Haricot bean 10563 24528 43804 11214 18047Horsebean 19508 40412 22352 8911 14980Chickpea 25870 33292 21144 10877 16930Lentil 15969 35257 24313 18047 12577Vetch 19986 31239 34-29 8132 12577Flax 19045 34499 28455 9971 16193Nigerseed 0 4667 34304 34359 34333Sunflower o 22455 35702 18195 31811Sesame 0 0 4474 30904 70793Soy bean 0 1479 28813 43883 33988Groundnut 0 0 2717 27085 78371Potato 4016 10496 21580 50000 22071Sweet potato 0 0 39831 22415 45927Pepper 0 20419 40854 22043 24845Shallot 0 0 CD 45365 62809Tomato 5777 20243 36524 24016 21643Cabbage 210 14134 35300 35428 22591Tobacco 0 0 18370 45639 44164Cotton 0 C.) 2.717 27085 78371En=sete 0 5814 572-23 18300 30835Coffee 0 0 12907 23097 72170Sisal 0 5419 59915 15688 27141

) Planning Zone 6

Land Suitability ClassCrop Si 53 54 N

169

Sorghum 19066 60754 80562 12401 60878Maize 737 2-7237 118420 21783 70484Wheat 22823 102229 31636 14122 42851Barley 9248 97771 34522 22689 69431Teff 25856 61037 83005 2998 60765Finger millet 2886 103858 55878 7591 63448Fieldpea 1278 82510 35842 48476 65555Haricot bean 3771 112426 44157 8258 65049Horsebean 4480 119055 37493 7584 65049Chickpea 24059 113395 23623 11559 61025Lentil 9248 98108 34859 22015 69431Vetch 74129 76963 53012 126 69431Flax 22991 102687 35400 12092 60491Nigerseed 14 25459 44324 12191 151173Sunflower 0 18922 132479 16502 65758Sesame 0 0 12148 130765 90765Soybean 0 0 116433 43932 73314Groundnut 0 0 0 136931 96748Potato o 18261 8532 104642 102226Sweet potato o 0 58630 30323 144726Pepper 0 17931 22514 113350 79866Shallot 0 0 0 27942 205738Tomato 505 14415 35266 98132 83343Cabbage 7 29694 43995 21587 138378Tobacco 0 0 19754 25337 188589Cotton o 0 o 136931 96748Ensete 0 4248 27289 110414 91727Coffee 0 0 0 12893 2207879.ic--,al 0 7987 154145 7556 61973

viii) Planning Zone 7

Land Suitability ClassCrop 81 82 84 N

170

Sorghum 0 18322 75969 26306 39993Maize 0 2 89515 29297 41776Wheat 0 56785 34796 23314 45695Barley 84 95367 21467 7134 36538Teff 0 20464 98511 4473 37142Finger millet 84 91891 28623 5238 34754Fieldpea 0 65704 25084 30821 38981Haricot bean 0 35142 22998 13483 38967Horsebean 0 86244 21896 13483 38967Chickpea 0 88505 24382 4522 43131Lentil 84 95367 21467 7134 3538Vetch 84 95366 28602 0 36538Flax 0 79293 -79527. 8721 42054Nigerseed 0 16 1130 12766 144678Sunflower 0 4601 59368 52710 42911Sesame 0 1 61489 57984 41116Soybean 0 1918 64299 19803 72570Groundnut 0 0 6235 59406 94747Potato 0 15 884 64754 94937Sweet potato 0 1 6304 19655 134628Pepper 0 2824 9782 62872 85112Shallot 0 0 0 140 160450Tomato 0 7052 5063 48645 99810Cabbage 0 1 6853 13553 140183Tobacco 0 0 4726 7500 148364Cotton 0 0 6235 59606 94747Ensete 0 0 4122 96060 60407Coffee 0 o 0 0 160590Sisal 0 41385 82528 2050 34627

ix) Planning Zone 8

Land Suitability ClassCrop 91 82 83 64

171

Sorghum 266 2592 80042 17780 45162MaizeWheat

154435

.7,,,,

.,_/. .

406117634144136

844815491

6064645189

Barley 435 81250 3525 16109 44543Teff 898 57444 42893 3019 41608Finger millet 2984 78083 6123 603 58069Fieldpea 435 54298 25533 18988 46608Haricot bean 365 56011 23890 16025 49571Horsebean 435 56559 23272 16025 49571Chickpea 12956 54909 23848 5870 48279Lentil 12956 54909 23848 5670 48279Vetch 13391 54473 29719 0 48279Flax 475 11643 68272 20421 45091Nigerseed 42 386 1053 26418 117963Sunflower 0 511 66840 28883 49628Sesame 0 13 81784 4543 99572Soybean 0 1320 70421 23904 50217Groundnut 0 0 6433 89122 50260Potato 0 203 5280 45133 95246Sweet potato 0 0 842 60604 64424Pepper 0 301 723 79930 64908Shallot 0 0 0 716 145155Tomato 266 92 19613 36495 89396Cabbage 154 463 14768 130204Tobacco o o 11931 35877 98062Cotton 0 0 6488 89122 50260Ensete 0 70 365 941 144494Coffee 0 0 0 814 145056Sisal 0 66678 20512 1109 57563

a

N

172

x) Planning Zone 9

Land Suitability ClassCrop 81 ?2 83 84 N

Sorghum 0 0 32324 14487 127008Maize 0 0 30470 16341 127008Wheat 0 1002 27998 13195 131615Barley 14 21483 20498 16594 115021Teff 0 736 34929 14009 124136Finger mil let 7219 55932 26376 10084 74199Fieldpea 0 17632 14929 9262 131967Haricot bean 0 21754 12780 22155 117121Horsebean 0 25630 8904 22155 117121Chickpea 7071 64753 25807 2387 73792Lentil 7.071 64753 25807 2387 73792Vetch 7071 64753 27942 252 73792Flax 0 6950 49944 9915 107001Nigerseed 0 0 0 308 173511Sunflower 0 0 10524 25444 13748Sesame 0 0 62296 27703 83820Soybean 0 0 20660 6931 146229Groundnut 0 0 0 23897 149923Potato 0 0 0 5751 168069Sweet potato 0 0 0 21545 152275Pepper 0 0 0 23441 150379Shallot 0 0 0 0 173820Tomato 0 0 42 5941 147637Cabbage 0 0 14 1278 172526Tobacco 0 0 0 758 173062Cotton 0 0 0 73897 149923Ensete 0 0 28 7352 144440Coffee 0 0 0 0 17382C)Sisal 1011 78439 21053 854 72451

xi) Planning Zone 10

Land Suitability ClassCrop Si 82 53 84 N

173

Sorghum 0 156 8953 4438 11116Maize 0 2 8693 4852 11116Wheat 0 5971 1481 3609 13602Barley 0 14439 1383 14 8827Teff 0 7780 10203 1853 8827Finger millet 0 9102 5765 969 8827Fieldpea 0 7094 3813 4929 8827Haricot bean 0 9145 1846 4845 8827Horsebean 0 9678 1313 4845 8827Chickpea o Lnmicr, 4077 969 13602Lentil 0 14439 1383 14 8827Vetch 0 14439 1397 0 8827Flax 0 6575 4023 1763 12282Nigerseed 0 70 891 983 22759Sunflower 0 142 7212 3707 13602Sesame 0 1 709 10702 13251Soybean o 15 6067 9206 9375Groundnut 0 o 63 6362 18237Potato 0 30 807 13061 10765Sweet potato 0 2 498 575 23588Pepper 0 1 1130 10702 12830Shallot 0 1 0 323 24339Tomato 0 170 547 6664 17282Cabbage 0 1 941 4150 19571Tobacco 0 o 435 133 24094Cotton 0 0 63 6362 18237Ensote 0 0 1860 11882 10919Coffee o o 0 0 24663Sisal 0 85 14782 969 6827

Haykoch and Butajira: References

REFERENCES

Adjei-Twum,D.C. (1987) "Manual on a Computerised Land EvaluationSystem with special reference to the Highlands of Ethiopia.Vol. 2. The influence of Environmental Conditions on PlantGrowth and Development". FAO/AG:DP/ETH/82/010 Field DocumentNo.17, Addis Abeba,

Adjei-Twum, L). C. and Gure Kumssa (1989) "Crop Production in theHaykoch and Butajira (Shewa) study area: Current AgronomicPractices, Constraints and possible interventions".FAO/AG:DP/ETH/37/006 Field Document No 39, Addis Abeba.

Agren, G. and Gibson, R. (1968) "Food Composition Table for usein Ethiopia. SIDA/ Ministry of Public Health, Addis Ababa.

Australian Agricultural Consulting and Management Company (AACM)(1933) "Farming Systems Surveys: Resulte and Analysis forCentral Zone". Agricultural Advisory Team Working Paper No14, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Abeba.

Bechtold, G.K (1788) "Manual on a Computerised Land EvaluationSystem with special reference to the Highlands of Ethiopia.Volume 3, Geographical Information and Land EvaluationSystem", F40146:DP/ETH/82/010 Field Document No, 25, AddisAbeba.

Doorenbos, 3., and Kassam, A.H. (1779) "Yield Response to Water".Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 33. FAO, Rome.

E chbercer,W.G (1368) "Food Production and Utilization inEthiopia E. C, 195E." USAID, Washington DC.

FAO (197) "A Framework for Land Evaluat on." Soils Bulletin No.32, FAO, Rome.

FAO (1983) "Guidelines: Land Evaluation for Rainfed Agriculture'FAO Soils Bulletin No 52, Rome.

FAO (1988) "Ethiopia. Master Land Use Plan. Main Report" based onthe work of E:, L. Henricksen. FAO/AG:DP/ETH/82/010 Technicalreport No. 1 Rome/ Addis Abeba.

FAO/UNESCO/ISRIC (1983) Soil Map L.. the World. Revised Legend.World Soil Resources Report No. 60, Rome.

174

Haykoch and Butajira References

Getachew Asamanew, Jutzi, S.C, Abate Tedia and McIntire, J.(1988) "Economic evaluation of imp:eyed Vertisol drainagefor food crop production in the Ethiopian Highlards".Froc.Conf. on Management of Vertisols in Sub-- Saharan Africa,ILCA, Addis Abeba,

Harris, P. (1989). "An analysis of the Pastoral Resource andDevelopment Opportunities for Menagesha, Haykoch andButajira and Varar" and Kereyu". FAO/AG:DP/ETH/87/006 Techni-cal Report of Range Ecologist / Livestock Consultant, AddisAbeba.

Hurni, H. (1985) "Erosion-Productivity-Conservation Systems inEthiopia". Soil Conservation Project, Ministry of Agricul-ture / University of Berne.

jutzi, S.C., Anderson, P.M. and Abiye Astatke (1987) "Low costmodifications of the Traditional Ethiopian Tine Plough forLand Shaping and Surface Drainage of Heavy Clay Soils:Preliminary results from on - farm verification trials".ILCA Bulletin 27, 23-31.

Konstapel, C.D. and Bechtold, G. K. (1987) "Manual on a Com-puterised Land Evaluation System with special reference tothe Highlands of Ethiopia. Vol. 1: Land Evaluation Methodol-ogy. FAO/AG:DR/ETH/87/006 Field Document No. 16, AddisAbeba.

McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A., and Greenhalge, J.F.D. (1981)"Animal Nutrition". Longman, London and NEW York.

Mengistu Negash (1989) "Inventory of Vegetation and Current LandUse in the Haykoch and Butajira (Shewa) study area".FAO/AG:DP/ETH/87/006 Field Document No, 38, Addis Abeba,

Nair, K.K.N.S., and Adugna Libsework (1989) "SocioeconomicEvaluation of Current Land Use in Haykoch and ButajiraAwraja." Project FAO/AG:DP/ETH/87/006 Field Document NoAddis Abeba,

Radcliffe, D. J. (198?) "A Manual for Reconnaissance Physical LandEvaluation in Ethiopia" FAO/AG:DP/ETH/87/006 Field DocumentNo. 35, Addis Abeba.

Radcliffe, D.J., Bechtold, S.K., and Teshome Estifanos, (1988)"Land Evaluation of the Hosaina Study Area (Shewa)." ProjectFAO/AG:DP/ETH/82/010 Field Document No.22 , Addis Abeba.

175

Haykoch and Butajira: Reference.,,-

Radcliffe, D.J., Bechtold, G.K., and Teshome Estifanos, (198.?)"Land Evaluation of Menagesha ,:raja (Shewa)." ProjectFAO/AG:DP/ETH/86/007 Field Document No .7,2 Addis Abeba.

Sutcliffe, J.P. and Bahiru Melasse(1989) "A Rural Land Use Planof the Hay koch and Butaiira Awraia (Shewa)".FAO/AG:DP/ETH/87/006 Field Document No, 41, Addis Ababa.

Van Sleen, L., and Misbah Abdulatif (1989) "Soils of the Haykochand Butaj ira study area (Shewa)" FAOSAG:DP/ETH/86/007 FieldDocument No. 37, Addis Abeba.

Wischmeier, S.R. and Smith, D.D. (1978) "Predicting Rainfall Ero-sion Losses: A Buide to Conservation Planninp". Agric Hand-book 537, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

WoldeGabriel Kidane (1989) "Climate of Menagesha, Haykoch andButajira, and Yerer and Kereyu". FAO/AG:DP/ETH/87/006 FieldDocument No 34, Addis Ababa.

176

Assistance to land use planning Ethiopia. Land … · DRAFT ASSISTANCE TO LAND USE PLANNING E T H I...

Documents

Transcript of Assistance to land use planning Ethiopia. Land … · DRAFT ASSISTANCE TO LAND USE PLANNING E T H I...