1 - Kurie Watershed Planning Report DRAFT by WMG 31aug09

Sustainable water Harvesting and Institutional Strengthening Project (SWHISA)
Kuri Model Integrated Watershed Development Planning Report
Prepared by
Hydrosult-AgroDEV-OXFAM
And
BoARD, BoWRD, ARARI, CPA and EPLAUA
July, 2009
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Sustainable water Harvesting and Institutional Strengthening Project (SWHISA)
Kuri Model Integrated Watershed Development Planning Report
SWHISA Document WMG - 01
Prepared By
Yohannes Afework (SCE), SWHISA Project
Aschale Abi Woreda Soil & water Conservation expert
Nigusu Asefa Woreda Livestock expert
Alemayehu Hailu Woreda Agronomist
Zeriuhun Adinew Woreda Forestry expert
Contributors
Siamregn Tefera DA Crop Production
Asrat Belaygizaw DA, Natural Resources Management
Eshetu Alayu DA Livestock Development
Compiled By
Yohannes Afework (SCE)
SWHISA Project
July, 2009
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................I
1. GENERAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................1
1.1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2. PLANNING TEAM COMPOSITION...........................................................................................................................1
1.3. OBJECTIVES DOLENQIE MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT..........................................................2
2. MATERIALS AND APPROACHES USED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS...................................................2
2.1. MATERIALS..........................................................................................................................................................2
2.2. PLANNING APPROACHES......................................................................................................................................2
3. RESOURCES IN THE WATERSHED...................................................................................................................5
3.1. BIOPHYSICAL CONDITION....................................................................................................................................5
3.1.1. Location of Kuri model integrated watershed............................................................................................5
3.1.2. Topography.................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.3. Land use......................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.4. Vegetation Cover.........................................................................................................................................8
3.1.5. Soil and erosion status................................................................................................................................9
3.1.6. Water Resources........................................................................................................................................11
3.1.7. Climate......................................................................................................................................................13
3.2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITION............................................................................................................................13
3.2.1. Population.................................................................................................................................................13
3.2.2. Wealth ranking..........................................................................................................................................13
3.2.3. Crop Production........................................................................................................................................14
3.2.4. Livestock and fodder resources.................................................................................................................16
3.2.6. Institutional linkage..................................................................................................................................19
4. PROBLEM ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................20
4.1. CROP PRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................20
4.2. NATURAL RESOURCES DEGRADATION................................................................................................................20
4.3. LIVESTOCK AND FODDER DEVELOPMENT:.........................................................................................................21
4.4. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITION.............................................................................................................................21
5. LAND EVALUATION...........................................................................................................................................25
6. KURI MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PLAN......................................................29
6.1. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT...............................................................................................................29
6.1.1. Soil and water Conservation measures.....................................................................................................29
6.1.2. Forestry.....................................................................................................................................................30
6.2. CROP PRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................31
6.3. LIVESTOCK AND FODDER DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................................................32
6.4. SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES....................................................................................................................................32
6.4.1. Infrastructure............................................................................................................................................32
6.4.2. Off-farm activities:....................................................................................................................................33
6.4.3. Development of community bylaws...........................................................................................................33
6.4.4. Training and experience sharing:.............................................................................................................33
6.4.5. HIV/AIDs Prevention:...............................................................................................................................34
6.4.6. Gender issues:...........................................................................................................................................34
6.4.7. PARTICIPATORY MONITORING & EVALUATION................................................................................................34
6.4.8. REVISION OF WATERSHED PLAN......................................................................................................................35
6.4.9. HAND TOOLS SUPPLY......................................................................................................................................35
6.5. KURI INTEGRATED MODEL WATERSHED THREE YEARS SUMMARIZED PLAN......................................................36
7. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF KURI MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
.......................................................................................................................................................................................54
7.1. QUALITATIVE BENEFITS OF KURI MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT.........................................54
7.2. QUANTITATIVE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF KURI MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PLAN...........55
8. COMMITMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATERSHED
DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................................................................61
9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................62
Reference......................................................................................................................................................................63
Table of Figure
TABLE 1. LAND USE IN THE WATERSHED.........................................................................................................................7
TABLE 2. TYPE OF TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE WATERSHED USED FOR FIREWOOD AND CONSTRUCTION.......................9
TABLE 3. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTED IN THE WATERSHED...........................................................11
TABLE 4. WATER RESOURCES IN THE WATERSHED........................................................................................................12
TABLE 5. THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WATERSHED.......................................................................................................13
TABLE 6. WEALTH RANKING VULNERABLE ASSESSMENT/CRITERIA.............................................................................13
TABLE 7. AVERAGE LAND HOLDING SIZE IN FAMILY.....................................................................................................14
TABLE 8. GENERAL INFORMATION ON CROP PRODUCTION AND ON CROP CALENDAR..................................................14
TABLE 9. VARIETIES, PRODUCTIVITY OF CROPS GROWN IN THE WATERSHED...............................................................15
TABLE 10. MAJOR TYPES OF DISEASES/PESTS IN THE WATERSHED...............................................................................16
TABLE 11. TYPE AND NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN THE WATERSHED..................................................................................17
TABLE 12. ALTERNATIVE FODDER SOURCES IN DIFFERENT SEASONS............................................................................17
TABLE 13. LIVESTOCK HEALTH AND DISEASES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE....................................................................18
TABLE 14. LIST OF ITEMS EXCHANGED IN THE MARKET...............................................................................................18
TABLE 15. THE DISTRIBUTION FOR SOCIAL SERVICE GIVING INSTITUTIONS IN THE WATERSHED..................................19
TABLE 16. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING...................................................................................................22
TABLE 17. THE SUMMARIZED LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION..................................28
TABLE 18. KURI INTEGRATED MODEL WATERSHED THREE YEARS PLAN.......................................................................37
TABLE 19. MATERIALS AND INPUTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES........................................45
TABLE 20. KURI MODEL WATERSHED SAFETY NET COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN..............................................46
TABLE 21. KURI INTEGRATED MODEL WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 2009 BUDGET YEAR ACTION PLAN.......47
TABLE 22. TOTAL BENEFIT FROM MILK PRODUCTION WITH 10% DISCOUNT RATE FOR 5 YEARS.................................56
TABLE 23. COST OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES................................................................................56
TABLE 24. BARELY GRAIN YIELD IN DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS....................................................................................58
TABLE 25. BENEFIT COMPARISON FROM CROP PRODUCTION WITH AND WITH OUT CONSERVATION MEASURES...........58
TABLE 26. SUMMARIZED COST OF APICULTURE............................................................................................................59
TABLE 27. SUMMARIZED BENEFIT OF APICULTURE.......................................................................................................59
Table 28. Total benefit of water resource development within 5 years return period and with 10%...........................60
Executive Summary
In order to demonstrate farmers integrated and successful watershed, Menz Mama woreda
Agricultural and Rural Development Office in collaboration with SWHISA project has selected
Kuri watershed as the model integrated watershed in 07 (Angawa) Kebele. Planning process has
been started at the end of 2008 with the community. The main objectives of this model watershed
development are to increase land productivity through application of water resource development
interventions; to ensure sustainable land management through the implementation of
participatory watershed development; to enhance the capacity (knowledge, skill, and attitude) of
farmers and experts at all levels in the participatory watershed development and to contribute to
the efforts made to ensure food security in the region.
To sustain the watershed development endeavors, all efforts were made to make sure that all
beneficiaries are fully involved in all aspects of the planning process so that they can develop a
feeling of project ownership. The community participated from early stages of watershed
management planning process, starting from site selection to approval of the plan by either direct
presence or through their elected representatives. The public was briefed about land degradation,
benefit of watershed management and given a chance to discuss on their own issues (previous
unsustainable conservation efforts, successful efforts, etc.). After they have discussed in detail
about the watershed management election of the community watershed planning committee was
started. To decide on selecting the members of the watershed planning committee, it was decided
by the public to use a free election process by using one person, one vote system. Accordingly,
16 watershed planning committee members were elected and more than 30% of the committee
members are women.
One day orientation training was given on the concept of watershed management and the
planning process by different experts on different disciplines. The committee members have
participated in identifying problems, causes and proposed development options. In resource
identification transect walk, interview, and round table discussions (PRA tools) were applied.
The farmers played role in characterizing different land uses by using their own traditional
knowledge (as soil texture, fertility status, stoniness etc.). Hence the role of experts was to
technically assist, facilitate the process and consolidate the plan, forwarded by the committee
members. After the plan was consolidated, it was presented to the general assembly for approval.
Integration of physical with biological conservation measures has been given more emphasis in
the plan. Use of physical and biological conservation measures are proven to have positive
impact on reducing surface runoff by reducing slope length and steepness and increasing the
retention time and allow infiltration of surface water into soil and replenishing local ground
water. Use of such conservation measures reduces soil erosion in the lower part of hills and
ridges, improving crop and grass yield in the lower catchment. It is believed that incorporation of
biological and physical soil conservation measures will have positive impact on increasing soil
moisture content within the soil control section due to lateral (through-flow) of percolated
surface water in the upper part of the watershed. Increase in soil moisture content within soil
profile should not only improve land productivity, but should also improve water availability of
springs, shallow groundwater (hand dug wells), and rivers within the lower watershed.
Availability of more reliable water resources could potentially allow for change in farming
i
system from rain fed to irrigated agriculture, allowing farmers to produce higher yield and
potentially increase cropping intensity by double cropping.
Identification and prioritization of problems by the community was the base for proposing
development options. The problems affecting their livelihood and given due attention by the
committee members are addressed in the watershed plan.
To solve the problems of the community, maximize the income of the farmers and productivity
of the land and ultimately to ensure sustainability of the watershed development, integrated
activities related to natural resources management, crop production(introduction of high value
crops, improved agronomic practices), livestock and forage development (introduction of
economic/multi-purpose shrubs and grasses as biological conservation measures), human health,
participatory monitoring and evaluation, building the capacity of farmers through training and
experience sharing, development of bylaws, gender mainstreaming and HIV/AIDs prevention
have been considered in the plan. Other proposed activities such as apiculture, off-farm activities
such as mat work, weaving, tailoring, etc. will be promoted in the watershed to engage landless
youths in income generating activities, to increase their income and ultimately develop feeling of
watershed development ownership. To ensure full participation of the community in the
implementation process building the farmers capacity on integrated watershed development
through training and experience sharing is found to be important.
The implementation of proposed activities within highly degraded hilly areas should prove to
have both economic and ecologic values. The benefit gained through sale of products from the
closure areas (cut and carry grasses, trees, multi-purpose shrubs, etc) and development of
opportunities for engagement of upper catchment inhabitants in proposed off-farm activities
should provide significant economic benefits to not only offset the lost income from land closure,
but to also improve their current living standards and food security.
The total estimated budget required to achieve the planned activities for the watershed
development is Birr 3920444.00. The estimation doesnt include regular activities related to crop
production and livestock development performed by the farmers. Of the total budget Birr
2947130.00 and 301080.00 will be covered by OoARD/PSNP and SWHISA respectively. The
rest Birr 657234.00 will be contributed by the farmers in the form of labour.
Overall, through full participation of beneficiaries, the proposed watershed management plan has
addressed most of the problems raised by the community. Attempt was also made to integrate all
activities that are supposed to generate the income of the farmers. In order to ensure the
sustainability of the activities proposed in the watershed management plan, SWHISA should
follow up and continue its technical as well as financial support to the watershed management
activities.
ii
1. General Background
1.1. Introduction
Amhara region has counted decades since it has started implementation of natural resources
management particularly construction of modern soil and water conservation measures.
However, the sustainability of these structures in most part of the region is under question. One
of the major reasons for un-sustainability of efforts is that the software part, i.e. the social aspect
was neglected focusing only on the technical feasibility. In addition to this, other disciplines
other than soil and water conservation measures werent integrated. To solve the problems the
concept of watershed management was introduced some years back even though its
implementation is still at infant stage.
It is known that farmers can easily learn and copy when they look at successful
practices/technologies. In order to demonstrate farmers, integrated and successful watershed,
Menz mama woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office in collaboration with SWHISA
project has selected Kuri as model watershed. This watershed is found in Kebele 07 (Angawa) in
Menz Mama woreda of North Shewa administrative zone. It is located 12 km away from the
woreda capital, Molale. It is bordered by Angawa catchment in the South, Aytasa Got in the
North, Amjt Got in the East, and Waka Got in the West. The topography of the area is rugged.
Special attention has been given to participation of the community in the planning process. The
community has been actively participated from site selection to the planning stage. SWHISA
project has provided technical and financial support in preparing this model watershed plan. The
implementation of the watershed management plan is supposed to be supported by Productive
Safety Net Program.
The total estimated budget required to achieve the planned activities for the watershed
development is Birr 3920444.00. The estimation doesnt include regular activities related to crop
production and livestock development performed by the farmers. Of the total budget Birr
2947130.00 and 301080.00 will be covered by OoARD/PSNP and SWHISA respectively. The
rest Birr 657234.00 will be contributed by the farmers in the form of labour.
The first section of this planning report deals with introduction, planning team composition, roles
of SWHISA and objective of the planning. The second section states about the approach used in
the planning process. Section three and four discuss the resources in the watershed and problem
analysis respectively. Section five, six and seven provide explanation on land evaluation,
watershed development plan and cost-benefit analysis of watershed development respectively.
Section eight and nine give descriptions on commitment of the community and conclusions
respectively.
1.2. Planning team composition

Watershed development by its nature is holistic that integrates the implementation of different
disciplines and solves major significant problems of the watershed. Experts who have different
profession should be participated in the planning process. Thus, the idea was to participate more
professionals than listed below but due to engagement in other activities most of them couldnt
participate in the planning process. Experts who have participated in the process were Menz
Mama woreda agronomist, soil and water conservation experts, livestock experts, forestry and
1
development agents of natural resources management, crop production and livestock
development were participated in the planning process.
1.3. Objectives Dolenqie model integrated watershed development

Major objectives
The main objective of this model integrated watershed development is to maintain and improve
the fertility of land through the implementation of integrated watershed management and use the
site as model for the area. In doing so, the sustainability of the natural resources management in
the region is ensured.
Specific objectives are:
1. To ensure food security and improve the livelihood of the community in Kuri model
watershed through the implementation of participatory and integrated watershed
development and increasing the production and productivity of the natural resources.
2. To establish sustainable model watershed for the area.
3. Enhance the capacity of farmers (males and female), DAs, and woreda experts and
related institutions in the proper planning and management of watersheds".
4. To bring up the introduction of better natural resources management, agronomic
practices and introduction of high value crop, introduction of fodder development, off-
farm activities, etc. to ensure a higher income level of the beneficiaries within the model
watershed per unit land area. Inclusion of value added activities are considered crucial in
SWHISA watershed management plan since it is believed that the most efficient method
to ensure sustainability of watershed development activities will be through increase in
income from unit land area and additions of income generating activities in the
watershed management plan.
2. Materials and approaches used in the planning process.

2.1. Materials
GPS, clinometers, topo-map and camera were materials used in data collection to be used for
planning process
2.2. Planning Approaches
To sustain the watershed development activities, the local communities were empowered and all
efforts were made to make sure their full involvement in all facets of the planning process
ensures that the beneficiaries develop a feeling of project ownership. One of the means used to
encourage community participation was ensuring their full representation in electing
representatives in a general meeting. The project made a concerted effort to ensure full
participation of local community members in the planning process, by either direct presence or
through their elected representatives. The community participated from early stages of watershed
management planning process, starting from site selection to approval of the plan.
2
Site selection and community participation
SWHISA and woreda experts identified three candidate watershed sites based on model
watershed selection criteria developed by the project. In view of that, Regreg watershed was
selected as model by experts and was informed to few community members. However, before
planning was started the general assembly has totally modified the watershed site and its name
was also changed (from Regreg to Kuri model watershed). They excluded some and included
other areas which havent been part of the watershed. In excluding areas from and including
areas to the watershed a strong discussion was conducted among the community and finally they
reached at a consensus and approved the selection of the watershed. As it was explained from
them the selection of watershed site in previous time wasnt participatory.
Planning committee election and public participation
To select the members of the watershed management committee, it was decided by the public to
use a free election process by using one person, one vote system. Each candidate provided a
presentation to the electoral, indicating his/her strength and weaknesses. Candidates debate each
other, before voting can commence. Women participated in the debate and voting and election
process. The final list of watershed management committee members, presented in Annex 3,
demonstrate womens active involvement through election of five female members out of the
total watershed committee membership of 16 (31%). The fact that the majority of community
members actively participated in the election process and had healthy and lively debates is
believed to have significant positive impact on effectiveness of the management committee and
development of the model watershed, a process that clearly is different from the current norm.
Participation of committee members in the planning process
The committee members were provided one-day orientation training on the concepts of
watershed development and on how to carry out the planning process. The planning committee
then prepared village map (figure 1), and discussed in detail on their problems and solutions. In
problem identification, transect walk, interview, round discussions (PRA) tool were applied
(figure 2). In addition to topo map, GPS was used to delineate the watershed and land use/cover
boundary. The committee members have participated in identifying problems, causes, solutions
and proposed development options. The farmers played role in characterizing different land uses
by using their own traditional knowledge. They classified land uses by the type of soil (texture,
stoniness and fertility status). For example, they called grey soil as Abolsi Afer (less fertile soil)
and heavy clay soil as Walka Afer, which is relatively fertile soil. They knew their area and hence
could group those cultivated and grazing lands which have similar characteristics. This was
indeed, helpful for experts in land use classification. They identified problems, causes of the
problems and proposed development options.
Hence the role of experts was to provide technical suggestions, facilitate the process and
consolidate the plan, forwarded by the committee members. After the plan was consolidated, it
was presented to the general assembly for approval. Finally the general assembly approved the
plan.
3
The introduction of high value crops, improved agronomic practices, introduction of
economic/multi-purpose shrubs and grasses as biological conservation measures, introduction of
off-farm activities focusing on female farmer groups, development of bylaws, participatory
monitoring and evaluation and mainstreaming HIV/AIDs and gender in the watershed
development have been given emphasis to sustain the watershed development endeavors in the
plan. To ensure full participation of the community in the implementation process building their
capacity on integrated watershed development, training and experience sharing were found to be
important.
Figure1.Community Watershed Planning Team in village mapping
Figure 2. Community Watershed Planning Committee under discussion
4
3. Resources in the Watershed
3.1. Biophysical Condition
3.1.1. Location of Kuri model integrated watershed
Kuri watershed is found in North Showa administrative zone, Menz Mama woreda in Angawa
(07) kebele (figure 3 below). It is found in between Molale and Meleya towns, which is located
12km away from woreda town, Molale bordered by Angawa catchment in the South, Aytasa Got
in the North, Amjit Got in the East, and Waka Got in the West. The river Kuri is dividing the
watershed into two parts. The main road, from D/Birhan to Molale, touches the watershed
coordinates. As it is indicated in the figure below it is located between 39 043to 39045 East and
10009 to 10012 north. The altitude of the watershed ranges from 3160 to 3260 above mean sea
level.
1126000
1125000
579000 580000
Figure 3. Kuri Model Integrated Watershed, Menz Mama Woreda
5
3.1.2. Topography
Kuri model watershed is dominated by rugged topography. Hills, ridge and river valley are the
major landscapes dominating the watershed (figure 4 and figure 5). Approximately more than
70% of the areas are characterized by steep slope with average slope ranging from 15 and 50%.
The topography is considered to be one of the most important factors for soil erosion. As the
slope steepness and length increases in watershed soil erosion can be aggravated assuming that
the other factors (rainfall, soil, vegetation cover, and human activity) remain constant. Similarly,
topography has played significant role for the degradation of hills and ridges in the watershed.
Figure 4. Part of the watershed.

3.1.3. Land use
The major land uses in the watershed are cultivated land (Cu), grazing land (Gr) and homestead
cultivated and plantation land (HCu) (figure 5). The land use distribution is indicated in Table 1.
The total area of the watershed is estimated to be 372 ha. Eucalyptus is the dominant tree species
planted mainly in homestead areas. The watershed that accounts more than 20 and 32% of the
total area are characterized by the slope gradient ranging from 10 to 15 and 15 to 50%
respectively.
6
Table 1. Land use in the watershed
Land use type Area in Slope in % Vegetation Soil

ha coverage erosion
Cultivated land
Cu1 11 10-15 High Medium
Cu2 13 6-10 Medium Medium
Cu3 36 2-5 high Low
Cu4 37 15-30 Low high
Cu5 25 30-50 Low high
Hcu 49 5-15 high low
Grazing land
Gr1 52 3-5 high Low
Gr2 7 7-10 Medium Medium
Gr3 12 10-15 Low Low
Miscellaneous (degraded) land 60 15-25 No High
Others (villages, roads, churches, etc.) 70
Figure 5. Land use map of Kuri watershed
7
3.1.4. Vegetation Cover
Natural/primary forest does not exist in the watershed. But eucalyptus tree has dominated the
area especially around the villages because it is widely used by the farmers for fuel wood,
construction and farm tools. According to the local farmers, most of the hills and ridges were
covered by indigenous tree species such as Hyginia abyssinica in the past. However, due to high
demand for agricultural land and fuel wood, all of these natural vegetations are lost with
exception of a few patches of grassed areas. A couple of years ago, part of a small hill was
rehabilitated by both physical and biological measures within the watershed. Area closure was
practiced and free grazing was prohibited. As a result, original vegetation such as Erica arboria
(asta) that was disappeared for a long time reappeared. Other native grass species have also
started to dominate the landscape that is used for apiculture (figure 6). In addition to vegetations
mentioned in the table below vetiver grass, treelucern and other fodder species are growing in the
watershed although they arent well integrated with physical conservation measures.
Figure 6. Part of the watershed being rehabilitated by the community two years back.
Trees/shrubs growing in the watershed are used mainly for fuel wood. Although the shrubs/trees
listed in table 2 are used for fuel wood. Currently, eucalyptus is the only tree widely used for
firewood, construction and other uses. The shrubs listed in table 2 are also used for medicine,
fencing, fodder, etc. Some of them as Rumex nervesus can be used to strengthen physical
structures for example bund.
The tree/shrub resources used for different purposes are listed in Table 2.
8
Table 2. Type of trees and shrubs in the watershed used for firewood and construction
Type of trees/shrubs Land tenure Its use Reproduction

Eucalyptus Private Farming tool, firewood, Seedling
construction
Cherenfe (Amharic name) Private/communal Fuel wood Seed
Milk thistle (Koshele) Private/communal Fuel wood Seed
Ameraro (Amharic name) Private/communal Fuel wood Seed
Rumex nervesus (Embacho) Private/communal Fuel wood Seed
Hypericum sp. (Ameja) Private/communal Fuel wood Seed
Solana sp. (Embuay) or Private/communal Fuel wood Seed
Apple Sodom (English)
Rosa abyssinica (Kega) Private/communal Fuel wood Seed
Woinagift (Amharic name) Private/communal Medicine Seed
Source of Fuel wood
The major sources of energy in the watershed are fire wood and cow dung are used in both dry
and rainy season. In addition to these kerosene is widely used for light. Use of fuel wood
particularly cow dung reduces the fertility of the soil, causing reduction in crop yield. Firewood
collection is normally the responsibility of women in the watershed. On average, it takes about
an hour a day to collect fuel wood.
Community nursery
In the past, the community used to obtain seedlings from nurseries situated about 15 km away
from the watershed for establishing communal as well as private plantations. This nursery is
managed by the woreda office of Agriculture and Rural Development. To reduce the travel
distance the community has established a nursery site within the watershed by their own
initiation in late 2009. The nursery is managed by the community itself. The intention of the
community is to use the nursery for the production of seedlings (fodder, tree and grass species) to
plant in the watershed development. The way how the community treats and manages the nursery
shows that they developed sense of ownership and become committed. This is a good
opportunity to avail required vegetation types for the watershed development activities.
3.1.5. Soil and erosion status
The soil textures in the watershed are clay to heavy clay while the dominant soil texture in the
hills and ridges physiographic unit is sandy clay loam. Even though rill and gully erosion are
occurring in the watershed, the dominant soil erosion type is sheet erosion. Sheet erosion has
been occurring in all land use types, causing severe land degradation as it is demonstrated in
Figure 7. Cultivated lands in the lower part of the ridges/hills are affected by runoff produced in
these ridges/hills that has formed gully and rill erosion.
9
Figure 7. Degraded Part of Kuri Watershed
Soil and water conservation measures (SWCMs) in the watershed.
Similar to other parts of the region, soil and water conservation measures focusing on physical
soil and water conservation measures have been implemented in the watershed for the last some
decades. Soil bund, stone bund, cutoff drain and water way have been given emphasis although
biological conservation measures were forgotten. Soil and water conservation measures had been
constructed in previous years through community mobilization without participating the
community in the planning process. However, due to lack of participation, technical problem and
lack of awareness of the farmers to use fertile accumulated soil behind the bund conservation
measure were destructed (Yohannes Afework, 2005). Figure 8 shows a picture taken during
assessment in the watershed. A farmer was destroying the well stabilized stone faced soil bund
and constructing a new bund in order to utilize the fertile soil accumulated along the bund. The
major reason for the destruction of the bund in this case is to use the fertile soil accumulated
behind the bund. It is good that the farmer understood how soil conservation structure measures
conserve soil and he looked at the fertile soil is accumulated behind the structure. However, he
didnt realize that destruction of stabilized structures aggravate soil erosion. If a lot is done on
awareness raising programs the problem can early be solved. The remnants of these structures
are observed throughout the watershed. These structures as indicated in table 3 below are bund,
check dam and cutoff drain.
10
Table 3. Soil and water conservation constructed in the watershed
S/N Activities Land use Status

1 Bund Cultivated land Not stabilized
2 Check dam Cultivated land Not stabilized
3 Cutoff drain Cultivated land Not stabilized
Figure 8. Stone bund being demolished by the farmers.
3.1.6. Water Resources
In the watershed there are one river called Kuri and about 6 springs along the river and in
different parts of the watershed. If the degraded hills and ridges are treated with conservation
measures it is expected that the ground water potential will increase. Since the springs arent
developed they have possibility of contamination, which has exposed the people for water born
diseases like amoeba. Irrigation isnt practiced in the watershed as the flow of river at the driest
part of the year is reduced.
11
Figure 9. Kuri river in the watershed
Table 4. Water resources in the watershed
Water Source Quantity Use Travel time For how long stays
River 1 Animal drinking One hour Temporary
Spring 6 Human and animal drinking 20 minute Through out the year
Water harvesting and small scale irrigation
Water harvesting structure isnt observed in the watershed. Similarly there is problem of clean
water supply for the communities. Hence, to fetch water from spring the women take about on
average 20 minutes. Farmers have complained on the lack of water harvesting structures/water
supply to the Woreda staff for the last few years, but it has not yet been resolved. The absence of
water harvesting schemes (WHSs) in the watershed makes the farmers unable to practice
irrigated agriculture.
12
3.1.7. Climate
The watershed is found within Dega to Wurch agro-ecological zone. The average elevation
ranges from 3160 to 3260 above mean sea level. Frost occurs frequently in some parts of the year
and negatively affects the crop production. It is also considered to be one of the major limiting
factors for plant growth. The average annual rain fall of the area is 861mm and the maximum
and minimum temperature is 19.61 and 5.5 C0 respectively (Bishaw Belew, 2008).
3.2. Socioeconomic Condition
3.2.1. Population
The total number of the beneficiaries of the watershed living in and outside the watershed is
estimated to be 1214. Of the total people the working force that can be used for the
implementation of the watershed intervention is about 695. The number of household benefiting
from the watershed is summarized in the following table. The average family size in the
watershed is estimated at 5. This shows that the population growth is still high that may
negatively affect watershed activities.
Table 5. The beneficiaries of the watershed
S/N Description Household Population age groups Total

Male Female 0-15 15-29 29-60 >60
1 Household 173 79 - - - - 252
2 Total population - - 480 370 325 39 1214
3.2.2. Wealth ranking
Committee members have tried to categorize the beneficiaries according to their wealth rank as
rich, medium, poor, and very poor. The criteria used in identifying wealth ranking are size of
land, number of livestock, the fertility of the land, and the amount of food to feed his families.
The detail is shown in Table 6. Table 7 shows that based on the land holding size more than 98%
of the beneficiaries are categorized as poor and very poor. Overall, the data shows that the
population pressure is high.
Table 6. Wealth ranking vulnerable assessment/criteria.
Wealth ranking Criteria Reasons for

vulnerability
Rich One who has 1.5ha of land more than 2 oxen and
2 cows
More than 20 sheep, 1 mule and donkey
Enough food for 12 months
13
Medium One who has 1.5ha of land and 2 oxen and 1 cow
15 sheep, donkey/horse and enough food for 9
months
Poor One who has 0.5ha of land and 1cow and 10 sheep
1donkey and enough food for 6 months
Very poor One who has 0.25ha of infertile land with no ox or Lack of enough
cow and doesnt cover 9 months food and fertile land
Table 7. Average land holding size in family
Land holding Land holding size Household

size in in hectare
Male Female Total
pair of oxen
0 0 15 8 23
1-2 0.25-0.5 115 56 171
2-4 0.5-1 42 14 56
4-6 1-1.5 2 - 2
>6 > 1.5 1 - 1
Total 175 78 253
3.2.3. Crop Production
Crop Calendar
The major crops grown in the watershed are barely, beans, wheat, linseed and lentils. Time of
cropping is directly linked to the watershed development activities. Depending on the type of
crop and time of cropping, agronomic practice by itself can be used as conservation measure.
Construction of conservation measures are carried out in months when the farmers are relatively
free from activities related to crop production. So knowing time of cropping is used to prepare
the action plan of the watershed. Land preparation affects negatively or positively the soil
structure, which is one of the factors for soil erosion. As the frequency of the land preparation
increases the soil structure is destroyed and in turn soil erosion can be worsened. Timing and
frequency of crop production activities are summarized in Table 8 below.
Table 8. General information on crop production and on crop calendar.
Major crop Land Planting/sowing Weeding Harvesting

preparation
frequency
Barely 3 times Belg (January to August Belg (June to August)
March) Kremt (October to
Kremt (May) December)
Bean 1 time June August to November to January
14
September
Wheat 3 times May to June August to November to January
September
Linseed 2 times May No weeding December to January
Linseed 2 times February No weeding June
Shalo/Gerima 1 time April to May No weeding October to January
(Amharic name
Crop productivity
The estimation of the productivity of crops is made on two seasons: good and bad seasons. Good
season, as to the farmers, means with optimum rainfall, less frost impact, and with suitable
conditions while bad season means lack or excess or erratic/fluctuation of rainfall, high frost
impact and presence of other calamities (e.g. rain storm) that reduces significantly the
productivity of crops. The major crops grown and their productivity are estimated as it is
indicated in the table below.
To prevent loss of production due to frost or shortage of rain, the farmers preferred to use
improved crop varieties that can be adaptable to frost or that have short growing season. If soil
management or organic fertilizer is applied the crop production will increase (ISD & EPA, 2007).
The implementation of conservation measures that increase the moisture content and fertility of
the soil increases the productivity of the land. So harvesting runoff in the hills and ridges of the
watershed, and planting leguminous shrubs and tress in the cultivated and grazing lands will
increase the crop production.
Table 9. Varieties, productivity of crops grown in the watershed
S/N Crop type Varieties Yield Qt/ha

Good season Bad season
1 Wheat Improved and local seed varieties
2 Bean 4
3 Barely Improved seed and indigenous seed 40-50 10
4 Shalo/Gerima Improved seed and indigenous seed
(Amharic name)
Fertilizer application
The most common fertilizers applied in the watershed are DAP and Urea. Apart from these
chemical fertilizers, the use of manure as organic fertilizer has recently started by farmers. The
application rate of DAP is higher than Urea. Although compost application isnt widely practiced
by the farmers they are using farmyard manures simply by dispersing the cow dung in their
backyard. This is a good opportunity to promote the application of organic fertilizers as compost.
The price of DAP and Urea has drastically increased from year to year and become unaffordable
15
by many farmers. The recent average price of DAP and Urea is about Birr 720.00. On contrary to
this use of organic fertilizer as compost increases the productivity of the land and has no residual
impact on soil and water resources, rather it improves the soil fertility condition. The cost of
compost in general is very low compared to the cost of chemical fertilizer (ISD and EPA, 2007).
Types of crop diseases and pests
In addition to soil fertility decline, frost and other factors crop disease and pests have
significantly reduced crop productivity. As to the farmers diseases and pests are significantly
affect their crop production. Integrated pest management (IPM), which is environmentally
friendly may reduce the impact of pests and diseases. As revealed in table below aphids and root
disease affect crops particularly wheat, barely, potato and onion
Table 10. Major types of diseases/pests in the watershed
S/N Diseases/pests type Effected crops Significance of impact

High Medium Low
1 Mesek (Amharic name) Wheat and barely X
2 Aphids Wheat and barely x
3 Termite Potato and onion X
4 Root disease Potato and onion x
3.2.4. Livestock and fodder resources
Livestock Resources
The livelihood of farmers in the watershed depends on livestock and their byproducts. Livestock
are source of fuel wood and income. The farmers said the climate condition for livestock is
suitable and we are benefiting from the sector. Hence we give priority for livestock
development. The productivity and management of this grazing land is high compared to the
other grazing lands. The total number of cattle, equines, sheep and goats is 813 (349 TLU*). To
quantify the size of grazing land and its productivity should be estimated and multiplied by its
area coverage. The grazing land standard for one tropical livestock unit (TLU) at national
average standard rate is 2.5ha of grazing land per annum (ANRS, 1999). But as it is indicated in
table 1 the total area of grazing land, in Kuri watershed including the miscellaneous (degraded)
land is estimated to be 131ha i.e. the stocking rate excluding other sources of feed (crop residue)
is 2.7TLU/ha or 1 TLU is grazing on 0.4ha of land, which indicates the carrying capacity of
these grazing land is very low. As the measurement takes time estimation for productivity of the
grazing and other sources of feed wasnt made for the watershed. Based on the national average
stock rate about 872ha of grazing land is required for the total TLU mentioned above i.e. the
deficit is estimated to be 816ha. The annual feed requirement for all TLU (349) is 1060
*
One TLU is a standard unit of 250 kg live weight by which livestock of different species can be compared. The
corresponding value for cattle=1, goat, and sheep=0.1, horse and mule = 0.8, camel=1.2 (RELMA, et al, 2005).
16
tone/year. If we increase the productivity of grazing land through improved grazing land
management (cut and carry, rotational grazing and zero grazing) and producing fodder on
physical structures, gullies and degraded lands, the gap can be come down.
One bee colony is also registered in the watershed. If the degraded parts of the watershed are
rehabilitated apiculture can be one of the major income generating activities in the area. Because
wild thyme, which is known for beekeeping is growing in the watershed. Experience showed us
that when the degraded land is rehabilitated the disappeared wild thyme starts to grow. The
demand of honey produced in a place where wild thyme is growing is high. So beekeeping in this
area will be promising income generating activity.
Table 11. Type and number of animals in the watershed
Type of animals Number Factor No. of Feed

of animals TLU requirement
Alterna
Tone/year
tive
Oxen 99 1 99 325 fodder
Cows 105 1 105 268
sources
Equine 120 0.8 96 Almost all of

307
Shoat (sheep & goat) 489 0.1 9 161
the
communal
Total 813 349 1061 grazing lands
are degraded,
while privately owned grazing lands are found relatively in better conditions. The major fodder
sources in the watershed are private grazing lands (through cut and carry system) followed by
communal (free grazing systems). Crop residue is also a major source of fodder in the area.
However, due to poor fodder management there is shortage of animal feed.
Table 12. Alternative fodder sources in different seasons
Sources of fodder Dry season Rain season Rank

Free grazing on communal X X high
grazing land
Cut and carry X Medium
Hay X Medium
Crop byproducts/straw X X High
Livestock health and disease
The major animal diseases that are significantly affecting livestock resources are: liver worm,
anthrax, mange mite and black leg. An animal health clinic exists about 6km from the watershed.
Sources of water in the watershed for animal use are rivers and springs. Animals affected by
17
different diseases are listed in the table below. As the farmers said the impact of the diseases on
animals is high.
Table 13. Livestock health and diseases and their significance
S/N List of Livestock health and disease Affected livestock s Status of affection
High Low
1 Liver worm Sheep, goat, cattle X
2 Black leg and Anthrax ( ) Cattle X
3 Pneumonias Sheep and calf X
4 Mange mite Sheep and calf X
3.2.5. Market availability
As was mentioned, farmers livelihood depends on livestock and their products. Table 14 showed
us that the farmers sell animals with their by-products and buy crop products, mainly due to very
low crop yield in the watershed, caused by natural and man-made factors. Market isnt a big deal
since it is available 6 km away from the watershed. The major products supplied to the market as
it is indicated in the table below are mainly livestock products. And items that the community
buying from the market are mainly crop and industrial products. This shows that crop
productivity in the watershed is low that cant support the beneficiaries.
Table 14. List of items exchanged in the market.
S/N Product supplied to Items buying from the

market market
1 Barely Sorghum
2 Ox Maize
3 Shoats Wheat
4 Chicken Teff
5 Egg Chickpea
6 Butter Pepper
7 Equine Salt
8 Leather Sugar
9 Butter Gas
10 Equine Oil
11 Leather Coffee
18
3.2.6. Institutional linkage
Institutions, which have direct or indirect linkage with the watershed management, have been
identified by the committee members. School is one of important institutions, which have direct
relation to watershed management. School is a place where we get knowledge and contribute to
sustainable watershed development. On top of this farmers use their children labour. If the school
is nearby or within the watershed the students can help their family. But if the school is far from
the watershed/village the students cant help their family and hence the farmers may regret to
send their children to school, which may negatively influence the sustainability of
implementation of watershed development activities. Similar to school market has also direct
relation to the watershed development. If the market is far from the watershed site the labour that
would have been used for implementation of watershed development would be used for market.
The other thing is that if market is available close to the watershed the product from the
watershed and input to the watershed development will be sold and bought respectively with
reasonable price that can in turn encourage the watershed development. Health is basic necessity
for the implementation of watershed development. The health of the community is ensured by
health centers. If the community has problem of health the watershed implementation is
negatively affected. As to the committee members said the kebele administration is very
important institutions for watershed implementation. The administration supports the
implementation of the watershed and it solves problems, which are beyond the capacity of the
planning/monitoring committee. So it is directly related to watershed development. Farmers
training centers (FTC) are also important institution for watershed development. Watershed
activities can be demonstrated in the FTCs that have significant impact on sustainability of
watershed development because new technologies related to watershed development can be
demonstrated in the FTCs. The beneficiaries of the watershed are all Christians that have strong
linkage to church. Most of the social issues are linked to religion through church. The bylaws of
the watershed that are considered in this plan can be linked to edir/religion. So church can be
considered to be taken as an opportunity for smooth implementation of the watershed
development. The detail is listed in Table 15.
Table 15. The distribution for social service giving institutions in the watershed.
S/N Institutions/infrastructure Its location Distance from

watershed
Within Outside
watershed watershed
1 School (elementary school) X 1 km
2 Health center X
3 Kebele administration office X
4 FTC X Along watershed
boundary
5 Telephone X 5 km
6 Church X
7 Market X 6 km
19
4. Problem analysis
The committee members first identified all problems observed in the watershed and then
screened out major problems. Finally prioritized and ranked these problems according to their
severity. The main objective of prioritizing/ranking these problems was to give attention and
address them in the planning process. The ranking method was made with consensus and when
there was disagreement voting system was used. The identification and prioritization of problems
was the initial and important stage to propose development options. The farmers listed out the
problems in each sector and reasoned out the causes for each problem.
4.1. Crop production

Frost, pest, soil fertility decline and poor supply of agricultural inputs are mentioned as major
problems affecting the agronomic practices in the watershed.
All committee members raised problem of frost that has caused for food insecurity in the
watershed. They said that the crops growing using kremt rain season (from June to August) is
always exposed to frost. Wheat, teff, and bean are crops mainly affected by frost. As to the
explanation made by the farmers the land was fertile many years back and hence the productivity
was high but due to poor farming practices, deforestation and lack of implementation of soil and
water conservation measures the fertility of soil is declined. They also mentioned that poor
supply of the agricultural inputs has affected the productivity of crops. Crop pest has also been
mentioned as a problem affecting the crop production. The major causes of pest problems as
identified by the farmers are erratic rainfall and poor farming practices.
4.2. Natural resources degradation

Climate change, soil erosion, deforestation, water resources constraints and shortage of fuel
wood are major problems identified under natural resources management.
Erratic rainfall that the farmers called climate change has caused for food insecurity in the area.
All the committee members emphasized on problem of erratic rainfall (climate change), which
has caused food insecurity in the area. The committee members said in previous time we had
two rain seasons (the Kremt and belg rain seasons) and we were producing crops using belg rain
season. But because of climate change (erratic rainfall) the belg rain has gradually reduced and
now days it has been almost stopped. So we have stopped growing crops using belg rain season,
which has aggravated problem of food insecurity in the area.
Problem of soil erosion was emphasized by the farmers. They explained that the fertile land due
to poor farming practices, lack of tree plantation and poor implementation of soil and water
conservation had been eroded and lost its soil. They believe that soil erosion is the major cause
for land degradation in the watershed. Similar to soil the forest is cleared due to poor forest
management and mainly land use change. The increasing population pressure has resulted in land
scarcity. To feed the growing population new cultivated land was needed and hence the forest
land was cleared. Changing the forest to cultivated land was considered to be one of the major
factors for deforestation.
20
Water resources scarcity was one of the issues discussed and considered as a problem for the
watershed. The farmers thought that the major cause of water scarcity is inadequate rainfall. But
if we can harvest the rain water it is possible to solve the problem. So the main cause of the
problem is unable to harvest the rain water.
The other problem raised by the community was shortage of fuel wood. Lack of trees for
firewood and lack of improved stoves are the two major causes for the problem. This time no
forest land is found in the watershed. The sources of fuel wood are eucalyptus, cow dung and
crop byproducts because the natural forest is already cleared many years back.
4.3. Livestock and fodder development:

Under livestock and forage development lack of forage, shortage of drinking water supply for
animals, animal diseases, free grazing and lack of improved varieties are major problems
mentioned by the farmers.
The livelihood of the farmers depends on mixed farming system. Livestock is very important
source of income for the watershed community in particular and for the woreda in general. As
the committee members mentioned, due to lack of feed, health problem, unbalanced number of
livestock to the grazing land (as explained in section 3.2.4), lack of improved livestock varieties
and poor quality of fodder, the productivity of livestock has going down. Lack of improved
varieties is considered to be the second sever problem in the sector. If the of grazing lands were
managed properly the problem of animal feed would be resolved. On top of this free grazing has
diminished the productivity of grazing land and hence it is considered to be a problem for the
watershed. Animal disease and shortage of water supply for animals have also been identified by
the farmers as it is critical problem for the watershed.
4.4. Socioeconomic condition

The committee members have also emphasized on socioeconomic problems. Population growth,
unemployment, lack of farming tools, lack of cottage industry, absence of bridge/road and lack
of health center near by the watershed were major issues identified under socioeconomic
conditions. There is serious shortage of cultivated as well as grazing land in the watershed
although the population growth rate is still high. The youths have no land even to construct their
house. The major cause identified by the committee members is inefficient family planning
undertaken in the watershed. This has led for problem of unemployment. To engage the youths in
income generating activities no local cottage industries developed in the watershed as well in the
woreda. If some of the problems are resolved the others may also be solved because they are
interrelated to each other. For example, if problem of population pressure is resolved problems of
un employment can be minimized. The farmers emphasized on problem of lack of farming tools.
They are expected to construct conservation measures in both communal as well as private lands
although there are scarcities of hand tools.
They mentioned that during rain season Kuri river, crossing the watershed, is over flooding and it
is difficult to cross it. So they mentioned that lack of bridge is the major problem. The committee
members have also described the lack of health center in the area.
21
Development options are proposed to tackle the problems mentioned by the community. The
problems affecting their livelihood and given due attention during the committee discussion are
addressed in the planning stage. The ranking of problems were made within each sector i.e. in
crop production, natural resources management, livestock and fodder development and
socioeconomic conditions.
Overall, the problems are related to crop production, livestock management, natural resources
degradation and socioeconomic issues. They also requested the government to implement all
development options proposed for each problem.
Table 16. Problem identification and ranking
Major Problems Possible causes Proposed solutions Ranking

1. Crop production
Frost Climate change Grow frost resistance crops 1
Grow fast growing crops
Soil fertility Poor farming Construction of soil and water 2
decline practices conservation
Deforestation Fertilizer application
Lack of soil and Compost preparation
water conservation
Planting trees on hillsides
measures
Poor supply of Untimely delivery of Improve procurement practices to 3
agricultural inputs ensure timely availability of inputs
inputs
Pest Fluctuation of Use pesticides 4
rainfall pattern
Timely weeding
Poor farming
Traditional practices
practices
2. Natural Resources Management
Climate change Clearance of trees Planting trees 1
Soil erosion No plantation of Construction of bund, check 2
trees dam, cutoff drain and water
ways
No conservation of
soil and water Planting trees
conservation
Use contour ploughing
Poor farming
practices
Deforestation Poor forest Afforestation 3
22
management
Changing forest to
cultivated land
Water resources Inadequate Rainfall Develop springs 4
constraints
Conserve rain water
Shortage of fuel Lack of trees for Planting firewood trees 5
wood firewood
Planting trees which have dual
Lack of purposes
improved/energy
Use improved/energy saving
saving stoves
stoves
3. Livestock/forage development
Lack of forage Number of animals Develop different forages 1
increased
Reduce the number of animals
Poor forage
Timely forage collection
management
Area closure in highly
degraded land for
establishment of forage
vegetation
Shortage of No development of Develop springs 2
drinking water springs and inadequate
Conserve water
supply for rainfall
animals
Animal diseases Lack of awareness Construct animal health posts 3
Use waterlogged Use cut and carry
areas for grazing
Vaccination
Improve the management of
grazing land
Supply clean water to animals
and increase their feed
Construct house for animals
Free grazing Cultural problem Cut and carry system 4
Awareness raising
Focus on model works
Lack of improved Use hybrid varieties 5
varieties
23
4. Socioeconomic issues
population Inefficient family Improve provision of family 1
growth planning planning services
Lack of cottage Establish industries 2
industry
Unemployment High population Organize the youth and create 3
off-farm jobs
Shortage of land
Improve degraded lands for use
for other purposes
Focus on off-farm activities
Training and availing credit
services
Lack of farming Provide appropriate tools 4
tools
Absence of Construct bridges 5
Bridge
Lack of health Construct clinic 6
center in the area
5. Others
Unavailability of Supply/use time and labour saving
improved
technologies like
farm tools
24
5. Land evaluation
Land can be evaluated in two ways using land capability classification and suitability system.
Land capability classification is too crude and did not help in deciding between several
alternative uses of land however it is used for land using planning to optimize the use of land
resources. The second one called Land evaluation is used to evaluate land for specific land use
type (LUT) relevant to local conditions based detailed information. The second system is more
useful to the farmers to have more options on the use of land to specific type of crops. However
for this watershed land capability classification system is used applying few parameters/land
characteristics. To carry out land evaluation for specific crops/vegetations detailed information
on land characteristics (soil sample laboratory analysis) is required. But these watershed
development activities were started recently (at the mid of the project life) i.e. the major
activities of the watershed development stated at the fourth year of the SWHISA project. So the
time was too short to carry out detailed sample analysis and start the watershed management
activities. If detailed suitability evaluation was made for the watershed the watershed planning
could be started at the fifth year of the project life time because the laboratory analysis takes long
time. This was the main reason why the project followed land capability classification system but
not suitability land evaluation for the watershed.
Accordingly, the land is classified using this system based on the degree of its limitations for
sustained use. In this evaluation slope, stoniness, infiltration, texture, water logging, soil erosion
status, and soil depth were employed. The evaluation was made with the planning committee. In
categorizing the land into different uses the interest of the community was given priority i.e.
classification was made not only based on technical but also social aspects too. In the transect
walk the planning committee with experts identified three major land use types namely:
cultivated, grazing land and homesteads cultivation. During land characterization the planning
committee and experts further classified each land use type into sub-classes. The result of the
assessment revealed that the watershed is categorized to the following major classes. These are
class III, IV and VIII. This classification system helped to recommend a land unit to be used for
appropriate land use types. The soil information used for land capability classification is
indicated in annex 4.
Cultivated land (Cu1)
This land unit currently represents cultivated land, which is characterized by medium soil depth,
clay loam soil texture and moderate infiltration capacity. As to the assessment revealed this land
unit is suitable for annual crops with some limitations. The limiting factor is soil depth, caused
by soil erosion. Hence, conservation measures have to be integrated to reduce the limiting
factors. Accordingly, to maximize and sustainably use the land the following options have been
proposed. These are:
1. Stone bund
2. Bund stabilization using grasses and shrubs
3. Cutoff drain, when necessary
4. Compost application
This land unit is characterized by medium soil depth with a clay loam soil texture and with
medium infiltration capacity. This land unit is suitable for annual crops with few limitations. One
of the limiting factors is soil depth. However, in order to sustainably use the land different
development options have been proposed. These are:
1. Stone bund
2. Biological conservation measures
3. Compost
4. Stabilized waterway
This land unit has medium soil depth with clay loam texture and with moderate infiltration
capacity. It is suitable for annual crops with the implementation of conservation measures. The
major limiting factor in this land use type is also soil depth. The development options proposed
by the planning committee are:
1. Stone bund
2. Biological conservation measures (bund stabilization)
3. Compost
This land unit is characterized by sandy loam soil texture, very shallow soil depth; sever soil
erosion, poor infiltration capacity and steep slope (ranging from 15-30%). All these are
considered to be limiting factor for this land unit. The soils may be used for annual crops (IV)
using different conservation measures. Thus, it is proposed to rehabilitate the most degraded part
of this land unit and use it for cultivated land by applying different management options. The
proposed development options are:
1. Stone bund
2. Biological conservation measures
3. Area closure (in highly degraded part of the land unit)
4. Cut and carry system (in rehabilitated land)
This land unit is characterized by low soil depth with a sandy loam soil texture and with good
infiltration capacity and also characterized by very sever erosion and the slope ranges 30-50%.
The land unit is proposed for plantation (VIII). The limiting factor is erosion. However, in order
to sustainably use the land different options have been proposed. The development options are:
26
1. Area closure
2. Cut and carry
3. Planting suitable tree species
Homestead cultivated land (HCu)
The soil depth of this land unit is relatively high with clay soil texture and good infiltration
capacity. As to the assessment this land is suitable for annual crops with few limitations. The
limiting factor is slope. In order to sustainably use the land, the following options have been
proposed.
1. Contour soil bund

2. Stone bund stone faced soil bund
3. Cutoff drain
4. Compost
Grazing land (Gr1)
This land unit is currently used for grazing land. It is found beside the rivers and hence the depth
of the soil is high. Clay soil has dominated the land use. The land use is suitable for annual crop
with few limitations but the community agreed to be for grazing land.
1. Grass land improvement

2. Water logging resistance species
3. Check dams
Grazing land (Gr2)
The slope of this land unit is steep that ranges from 30 to 50%. Its depth is also shallow with silt
loam soil texture and moderate infiltration capacity. Soil erosion, which is considered to be the
limiting factor for this land unit is significant. It has been proposed to be used for forest land/
plantation (class VIII). However, to sustain the development endeavors different development
options have been proposed.
1. Area closure
2. Cut and carry
3. Planting suitable trees
4. Check dam
Grazing land (Gr3)
This land is characterized by high soil depth with clay soil texture and poor infiltration capacity.
It is also characterized by very sever erosion. Slope steepness ranges from 15 to 30%. Based on
the assessment, this land unit is suitable for annual crop with few limitations (e.g. soil erosion).
27
However the conversion of the land unit to cultivated land takes time. So the development
options may be taken in grazing land. To sustainably use the land different development options
have proposed.
1. Grass land improvement

2. Cutoff drain when necessary
3. Check dam
Description of each land use
The characteristics of each land unit are summarized as shown in table 17. The soil information
used for land capability classification is indicated in annex 4.
Table 17. The summarized land characteristics and land capacity classification.
S/N Land Land characteristics Class

class
Slope Soil Erosion Texture Water Infiltration Stoniness
unit
(L)% depth (E) (T) logging(W) (I) (S)
(D) cm
1 Cu1 L3 D3 E2 T5 W0 I1 S0 IVD
2 Cu2 L3 D3 E1 T5 W1 0I S0 IVD
5 Cu5 L5 D4 E4 T2 W0 I0 S2 VIIIE
6 Hcu L3 D1 E1 T5 W0 I0 S0 III
7 Gr1 L1 D2 E1 T4 W1 I1 S0 III
8 Gr2 L5 D4 E4 T4 W0 I1 S2 VIII
9 Gr3 L4 D1 E2 T6 W0 I2 S1 IV
28
6. Kuri Model Integrated Watershed Development Plan
As it is detailed out under section 4 the committee members identified their problems, cause of
problems and their solutions/development options. These development options include
agronomic practices, natural resources management, livestock and fodder development and
socioeconomic issues. It is discussed below on what, when, where and how the activities,
considered in the plan, are implemented. The responsible bodies in the implementation of
watershed development are indicated in each section.
6.1. Natural Resources management

Construction of soil and water conservation measures follows guidelines and manuals developed
by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development written in the past and which are already
known by DAs and woreda experts. So the technical standards as alignment, construction and
management of soil and water conservation measures will depend on these guidelines. However,
the farmers should be trained on how to make alignment and construct on each type of
conservation measures by woreda experts/DAs to sustain their assistance to DAs. SWHISA has a
strong belief that integrating physical structures by biological conservation measures/vegetations
(like grasses, treelucerne, and other suitable species) helps to stabilize structures and compensate
the income they could lose for construction of physical conservation measures.
The implementation of physical and biological conservation measures prevents/reduces soil

erosion, improves soil condition, improves the productivity of land and rehabilitates degraded
lands and increases the ground water potential. When the upper part of the watershed is treated
by both physical and/or biological measures the runoff in rain season decreases and the ground
water potential in the lower part of the watershed is increased which in turn increases the
irrigation potential of the area. Depending on the type of soil, land use, agro-climatic condition,
problems of the watershed and the preference of the farmers, different physical and biological
conservation measures have been planned. Under natural resources management different
activities related to soil and water conservation measures, forestry and water resource
development are considered in the plan as discussed below.
6.1.1. Soil and water Conservation measures.

Based on the type of land use and preference of the farmers, different physical as well as
biological conservation measures have been considered in the plan. Activities related to physical
conservation measures are: bund construction, bund maintenance, cutoff drain, waterway, long trench
between foot slope of hill and cultivated land, check dam, check dam maintenance, trench, hillside
terracing and micro basin. Depending on the availability of the stone, bunds can be either stone
bund or soil bund or stone faced soil bund. Stone and soil bunds are constructed mainly on
cultivated land where the slope gradient is below 15%. Moisture retention measures as trench
and hillside terracing are constructed in hills and ridges. These structures reduce the surface
runoff and increase the moisture content of the area. Check dams, waterway and cut of drain can
be constructed in all land use types where it is required. Most of the physical structures are
constructed in dry season after the farmers harvest their crops most preferably from January to
May. But maintenance of physical structures can be carried out at both the rain and dry season.
Biological conservation measures as grass strip, scattered plantation on cultivated land, and
stabilization of physical conservation measures with vegetation will be implemented on
cultivated lands and plantation of trees, grasses and shrubs will also be undertaken in the
degraded part of the watershed and along the physical structures. In case of Kuri model
watershed biological conservation measures are considered to stabilize physical structures and/or
compensate the benefit that could be lost due to the construction of the physical structures or to
rehabilitate the degraded land or generate income to the farmers. Tree, shrub and grass species
are materials required to implement biological conservation measures and are produced in
nurseries. The purpose of these species should be used for fuel wood, fodder, construction, or for
human consumption.
6.1.2. Forestry
Regarding forestry, seedling production in the community nursery will be undertaken. The tree
species are identified based on their use as for fuel wood and soil and water conservation. Acacia
dicurence, Acacia saligna and Eucalyptus globulus seedlings will be produced in the nursery for
fuel wood purpose and economical benefits. These tree species are also used for soil and water
conservation measures. Similarly Hyginia abyssinica, tree Lucerne, Olia africana, other
indigenous sps. (e.g. Erica arboria (Asta) and exotic sps. will be produced in the nursery for soil
& water conservation and apiculture purposes. Activities related to planting and managing the
seedlings is also considered in the plan. Those hills and ridges recognized as degraded land are
supposed to be closed until they are rehabilitated. Thus area closure has been planned in those
degraded lands and to be integrated with biological conservation measures. The community
nursery, established in the watershed, is managed by the community with support from
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). So the required and proposed seedlings are expected to
be produced in this nursery. Plantation of seedlings of shrubs, trees or grasses is done in the
beginning of the rain season mostly from late June to mid July.
6.1.3. Water resources development
The committee members mentioned the problem of water for water supply and irrigation
agriculture in the watershed. To solve the problems the farmers proposed development of
springs, hand dug wells and household water harvesting structures for water supply and irrigated
agriculture. It is expected that after two and three years of the treatment of the hills and ridges
the ground water potential in the lower part of the watershed would be increased. Therefore, it is
planned to construct hand dug wells in this part of the watershed. It is also planned to develop
springs in the watershed for water supply and irrigation purposes. The committee members
proposed to construct low cost household water harvesting structure, which is affordable by most
of the beneficiaries in cultivated lands of the middle slope. To efficiently and easily use the water
pedal pump is also planned.
The construction of soil and water conservation measures, household water harvesting structures
and plantation of vegetations and production of seedlings in the nursery are supposed to be
supported by PSNP and run by the community. The seedling production of fodder species similar
to forestry seedlings is planned to be raised in the nursery. And the other capacity building
activities (training, experience sharing tour, technical support, etc.) will be undertaken by
SWHISA project. The project will also contribute technical support for construction of household
water harvesting schemes. The community is responsible to undertake all activities in the
30
watershed. The construction of different activities is carried out in dry season mainly from
January to May and the plantations of vegetations will be undertaken in rain season i.e. from late
June to mid July.
To achieve the proposed development activities human and financial resource is required. The
beneficiaries of the watershed have enough working force and can contribute the required human
resource but they cant cover the whole cost of the implementation of the watershed i.e. they
need financial and technical support from external bodies until they are able to manage by
themselves. PSNP is considered to be the major source of budget for public works. To undertake
activities explained above under natural resource management Birr 2273894.00 is required.
From the total allocated budget the lion share (77.6%) is covered by OoARD/PSNP and the rest
22.4% is covered by the community. In public works the community is expected to cover about
10% of the cost through their labour contribution.
6.2. Crop production

To maximize the productivity of the land in the watershed in a sustainable way, agronomic
practices are integrated with other components of the watershed. Under crop production soil
fertility management, supply of highland fruits and introduction of improved crop varieties are
major activities, emphasized in the watershed plan. The farmers, during planning process,
complained that the inputs are usually distributed behind the schedule. The woreda experts,
therefore, assured them to give priority for this watershed to timely supply the required inputs
since it is considered as model watershed for the woreda. As an activity it is planned to supply
the required inputs (chemical fertilizer, improved seed, herbicide and pesticide, etc.) on time in
order to avoid the problem of untimely distribution of inputs. Though chemical fertilizer (DAP
and Urea) have long term negative impact on soil and water resources their application will
continue until the farmers are able to produce enough organic fertilizers and improve the fertility
of the soil through agro-forestry practices. However, to shift from the application of chemical to
organic fertilizer, the application of manure and compost should be promoted. Regarding
compost making it can be prepared from end of September to October. But the excavation work,
if it is pit method, can be ready from February to September; the collection of roughage, ashes
and animals dung from August to October.
The supply of required inputs as fertilizer, improved crop varieties, highland fruits, herbicides
and pesticides will be facilitated by OoARD. The capacity building activities as training on
different issues will be given by woreda experts with SWHISA financial and technical support.
Although most of the activities mentioned under crop production are implemented by the farmers
themselves some activities as demonstration (introduction of technologies) need the involvement
of others. On top of this training on crop production is designed for farmers. Accordingly,
SWHISA project is expected to contribute Birr 60550.00 to demonstrate new introduced crop
varieties and provide of training for the farmers on crop production. Of the total budget Birr
118050.00 allocated for crop production, Birr 57500.00 is estimated to be covered by the
community.
31
6.3. Livestock and fodder development
In fodder development palatable species of grass and shrubs are proposed to be planted on
degraded parts of the watershed and along physical structures. These vegetations improve the
physical and biological condition of the soil and in turn improve the productivity of the lands;
improve the livestock productivity by improving the feeding system; stabilize physical
conservation measures; and rehabilitate degraded lands. Production of fodder, grassland
management/improvement, avoiding free grazing, livestock variety improvement (on cattle and
sheep breeding), fattening (cattle and sheep), apiculture, and animal health services are major
activities considered in the plan under livestock and fodder development. Regarding apiculture
improving traditional beehives, transferring the transitional to modern beehives, participating
farmers in apiculture and transferring bee colonies to modern beehives are the major activities
considered in the three years plan.
Planting of fodder species (treelucern and falaris grass) will be produced in the community
nursery and planted on degraded land and physical structures. Animal health has been
considered as one of the problems in the watershed. To solve the problem improving the animal
health service was taken as an option. Vaccination and mange mite control are the two activities
underlined by the community. Activities related to health service are carried out by OoARD with
its regular activities. Provision of training on livestock and fodder development and apiculture is
planned for selected farmers and DAs. The training is going to be delivered by woreda experts
with financial and technical support from SWHISA project.
Production of fodder, grassland improvement, area closure/avoiding free grazing, livestock

variety improvement, fattening, apiculture, etc. are intended to be implemented by the
community with technical support provided by OoARD and SWHISA project. On top of this
OoARD will also facilitate the supply of required improved varieties on time. Activities related
to vaccination and mange mite control are carried out by OoARD by taking assessment before
the problems are widely observed in the watershed.
Similar to crop production most of the activities are undertaken by the farmers themselves. But
OoARD is providing technical support and facilitates the supply of improved varieties or fodder
species, etc. The cost of fodder seedling production is run by the community with financial and
technical support from OoARD/PSNP and introduction of new technologies to the community
especially fodder species are supposed to be demonstrated by SWHISA & OoARD. The total
budget estimated for activities mentioned under livestock and fodder development is 908970.00.
Of the total estimated budget 84%, 8% and 8% is covered by OoARD/PSNP, SWHISA and the
community respectively.
6.4. Socioeconomic issues

6.4.1. Infrastructure
The committee members made attempt to include all activities that can solve their problems.
They mentioned lack of bridge for Kuri river as one of the major problems in the watershed. One
bridge is supposed to be constructed across Kuri river. In addition to this the community has
planned to construct community feeder road within the watershed.
32
Similar to other PSNP public works the community is going to contribute labour for construction
of bridge and feeder road. Technical and financial support will be given by OoARD/PSNP. The
construction of both the road and bridge is carried out from January to May.
6.4.2. Off-farm activities:

Off-farm activities as use of improved stoves, mat working, weaving and tailoring are included
in the plan. These activities have directly or indirectly related to watershed development. If some
portion of the community is engaged in off-farm activities the pressure on land resources is
definitely reduced and ultimately the watershed development will be sustained. Use of improved
stove improves health condition of the women through reducing the problem of smoke. Solar
cookers are considered in the plan if it is effective and affordable by the farmers. Solar cookers
are environmentally friendly and economically feasible because except maintenance there is no
operational cost. Solar cookers will be demonstrated to the farmers and if it is found
economically, socially and technically feasible it will be promoted to scale up through out the
watershed. In general skill training will be provided on the income generating activities.
The training will be conducted and organized by OoARD and financed by SWHISA project. The
follow up and management of the activities will be carried out by the office. Linkage has to be
created with other institutions that have been engaged and developed skills in different income
generating activities. E.g. linkage has to be established with SUN Amhara (GTZ), Small Scale
and Micro Enterprise and Industry Development Agency, private technology producers, etc. The
training activities are planned to be undertaken from October to April.
6.4.3. Development of community bylaws

The planning committee members recognized that free grazing is a challenge for watershed
development and hence made a thorough discussion on how to minimize and if possible to stop
free grazing in the closed areas in the watershed. They found that development of bylaws can be
a strategy to stop free grazing. But they need to have written bylaw, which is officially
recognized by Justice Offices at zone, woreda and kebele levels or by Edir, a traditional
institution that gives different social services. So they have planned to prepare the bylaws they
orally discussed and submit to Justice/Edir in each Got.
The development of bylaws is undertaken by the community in each Got and facilitated by
woreda OoARD. If the bylaws are approved by Semen Shewa Administrative zone Justice Office
it has to be submitted to the zone Justice Office. SWHISA project will technically and financially
support the preparation of the bylaws.
6.4.4. Training and experience sharing:

Watershed development by its nature is holistic approach that comprises the implementation of
different disciplines within the watershed. As the farmers are the owner of the development they
have to have awareness and skill on the activities implemented in the watershed. To aware the
farmers training and experience sharing tour on successful watersheds participating the member
of the watershed should be undertaken. Hence training for farmers on concept of watershed, soil
and water conservation, crop production, forestry, livestock and fodder development, and
different income generating/off-farm activities are considered in the plan. Those farmers who
have been participated in experience sharing tours, organized by SWHISA project, were active in
33
the planning process and seem that their attitude is changed. Experience sharing is appreciated
by both experts and communities that can bring about considerable attitude change on farmers.
Therefore, more emphasis has been given to experience sharing tour on successful watersheds in
and outside the region.
The implementers of the training and experience sharing tour are woreda OoARD and SWHISA
project in collaboration with other stakeholders. Skill training on off-farm activities can be
provided by inviting other stakeholders who have developed experience on specific technologies.
6.4.5. HIV/AIDs Prevention:

HIV/AIDs is recognized as it is a national as well as regional problem. It has indirect impact on
the sustainability of watershed development since it negatively affects the work force. Attention,
therefore, is given on its prevention. One of the prevention measures considered by the
committee members is undertaking group discussions through formation of HIV/AIDs
prevention group. After consecutive awareness raising/training programs are conducted for the
beneficiaries, HIV prevention groups will be established and then the group will undertake
discussions on HIV/AIDs with the community. Depending on the attitude of the farmers it is also
planned to distribute condom among the interested farmers. So it is planned to establish the
group, conduct training for the proposed group and distribute condom.
OoARD will take the coordination role and woreda HIV/AIDs Prevention with close
collaboration of Control Office and health extension agents to provide technical support to
provision of awareness raising programs. SWHISA project will support in building the capacity
of the community through training and group formation.
6.4.6. Gender issues:

As women are responsible for so many activities they can positively or negatively affect the
implementation of the watershed development. Their active involvement and participation,
therefore, contributes for the sustainability of the watershed development. In view of that it is
planned to form women groups in each Got/villages: Amjit, Aytasa and ATari Amba. Depending
on the type off-farm activities the number of groups can increase. The groups can be established
on improved stove production, home-economics, mat working or weaving groups. After the
groups are established training on these income generating/off-farm activities will be provided
for the groups.
OoARD is responsible to coordinate the whole activities mentioned under gender issues. Woreda
Women Affairs Office and other NOGs or private organizations that have been involved in such
of intervention are expected to involve in the provision of the training. SWHISA project will
provide technical and financial support in the provision of the training and awareness raising
activities.
6.4.7. Participatory monitoring & evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation is used to take timely corrective measures on problems occurred in
the implementation process and to enhance successful efforts. The plan may be good, SWCMs
and other interventions may be implemented maintaining the required technical standards but the
watershed implementation process maynt end up with success unless consecutive monitoring
34
and evaluation is undertaken. When farmers are participated in monitoring and evaluation of the
implementation of the watershed development they possibly develop feeling of sense of
ownership on the interventions that will significantly contribute to the sustainability of the
watershed development. Therefore, participatory monitoring and evaluation is planned to be
undertaken by committee members, DAs woreda and WSHISA experts. As it is indicated in table
7 the committee members and DAs are supposed to undertake monitoring once in two weeks;
woreda and SWHISA experts are expected to carry out the monitoring once in a month and a
quarter respectively. Evaluation of the implementation of the watershed is designed to be
conducted once in a year by the presence of the beneficiaries and concerned experts. Simple
format that shows what, when and how to monitor will be prepared in Amharic and provided to
the committee members.
Monitoring and evaluation is normally carried out mainly by the community and DAs. The
woreda and SWHISA experts will also participate in the monitoring process. The woreda
OoARD is responsible to follow up the implementation of monitoring by the committee
members and DAs. SWHISA project is responsible to technically and financially support and
ensure the implementation of participatory monitoring and evaluation system.
6.4.8. Revision of watershed plan
This plan is considered to be a three years plan. Every year the plan should be revised by the
planning committee members. Activities which arent accomplished according to their time
frame should be incorporated in the coming years. New activities can also be included in the
planning looked at in the course of time. The revision of the plan may include evaluation of the
achievement of the watershed development in previous years and identify the gaps, prepare
detailed action plan for respective budget year. It is undertaken from October to December.
The revision of the plan is undertaken by the planning committee and development agents.
woreda experts. However technical and financial support will be given by SWHISA and
OoARD.
6.4.9. Hand tools supply
To implement watershed development activities particularly physical and biological soil and
water conservation measures; and implement nursery activities hand tools are required. On the
other hand the farmers requested the government to supply the required tools. The farmers
should have these hand tools so that they can construct and maintain conservation measures on
time. Financial support is provided by SWHISA project. These tools should be purchased in the
first two planning years and supplied from October to December.
Activities mentioned under socioeconomic issues focused on capacity building of the community
in the watershed. Provision of training on watershed management, agronomic practices, livestock
and fodder development and off-farm activities; undertaking experience sharing tour on
successful watersheds in and outside the region; construction and maintenance of school and
community road construction, formation of women groups on different development
interventions; development of bylaws; implementation of monitoring and evaluation systems;
and supply of hand tools are major activities under this section. All of them are directly or
35
indirectly related to capacity building. The total budget allocated for these activities is estimated
to be Birr 610220.00. About 73% (Birr 450000.00) and 23% (Birr 169530.00) is covered by
OoARD/PSNP and SWHISA respectively.
The total estimated budget required to achieve the planned activities in the watershed
development is Birr 3920444.00. The estimation doesnt include regular activities performed by
the farmers. Of the total budget Birr 2962130.00 and 301080.00 will be covered by
OoARD/PSNP and SWHISA respectively. The rest Birr 657234.00 will be contributed by the
farmers in the form of labour.
6.5. Kuri integrated model watershed three years summarized plan

After the committee members identified problems, causes of problems and solution, have
proposed development options. The plan is three years plan as it is indicated in the table below.
36
Table 18. Kuri Integrated model watershed three years plan
S/N Activities Unit Work Persons 3yrs Total Plan for each budget year Additional Total cost Cost covered by:
norm/Unit day/unit plan person 1st 2nd year 3rd cost OoARD/PSN SWHISA Community
price s day year year P
I Natural Resources 2273894 1748357 525537
1.1 Soil and water

conservation
1.1.1 Bund Km 250pd/km 250 170 42500 75 85 10 425000 382500 42500
construction
1.1.2 Bund Km 100pd/km 100 250 25000 25 100 125 250000
maintenance 250000
1.1.3 Bund km 30 pd/km 30 250 7500 100 185 235 75000 67500 7500
stabilization
with vegetation
1.1.4 Cutoff drain M3 0.7m3/pd 1.4 225 315 125 60 40 3150 2835 315
1.1.5 Water way M3 0.75m3/pd 1.3 40 52 25 10 5 520 468 52
1.1.6 Long Trench No 330 pd/km 1.65 100 165 35 50 15 1650 1485 165
between foot
slope of hill and
cultivated land.
1.1.7 Check dam M3 0.5m3/pd 2 135 270 100 35 2700 2430 270
1.1.8 Check dam M3 1 m3/pd 1 135 135 30 130 150 1350 1350
maintenance
1.1.9 Gully ha 500 pd/ha 500 15 7500 8 5 2 75000 67500 7500
rehabilitation
with vegetation
1.1.1 Trench No 2 pd/3 0.7 1350 945 600 450 300 9450 8505 945
0 construction trenches
Trench No 2 pd/3 0.35 1350 472.5 675 675 4725 4725
maintenance trenches
1.1.11 Hillside Km 250pd/km 250 60 15000 30 30 150000 135000 15000
terracing
construction
Hillside Km 125pd/km 125 60 7500 30 30 75000 75000
terracing
maintenance
1.1.1 Micro basin No 1pd/5MB 0.2 200 40 150 50 400 360 40
2 construction
Micro basin No 0.5pd/5MB 0.1 200 20 100 100 200 200
maintenance
1.2 Forestry
1.2.1 Seedling No 15pd/1000 0.02 700000 10500 23333 2E+06 23333 105000 94500 10500
production 6 2
For firewood No
species
No 15pd/1000 0.02 143500 2152.5 47834 47833 47833 21525 19372.5 2152.5
Acacia
dicurrence
No 15pd/1000 0.02 143500 2152.5 47834 47833 47833 21525 19372.5 2152.5
Acacia saligna
No 15pd/1000 0.02 181000 2715 60334 60333 60333 27150 24435 2715
Eucalyptus sp.
For soil & No
water
conservation
No 15pd/1000 0.02 60000 900 20000 20000 20000 9000 8100 900
Hyginia
abyssinica
Tree No 15pd/1000 0.02 60000 900 20000 20000 20000 9000 8100 900
Lucerne
Olia No 15pd/1000 0.02 42000 630 14000 14000 14000 6300 5670 630
Africana
Other No 15pd/1000 0.02 12600 189 4200 4200 4200 1890 1701 189
indigenous sps.
(e.g. Erica
arboria (asta)
Other No 15pd/1000 0.02 57400 861 19134 19133 19133 8610 7749 861
exotic sps.
1.2.2 Pitting No 1pd/15 Pits 0.07 700000 46667 35000 210000 14000 466667 420000 46666.7
0 0
1.2.3 Hoeing seedling ha 100pd/ha 100 70 7000 35 21 14 70000 63000 7000
1.3. Area closure Ha 4 pd/ha/yr 8 22 176 5 10 5
and
improvement
1.4 Water
harvesting
1.4.1 Spring No 1700 pd/sprg 1700 6 10200 3 3 96546 198546 178691.4 19854.6
development
1.4.2 Hand dug well No 200 pd/HDW 200 12 2400 8 4 160536 184536 166082.4 18453.6
1.4.3 Water No 0.5 m3/PD 120 50 6000 30 20 10000 70000 63000 7000
harvesting
structures
II Crop production 118050 60550 57500
2.1 Input supply Community
2.1.1 Herbicide Liter 100 0 25 35 40 "

(2.4.D)
2.1.2 Pesticide Liter 125 0 35 45 45 "
38
chemical
2.1.3 Improved barely Qt 125 0 41 42 42 "
seed
2.1.4 Fertilizer supply 0 "
-DAP Qt. 75 0 25 25 25 "
-Urea Qt. 37.5 0 12 12 13.5 "
2.1.5 Supply of No 50 600 200 200 200 30000 10000 20000
improved
highland fruit
2.1.6 Supply of 0 Community
horticulture
seeds
- Potato Qt. 150 0 50 50 50 "
- Others Kg 4000 0 1000 1500 1500 "
2.2 Compost 0 "
preparation
2.2.1 Compost M3 10pd/pit 1.25 3000 3750 1000 1000 1000 37500 37500
preparation
2.2.2 No of farmers No 200 0 66 67 67 "
who prepare
compost
2.3 Training 0
2.3.1 Training on No. 3day 3 100 300 33 33 34 15000
compost for
farmers (no. of
farmers) 15000
2.3.2 Training on No 0
highland fruit 0
For 3day 3 75 225 25 25 25 11250
farmers 11250
For DAs 3day 3 3 9 3 900 900
2.3.3 Pest prevention
-for farmers No 3day 3 150 450 50 50 50 22500 22500
-DAs No 3day 3 3 9 3 900 900
III Livestock & fodder development 908970 763773 71000 74197
3.1 Fodder 0
seedling
development
3.1.1 Tree Lucerne No 15pd/1000 0.02 846000 12690 16920 507600 16920 126900 114210 12690
0 0
3.1.2 Falaris grass No 15pd/1000 0.02 210000 31500 42000 126000 42000 315000 283500 31500
0 0 0 0
3.2 Planting fodder
seedling
39
3.2.1 Tree Lucerne No 1pd/200 Pits 0.005 846000 4230 16920 507600 16920 42300 38070 4230
0 0
3.2.2 Falaris grass No 1pd/200 Pits 0.005 210000 10500 42000 126000 42000 105000 94500 10500
0 0 0 0
3.3 Distribution of Qt. 1kg/60Birr 6000 25 150000 5 15 5 150000 150000
fodder seed
3.4 Fodder 0
development
using d/t
systems
Mixed Ha 100pd/ha 100 31 3100 5 20 6 3100
fodder 31000 27900
On private Ha 100pd/ha 100 10 1000 3 5 2 1000
grazing land 10000 9000
On farm Ha 16PD/ha 16 250 4000 100 4000
boundary and
along the bund 40000 36000
On Ha 16PD/ha 17 49 833 25200 50400 50400 833
homestead areas 8330 7497
3.5 Fodder 0 Community
development &
grassland
management
improvement
crop Tons 252 0 25 152 177 "
byproducts
(straw)
treatment
3.6 Avoid free 0 "
grazing
No. of No 4 0 1 2 1 "
village that
starts avoiding
free grazing
No. of No 252 0 20 120 112 "
farmers that
starts to avoid
free grazing
Land which Ha 4pd/ha/yr 8 43 344 10 20 13 3440 3096 344
is free from free
grazing and
improved
grazing land
Improve by Ha 20 0 5 10 5 Community
adding manures
& compost
3.7 Variety 0
improvement
40
3.7.1 Cattle breeding 0 Community
Artificial No 105 0 10 40 50 "

insemination
3.7.2 Sheep breeding 0 "
Directly by No 200 0 20 80 100 "
ram
No 1 0 1 "
Construction of
barn for
reproduction
purposes
3.8 Fattening 0 "
Cattle No 252 0 25 150 77 "
Sheep No 504 0 50 302 177 "
3.9 Poultry 0 "
Chick coop No 123 0 10 60 53 "
construction
Supply 3 No 1260 0 315 756 189 "
months chick
3.10 Apiculture 0 "
Improve No 252 0 25 176 51 "
traditional
beehives
Transfer to No 400 20 0 3 12 5 8000 2000 6000
the transitional
beehives
Transfer to No 180 0 18 135 27 Community
the modern
beehives
No of No 200 0 20 120 60 "
farmers engaged
in beekeeping
-Male No 136 0 14 82 40 "
-Female No 64 0 6 38 20 "
Establish No 1 0 1 "
new bee colony
3.11 Animal health 0 "
services
3.11.1 Vaccination No 693 0 693 702 711 "
3.11.2 Mange mite No 489 0 489 494 499 "
control
3.11.3 Training 0
On Livestock 0
and fodder
development &
utilization
41
For No 3days 3 252 756 100 152 37800 37800
farmers
For DAs No 3days 3 3 9 3 900 900
On Beekeeping 0
For No 3days 3 200 600 25 75 100 30000 30000
farmers
For DAs No 3days 3 1 3 1 300 300
IV Socioeconomic issues 619530 450000 169530
4.1 Infrastructure
Feeder road km 3000pd/km 3000 5 15000 1 150000 150000
construction
Bridge No 300000 1 0 1 300000 300000
4.2 Off-farm 0
activities:
(provision of
training)
Mat work No 10days 10 10 100 5 5 5000 5000
Weaving No 10days 10 10 100 5 5 5000 5000
Tailoring No 10days 10 10 100 5 5 5000 5000
Traditional No 10days 10 5 50 3 2 2500 2500
metal work
Improved stoves No 10days 10 10 100 5 5 5000 5000
4.3 HIV/AIDs No 1 0 2
prevention
Provision No 2days 6 0 2 2 2
of training
Formation No 1 0 1
of HIV/AIDs
prevention
group
Undertake No 1days 1 15 15 5 5 5 750 750
group
discussions
No 100condom/p 0.01 4200 42 2100 2100 2100 2100
Distribution of d
condom
4.4 Gender issues 0
Formation of No 3000 3 0 3 3000 3000
women groups
On home- No 1 0 1
economics
Mat work No 1 0 1
Knitting No 1 0 1
4.5 Preparation of No 5000 2 0 2 5000 5000
bylaws
42
In Edir No 1 0 1
In village/Got No 1 0 1
4.6 Experience
sharing for:
Farmers No 8day 6 100 600 40 40 40 36000 78000 78000
DAs and No 10day 10 15 150 15 15 15 20000 35000 35000
supervisors
Woreda No
experts
4.7 Participatory
Monitoring
and evaluation
Monitoring Freq 12 farmers & 12 58 696 6 26 26 6960 6960
by CWC . Das
members and
DAs/Supervisor
s (once every
two weeks)
Monitoring Freq 5 experts 5 27 135 3 12 12 1350 1350
by woreda .
experts (once a
month)
Monitoring Freq 10 0 2 4 4
by SWHISA .
experts (once
every 3 months)
Evaluation Freq 1000 2 0 - 1 1 1000 1000
by the general .
assembly and
experts (once a
year)
4.8 Supply of farm
tools
Pick axe No 40 50 2000 2000
(doma)
Spade No 40 50 2000 2000
(Akafa)
Hoe No 30 30 900 900
(zabia/geso)
Crow bar No 160 20 3200 3200
(Dijno)
Sledge No 175 15 2625 2625
hammer
(Meraja)
Rack No 50 10 500 500
Watering No 50 40 2000 2000
can
43
Soil sieve No 70 3 210 210
Axe No 20 15 300 300
Pickaxe No 45 3 135 135
with 3 sharps
(doma bale 3
tat)
Total sum 3920444 2962130 301080 657234
44
Table 19. Materials and inputs required to accomplish the planned activities
S/N Type of inputs Unit Plan Sources Time of

supply
1 Input supply WoARD
1.1 Herbicide (2.4.D) Liter 100 2001-2003
1.2 Pesticide Liter 125 2001-2003
1.3 Improved variety (barley) Qt. 125 2001-2003
1.4 Fertilizer application
DAP Qt. 75 2001-2003
UREA Qt. 37.5 2001-2003
1.5 Highland fruit No 600 2001-2003
1.6 Different improved seeds
Potato Qt. 150 2001-2003
Others Qt. 4000 2001-2003
1.7 Chicken coop preparation No 123 2001-2003
1.8 3 months pullet No 1200 2001-2003
1.9 Improved ram No 11 2001-2003
1.10 Modern beehives No 180 2001-2003
1.11 Fodder species Qt. 10 2001-2003
1.12 Farm tools
Pick axe (doma) No 50 SWHISA Project 2001-2003
Spade (Akafa) No 50 2001-2003
Hoe (zabia/geso) No 30 2001-2003
Crow bar (Dijno) No 20 2001-2003
Sledge hammer (Meraja) No 15 2001-2003
Rack No 10 2001-2003
Watering can No 40 2001-2003
Soil sieve No 3 2001-2003
Axe No 15 2001-2003
Pickaxe with 3 sharps No 3 2001-2003
(doma bale 3 tat)
Table 20. Kuri model watershed Safety Net Community Development plan
S/N Activities Unit Work norm Plan Remark

1 Bund Km 200pd/km 75
2 Bund stabilization Km 0.70m3/pd 106
3 Cutoff drain construction Km 0.5m3/pd 125
4 Waterway construction Km 16pd/km 25
5 Long Trench between foot slope No 35
of hill and cultivated land.
6 Check dam construction M3 0.5m3/pd 100
7 Gully re-vegetation ha 1m3/pd 8
8 Trench No 500pd/ha 600
9 Hillside terrace construction Km 250pd/km 30
10 Micro basin No 3pd/3Tr 150
11 Pit preparation No 5mb/pd 350000
12 Seedling production No 350000
13 Seedling planting No 1700pd/sp 350000
46
Table 21. Kuri integrated model watershed development plan for 2009 budget year action plan
S/N Activities Unit Annual Plan/Months

Plan
Dec Jan Feb Ma Apr May Jun Jul Aug
1 Natural Resources
1.1 Soil & water Conservation
1.1.1 Bund cons. Km 75 25 25 10 15
1.1.2 Bund maintenance Km 25 25
1.1.3 Bund stabilization Km 100 25 75
1.1.4 Cut off drain M3 125 50 35 25 15
1.1.5 Water way M3 25 10 15
1.1.6 Long Trench above cultivated land and No 35 10 15 5 5
below hill foot slope.
1.1.7 Check dam M3 100 35 25 25 15
1.1.8 Check dam maintenance M3 30 30
1.1.9 Gully stabilization with vegetation Ha 8 2 6
1.1.10 Trench No 600 135 145 200 125
1.1.11 Hillside terrace Km 30 15 15
1.1.12 Micro basin No 150 50 35 50 15
1.2 Forestry
1.2.1 Nursery establishment
1.2.2 Seedling production No
For firewood No
47
Acacia dicurence No
Acacia saligna No
Eucalyptus sp. No
For soil and water conservation No
Hyginia abyssinica No
Tree Lucerne No
Olive tree No
Indigenous No
Exotic sp. No
1.2.3 Pitting No
1.2.4 Seedling hoeing ha
1.2.5 Planting seedling No
1.2.6 Assessment on survival rate of seedling
1st
2nd
3rd
2 Water Resources
2.1 Spring development No 3 x x x x x x x
2.2 Hand dug well No 8 x x x x x x x
2.3 Water harvesting No 30 x x x x x x x
3 Crop Production
3.1 Herbicide (2.4.D) Lit x x
48
25
3.2 Pesticide Lit 35 x x x x x
3.3 Improved seed (barley) Qt 41 x
3.4 Fertilizer
DAP qt 25 x x x x
Urea Qt 12 x x x x
3.5 Highland fruit No. 200 x
3.6 Different improved seeds
Potato Qt 50 x x
Others kg 100o x x x x xx x x x x
4. Soil Management
4.1 Compost preparation M3 1000 x x
4.2 No of farmers preparing compost No. 66
4.3 Training on compost preparation
For farmers No. 33 x x x
For DAs No. 3 x x x
Training on highland fruit
For farmers No. 25 x
For DAs No. 3 x
Training on pest prevention
For farmers No. 25 x x x x
49
For DAs No. 3 x x x x
5 Fodder development
Seedling preparation
Tree Lucerne No 169200
Falaris grass Pcs 420000
Planting seedling
Tree Lucerne No 169200
Falaris grass Pcs 420000
Distributing fodder seed Qt. 5
Fodder development Ha
Mixed fodder Ha 5
On private grazing land ha 3
On plot boundary & bunds ha 50
On homestead ha 25200
Improved fodder management Ha 50
Treat straw with urea Tons 25
Avoid free grazing No
No. of villages started free grazing No 1
No. of farmers started free grazing No 20
Area of grazing land being free from Ha 10
free grazing
Improve grazing land by adding Ha 5
manures
50
Area closures ha 5
Varieties improvement
Cattle breeding
Artificial No 10
Sheep breeding
Directly by ram No 20
Construction of barn for No 1
reproduction purpose
Fattening
Cattle No 25
Sheep No 50
Poultry
Chick growing box construction No 10
Supply 3 moths chicken No 315
Apiculture
Improve traditional beehives No 25
Transfer to the transitional beehives No 3
Transfer to the modern beehives No 18
No of farmers engaged in beekeeping No 20
-Male No 14
-Female No 6
Establish new bee colony No -
51
Animal health services
Vaccination No 693
Meng control No 489
Training
On Livestock and fodder development
& utilization
For farmers 152
For DAs
On apiculture
For farmers 75
For DAs
6 Socioeconomic
Off-farm activities
Mat work No 5
Weaving No 5
Tailoring No 5
Metal work No 3
52
Figure 10. Development map of Kuri integrated model watershed
53
7. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kuri model integrated watershed development
plan
In order to support decision making process on the implementation of proposed watershed

development the economic benefits are analyzed in descriptive and qualitative manner.
7.1. Qualitative benefits of Kuri model integrated watershed development

To make the watershed development sustainable and ensure betterment of life for the
inhabitants in every physiographic unit within the watershed, soil and water conservation
practices alone are not adequate but other measures have to be included. To ensure
sustainability of the proposed watershed development plan, it is proposed to incorporate other
major disciplines such as introduction of improved agronomic practice, use of composting,
treatment and incorporation of farmyard manure, use of improved seeds, and introduction of
income generating activities, etc will be given special attention.
The hills and ridges in the watershed are currently highly degraded and their productivity has
been significantly declined through time. Surface runoff from such areas has significantly
increased due to clearing of natural vegetations and removal of other physical obstacles. Such
high surface runoff has caused erosion of cultivated as well as grazing land in the lower
catchment. These areas were used to be forest land many years back and their conversion to
grazing and cultivated land not only causes loss of fertile topsoil, but also negatively affects the
availability of other resources such as potentially available water resources for use for livestock
and irrigation purposes. Use of physical and biological conservation measures are proven to
have positive impact on reducing surface runoff by reducing slope length and steepness and
increasing the retention time and allow infiltration of surface water into the soil and
replenishing local ground water. Application of such conservation measures reduces soil
erosion in the lower part of hills/ridges and improving crop and grass yield in the lower
catchment. It is believed that integration of biological with physical soil conservation measures
will have positive impact on increasing soil moisture content within the soil control section due
to lateral flow (through-flow) of percolated surface water in the upper part of the watershed.
Increase in soil moisture content within soil profile should not only improve land productivity,
but should also improve water availability of springs, shallow groundwater (hand dug wells),
and rivers within the lower part of the watershed. Availability of more reliable water resources
could potentially allow for change in farming system from rainfed to irrigated agriculture and
allowing farmers to produce higher yield and potentially increase cropping intensity by double
cropping. The watershed planning committee also envisages that area closure in the upper
catchment of highly degraded area and treatment of closed areas by different measures
(planting tree/shrub seedling, planting of multipurpose shrubs, etc.) will allow for rehabilitation
of highly degraded land and improving its productivity.
Different grass species and palatable/multipurpose shrubs will be planted along physical
structures. Although the main purpose is to strengthen the structures, other benefits of the
farmers have also been considered. Fodder production from proposed biological measures
should assist the local farming communities to improve feed availability for livestock and
improve the status of animals. Strengthening physical structures by biological measures,
54
especially using multipurpose shrubs should help farmers to compensate for the lost benefit
from the areas that would have been occupied by the physical structures. Past experience
indicates that the income generated from selling fodder grown on structures or degraded land is
greater than by far from the income gained from the same land on which no conservation
measures is carried out. Other proposed off-farm activities such as apiculture, mate work,
weaving, tailoring and improved stoves will be promoted in such areas to engage landless
youths in income generating activities, to increase their income and ultimately develop feeling
of watershed development ownership.
It is believed that the implementation of proposed activities in highly degraded hilly areas
should prove to have both economic and ecologic values. The benefit gained through sale of
products from the closure areas (cut and carry grasses, trees, multi-purpose shrubs, etc.) and
development of opportunities for engagement of upper catchment inhabitants in the proposed
off-farm activities should provide significant economic benefits to not only offset the lost
income from land closure, but to also improve their current living standards and food security.
Change of land use from degraded land to plantations/vegetated land should also improve the
general status of the ecosystem within upper catchment. The current status of highly degraded
area does not support livestock development or any other farming practices. Overall,
implementation of proposed actions as is stipulated in this plan, if successfully implemented in
fully participatory manner, should maximize economic and ecological benefits to the
beneficiaries.
7.2. Quantitative economic benefits of Kuri model integrated watershed development plan
Although the benefits gained from watershed development are diverse as a result of
implementation of different activities the cost benefit analysis is made for only major benefits:
from fodder production, crop production, apiculture, water resource development and improved
stoves. To provide reliable information on the cost and benefit analysis detailed data should be
available. However, to show decision makers how the development is beneficial to the
community cost benefit analysis (CBA) is done for major activities based on simple assessment
and secondary data.
Benefit from livestock and fodder development

The cost of production of fodder both in the degraded and cultivated land is estimated to be
Birr 828530.00. The benefit is looked at from different perspectives.
A. Fodder development and its benefit: As it is detailed in section 7.1 the improvement of
fodder improves the productivity of livestock development. Fodder (trelucern, trees, and
grass species) is going to be produced on physical conservation structures (bunds, trenches,
etc.). According to Tantigegn Kebede and Mehamed Seid, 2008, about 20ton/ha of fresh
fodder/grass (6.8ton/ha of hay) can be produced by growing along physical structures.
Based on the assumption it is possible to produce 918ton hay/year from the 135ha of
cultivated land in the watershed, which can feed 278cows/year. If each cow gives 1.05
liter/day of milk for lactation period of 6.57 months (ANRS, 1999) 278 cows will give
12831 liter/year and the total income in 5 years with 10% discount rate would be Birr
911867.10.
B. About 60ha of grazing land is highly degraded. The farmers decided to close this part of the
watershed and integrate with biological conservation measures i.e. trees, shrubs and grasses
55
will be planted. Discussion has been conducted with the farmers and decision has made to
cover the degraded land with fodder and local tree species. Assuming that planting fodder
species with 1.5m apart and between successive rows is carried out in 1ha of land about
4489 seedlings can be planted. According to RELMA 2005, from 1km hedge rows of tree
legume planted with 0.5m apart in a double row (4000 plants) can produce 1.7tones of
hay/year. Based on this assumption 1.9tone/ha/year and totally 114tone/year of fodder plant
can be produced from 60 hectares of land. The adult Horo cow needs 9kg hay/day and
3.3tone hay/year. The fodder production from 60ha of land will support totally 35 Horo
adult cows for 1 year. As to ANRS, 1999, if the Horo adult cow can give average 1.05
liter/day for average lactation period of 6.57 months, the 35 cow can give 37 liters/day and
7243 liters of milk/year. The benefit gained from milk with 10% discount rate for 5 year
production periods would be Birr 151021.00.
Table 22. Total benefit from milk production with 10% discount rate for 5 years.
In come from milk Production years Total

produced 1 2 3 4 5
On physical
structure 287667.5 261515.9 237741.7 216128.8 196480.7 911867.10
On hedge rows 36217 32924.66 29931.51 27210.46 24736.78 151021
Total benefit 323884.58 294440.5 267673.2 243339.3 221217.5 1062888
The net present value (NPV) is calculated as follows. NPV=Bt/(1+i) t - Ct/(1+i)t , (IR.R.J.de
Heer). NPV in 5 years of production is estimated to be = 1062888 -828530=Birr 234357.65.
The result shows that the plan is profitable. The benefit cost ratio method is also used to see
whether the plan is feasible or not. C/B-ratio - Bt/(1+i) t/ Ct/(1+i)t. The benefit cost ratio
(1062888/828530) is 1.3. The ratio is above 1, which shows that the plan is economically
feasible.
Cost of implementation of soil and water conservation measures (SWCMSs)
The costs of soil and water conservation measures as it is detailed in section 6.5 table 9 and
summarized in the table blow is Birr 1265543.00.
Table 23. Cost of soil and water conservation measures
Years
Activities 1 2 3 4 Total
SWCMs construction 247624 247623 247623 742870
301159
SWCMs maintenance 273781 248891.8 522672.8
Total 247624 247623 521404 248891.8 1265543
Estimated benefit from crop production

Different research out puts revealed that yield is increased when it is integrated with soil and
water conservation measures. Although the result differs from crop to crop yield is reduced if
no conservation measures are implemented and increased when it is integrated with
conservation measures. Soil erosion removes plant nutrient and moisture content. On the other
56
hand conservation measures conserve the nutrient and moisture content of the soil, which are
essential for plant growth. Thus the presence of conservation measures increase and their
absence reduce crop yield. Tantigegn Kebede, 1991, stated that on areas with slope range
between 10 and 30%, yield decline by 2%/year due to erosion or increase by the same amount
due to conservation measures. Wagayehu Bekele, 2005 stated in his research output that the
expected yield under conservation is estimated at 1.94 tons/ha while that of no conservation is
about 1.42 tons/ha. The relative difference in expected yield between the two alternatives is
greater than their difference in expected net returns because of the costs involved in the
conservation alternative.
Conservation measures take time to stabilize and give benefit and hence the return period can
be considered for 10 years. Tantigegn Kebede and Mohammed Seid, 2008 showed different
experimental results conducted in different places that the yield in cultivated land, treated with
conservation measures and soil management activities (e.g. composting) is increased by 40 to
50% from un-treated cultivated land. So the assumption is made that the barely grain is
increased by 50%. The yield increment is realistic after three years of treatment because
conservation measures particularly constructed with excavation of soil take time to stabilize
and significantly reduce soil erosion after 2 to 3 years of their construction (Yohannes Afework,
2005). The construction of conservation measures are expected to be completed in the coming
three years. It is also assumed that the climatic condition and other management aspects to be
constant in the coming 10 years, differences in yield and returns between conservation and no-
conservation alternatives are attributed to the presence or absence of conservation structure on a
field. The amount of cultivated and homestead cultivated land in Kuri watershed that needs
treatment is 100ha. Barely, which is estimated to have average grain yield of 25Qt/ha/year by
the woreda experts and DAs, is considered for this assessment. If the cultivated lands arent
treated with conservation measures the crop yield may decline by 2%/year (Tantigegn kebede,
1991) and the total yield from 100ha would be 22866Qt/10years. But assuming that the yield is
increased by 50% (Tantigegn Kebede and Mohammed Seid, 2008) with treatment of
conservation measures and soil management the barely grain yield is increased to 50Qt/ha/year
and the total barely grain yield from 100ha would be 42500Qt/10years. When the cultivated
land is treated with conservation measures a difference of 19634Qt yield is observed.
Considering the current market price of barely (Birr 700.00) the total benefit from 100ha of
cultivated land with 10% discount rate and for 10 years of production period would be Birr
17153994.00.
On the other hand if we assume that the barely grain yield is increased by 2% (Tantigegn
Kebede, 1991) the total yield out of the 100ha would be 26887Qt/10 years i.e. a difference of
4021Qt is observed. Considering the current market price of barely (Birr 700.00) the total
benefit from 100ha of cultivated land with 10% discount rate would be Birr 11398149.00.
Whereas the total benefit without the treatment of conservation measures from 100ha of land in
ten years return period with 10% discount rate is Birr 9989336.30.In both assumptions the yield
as well as the income has shown increment with treatment of cultivated land.
57
Table 24. Barely Grain yield in different assumptions.
Years
Assumptions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Grain yield
Increment with
50% 2500 2500 2500 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 42500
Increment with
2% 2500 2500 2550 2601 2653.02 2706.08 2760.202 2815.406048 2871.71417 2929.1485 26887
Without
treatment 2500 2450 2401 2352.98 2305.92 2259.802 2214.606 2170.313833 2126.90756 2084.3694 22866
Table 25. Benefit comparison from crop production with and with out conservation measures
S/N Income with Years
different
assumptions
(Birr)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1 Increment with
50% 1590909.1 1446281 1314801 2390547 2173225 1975659 1796053 1632775.8 1484341.7 1349401.5 17153994
2 Increment with
2% 1590909.1 1446281 1341097 1243563 1153122 1069258 991494 919385.4 852521 790519.5 11398149
3 Without
treatment 1590909.1 1417355 1262735 1124982 1002257 892919.5 795510.1 708727.2 631411.5 562530.3 9989336.3
Effort is made to compare the benefit with and without the conservation measures that a
difference of Birr 7164657.60 and 1408813.10 is observed with treatment of conservation
measures when it is assumed that the yield is increased by 50% and 2% respectively. The NPV
and cost benefit ratio is calculated based on the benefit gained because of the treatment of the
land with conservation measures. Hence NPV is calculated as 5899115.00 and the cost benefit
ratio is 1.1. The plan is still profitable and feasible.
However, the assumption taken that the yield is increased by 50% due to treatment maynt
apply to the case of this watershed as the application of organic fertiliser to all crop fields in the
watershed at a time is unrealistic.
Economic benefit from apiculture
Experience showed us that when the degraded land is rehabilitated the disappeared tree/shrub
species starts to grow. Similarly wild thyme, which is known for apiculture will be grown well
when the degraded parts of the watershed is closed. In addition to regenerating vegetations it is
planned to plant suitable tree, shrub and grass species. The demand of honey produced in a
place where wild thyme is growing is high. It is indicated in the plan to distribute 200 modern
beehives in this degraded part of the watershed. The cost of the 200 beehives, 200 bee colonies
and management for 5 years is estimated to be Birr 80000.00, 20000.00 and 23140.00
respectively. The total cost is estimated to be Birr 123140.00.
The apiculture is planned to start at the third year of the watershed activity i.e. after the
watershed is rehabilitated and the return period is considered to be for 5 years. The production
of honey from modern beehive is 25kg/beehive/year. The total production from 200 beehives
within 5 years production period is estimated to be 25000kg. The current market price of honey
around the watershed is Birr 35/kg. Hence the total income from 200 beehives would be Birr
729726.50.
58
Table 26. Summarized cost of apiculture
Year
Cost (Birr) Total
1 2 3 4 5
Cost (Birr) 100000 100000
Management cost 7300 6636.364 6033.058 5484.598 4985.998 23140.02
Total cost 107300 6636.364 6033.058 5484.598 4985.998 123140
Table 27. Summarized benefit of apiculture

Year
Benefit in 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Honey production
(kg) 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 25000
In come with 10%
discount rate (Birr) 175000 159090.9 144628.1 131480.1 119527.4 729726.5
Total benefit (Birr) 175000 159090.9 144628.1 131480.1 119527.4 729726.5
Net present value in 5 years of production is estimated to be Birr 606586.40. Based on the
result the proposed plan is profitable within 5 years production time. The benefit cost ratio
method is also used to see whether the plan is feasible or not. The benefit cost ratio within 5
years production period is 6. The ratio is above 1, which shows that the plan is economically
feasible.
Water resource development
It is planned to implement 12 hand-dug wells and 50 water harvesting structures for irrigation
and 6 spring developments for water supply purpose in Kuri watershed. The estimated cost to
implement the 12 hand-dug well, 50 water harvesting structures and 6 spring developments is
Birr 184536.00, 70000.00 and 198546.00 respectively. Totally Birr 453,082.00 is required to
implement these structures. The estimation is made based on Community Based Participatory
Watershed Development (CBPWD) Guideline and report prepared for rural water supply
(Yohannes Melaku 2002).
o Spring development
Use of clean water from spring development saves the cost of medication due to water born
diseases by improving the quality of water supply. It isnt easy, but possible, to valuate the
economic benefit of springs, developed for water supply purpose in monitory terms. Because
detailed data is required on the health impact of water borne diseases with and without spring
development. However, it is attempted to calculate the benefit of spring development project in
terms of provision of clean water to the community. In reality the community isnt paying for
clean water but if we assume that it is paying for the service the spring development reduces
the cost of expense to access clean water. Adequate water supply has been defined to mean 20
litres of water per person per day and accessible within a range of 0.5 to 1.0 km from a
dwelling place (Dessalegn Rahmato 1999) whereas the WHO standard is 45 litres per person
per day. The Bureau of Water Resource Development is working to supply safe water 15 and 20
litres/day/person in rural and urban dwellings respectively. If the daily consumption of a
beneficiary is considered to be 15 liter/day/person the total beneficiaries (1214) of the
59
watershed will demand 18210liter/year. Assuming that the current price of potable water in
rural areas is Birr 0.05/liter the total population 1214 can pay Birr 1385782.00 in 5 years return
period.
o Hand dug well development
If each hand-dug well irrigate 300m2 of cultivated land, 12 of them can irrigate 3600m2 of
cultivated land. So the farmers will benefit from the water resources development by producing
crops twice a year from 3600m2 of irrigated land. If highly valuable crops (vegetables) are
grown using the water the farmers can earn Birr 72000/year. In 5 years return period with 10%
discount rate they can get Birr 300230.30.
o Household water harvesting structures (HHWHSs)
Depending on the type of soil, crop and climatic condition the area of land irrigated by water
collected in water harvesting structure with a capacity of 60 m3 varies from 100 to 200m3. Since
the watershed is situated in Dega agro-climatic condition where the evaporation is low and the
nature of soil is more of clay where water holding capacity is high the size of the irrigable land
is assumed to be 200m3 and all of them (50 HHWHSs) can irrigate 1ha of land. It is expected
that the farmers will produce highly valuable crops (vegetables) and are able to earn Birr
100,000/year. In 5 years return period with 10% discount rate they can earn Birr 416986.50.
Table 28. Total benefit of water resource development within 5 years return period and with
10% discount rate
Production years Total
Development activities
1 2 3 4 5
Hand dug well 72000 65454.55 59504.13 54094.67 49176.97 300230.3
Spring development 332332.5 302120.5 274655 249686.3 226987.6 1385782
Water harvesting
structure 100000 90909.09 82644.63 75131.48 68301.35 416986.5
Total benefit 504332.5 458484.1 416803.7 378912.5 344465.9 2102999
NPV in 5 years of production period is estimated to be Birr 1649917.00. The result shows that
the plan is economically profitable. The benefit cost ratio is 4.6. The ratio is above 1, which
shows that the plan is economically feasible in this regard.
Improved stoves,
Cow dung, fire wood, crop byproducts and kerosene are major sources of energy in the
watershed. The fire wood demand of the beneficiaries is 70% of the total source of energy. The
improved stoves are designed to save 50% of the fuel wood. According to ANRS, 1999 the
annual regional fuel wood demand is 1.16 m3/head/year. In the watershed the total population is
1214, which increases the fuel demand to 1408.24 m3/year and its 70% (986m3 ) would be from
trees and shrubs. The current price of improved stove is estimated to be Birr 100.00. If all
beneficiaries can use improved stoves the demand for fire wood can be reduced from 1408.24
to 704.12m3/year. Taking the current price of wood in the area (1m3 Birr is 200.00) about Birr
140,824/year can be saved and the burden on trees and shrubs in particular and on the
watershed development in general would be reduced. Overall, use of improved stove is
economically as well ecologically feasible.
60
o Solar cookers:
SWHISA project has planned to demonstrate solar cookers in the model watershed. The current
price of solar cooker and improved stove is Birr 500.00 and 100 respectively. Assuming that all
households 252 are going to use improved stove Birr 25200.00 is required. Using this cooker
except injera and bread, wat can be cooked, water can be boiled and it is also possible to roast
grain and others. So 50% of the fuel wood can be saved by using solar cookers. Again the rest
50% of fuel wood would be reduced by 50% as a result of using improved stove for injera and
bread. A household who has average 4.8 family members demands 5.6m3/year of fuel wood per
year. If 50% of the fuel wood is reduced by using solar cookers the demand would be reduced
to 2.8m3/year and the rest 2.8m3/year (50%) is reduced by 50% due to use of improved stove
and hence the demand will be reduced to 1.4m3/year, if both solar cookers and improved stoves
are used. So the demand of the farmer, with average 4.8 families, can be reduced from 5.6 to
1.4m3/year. Assuming that all beneficiaries will use both solar cooker and improved stove the
fuel wood demand would be reduced by 75% i.e. 352.06m 3/year. Currently the price of 1m3 of
firewood is estimated to be Birr 200.00. So if all beneficiaries use both solar cookers and
improved stoves can reduce the cost of fuel wood from Birr 281,648 to 70,412 i.e. Birr
211236.00 can be saved. At household level a farmers can save Birr 835.2/year by using both
technologies.
8. Commitment of the Community in the Implementation of the watershed

Development
Committee members were explaining that part of the watershed is degraded; crop production is
declining through time; the communal grazing lands arent supporting the livestock production
and no natural forest is observed in the watershed. The committee members said that they have
started construction of conservation measures since three decades back but they are destructed
within a year. The farmers have mentioned the causes of the problems as land scarcity, lack of
awareness and free grazing. They discussed on how to avoid free grazing on protected or from
area closure and decided to develop bylaws focusing on minimizing free grazing. The
beneficiaries agreed to develop bylaws in each major Gots (Amjit, Aytasa and ATari Amba).
The committee members also promised to undertake follow up activities on the implementation
of the watershed once in two weeks time interval. All committee members assured to
implement different components of watershed development in their own land so that other
farmers can learn from them. All these show that the farmers are committed for the
implementation of the watershed.
61
9. Conclusion and recommendation
In the planning process community participation was given due attention. The community,
through its representatives, has participated in the preparation of the plan. Moreover, the
community in the general assembly discussed in detail and finally approved the plan. It is
believed that through full participation of beneficiaries, the proposed watershed development
plan has addressed most of the problems raised by the community. To sustain watershed
development interventions, the major element, the attitude of the community, has to be
changed. Indeed, bringing attitudinal change on farmers is the hardest part of the
implementation of the watershed development. Although it may take time, attitudinal change
can be attained through training, experience sharing, farmers to farmer discussions,
implementing problem solving and income-generating activities.
The main benefits of SWHISAs active involvement are to build the capacity of the
woreda/community members and ensure the sustainability of the watershed development plan.
Therefore, in order to ensure the sustainability of the activities proposed in the watershed
management plan, OoARD and SWHISA should follow up and continue this technical as well
as financial support in building the capacity of the community within the model watershed.
62
Reference
ANRS (Amara National regional State), 1999. Regional conservation Strategy. Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia
Bishaw Balew, 2008, Third quarter report of the year 2007/08. Menze Mama Woreda.
Dessalegn Rahmato 1999. Water Resource Development In Ethiopia: Issues Of Sustainability
And Participation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Institute of Sustainable Development (ISD) and Federal EPA, 2007. Organic fertilizer. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
IR.R.J.de Heer. Engineering Economics: Lecture Notes HH506/02/3.
RELMA, World Agro-forestry Center, and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,
2005. Managing Land: A practical guidebook for development agents in Ethiopia, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Tantigegn Kebede and Mohammed Seid , 2008. Feasibility study of Gongi watershed
development project: Goncha Siso Inese Woreda. Bair Dar, Ethiopia.
Tantigegn Kebede Kassa, 1991. Soil conservation based Land Use plan for Yisr catchment,
Gojjam Region, Ethiopia.
Wagayehu Bekele, 2005. Stochastic dominance analysis of soil and Water conservation in
subsistence crop Production in the eastern Ethiopian highlands: The case of the Hunde-lafto
area department of agricultural economics, college of agriculture, Alemaya University,
Ethioipia.
Yohannes Afework, 2005. Status of Soil and Water Conservation Measures in Amhara
Regiona., Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Yohannes Melaku 2002. Rural water supply designs compilation report designed by RWSEP
phase ii of its implementation period. a period covering from 1998 to 2002. Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia.
63
Annex 1. Base map of the watershed
Scale 1:5000
64
Annex 2. The name and background of woreda experts and DAs
S/N Name Position Profession

1 Aschale Abi Woreda expert Soil & water conservation expert
2 Nigusu Asefa Livestock expert
3 Zeriuhun Adinew Forestry expert
4 Alemayehu Hailu Agronomist
5 Siamregn Tefera DAs Crop production
6 Asrat Belaygizaw Natural resource management
7 Eshetu Alayu Livestock
Annex 3. The name and the background of the watershed planning and monitoring
committee
S/N Name Committee Sex Age Educ. kebele Got Responsibility
members backgro in the CWPIT
und
1 Shewa Afere Belihu M 32 Grade 7 Chair Person
2 Yeshihareg Assefa F 27 Grade 8 Amejit D/Chair
Person
3 Demissie Belete M 36 Grade 5 Secretary
4 Birhane G/Medihn M 23 Grade 3 Member
5 Ashinie Derbie M 40 Grade 7 O7(Anga Amejit
wa)
6 Desta Lakew M 30 Grade 8 ATari
Amba
7 Beyenech G/Tsadik F 30 Ilt. ATari
Amba
8 Ayelech Tadesse F 40 Read &
write
9 Mariye Akalu F 29 Grade 8
10 K/Tekle Tsadik Yeshitila M 32 Read &
write
11 Haile W/Kidan M 60 Read &
write
12 Lema Kebede M 49 Grade 7
13 Bashah eder W/Semayat M 50 Read &
write
14 H/Mariam tirfie M 46 Read &
write
15 Worku W/Tsadik M 37 Grade 8 Aytasa
16 Alemnesh Fikre F 25 Grade 9
65
Annex 4. Soil information used for land capability classification
Slope (L) Soil depth (D) Texture (T) Past (E) Water logging ( Infiltration (I) Stoniness or (S)
Erosion W) rockiness
0-2% L1 >150cm D1 Sand T1 None Eo None Wo Good Io >15% So
2-8% L2 100-150cm D2 Sandy loam T2 Slight E1 Intermittently W1 Moderate I1 15-30% S1
water logged
8-15% L3 50-100cm D3 Loam T3 Moderate E2 Regularly water W2 Poor I2 30-50% S2
logged
15-30% L4 25-50cm D4 Silt loam T4 Severe E3 Swamps W3 50-90% S3
30-50% L5 <25cm D5 Clay loam T5 Very E4
severe
>50% L6 Silty clay, clay T6
Heavy clay T7
66

1 - Kurie Watershed Planning Report DRAFT by WMG 31aug09

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1 - Kurie Watershed Planning Report DRAFT by WMG 31aug09

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sustainable water Harvesting and Institutional Strengthening Project (SWHISA)

Kuri Model Integrated Watershed Development Planning Report

BoARD, BoWRD, ARARI, CPA and EPLAUA

Kuri Model Integrated Watershed Development Planning Report

SWHISA Document WMG - 01

1.2. Planning team composition

1.3. Objectives Dolenqie model integrated watershed development

Specific objectives are:

2. Materials and approaches used in the planning process.

2.2. Planning Approaches

Planning committee election and public participation

Participation of committee members in the planning process

Figure1.Community Watershed Planning Team in village mapping

Figure 2. Community Watershed Planning Committee under discussion

3.1.1. Location of Kuri model integrated watershed

Figure 4. Part of the watershed.

Land use type Area in Slope in % Vegetation Soil

Figure 5. Land use map of Kuri watershed

Type of trees/shrubs Land tenure Its use Reproduction

Source of Fuel wood

3.1.5. Soil and erosion status

S/N Activities Land use Status

Figure 8. Stone bund being demolished by the farmers.

3.1.6. Water Resources

Table 4. Water resources in the watershed

River 1 Animal drinking One hour Temporary

Water harvesting and small scale irrigation

3.2. Socioeconomic Condition

Table 5. The beneficiaries of the watershed

S/N Description Household Population age groups Total

3.2.2. Wealth ranking

Table 6. Wealth ranking vulnerable assessment/criteria.

Wealth ranking Criteria Reasons for

Land holding Land holding size Household

3.2.3. Crop Production

Table 8. General information on crop production and on crop calendar.

Major crop Land Planting/sowing Weeding Harvesting

Table 9. Varieties, productivity of crops grown in the watershed

S/N Crop type Varieties Yield Qt/ha

Types of crop diseases and pests

Table 10. Major types of diseases/pests in the watershed

S/N Diseases/pests type Effected crops Significance of impact

3.2.4. Livestock and fodder resources

Table 11. Type and number of animals in the watershed

Type of animals Number Factor No. of Feed

Equine 120 0.8 96 Almost all of

Table 12. Alternative fodder sources in different seasons

Sources of fodder Dry season Rain season Rank

Livestock health and disease

Table 13. Livestock health and diseases and their significance

3.2.5. Market availability

Table 14. List of items exchanged in the market.

S/N Product supplied to Items buying from the

S/N Institutions/infrastructure Its location Distance from

4.1. Crop production

4.2. Natural resources degradation

4.3. Livestock and fodder development:

4.4. Socioeconomic condition

Table 16. Problem identification and ranking

Major Problems Possible causes Proposed solutions Ranking

2. Cut and carry

3. Planting suitable tree species

Homestead cultivated land (HCu)