Sustainable water Harvesting and Institutional Strengthening Project (SWHISA)

Doleqie 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)

Doleqie Model Integrated Watershed Development Planning Report

SWHISA Document WMG - 03

Prepared By

Yohannes Afework (SCE), SWHISA Project

Fesseha Getachew WoreIlu Woreda agronomist
Asefa Yimer Woreda soil and water conservation expert
Getachew Endris WoreIlu Woreda Forestry/Agroforestry expert

Contributors
Kassaye Aragie Kebele 011 Supervisor
Efriem Endale Kebele 011 DA, Agronomist
Wosenie Asefa, Kebele 011 DA, Livestock development
Aminat Ahmed Kebele 011 DA, Natural Resources Management
Getachew Dawd Kebele 013 DA, Supervisor
Luwaba Eshete Kebele 013 DA, Agronomist
Mulineh Abebe Kebele 013 DA, Livestock development
Muhe Tigabu Kebele 013 DA, Natural Resource Management

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. OBJECTIVE OF DOLEQIE MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................1
2. PLANNING APPROACHES...................................................................................................................................2
3. RESOURCES IN DOLEQIE WATERSHED.........................................................................................................6
3.1. BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS.............................................................................................................................6
3.1.1. Location of Doleqie watershed....................................................................................................................6
3.1.2. Topography..................................................................................................................................................7
3.1.3. Catchment Condition...................................................................................................................................7
3.1.4. Soil condition...............................................................................................................................................8
3.1.5. Land use/Cover............................................................................................................................................8
3.1.6. Climate.......................................................................................................................................................11
3.1.7. Water Resources.........................................................................................................................................11
3.2. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITION.............................................................................................................................12
3.2.1 Population...................................................................................................................................................12
3.2.2. Crop production and livestock resources in the watershed.......................................................................13
4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS....................................................................16
4.1. NATURAL RESOURCES DEGRADATION................................................................................................................16
4.2. CROP PRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................16
4.3. LIVESTOCK AND FODDER DEVELOPMENT...........................................................................................................17
4.4. SOCIOECONOMICS CONDITION...........................................................................................................................17
5. LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION.........................................................................................................20
6. DOLEQIE MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PLAN..............................................26
6.1. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT...............................................................................................................26
6.1.1. Soil and water Conservation measures, forestry and Agro-forestry..........................................................27
6.1.2. Water resources development....................................................................................................................28
6.2. CROP PRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................28
6.3. LIVESTOCK AND FODDER DEVELOPMENT...........................................................................................................29
6.4. SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................30
6.4.1. Infrastructure.............................................................................................................................................30
6.4.2. Off-farm activities:.....................................................................................................................................31
6.4.3. Development of community bylaws...........................................................................................................31
6.4.4. Training and experience sharing:..............................................................................................................31
6.4.5. HIV/AIDs Prevention.................................................................................................................................32
6.4.6. Gender issues:...........................................................................................................................................32
6.4.7. Participatory monitoring & evaluation.....................................................................................................32
6.4.8. REVISION OF WATERSHED PLAN......................................................................................................................33
6.4.9. HAND TOOLS SUPPLY......................................................................................................................................33
 6.5. DOLNQIE INTEGRATED MODEL WATERSHED THREE YEARS SUMMARIZED PLAN................................................34
7. EXPECTED ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF DOLEQIE MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED
DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................................................................42
7.1. QUALITATIVE BENEFITS OF DOLEQIE MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT...................................42
7.2. QUANTITATIVE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF DOLEQIE MODEL INTEGRATED WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.....43
8. COMMITMENT OF THE COMMUNITY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATERSHED
DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................................................................50
9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................51
REFERENCE..............................................................................................................................................................52
Annexes.........................................................................................................................................................................53
Table of Figure

FIGURE 1. COMMUNITY WATERSHED PLANNING COMMITTEE DURING ORIENTATION TRAINING......................................3

FIGURE 2. THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY (PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION)................................4
FIGURE 3. THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON VILLAGE MAPPING (RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION)........................................4
FIGURE 4. THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON RESOURCES ASSESSMENT USING TRANSECT WALK IN THE WATERSHED........5
FIGURE 5. GENERAL ASSEMBLIES TO ELECT COMMUNITY WATERSHED PLANNING TEAMS.............................................5
FIGURE 6. THE LOCATION OF DOLEQIE WATERSHED......................................................................................................6
FIGURE 7. PARTS OF THE WATERSHED.............................................................................................................................7
FIGURE 8. DEGRADED PART OF DOLNQIE WATERSHED....................................................................................................8
FIGURE 9. PART OF THE WATERSHED ENCOMPASSING DIFFERENT LAND USE/COVERS....................................................9
FIGURE 10. DOLEQIE MODEL WATERSHED LAND USE MAP..........................................................................................10
FIGURE 11. HIGH GROUND WATER POTENTIAL PART OF DOLEQIE WATERSHED.............................................................11
FIGURE 12. PART OF THE CULTIVATED LAND WITH HIGH STONINESS............................................................................22
FIGURE 13. GRAZING LAND WITH GOOD GRASS COVERAGE.........................................................................................23
FIGURE 14. DEGRADED LAND USED TO BE A GRAZING LAND......................................................................................24
FIGURE 15. LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION MAP OF DOLEQIE WATERSHED..........................................................26
Figure 16. Development Map of Doleqie Watershed...................................................................................................41
List of Table

TABLE 1. THE PROPORTION OF LAND USE/COVER IN DOLEQIE WATERSHED...................................................................9

TABLE 2. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND AVAILABILITY................................................................................12
TABLE 3. THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WATERSHED.......................................................................................................12
TABLE 4. CROP CALENDAR..........................................................................................................................................13
TABLE 5. VARIETIES, PRODUCTIVITY OF CROPS GROWN IN THE WATERSHED...............................................................14
TABLE 6. LIVESTOCK IN THE WATERSHED.....................................................................................................................15
TABLE 7. SUMMARIZED PROBLEMS AND THEIR RANK GIVEN BY THE COMMUNITY......................................................19
TABLE 8. THE LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND CAPACITY CLASSIFICATION...........................................................25
TABLE 9. DOLNQIE INTEGRATED MODEL WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT THREE YEARS PLAN..........................................35
TABLE 10. TOTAL BENEFIT FROM MILK PRODUCTION WITH 10% DISCOUNT RATE FOR 5 YEARS.................................44
TABLE 11. COST OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES................................................................................44
TABLE 12. WHEAT GRAIN YIELD IN DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS.....................................................................................46
TABLE 13. BENEFIT COMPARISON FROM CROP PRODUCTION WITH AND WITH OUT CONSERVATION MEASURES...........46
TABLE 14. SUMMARIZED COST OF APICULTURE............................................................................................................47
Table 15. Summarized benefit of apiculture.................................................................................................................47
Executive Summary
In order to demonstrate farmers integrated and successful watershed, WoreIlu woreda
Agricultural and Rural Development Office in collaboration with SWHISA project has selected
Doleqie watershed as the model integrated watershed in 011 and 013. 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.

All efforts were made to make sure their full involvement in all aspects of the planning process
ensures that they develop a feeling of project ownership and ultimately to sustain the watershed
development activities. The community participated from early stages of watershed management
planning process, starting from site selection to approval of the plan. 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 select the members of the watershed development
committee, it was decided by the public to use a free election process by using one person, one
vote system. Accordingly, 12 Doleqie main watershed planning committee members were
elected with 50% women committee members.

The committee members have participated in identifying problems, causes and proposed
development options. In resource identification transect walk, interview, and round table
discussions (PRA) tool were applied. The farmers played role in characterizing different land
uses by using their own traditional knowledge (soil texture, fertility status, stoniness, etc.). Hence
the role of experts was to technically 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 and improving crop and grass
yield in the lower part of hills and ridges. 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 system from rainfed to

i
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 (beekeeping), off-farm activities as mate
work, weaving, tailoring, etc. will be promoted in the watreshed 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 2816956.00. The estimation doesnt include regular activities performed by
the farmers. Of the total estimated budget Birr 1778411.00 and 305690.00 is planned to be
covered by OoARD/PSNP and SWHISA project respectively. The rest Birr 732855.00 is to be
contributed by the community in the form of labour.

Overall, through full participation of beneficiaries, the proposed watershed management plan is
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 development
activities.

ii
1. General Background

1.1. Introduction
Soil erosion in Amahra region is aggravated mainly due to deforestation, overgrazing and poor
farming systems. The productivity of land is also declining in many places and hence the area
exposed to food insecurity is increasing through time. Similarly land degradation in Woreilu
woreda is aggravated due to the above mentioned causes. To arrest this land degradation soil and
water conservation measures have been implemented in the woreda since some decades back
although its sustainability is questioned. To make the efforts more sustainable the woreda
OoARD in collaboration with SWHISA project has identified one model watershed named
Doleqie model integrated watershed. Effort is made to fully participate the community through
their representatives in the planning process. The plan has addressed the problem of the
communities given due attention to income generating activities in the watershed. Different
disciplines that can promote the implementation of watershed developments and solve problem
of the farmers have been integrated in the plan.

The total estimated budget required to achieve the planned activities for the watershed
development is Birr 2816956.00. The estimation doesnt include regular activities performed by
the farmers. Of the total estimated budget Birr 1778411.00 and 305690.00 is planned to be
covered by OoARD/PSNP and SWHISA project respectively. The rest Birr 732855.00 is to be
contributed by the community in the form of labour.

This planning document has nine sections. Section one states about the introduction, role of
SWHISA project in watershed development, planning team composition, and the objectives of
the model watershed development, section two discusses about approaches used in the planning
process. Section three and four explains about the current situation and the major problems of the
watershed while section five and six discuss on land capability classification and the Doleqie
watershed plan respectively. Section seven, eight and nine discuss expected economic benefits of
the watershed development, commitment of the community for the implementation of the
watershed 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 Doleqie
woreda agronomist, soil and water conservation experts, natural resources management expert
and development agents of natural resources management, crop production and livestock were
participated in the planning process.

1.3. Objective of Doleqie model integrated watershed development

Major objective:

1
The main objective of this model integrated watershed development is to increase land
productivity and ensure sustainable land management through the implementation of
participatory watershed management

Specific objectives:

1. To ensure food security and improve the livelihood of the community in Doleqie model
watershed through the implementation of participatory and integrated watershed
development.
2. Enhance the capacity of farmers, DAs, and woreda experts and related institutions in the
proper planning and management of watersheds.
3. To establish sustainable model watershed development for the area.
4. To bring up the introduction of better land management, agronomic practices and
introduction of high value crop, 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. Planning approaches
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 planning team
election to approval of the plan.

Before the planning process commenced, a one day orientation was provided to the community
members on how to carry out the watershed planning process as it is shown in figure 1. The
approach used in the planning process was mainly participatory rural appraisal (PRA) as
indicated in figure 2 and 3. Different tools such as transect walk, semi-structured interviews,
village mapping, and problem ranking methods were used using the Community Based
Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) Guideline (figure 4).

Watershed planning committee election and public participation

The community watershed planning teams were elected, in the presence of most of the
beneficiaries in the general assembly (figure 5). To elect 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. Each candidate provided a presentation to the electoral, indicating his/her strength
and weaknesses. Candidates debate each other, before voting can commence. Women were
encouraged in the election process and covered 50% of the total committee in both the sub and
2
main committees as indicted in annex 2, 3 and 4. Participating majority of the community in the
general assembly and undertaking the election process makes different from most of previous
planning processes.

Participation of committee members in the planning process

The committee members had participated in identifying problems, causes and proposed
development options that can resolve their problem. 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 and fertility status). They knew their area and hence grouped those cultivated
and grazing lands which have similar characteristics. This was indeed, helpful for experts in land
use classification. So the role of experts was to facilitate the process, give technical suggestions
and consolidate the plan, forwarded by the committee members. After the plan was consolidated,
it was presented to the general assembly for approval.

The introduction of economic/multi-purpose shrubs, trees and grasses as biological conservation

measures, introduction of high value crops, improved agronomic practices, introduction of off-
farm activities focusing on female farmer groups, development of bylaws, implementation of
participatory monitoring and evaluation systems and mainstreaming HIV/AIDs and gender in the
watershed development were given emphasis in the plan to sustain the watershed development
endeavors in the plan. Moreover, attention was given to income generating activities for the
farmers during the planning process. It is believed that building the capacity of the farmers
through training and experience sharing tour helps to ensure full participation of the community
in the implementation and ultimately ensures the sustainability of the watershed development.

Figure 1. Community watershed planning committee during orientation training

3
Figure 2. The committee members on socioeconomic survey (problem identification)

Figure 3. The committee members on village mapping (resources identification).

4
Figure 4. The committee members on resources assessment using transect walk in the watershed.

Figure 5. General assemblies to elect community watershed planning teams.

5
3. Resources in Doleqie Watershed

3.1. Biophysical Environments

3.1.1. Location of Doleqie watershed

Doleqie watershed is found in 011 and 013 kebeles in WoreIlu woreda of South Wollo
administrative zone. The site is found in between Kabe and Segno Gebeya towns, which is
estimated to be 23km far away from the capital town, WoreIlu. The total area of the watershed is
390ha. As it is indicated in the figure below it is located between 39 026 to 39028 latitude and
10045 to 10047 longitude. The altitude of the watershed ranges from 2740m to 2980 meter
above sea level.

Figure 6. The location of Doleqie watershed

6
3.1.2. Topography
The major landforms in the watershed include plain, hills and ridge dominated by major slope
classes: nearly flat, gentle slope and steep slope. However, most of the area is dominated by
ridge with slopes ranging above 15% gradient (figure 7). Topography has played significant role
for the degradation of hills and ridges in the watershed. 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.

Figure 7. Parts of the watershed

3.1.3. Catchment Condition

The watershed is dominated by hill and ridge where steep slope covers most of the watershed
area. The natural topography in combination with the poor land management has aggravated land
degradation in the watershed. Most of the areas, dominated by steep slopes are abandoned.
Although all types of soil erosion are observed sheet erosion has significantly affected the
watershed. As elders said the ridges and hills were covered by forest many years back but due to
population pressure these forests were cleared and changed to cultivated land, the grass coverage
is also reduced and the land is now exposed to soil erosion.

3.1.4. Soil condition

Clay texture has dominated the area especially the plain part of the watershed is dominated by
heavy clay soil. The hills and ridges are dominated by silt clay loam and sandy clay loam. The
7
depth of soil ranges from very shallow (below 25cm) to very deep (above 150cm). Areas with
steep slope have lost their top and sub-soils. Whereas in the plain areas where the slope gradient
is below 8%, soil erosion is low as compared to areas with steep slopes and hence the depth of
the soil is estimated to be above 150cm. The depth of the soil in the mid-slope ranges from 25 to
100cm.

Figure 8. Degraded part of Dolnqie watershed

3.1.5. Land use/Cover

The major land uses dominating the watershed are cultivated and grazing land that covers 60 and
36% of the total watershed respectively (table 1, figure 9 and 10). Village, homestead and
plantation are another land uses observed in the watershed. Eucalyptus is the dominant tree
species planted mainly in homestead areas. The hills and ridges were changed to cultivated land
many years back and through time changed to grazing land. Currently they are used as grazing
land but the grass as well as the shrub coverage in most of these areas is estimated to be below
10% (figure 8). So it can be concluded that the land is used for either of these three land uses.

8
Figure 9. Part of the watershed encompassing different land use/covers

Table 1. The proportion of land use/cover in Doleqie watershed

Land Use type Area coverage (proportion)

In ha In %
Cultivated land 232 59.5
Cu1 55 14

Cu2 91.98 23.6

Cu3 68.75 17.6

Cu4 16.27 4.2

Grazing land 142 36.4

Gr1 65.75 17

Gr2 22.5 6

Gr3 40 10

Gr4 13.75 3.5

Plantation 5 1.3

Village and others 11 2.8

Total 390 100

9
 KEY
CU=Cultivated land
Gr = Grazing land

.
.

Figure 10. Doleqie Model Watershed Land use map

10
3.1.6. Climate
Based on the elevation above sea level Doleqie watershed is categorized under Dega Agro
climatic zone. The annual temperature and rainfall ranges from 15.5 to 22.5oC and from 766 to
1250mm respectively.

3.1.7. Water Resources

In the plain part of the watershed there are springs along Doleqie stream. The stream is perennial
although its flow is very low. As it is revealed in table 2 the presence of springs along this stream
shows that this part of the watershed has high ground water potential (figure 11). If the degraded
hills and ridges are treated with appropriate conservation measures it is expected that the ground
water potential will increase. Since the flow of the stream is low, the irrigation activity within the
watershed is very low.

High ground water potential area

Figure 11. High ground water potential part of Doleqie watershed.

Table 2. Water resources development and availability

11
Source of Quantity Its services Average For how long stays
water distance
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

In previous time spring was developed and has been used as water supply for the surrounding
villages. But this structure needs to be maintained in order to avoid further damage of the
structure and reduce loss of water. The farmers still need two springs to be developed for the
other villages. The distance takes 20 minutes to fetch water from the springs. The absence of
water harvesting schemes (WHSs) in the watershed makes the farmers unable to practice
irrigated agriculture.

3.2. Socioeconomic Condition

3.2.1 Population
The number of household benefiting from the watershed is summarized in the following table.
The average family size of the watershed is estimated to be 4.8. The whole beneficiaries arent
living in the watershed rather most of them are living outside the watershed but within the two
kebeles (kebele 011 and 013). However, there are still few beneficiaries living outside the two
kebeles.

Table 3. The beneficiaries of the watershed

S/N Description Population in the in the watershed

Kebele 011 Kebele 013 Total
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Household 45 43 88 30 14 44 75 57 132
2 Total 54 74 128 232 269 501 286 343 629
population

Of the total population found in the watershed about 45.5% and 54.5% is male and female
respectively. Whereas the male and female household estimates to cover about 57 and 43%
respectively.

12
3.2.2. Crop production and livestock resources in the watershed
Crop Calendar
The major crops grown in the watershed are wheat, teff, fenugreek, beans, lentils, pea, vetch, and
barely. Time of cropping is directly linked to the watershed development activity. Depending on
the type of crop and time of cropping agronomic practice by itself can be used as a 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 and ultimately affects soil erosion. As the frequency of land preparation is
increased the soil structure is destroyed and consecutively soil erosion can be worsened. Timing
and frequency of crop production activities are summarized in the table below.

Table 4. Crop calendar

Major crop Land preparation Planting/sowing Weeding Harvesting

frequency
Wheat 3 times End of June to September October to
early July November
Teff 3 to 4 times July to early September November to
August December
Bean 1 time June No weeding Mid of October to
mid of November
Lentils, 2 times June to July No weeding November
Barely 3 times Mid of May to August November
mid of June

Crop productivity
The livelihood of the people in this area depends on mixed farming system. Due to land
degradation in most part of the watershed the crop productivity has been diminished. To prevent
loss of production due to shortage of rainfall, the farmers recommended use of improved crop
varieties that have short growing season. If soil management or organic fertilizer is applied the
production may increase as it is explained by ISD and EPA, 2007. The implementation of
conservation measures increases the productivity of the land through improving the moisture
content and fertility status of the soil.

Table 5. Varieties, productivity of crops grown in the watershed

13
S/N Crop type Yield Qt/ha B
Local Varieties with Improved seed with
chemical fertilizer chemical fertilizer
1 Teff - 12
2 Wheat 24 36
3 Bean 14 19 Organic fertilizer
4 Pea 12
5 Lentil seed 12
6 Barely 12 18
7 Cheek pea 12
8 Fenugreek 8

Fertilizer application
DAP and Urea are the most common fertilizers applied in the watershed. The application rate for
DAP and Urea fertilizer is 2 Qts/ha (1qt/ha for each fertilizer) for wheat and Teff. The farmers
are using manures simply by dispersing the cow dung in their plot of land around their village.
Use of such chemical fertilizer may, in the long run, have residual impact on the cultivated land
(ISD and EPA, 2007). On top of this the price of DAP and Urea has drastically increased from
year to year and become unaffordable 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).

Livestock Resources

The livestock in the watershed are cow, horse, mule, sheep, and goat. Almost all animals in the
watershed, as to the farmers, are local verities. Livestock for the community of the watershed is
very important. They are source of fuel wood and income, especially sheep in the watershed is
highly important animal that their major source of income comes from the sheep. Along Doleqie
stream the farmers allocated grazing land for their animals. The productivity and management of
this grazing land is better compared to the other grazing lands. The total number of cattle,
equines, sheep and goats is 710 (383 TLU *). To quantify the size of grazing land for the
estimated TLU, the productivity of grazing land of the watershed should be estimated and
multiplied by its area coverage. But as the measurement takes time estimation for productivity of
the grazing land and other sources of feed wasnt made for the watershed. The grazing land
standard for one tropical livestock unit (TLU) at national average stock rate is 2.5 ha of grazing
land per annum (ANRS, 1999). As it is indicated in table 1 the total area of grazing land is
estimated to be 142ha i.e. the stocking rate excluding other sources of feed (crop residue) is

*
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, etal, 2005).
14
2.7TLU/ha i.e. 1 TLU is grazing on 0.4ha of land, which indicates that carrying capacity of these
grazing land is very much below the national standard (2.5ha). Based on the national average
stock rate about 958ha 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 (383) is 1163
tone/year. The farmers have also given explanation on the unbalanced number of livestock to
grazing land. Since there is lack of land due to high population pressure it is impossible to
increase the size of grazing land. But 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 feed deficit can be come
down.

About 33 bee colony is registered in the watershed. This shows that apiculture can be one of the
potential development area and major income generating activity. Experience showed us that
when the degraded land is rehabilitated the disappeared flowering plants start to generate. So
apiculture in this area will be promising income generating activity if the degraded parts of the
watershed are recovered and rehabilitated.

Table 6. Livestock in the watershed

S/N Type of Number of Factor No. of Feed requirement

livestock livestock TLU Tone/year
1 Oxen 118 1 118 388
2 Cow 113 1 113 288
3 Equines 148 0.8 119 378
4 Goat 37 0.1 4 12
5 Sheep 294 0.1 29 97
Total 710 383 1163

Alternative fodder sources

The major fodder sources in the watershed are crop residues, private and communal grazing
lands. Communal grazing lands in Doleqie watershed are found in areas were characterized by
seep slopes and privately owned grazing lands are found in relatively level land. Due to poor
fodder and livestock management there is shortage of animal feed. Free grazing is practiced
mainly in communal grazing lands. Thus, communal grazing lands due to their poor management
and undulating topography become highly degraded. But privately owned grazing lands are
managed relatively in better condition that in rain season they are prevented from reach of
animals and in dry season they are used as cut and carry system, while in communal grazing
lands free grazing is practiced and hence it is highly degraded. In addition to hay and crop
residues, animals are grazing on privately owned grazing lands in dry season after the grass is
harvested.

15
Currently, other alternative source of feed isnt well practiced. Susbania, treelucern and other
grass species are growing in the area. So there is a possibility of producing these fodder and
grass species along the physical structures.

4. Problem identification and possible solutions

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 voting
when there was disagreement. The identification and prioritization of problems was the initial
and important stage to propose development options.

4.1. Natural resources degradation

Natural resources degradation

Next to problem of water supply, natural resources degradation was ranked as second major
problem affected the watershed community. The watershed planning committee members
explained that the fertile land due to soil erosion, poor farming practices, deforestation and free
grazing the soil is eroded, the vegetation cover is cleared i.e. the natural resource is degraded.
The population pressure has increased through time and aggravated problem of land scarcity. To
feed the growing population new cultivated land was needed. The only option to have a new land
was clearing the forest land, which is considered to be one of the major factors for deforestation.

Water supply problem

The committee members considered water supply problem as their first ranked problem. They
mentioned that they dont have access to clean water. The causes, according to farmers, are
sedimentation of springs, degradation of uplands and loss of runoff through runoff. When the
uplands (hills and ridges) are degraded the rainfall doesnt infiltrate down the soil profile and
doesnt replenish ground water i.e. most of the rainfall changes to runoff. As the amount of
runoff increased its energy to erode soil is high. The transported soil particle is settled in the
plain part of the watershed when the slope gradient is reduced. The springs and canals found in
the plain areas are affected by sediment since their slope percentage is low.

4.2. Crop Production

Crop production reduction

The committee members ranked problem of reduction of crop production at the 3 rd stage. The
problem, as to the committee members, has affected many people in the watershed as well as in
the woreda as a whole due to water lodging, soil erosion, fertility decline, pest and crop diseases,
and lack of improved seed. Soil fertility has been declined not only due to soil erosion but also
due to land scarcity continuous plowing of cultivated land without applying fallowing system is
practiced. Water logging has also limited the productivity of crop in the plain part of the
watershed. In this part of the watershed the slope is level and the soil is heavy clay, which has
contributed for reduction of crop production. The farmers complained that problem of lack of

16
improved seed varieties has continued since many years back. The OoARD, as committee
members said, doesnt supply inputs particularly chemical fertilizer on right time.

Seepage in irrigation canals

The farmers started practicing irrigated agriculture in the watershed using springs. However due
to seepage in irrigation canals the quantity of irrigation water is reduced. The committee
members have also mentioned the possible options used to reduce the problem as it is indicated
in table 5 below.

Shortage of input supply

As the farmers said they are becoming dependent on chemical fertilizers (DAP & Urea) to grow
most of the crops in the watershed. The farmers said if we grow wheat or teff without fertilizer,
the crop production falls down. They usually face problem of input supply that OoARD doesnt
supply on time the required amount. Input supply isnt restricted not only to fertilizer but also
farm tools.

4.3. Livestock and fodder development

Reduction of the productivity of livestock

The livelihood of the farmers depends on mixed farming system. Livestock is very important
source of income for the watershed community. The committee members mentioned that due to
lack of animal feed, health problem, unbalanced number of livestock to the grazing land, lack of
improved varieties and poor quality of fodder the productivity of livestock has reduced. The
major animal diseases that are significantly affecting livestock resources are anthrax and mange
mite. The farmers mentioned that the required medicine and service isnt provided in the health
centers. Sources of water in the watershed for animal use are river and springs. The farmers
believes that if animal trough is constructed the health problem can be mentioned.

4.4. Socioeconomics condition

Road constraint

The main road from Wore Ilu to Dessie touches the west edge of the watershed (figure 6). From
the main road to the middle of the watershed, community road is required to transport any input
to the watershed. This road is estimated to be 4-5km. The committee members considered lack of
road as it is one of the major problems of the watershed. If the road is constructed the seedlings,
farm inputs, materials used for conservation measures as gabion, etc. are easily availed to the
community through this road. On top of this, products from the implementation of the watershed
e.g. economical tree can be transported to market through this road. If there is road the farmers
can sell with reasonable price. So the presence of this road facilitates for the sustainability of the
watershed implementation.

Health problem

17
As to the committee members lack of health is one of the major problems of the watershed. The
farmers said we dont find medicines in the clinic prescribed by physicians when we face health
problem. The major problem is lack of medicine in the pharmacies.

Water supply problem

As it is revealed in table 5 below the farmers ranked water supply as 1 st sever problem. The
beneficiaries said that they have lack of access to clean water supply and hence we need water
supply in the watershed. The causes for the problem, as they mentioned, are sedimentation of
springs, degradation of upper slopes and loss of water through runoff and lack of maintenance
for developed springs.

School maintenance

To aware and teach the communities school is the most important place. If school is close to or
within the watershed the students can help their family. On contrary to this if the school is far
from the watershed/village the students cant help their family, rather they need additional cost.
As a result the farmers may regret to send their children to school. Besides, the farmers can
attend adult education if the school is close to them. Watershed development involves the
implementation of different technologies in different disciplines and hence requires the
awareness of the community. Therefore the presence of the school within/close to the watershed
can positively influence the sustainability of implementation of watershed development. There is
elementary school within the watershed. But part of buildings in the school is ruined due to the
following major reasons: the school stayed for a along time without maintenance, poor
construction of materials and it is constructed in vertisoil where cracking is a major problem.

Lack of adult education

They also mentioned that in previous time the government carried out adult education throughout
the region. As a result, most farmers are able to write and read. But now days the program is not
conducted for unknown reason and hence most farmers are going to be exposed to illiteracy. If
farmers can read and write they can easily understand the introduction or demonstration or
promotion of new technologies in the watershed development.

Overall, the problems are related to crop production, livestock management, natural resources
degradation, water supply, and social issues. They also requested the government to implement
all development options proposed for each problem.

The watershed planning team, as it is indicated in the table below, have identified major
problems, with their causes and solutions and finally put ranks for each problem.

Table 7. Summarized problems and their rank given by the community.

S/N Identified problems Causes of problems Solutions Rank

1 Water supply Sedimentation in Maintenance of structures 1st
problem springs Environmental protection
Degradation in
18
 highland areas
Loss of water
through runoff
2 Natural Resources Soil erosion Soil & water conservation 2nd
degradation Deforestation Improve forest coverage
Free grazing Use Improved forage
management
Poor farming system
Follow improved farming system
Lack of plantation
Tree plantation and management
3 Crop production Water lodging Draining excess water 3rd
reduction Soil erosion Soil & water conservation
Fertility decline Improve the fertility of soil
Pest and diseases Integrated pest management
Lack of improved Use certified seed
seed
4 Seepage in irrigation Seepage in the soil Construct the canals with 4th
canals concrete structures
Accumulation of silt
Consecutive cleaning
Compact the soil
5 Reduction of the Lack of feed Improve the forage 5th
productivity of Health problem Follow up their health
livestock
Unbalanced number Limit the number of animals
of livestock Use improved verities
Lack of improved Use other forages
verities
Poor quality of fodder
6 Road constraint Lack of construction Construct the roads with the 6th
roads support the government
7 Demolishing of the The schools stayed Maintenance of schools 7th
school for a along time
without maintenance
Poor construction
materials during
their construction
8 Health problem Lack of health Implement all health packages 8th

19
 packages
9 Lack of input supply Low input supply Increase the supply 9th
(farming tools)
10 Lack of adult The program is not Adult education should be 10th
education emphasized started

5. Land Capability classification

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 on detailed informations. 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 started 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 because the laboratory analysis takes long time. If detailed suitability
evaluation was made for the watershed the watershed planning may be started at the fifth year of
the project life time. This was the main reason why the project followed land capability
classification system but not suitability land evaluation for the watershed.
Thus, the land is classified using this system according to 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. The result of the
assessment revealed that the watershed is categorized to class III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII. The
classification system helped to recommend a land to be used for appropriate land use types. The
soil information used for land capability classification is indicated in annex 5.

Cultivated land one (Cu1)

This land unit is characterized by very deep soil with heavy soil texture and low infiltration
capacity. The characteristics of the land unit show that this land is suitable for annual crops (class
III) with few limitations. The limiting factor in this land unit is permeability. Soil erosion has
slightly affected the land unit. In order to sustainably use the land different development options
have been proposed. The development options proposed by the planning committee are:
1. Graded soil and stone bund
2. Biological conservation measures using grasses and sesbania (bund stabilization).
3. Scattered plantation on farmlands using leguminous trees
20
4. Grass strips

Cultivated land two (Cu2)

This land unit is characterized by deep soil with slopes ranging up to 8%. Soil erosion has
moderately affected the land. The soil is dominated by clay texture. The limiting factor is soil
erosion. The land is suitable for grazing land (class IV). However, it is also possible to use for
annual crops using application of conservation measures. The reason why it is still decided to
use for annual crop is that the community hasnt accepted to change to grazing land because land
shortage in the area is critical. The development options proposed by the planning team are:

1. Soil and stone bund

2.Bund stabilization using grasses and susbania
3. Scattered plantation on farmlands using leguminous trees

Cultivated land three (CU3)

This land unit is characterized by slope gradient ranging from 30 to 50 %, with low soil depth
and sever erosion. The limiting factors are slope, soil depth and soil erosion. It is suitable for
grazing land (VI) but due to shortage of land it isnt yet accepted by the community, rather it is
proposed to be used for annual crops with careful management and conservation practices. The
development options proposed by the planning team are:

1. Stone and soil bunds

2. Biological conservation measures (bund stabilization)
3. Scattered plantation on farmlands using leguminous trees

Cultivated land four (CU4)

This land unit is characterized by slopes ranging from 30 to 50%, shallow soil depth; sever soil
erosion, and high stoniness (figure 12). It is currently used as a cultivated land. The unit is
suitable for forestry. The community has agreed to change part of the current land use to
plantation and part of it as it is i.e. annual crop (class VI). Actually the land unit is suitable for
plantation but due to lack of cultivated land the committee members still decided to use for
annual crops. To sustainably use the land different conservation measures are proposed. The
development options proposed by the planning team are:

1. Biological conservation measures (structural stabilization)

2. Bench terrace

21
Figure 12. Part of the cultivated land with high stoniness.

Grazing land one (Gr1)

This land unit is found along the stream with very deep soil depth. It has good vegetation (grass)
cover (figure 13). It is owned by individual farmers. The farmers use cut and carry system and in
dry season animals are allowed to graze freely. Water logging, infiltration are the major limiting
factors in this land use. As to the assessment the land is suitable for class V i.e. grazing land. The
development options proposed by the planning committee are:

1. Improve the grazing land management (grazing in different time)

2. Add fertilizer

22
Figure 13. Grazing land with good grass coverage.

Grazing land two (Gr2)

This land unit is currently used for grazing land. Soil depth in this grazing land is low; the slope
ranges from 8 to 15%. The depth of the soil is the limiting factor. The land is suitable for grazing
land (VI). Gully erosion is commonly observed in this land unit.

The development options proposed by the planning team are:

1. Terracing
2. Deep trench
3. Plantation of other grass/shrub species.
4. Check dam

Grazing land three (Gr3)

This land unit is currently used for grazing land. It is characterized by very sever soil erosion,
low soil depth, with very high stone coverage, steep slope and degraded land. All these factors
can be taken as limiting factor for this land unit. The land is suitable for plantation (VIII).

The development options proposed by the planning team are:

1. area closure
2. hillside terrace
23
 3. trench
4. biological conservation (bund stabilization)
5. bench terrace

Grazing land four (Gr4)

This land unit is currently used for grazing land. But it is characterized by steep slope gradient,
which is estimated to be more than 50% (figure 14). The limiting factors in this unit are slope,
depth, erosion, and stoniness. The land unit is suitable for class VIII (for plantation). So it is
decided to rehabilitate using different biological and physical measures. The community has also
agreed to close this part of the watershed until it is rehabilitated.

The development options proposed by the planning team are:

1. area closure
2. hillside terrace
3. trench
4. biological conservation measures (plantation)

Figure 14. Degraded land used to be a grazing land

Table 8. The land characteristics and land capacity classification.

24
S/N Land Land characteristics
class
Slope Soil Erosion Texture Water Infiltration Stoniness Class
unit
(L)% depth (D) (E) (T) logging (I) (S)
cm
1 CU1 L2 D1 E1 T7 W1 I2 S0 (15%) III
(2%)
2 CU2 L3 D1 E2 T6 W1 I1 S0 IV
3 CU3 L5 D3 E3 T5 W0 I1 S1 VI
4 CU4 L5 D4 E3 T2 W0 I0 S3 VII&VI
5 Gr1 L2 D1 E0 T7 W3 I2 S0 V
6 Gr2 L3 D6 E0 T1 W1 I1 S0 VI
7 Gr3 L6 D5 E4 T2 W0 I2 S4 VIII
8 Gr4 L6 D4 E4 T4 W0 I0 S3 VIII

25
 VI

KEY
III = For annual crop
IV = For annual crop
VI= grazing and annual crop
.
VII =Grazing + Plantation VIII
VIII=Plantation .
. VIII
.

Figure 15. Land capability classification map of Doleqie Watershed

6. Doleqie 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 (table 7). 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.

26
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, forestry and Agro-forestry

Based on the type of land use and preference of the farmers, different physical as well as
biological conservation measures have been planned. Activities related to physical conservation
measures are: cutoff drain, waterway, stone check dam, brushwood check dam, gabion check
dam, gully reshaping, deep trench, improved pitting, hillside terracing, contour plowing and
bund construction. Bunds can be either stone bund or soil bund or stone faced soil bund
depending on the availability of the stone. 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 going to be constructed in hills and ridges. These structures reduce the
surface runoff and increase the moisture content of the area. Check dams, water way 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 and scattered plantation on cultivated land, etc.
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
Doleqie 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. The nursery that produce seedling for Doleqie
watershed development is run by the OoARD. So the required and proposed seedlings are
expected to be produced in this nursery. Plantation of seedlings and sowing seeds of shrubs, trees
or grasses is done in the beginning of the rain season mostly from late June to mid July.

6.1.2. Water resources development

To solve the problem of the community in relation to water resources development, the
committee members proposed the following activities: spring development, irrigation canal
27
maintenance, hand dug well construction and household water harvesting structures (as
geomembrane and application of pedal pump). The presence of springs, the type of land form
(level land form), and the type of soil shows that the plain part of the watershed has ground water
potential. It is also 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 because of the
implementation of water retention structures in the hills and ridges. Therefore, it is planned to
construct hand-dug wells in this part of the watershed for irrigation purpose. 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 irrigation water pedal pump is 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 Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) and run by the community. The seedling
production of fodder species similar to forestry seedlings is planned to be raised in the nursery.
The other capacity building activities: training, experience sharing tour, technical support, and
demonstration of improved technologies, etc. will be managed by SWHISA project and OoARD.
The SWHISA project will also provide technical support for construction of household water
harvesting schemes. The community is responsible to implement and manage all activities in the
watershed. The construction of different activities is carried out in dry season mainly from
January to May and the plantation of vegetations will be done 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 has 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 carryout
activities mentioned under natural resources management the estimated budget is Birr
2078474.00. Of this amount Birr 1444193.00 and 634281.00 is supposed to be covered by
OoARD/PSNP and community respectively.

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 integrated watershed development for the woreda. As an activity
it is planned to supply the required inputs (chemical fertilizers (DAP & Urea), improved seed,
etc.) on time in order to avoid the problem of untimely distribution of inputs. Though chemical
fertilizers 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
28
organic fertilizer, the application of manure and compost should be widely promoted. In the plan
more emphasis is given to compost preparation.

Woreda experts and DAs intention is to minimize the use of pesticides and herbicides for crop
production in order to reduce its environmental negative impact, through application of
integrated pest management (IPM). Hence, the establishment of IPM group; and purchasing of
IPM equipments are considered in the plan.

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 and
demonstration of improved technologies will be undertaken by woreda experts with SWHISA
financial and technical support. Most of the trainings are delivered from October to December
and the supply of inputs as fertilizers and improved seed is undertaken few weeks or a month
before the application of the fertilizer or seed. In case of supply of seedlings like highland fruit
should be done during the rain season when planting is going on (June to July). 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.

Since majority of the activities mentioned under crop production are implemented by the farmers
themselves most of the costs arent included in the plan. However, some activities like
demonstration of improved technologies require financial resources. In view of that, SWHISA
project has considered Birr 12732.00 for demonstration of new introduced crop varieties for the
farmers. Of the total budget estimated (Birr 73782.00) for crop production Birr 56000.00 and
5050.00 is going to be covered by the community and OoARD respectively.

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; stabilizing physical
conservation measures; and rehabilitate degraded lands. Fodder production, grassland
improvement, avoiding free grazing, variety improvement (on cattle and sheep breeding),
apiculture, and animal health services are major activities considered in the plan under livestock
and fodder development. Regarding apiculture, improving the transitional beehives and
transferring bee colonies to the modern beehives/supply of modern beehives to the farmers are
the major activities considered in the plan. Apiculture is proposed to be implemented in the third
year of the watershed plan considering that the currently degraded part of the watershed would
be rehabilitated and the flowering vegetations are growing.

Planting of fodder species as treelucern falaris grass, etc. will be produced in the existing
nurseries and planted on degraded land and on 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
29
planned for selected farmers and DAs. The training is going to be delivered by woreda experts
with financial and technical support from SWHISA project.

Fodder production, grassland improvement, area closure/avoiding free grazing, livestock variety
improvement, apiculture, etc. are intended to be implemented by the community with technical
support delivered 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 extensively
occurred.

Similar to crop production most of the activities under livestock and fodder development are
carried out by the farmers themselves as their own regular activities. But OoARD is providing
technical support and facilitates the supply of improved fodder species, etc. Fodder seedling
production in the nurseries is done by OoARD/PSNP and introduction of new technologies to the
community especially on fodder species are supposed to be demonstrated by SWHISA &
OoARD. The total budget estimated for activities mentioned under livestock and fodder
development is 157320.00. Of the total estimated budget 83%, 4% and 13% is covered by
OoARD/PSNP, SWHISA and the community respectively.

6.4. Socioeconomic conditions

6.4.1. Infrastructure
The committee members made attempt to include all activities that can solve their problems.
School maintenance, IPM office and road construction are major activities planned under
infrastructure. The community has planned to construct community feeder road in the watershed.
The road is estimated to be 4-5km from the main road (from WoreIlu to Dessie) to the primary
school, middle of the watershed. The use of this road is to transport inputs (seedlings, fertilizer,
improved seeds and other technologies) to the beneficiaries. Due to lack of maintenance for a
long time and the nature of the soil where the school is constructed part of the primary school is
ruined. The committee members, as a result, incorporated school maintenance in their watershed
plan. The community has proposed to construct IPM office as one integral part of the watershed
development.

Similar to other PSNP public works the community is going to contribute labour for construction
of community road, school maintenance and IPM office construction. Especially they want to
maintain the school with little financial support. PSNP through OoARD will support the
implementation of these infrastructures. The construction of all structures is carried out from
January to May.

6.4.2. Off-farm activities:

Income generating activities as improved stoves, poultry and weaving are included in the plan.
These activities have direct or indirect contribution to the sustainability of the watershed
development. If some portion of the community is engaged in off-farm/income generating
activities the pressure on land resources is definitely reduced and ultimately the watershed
development would be sustained. Besides, use of improved stove reduces the energy
consumption of the people and improves health condition of the women. SWHISA project has
30
proposed to demonstrate solar cookers in the watershed. Solar cookers are environmentally
friendly and economically feasible because except initial and 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 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 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 Edirs, traditional institutions that give different
social services to the community. So they have planned to prepare the bylaws they orally
discussed and submit to Justice/Edir in each kebele (kebele 011 & 013).

The development of bylaws is to be undertaken by the community in each kebele and facilitated
by OoARD. If the bylaws are approved by Zone Administrative Justice Office it has to be
submitted to the zone Justice Office. SWHISA project will technically and financially support
the preparation of these community 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 activities are considered in the plan.

Those farmers who have been participated in experience sharing tour, organized by SWHISA
project, were active in the planning process and seem that their attitude is changed. Experience
sharing is appreciated by both experts and communities that significantly change the attitude of
the 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.

31
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 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. So it is planned to establish the group and
conduct training for the proposed groups.

OoARD will take the coordination role and woreda HIV/AIDs Prevention and Control Office
and health extension agents are expected to provide technical support to the 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 (firewood collection, fetching water, farming
practices, etc.) in their family they can positively or negatively affect the implementation of the
watershed development. Their active involvement and participation, therefore, contributes to the
sustainability of the watershed development. In view of that it is planned to form three women
development groups in different off-farm activities: weaving, poultry and improved stove
production women groups. After the groups are established skill training will be provided for the
group members on these income generating/off-farm activities mentioned above.

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
off-farm activities are expected to involve in the provision of the trainings. 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, the soil and
water conservation measures and other interventions may be implemented maintaining the
required technical standards but the watershed implementation process maynt end up with
success unless consecutive monitoring 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 9 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 development is designed to be conducted once in a year in the presence of the
32
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 as well SWHISA experts are also participated 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 and
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 building the capacity of the
community in the watershed. Training of the community on different issues: watershed
management, agronomic practices, livestock and fodder development, 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; development of bylaws; implementation of participatory monitoring and evaluation
systems are major activities under this section. All of them are directly or indirectly related to
capacity building. The total budget allocated for these activities is estimated to be Birr
507380.00. About 39% and 57% and 4% of the total allocated budget is covered by SWHISA,
OoARD/PSNP and the community respectively.

The total estimated budget required to achieve the planned activities in the watershed
development is Birr 2816956.00. The estimation doesnt include regular activities performed by

33
the farmers. Of the total estimated budget Birr 1778411.00 and 305690.00 is planned to be
covered by OoARD/PSNP and SWHISA project respectively. The rest Birr 732855.00 is to be
contributed by the community in the form of labour.

6.5. Dolnqie integrated model watershed three years summarized plan

After the committee members identified problems, causes of problems and solutions, proposed
development options. The plan is three years plan as it is indicated in the table below.

34
Table 9. Dolnqie Integrated model watershed development three years plan
S/ Selected measures Unit Work Persons 3yrs Total Plan for each budget Additi Total cost Cost covered by:
N norm/Unit day/unit plan persons year onal
price day 1st 2nd 3rd cost OoARD/ SWHI Commun
PSNP SA ity
1 Natural Resources 2078474 1444193 634281
management
1.1 Flood control
measures
Cutoff drain Km 0.7m3/pd 700 0.3 210 0.1 0.1 0.1 2100 1890 210
Waterway Km 0.75m3/pd 750 0.3 225 0.1 0.1 0.1 2250 2025 225
1.2 Gully rehabilitation 0 0
Check dam 0 0
stone check dam Km 0.5m3/pd 500 0.3 150 0.1 0.1 0.1 1500 1350 150
Check dam km 1 m3/pd 250 0.3 75 30 130 150 750 750
maintenance
Brushwood check 3LM/pd 100 0.2 20 - 0.1 0.1 200 180 20
dam
Gabion check dam 0.5m3/pd 500 0.1 50 - 0.1 - 120000 120500 108450 12050

Reshaping ha 1ha/500pd 500 0.1 50 - 0.1 - 500 450 50

1.3 Hillside development 0 0

Deep trench No. 0.5m3/pd 1 62490 62490 2083 2083 2083 624900 562410 62490
0 0 0
Trench maintenance No 2 pd/3 0.35 62490 21871.5 3124 3124 218715 218715
trenches 5 5
Improved pitting 5IPs/pd 0.2 62490 12498 2083 2083 2083 124980 112482 12498
0 0 0
Hillside terracing Km 250pd/km 250 15 3750 5 3 7 37500 33750 3750

Hillside terracing Km 125pd/km 125 15 1875 7.5 7.5 18750 18750

maintenance
Contour plowing ha 50 10 20 20 Commun
ity
1.4 Soil and water conservation on cultivated land

35
 Soil bund Ha 150pd/km 150 32 4800 10 20 2 48000 43200 4800
Stone faced soil Ha 250pd/km 250 120 30000 20 50 50 300000 270000 30000
bund
Stone bund Ha 250pd/ha 250 80 20000 10 35 35 200000 180000 20000
Bund maintenance ha 100pd/ha 100 232 23200 25 100 125 232000 232000
1.5 Biological soil and
water conservation
measures
Bund stabilization km 30 pd/km 30 116 3480 100 185 235 34800 31320 3480
with vegetations
Grass strip Ha 16pd/km 62 40 2480 10 20 10 24800 22320 2480
Scattered plantation ha 2pd/ha 2 15 30 5 5 5 300 270 30
on cultivated land
1.6. Water resources
development
Spring development No 1pcs/pd 1700 2 3400 1 - 1 32182 34000 30600 3400
Irrigation canal km 0.75m3/pd 333 1 333 2 - - 10000 13333 12000 1333
maintenance
Hand dug well No 52pd/well 52 2 104 2 - - 26756 27796 25016.4 2779.6
construction
Household water No 0.25m3/pd 240 3 720 3 - - 600 7800 6480 1320
harvesting
structures
(Geomembrane)
Pedal pump No 1000 3 0 3 - - 3000 3000
II Crop production 73782 5050 12732 56000
Soil fertility
management
Compost M3 1pit /10pd 1.25 1760 2200 1760 1760 1760 22000 22000
preparation
Cow dung M3 210 210 210 210
collection
Verti soil drainage ha 20 20 20 20 Commun
ity
Input supply "
Fertilizer "
DAP Qt. 176 176 352 352 "
Urea Qt. 210 210 210 210 "
Organic fertilizer Pkt 10 10 10 10 "
Improved seed "
Wheat Qt. 75 75 75 75 "

36
 Teff Qt. 2 2 2 2 "
Bean Qt. 5 5 5 5 "
Supply technology: No. 20 0 20 20 20 "
BBM
Supply highland No 50 880 0 120 120 120 44000 10000 34000
fruit
Establishment of IPM No 1 1 - -
group
Purchasing IPM
equipment
Clothes No psc 150 10 - 25 - 1500 1500
Guant No pair 25 10 - 25 - 250 250
Goggle No pair 20 10 - 25 - 200 200
Shoes No pair 50 10 - 25 - 500 500
Nap sack sprayer No no 350 6 - 6 - 2100 2100
Watering can No no 50 10 - 10 - 500 500
Supply of stationeries
for all activities
Printer paper No 50 24 1200 - 12 12 1200 1200
Pen No 2 6 12 - 3 3 12 12
Note book No 8 50 400 - 250 250 400 400
Flip chart No 60 15 900 - 7 8 900 900
Marker No 10 10 100 - 5 5 100 100
Fixer No 10 12 120 - 6 6 120 120
III Livestock & forage 157320 131167.8 5578 20574.2
Development
3.1. Livestock Commun
Development ity
Variety improvement "
Supply of sheep No 20 5 10 5 "
improved variety
(dram)
Supply of improved 880 400 - 480 "
chicken
Artificial 20 3 10 7 "
insemination
Fattening "
Cattle No 50 - 25 25 "
Sheep No 200 - 100 100 "
Apiculture "

37
 No of farmers engaged "
in beekeeping
Male No 15 - - 15 "
Female No 5 - - 15 "
Animal health service "
Vaccination No 550 - 550 550 "
Mange mite control No 330 50 330 330 "
Supply of modern No 400 20 - - 20 8000 2000 6000
beehives
3.2. Forage development
On bunds Ha 16pd/km 16 116 1856 10 20 2 18560 15869 928 1763
In the gullies 100pd/ha 100 0.16 16 0.8 - 0.8 160 144 16
In degraded hills 100pd/ha 100 53 5300 10 10 10 53000 45315 2650 5035
3.3. Grazing land Communi
improvement ty
Improve the grazing Ha 50 10 30 10 "
system
Seeding on open Qt. 5 1 2 2 "
spaces and add urea
Adding manure Qt 5 1 2 2 "
Animal trough No 3m3/pd 30 2 60 1 - 1 5000 5600 5040 560
construction
Stop free grazing Village 3 3 3 3 "

Control free Ha 4pd/ha/yr 8 300 7200 100 200 300 72000 64800 7200
grazing/Area
closure
IV Socioeconomics 507380 198000 287380 22000
4.1 Infrastructures
IPM office No 1 - 1 - 50000 45000 5000
construction
School maintenance No 1 1 - - 50000 45000 5000
Community road Km 1km/3000pd 3000 4 12000 2 1 1 120000 108000 12000
construction
4.2 Womens development 0 3000 3000
group establishment
Weaving for women Group 1 0 - - 1
groups
Improved stoves Group 1 0 - - 1
for women groups

38
 Poultry for women Group 2 0 - 2 -
groups
4.3 HIV prevention group Group 2 0 - 2 - 2000 2000
establishment
Undertake group No 10 0 5 5 1000 1000
discussion
4.4. Community bylaws 0 5000 5000
development
Preparation of No 2 0 2 - -
bylaws
Revision of bylaws No 2 0 - 2 -
4.5 Participatory 0
monitoring and
evaluation
By the committee Freque 12 farmers 12 58 696 6 26 26 17400 17400
members & n. & Das
DAs/supervisors
By the woreda Freque 5 experts 5 27 135 3 12 12 13500 13500
experts n
By SWHISA Freque 10 2 4 4
experts n.
Evaluation by the Freq. 1000 2 - 1 1 1000 1000
general assembly
and experts (once in
a year)
4.6 Training on:
Integrated No 3day 3 100 300 - 50 50 15000 15000
watershed
management
Livestock & fodder No 3day 3 100 300 - 50 50 15000 15000
development
Agronomic No 3day 3 100 300 - 50 50 15000 15000
practices
Soil & water No 4day 4 100 400 - 50 50 20000 20000
conservation
Forestry & agro- No 3day 3 100 300 - 50 50 15000 15000
forestry
Improved stoves No 10day 10 10 100 5000 5000
Gender & No 2day 2 20 40 - 10 10 2000 2000
development
HIV prevention No 2day 2 20 40 - 10 10 2000 2000
4.7 Experience sharing
39
 for:
Farmers No 6day 6 120 720 40 40 40 36000 86400 86400
DAs and No 10day 10 15 150 8 8 8 20000 35000 35000
supervisors
Woreda experts No 10day 7 7 7
4.8 Revision of watershed No 12pd for 60 1 60 - 1 - 2500 4000 4000
plan 5days
4.9 Farm tools supply
Spade (Akafa) No 40 176 7040 100 76 7040 7040
Pick axe (doma) No 40 176 7040 100 76 7040 7040
Sickles (Machide) No 25 20 500 10 10 500 500
Hoe (zabia) No 50 176 8800 176 8800 8800
Crow bar (Dijno) No 160 20 3200 20 3200 3200
Sledge hammer No 175 20 3500 20 3500 3500
(Meraja)
Grand total 2816956 1778411 305690 732855

40
 KEY
.
SS =Soil and stone bund
SSG = Graded soil & stone bund
Un+gd= grazing land management
HT+Tr =hillside terracing & trench
.
HT+Tr+AC=hillside terracing, trench &area .
closure
.
BM =biological conservation
.

Figure 16. Development Map of Doleqie Watershed

41
7. Expected economic benefits of Doleqie model integrated watershed
development
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 Doleqie model integrated watershed development

Though detailed study is required to conduct economic feasibility of the implementation of watershed
development, it is possible to demonstrate, in descriptive manner, the economic benefits of the proposed
watershed development plan.

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/off-farm activities, etc will be given special attention. Parts of the
watershed are currently highly degraded and their productivity has been 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 rain fed agriculture 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 multi-purpose
shrubs, etc.) will allow for rehabilitation of highly degraded land and improving its productivity.

Different grass species and palatable/multipurpose shrubs will be planted on 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, 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, improved stoves and weaving will be

42
promoted in such areas to engage landless youths in income generating/off-farm activities, to increase
their income and ultimately develop feeling of ownership on the watershed development.

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 Doleqie 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
203320.00. On top of this the management cost (to take care of the vegetations planted on
physical structures) requires Birr 4385.00. Thus the total cost would be Birr 207705.00. The
benefit is looked at from different perspectives.

A. 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 1204ton hay/year from the
177ha of cultivated land in the watershed. This fodder can feed 365cows/year. If each cow gives
1.05 liter/day of milk for lactation period of 6.57 months (ANRS, 1999) 365 cows will give
75539 liter/year and the total income in 5 years with 10% discount rate would be Birr
1574928.00.

B. About 53ha of grazing land (gr3 and Gr4) 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 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

43
 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 101tone/year of
fodder plant can be produced from 53 hectare of land. The adult Horo cow needs 9kg hay/day
and 3.3tone hay/year. The fodder production from 53ha of land will support totally 31 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 31 cow can give 33 liters/day and
6416 liters of milk/year. The benefit gained from milk with 10% discount rate for 5 year
production periods would be Birr 133761.00.

Table 10. Total benefit from milk production with 10% discount rate for 5 years.

Production years
In come from
Total
milk produced
1 2 3 4 5
on physical
structure 377692.9 343357.2 312142.9 283766.2 257969.3 1574928
on hedge rows 32078 29161.84 26510.76 24100.69 21909.72 133761
Total benefit 409770.9 372519 338653.6 307866.9 279879 1708689
The net present value 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

Birr 1500984.00 The result shows that the plan is profitable. The cost benefitratio 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 cost
benefitratio is 8. 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 construction and maintenance of soil and water conservation measures as it is
detailed in section 6.5 table 9 and summarized in the table blow is Birr 1912115.00

Table 11. Cost of soil and water conservation measures.

Activities Years Total

1 2 3 4
SWCMs construction 507443.33 507443.3 507443.3 1522330

SWCMs maintenance 142489.4 129535.8 117759.8 389785

Total 507443.33 649932.7 636979.1 117759.8 1912115

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
44
measures. Soil erosion removes plant nutrient and moisture content. On the other 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 wheat 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 Doleqie watershed that needs treatment i1
232ha. Wheat which is estimated to have average grain yield of 24Qt/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 232ha would be 50927Qt/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 wheat grain yield is increased to 48Qt/ha/year and the total wheat grain
yield from 232ha would be 94656Qt/10years. When the cultivated land is treated with
conservation measures a difference of 43729Qt yield is observed. Considering the current market
price of wheat (Birr 700.00) the total benefit from 232ha of cultivated land with 10% discount
rate and for 10 years of production period would be Birr 38205375.00.

On the other hand if we assume that the wheat grain yield is increased by 2% (Tantigegn Kebede,
1991) the total yield out of the 232ha would be 59882Qt/10years and a difference of 8955Qt is
observed. Considering the current market price of wheat (Birr 700.00) the total benefit from
232ha of cultivated land with 10% discount rate would be Birr 25385959.00. Whereas the total
benefit without the treatment of conservation measures from 232ha of land in ten years return
period with 10% discount rate is Birr 22248250.00. In both assumptions the yield as well as the
income has shown increment with treatment of cultivated land.
45
 Table 12. Wheat Grain yield in different assumptions.

Grain yield Years

in different Total
assumptions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

556 556 556

Increment 8 8 8 11136 11136 11136 11136 11136 11136 11136 94656
with 50%
556 556 567
Increment 8 8 9 5793 5909 6027 6148 6270 6396 6524 59882
with 2%
556 545 534
Without 8 7 8 5241 5136 5033 4932 4834 4737 4642 50927
treatment

Table 13. Benefit comparison from crop production with and with out conservation measures

S/N Income with Years

different
assumptions (Birr) Total
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10
1 Increment with
3543273 3221157 2928325 5324226 4840206 4400187 4000170 3636518 3305925 3005387 38205375
50%
2 Increment with
3543273 3221157 2986891 2769663 2568233 2381452 2208256 2047655 1898735 1760645 25385959
2%
3 Without
3543273 3156734 2812363 2505560 2232226 1988710 1771760 1578477 1406280 1252867 22248250
treatment

Effort is made to compare the benefit with and without the conservation measures that a
difference of Birr 15957125.00 and 3137709.00 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 14045010.00 and 1225594.00 for
50 and 2% yield increment respectively. The cost benefit ratio is 8 and 1.6 for 50 and 2%
respectively. 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
46
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 20 modern beehives
in the degraded part of the watershed. The cost of the 20 beehives, 20 bee colonies and
management for 5 years is estimated to be Birr 8000.00, 2000.00 and 11570.01.00 respectively.
The total cost is estimated to be Birr 26790.00.

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 20 beehives within
5 years production period is estimated to be 2500kg. The current market price of honey around
the watershed is Birr 35/kg. Hence the total income from 20 beehives would be Birr 72972.65.

Table 14. Summarized cost of apiculture

Year
Cost (Birr) Total
1 2 3 4 5
Cost (Birr) 10000 15220.01
Management cost 3650 3318.182 3016.529 2742.299 2492.999 11570.01
Total cost 13650 3318.182 3016.529 2742.299 2492.999 26790.02

Table 15. Summarized benefit of apiculture

Year
Benefit in 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Honey production (kg) 500 500 500 500 500 2500

In come in with 10%
discount rate (Birr) 17500 15909.09 14462.81 13148.01 11952.74 72972.65
Total benefit (Birr) 17500 15909.09 14462.81 13148.01 11952.74 72972.65

NPV in 5 years of production is estimated to be Birr 46182.63. Based on the result the proposed
plan is profitable within 5 years production time. The cost benefit ratio within 5 years production
period is 2.7. The ratio is above 1, which shows that the plan is economically feasible.

Water resource development

It is planned to implement 2 hand-dug wells, 3 household water harvesting structures (HHWHSs)
for irrigation with pedal pump installation, and 2 spring developments for water supply purpose
in Doleqie watershed. The cost 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
47
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.

The cost of construction of two spring development is estimated to be Birr 34000.00. In addition, the
management cost related to cleaning, fencing and guarding of the spring for 5 years is estimated to be Birr
30440.00. Thus, the total cost related to the development is estimated to be Birr 64440.00.

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
the daily consumption of a beneficiary is considered to be the minimum 15
dwellings respectively. If
liter/day/person the total beneficiaries (629) of the watershed will demand 9435liter/year.
Assuming that the current price of potable water in rural areas is Birr 0.05/liter the total
population 629 can save Birr 718004.00 within 5 years return period.

The NPV in this case is estimated to be Birr 653564.00 and the cost benefit ratio of the five years is 7.
Although the farmers arent directly benefited in terms of money they can directly benefited from the
project by saving considerable amount of money. So spring development is profitable and feasible. The
provision of clean water can also be looked at from the health aspect that reduces the cost of medication
particularly diseases related to water born diseases.

o Hand dug well development

If each hand-dug well irrigate at least 300m 2 of cultivated land, 2 of them can irrigate 600m 2 of
cultivated land. So the farmers will benefit from the water resources development by producing
crops twice a year from 600m2 of irrigated land. If highly valuable crops (vegetables) are grown
using the water, the farmers can earn Birr 6000/year. The farmers, therefore, in 5 and 10 years
return period with 10% discount rate can change Birr 25019.00 and 40554.00 respectively.

The hand-dug well can be constructed in two ways (with and without concrete). If the hand dug
well is constructed with concrete the NPV for 5 years return period is negative 2777.00, which
shows that the plan isnt feasible. But if the return period is considered the NPV is estimated to
be 12758 and the cost benefit ratio is 1.5, which shows that the plan is feasible.

If it is constructed with out concrete NPV is estimated to be Birr 17979.00.00 and the cost
benefit ratio is 17. This shows that the plan is feasible and profitable with out concrete.

o Household water harvesting structures (HHWHSs)

The cost of construction and management for 5 years is considered to be Birr 7800.00 and 3000
respectively. 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 m 3 varies from 100 to
200m3. Since the watershed is situated in Dega agro-climatic condition where the evaporation is
48
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 200m2 and both HHWHSs can irrigate 400m2 of land. It is
expected that the farmers will produce highly valuable crops (vegetables) and are able to earn
Birr 4000/year. In 5 years return period with 10% discount rate they can earn Birr 16679.00.

The net present value in 5 years return period and 10% discount rate is estimated to be 5879 and
the cost benefit ratio is 1.5, which shows that the implementation of HHWHSs is profitable and
feasible.

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 1.16m3/head/year. In the watershed the total population is
629, which increases the fuel demand to 730m3/year. 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 730 to 365m 3/year. Taking the current price of wood in the area (1m 3
Birr is 200.00) about Birr 73000/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.

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 (132) are going to use improved stove Birr 13200.00 is required. Using the solar
cooker except injera and bread, wat can be cooked, water can be boiled and it is also possible to
roast grain and others. So about 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 family size of 4.8 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. 182m 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 they can reduce the cost of fuel wood from Birr 145928.00 to
36482.00 i.e. Birr 109446/year can be saved. At household level a farmers can save Birr 835/year
by using both technologies. The whole beneficiaries in 5 years production period can save Birr
456375.00 by investing Birr 13200.00.

49
8. Commitment of the Community for the Implementation of the watershed
Development
The farmers who showed up in meeting explained why most of the beneficiaries didnt
participate. As to their explanation, the farmers suspected that the government is going to
construct irrigation dam in the selected watershed and hence the whole grazing as well as
cultivated land would be denudated and consequently the affected people may be resettled. The
main thing for them to have negative perception for dam is that the regional government had
started a study in previous time to construct a dam in their neighboring kebele. The community
in this kebele wasnt interested and was against for this dam project and as a result the
construction of the dam was cancelled. The Doleqie watershed community knows the history of
the dam in their neighboring kebele and since then developed negative attitude on dam
construction. In our discussion they said we dont want dam project and hence we dont want
you. A long discussion was made to convince them that the objective of selecting the site was to
establish a model watershed development for the woreda but not to construct dam. The objective
of SWHISA project was also briefed to the community that it is engaged in capacity building for
project supported woredas. It was also explained about participatory watershed development to
assure the farmers that no dam is going to be constructed. Finally the farmers were convinced
and hence general assemblies were conducted with their full participation.

In both the committee as well as the general assemblies it was tried to understand the views and
commitment of the community. They were explaining that the hills and ridges are degraded and
become out of production; these lands dont even support the livestock development. The
farmers said we have constructed soil and water conservation measures in the watershed for the
last some decades but because of mainly free grazing and lack of awareness the structures were
demolished. Therefore, the discussion focused on how to sustain the intervention in the
watershed particularly on how to minimize/avoid free grazing and on the management of
biological and physical conservation measures. Finally they all reached at a consensus to develop
bylaws on how to minimize free grazing and manage development activities in the watershed.

They also promised to undertake follow up activities on the implementation of the watershed
within two weeks time interval. In addition to this almost all committee members assured to
implement different components of watershed development in their own land so that other
farmers can follow them. However, the committee members as well as the beneficiaries
underlined that the technical as well as financial support from the government should be with
them until they build their capacity. All these show that the farmers are committed for the
implementation of the watershed.

50
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 management 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.

51
Reference
ANRS, 1999. Regional Conservation Strategy. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
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.
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. The status of soil and water conservation in Amhara region, 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.

52
Annexes
Annex 1. Base map of Doleqie Model Watershed

53
Annex 2. The name and the background of Doleqie main watershed team members.

S/N Name Team Sex Age Educ. kebele Got Responsibility

members background in the CWPIT
1 Ali Yimer M 41 Grade 7 011 Doleqie Chair person
2 Toyba Husien F 22 Grade 8 013 Amara Secretary
Mehamed Genda
3 Zewdie Muhie F 26 Grade 5 011 Doleqie Member
4 Zeyneba Husen F 40 Read & write
5 Toyba yesuf F 25 Read & write
6 Tegegn Zeleke M 43 Read & write
7 Mehamed Muhiye M 35 Grade 7
8 Sheh Mehamed M 48 Read & write 013 Doleqie
Husen
9 Yimer asefa M 53 Read & write
10 Ageritu Hasen F 35 Ilt
11 Aregash Yimer F 30 Read & write
12 Kormie Yimer m 50 Read & write Barigu

Annex 3. The name of 013 kebele (Doleqie Sub-Watershed) planning team members.

S/N Name Team Sex Age Educ. kebele Got Responsibility

members background in the CWPIT
1 Yimer Asefa M 53 Read & write Chair person
2 Toyba Husien F 22 Grade 8 013 Amara Secretary
Mehamed Genda
3 Sheh Mehamed M 48 Read & write 013 Doleqie
Husen
4 Ageritu Hasen F 35 Ilt
5 Aregash Yimer F 30 Read & write
6 Kormie Yimer M 50 Read & write Barigu
7 Yimer Husen M
8 Ali Abegaz M
Ahmed
9 Seid Abebe M
10 Derb Amanu M
11 Yesuf Asen F
12 Toyba Husen F
Arbie

Annex 4. The name of 011 kebele (Doleqie Sub-Watershed) planning team members.

54
S/N Name Team Sex Age Educ. kebele Responsibility
members background in the CWPIT
1 Ali Yimer M 41 Grade 7 011 Chair person
2 Mehamed M 35 Grade 7 Secretary
yimer Muhiye
3 Zewdie Muhie F 26 Grade 5 Member
4 Zeyneba Husen F 40 Read & write
5 Toyba yesuf F 25 Read & write
6 Tegegn Zeleke M 43 Read & write
7 Sheh Fedlu M
Yimer
8 Asen Yimer M
9 Mehamed M
Yimer Abtie
10 Mehamed M
Husen
11 Ansha Kebede F
12 Husen Alimera M

55
 Annex 5. Soil information used for land capability classification

Slope (L) Soil depth (D) Texture (T) Past (E) Water logging ( W) Infiltration (I) Stoniness or (S)
Erosion 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 W2 Poor I2 30-50% S2
water 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

56