applie
PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL REPORT:
GURAWA WOREDA, EASTERN OROMIA
REGION
Nigussie Dechassa, Dr
Mengistu Ketema, Dr
Haile Deressa
Wole Kinati
Tamiru Amanu
Olkeba Birru
Solomon Ayele
Samuel Tegene
CASCAPE WORKING PAPER 2.3.1
PARTICIPATORY RURAL APPRAISAL
REPORT: GURAWA WOREDA,
EASTERN OROMIA REGION
Nigussie Dechassa, Dr
Mengistu Ketema, Dr
Haile Deressa
Wole Kinati
Tamiru Amanu
Olkeba Birru
Solomon Ayele
Samuel Tegene
September 2014
The CASCAPE project is designed to assist the activities deployed under the Agricultural Growth
Programme (AGP) by further strengthening the capacity of AGP stakeholders in identifying,
documenting and disseminating best practices in agricultural production. CASCAPE is jointly
executed by Ethiopian researchers from Jimma University, Haramaya University, Bahir Dar
University, Hawassa University, Mekelle University, Addis Ababa University and Dutch researchers
from Wageningen University and Research Centre. In each site researchers from the universities and
from the RARIs from different disciplines work on the CASCAPE project. The CASCAPE project is
financed by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Embassy of the Kingdom of The
Netherlands.
CASCAPE technical report series are meant to document activities and findings of field work. They
are reviewed by the CASCAPE management team and are available on the projects’ website:
www.cascape.info.
CASCAPE technical reports are numbered according to topic (level 1), region (level 2) and, where
applicable, woreda (level 3). The topics include:
1 = Results of national support activities
2 = Results of the participatory rural appraisals (PRA) per region and woreda
3 = Results of the baseline survey per region
4 = Results of the innovation theme experiments per region
5 = Results of the MonQI toolbox per region
More topics may follow during the course of the project.
Level 2 headings refer to regions in alphabetical order viz. 1) Addis Ababa, 2) Bahir Dar, 3)
Haramaya, 4) Hawassa, 5) Jimma and 6) Mekelle regions. For example technical report 3.2 refers to
the series on the baseline survey for Bahir Dar region.
PHOTOGRAPHS: CASCAPE Innovation Team
Contents
List of abbreviations and acronyms.............................................................................................. v
Executive summary .................................................................................................................. vi
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 1
Groups surveyed ................................................................................................................. 1
PRA tools used .................................................................................................................... 2
The PRA report ................................................................................................................... 2
Description of the woreda .......................................................................................................... 3
PRA results .............................................................................................................................. 4
Environmental conditions ........................................................................................................ 4
Natural resources and constraints .......................................................................................... 4
Identification and characterisation of soils ............................................................................... 5
Soil and water conservation practices ..................................................................................... 5
Summary of findings ........................................................................................................... 6
Socio-economic conditions ...................................................................................................... 7
Role of men and women ....................................................................................................... 7
Agricultural constraints ........................................................................................................ 7
Summary of findings ........................................................................................................... 8
Actor landscape ..................................................................................................................... 8
Summary of findings ........................................................................................................... 8
Agricultural production conditions ............................................................................................ 11
Lafto Ela-tateessa .............................................................................................................. 11
Major agricultural production practices ..............................................................................................................................11
Crop production activities ...................................................................................................................................................11
Crop production constraints ................................................................................................................................................14
Soil fertility management and crop production ...................................................................................................................14
Livestock feed and related activities ....................................................................................................................................17
Livestock diseases and parasites ..........................................................................................................................................17
Summary of findings for Lafto Ela-tatessa ...........................................................................................................................17
Rasa Janata ...................................................................................................................... 20
Major agricultural production practices ..............................................................................................................................20
Crop production activitities .................................................................................................................................................20
Crop production constraints ................................................................................................................................................20
Soil fertility management and crop production ...................................................................................................................23
Livestock feed and related activities ....................................................................................................................................23
Summary of findings for Rasa Janata ...................................................................................................................................23
Stakeholder workshops............................................................................................................. 25
Organisation of workshops and feedback received ...................................................................... 25
List of innovation themes .................................................................................................... 25
Best practices .................................................................................................................... 26
Evaluation of the PRA process by the team .................................................................................. 28
Bibiliography ........................................................................................................................... 29
iii
List of figures
Figure 1: Different groups consulted during the PRA ...................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Rasa Janata (left) and Lafto Ela-tatessa (right) resource maps ........................................... 4
Figure 3: Teff planted in relay under maize, after haricot bean is harvested...................................... 12
List of tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1: Summary of major agricultural production constraints in the Gurawa woreda ....................... vii
2: Pair-wise ranking of problems related to natural resources in the Gurawa woreda .................. 5
3: Farmers’ characterisation of major soil types in Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Janata ................. 6
4: Pair-wise ranking of major socio-economic constraints in the kebeles ................................... 8
5: Local institutions in the kebeles ...................................................................................... 9
6: Formal institutions, their functions and the people they target ........................................... 10
7: Seasonal calendar for major crops production activities in Lafto Ela-tatessa ......................... 13
8: Pair-wise ranking of crop production constraints in Lafto Ela-tatessa ................................... 14
9: Rainfall amount and monthly distribution in Lafto Ela-tatessa ............................................. 15
10: Estimated yields of major crops under different fertility management in Lafto Ela-tatessa ..... 16
11: Livestock feed calendar for Lafto Ela-tatessa ................................................................. 18
12: Pair-wise ranking of livestock diseases and parasites in Lafto Ela-tatessa ........................... 19
13: Seasonal calendar for crop production activities in Rasa Janata ........................................ 21
14: Rainfall amount and monthly distribution in Rasa Janata.................................................. 22
15: Pair-wise ranking of crop production constraints in Rasa Janata ........................................ 23
16: Estimated yields of major crop types under different fertility management in Rasa Janata .... 24
17: Long list of innovations/best practices identified in the kebeles ......................................... 26
iv
List of abbreviations and acronyms
AGP
CASCAPE
BoARD
CDI
DAP
D
DS
DWS
FGD
HPI
HU
I
IT
LI
LIV
LGP
LK
LSF
LSSP
masl
MHH
MS
NGO
PRA
PSF
PSQ
RV
Agricultural Growth Programme
Capacity Building for Scaling up of Evidence-based Best Practices in Agricultural
Production in Ethiopia
Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development
Crop disease and insect
Diammonium phosphate
Deforestation
Disease
Depletion of water sources
Focus group discussion
High price of inputs
Haramaya University
insect
Innovation team (CASCAPE)
Low income
Lack of improved varieties
Low grain price
Lack of knowledge on fertility management
Low soil fertility
Lack of small-sized fertiliser packs
metres above sea level
Male-headed household
Moisture stress
Non-government organisation
Participatory rural appraisal
Poor soil fertility
Poor seed quality
Rainfall variability
v
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Executive summary
A participatory rural appraisal (PRA) was conducted by the HU-CASCAPE innovation team in four
woredas (eight kebeles/villages) in the Eastern Oromia region. The appraisal took place during the
period December 2011 to February 2012. The main objectives were to gain an insight into the
biophysical and socio-economic conditions of the woreda, identify existing constraints and possible
solutions, and suggest best practices and research questions. The study covered the woredas of Gurawa
(Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Janata kebeles), Habro (Bareda and Haro Charchar kebeles), Haramaya
(Jalala and Finkile kebeles) and Kombolcha (Bilisumma and Egu kebeles).
In carrying out the study, the elderly, men, women and youth from various woredas were consulted.
They also comprised rich and poor farmers from model and non-model farms. Some of the PRA tools
used by the Innovation team (IT) members to learn about the communities were: trend analysis,
resource maps, transect walks, focus group discussions, pair-wise ranking, problem tree analysis,
linkage diagrams and seasonal calendars. The tools were used to identify the biophysical and socioeconomic constraints, opportunities and developments within the kebeles. They were also used to help
assess organisations in the kebeles and woredas.
Mixed farming is widely practised in the Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Janata kebeles. Staple food crops
such as maize, sorghum, wheat and cash crops like khat and garlic are cultivated. Haricot bean is
intercropped with maize and sorghum in order to increase the productivity of land in Lafto Ela-tatessa.
Innovative farmers also use a combination of intercropping and the relay intercropping system to crop a
number of crops (e.g., teff is relay crop planted with maize after harvesting the haricot bean crop) in an
effort to diversify and intensify their crop production. Livestock are also reared in the communities, to a
limited extent.
The main environmental constraints facing the kebeles are deforestation, soil erosion, and soil fertility
depletion. Rainfall is highly variable and water resources are, on a whole, diminishing. In some cases,
however, water resources are available, but have not been harnessed to support crop and livestock
production. Examples of best practices aimed at addressing these problems are the implementation of
soil and water conservation measures such as the planting of trees on farmlands (agroforestry) and the
creation of environmentally protected area enclosures.
Many people in the communities engage in a diverse range of economic activities for their livelihood.
These include agriculture and non-farm activities (i.e., hiring out of labour, selling firewood and charcoal
and making of handicrafts). The main socio-economic constraints facing the kebeles are the widely
fluctuating prices of agricultural inputs and outputs due, in part, to the collusion of traders. Farmers are
offered very low prices for their agricultural products and at the same time they have to contend with
the high cost of agricultural inputs such as fertilisers and seeds. In addition, there are limited storage
facilities, a lack season-based financing and a lack of confidence, on the part of farmers, in the
cooperatives.
Informal community-based institutions are recognised as playing a vital role in the kebeles. Only a few
formal institutions in the villages are involved in agriculture and rural development activities. Their
efforts are mostly piecemeal, with very little attempt to integrate efforts. Interventions aimed
integrating development efforts are of vital importance to enhancing the positive impact institutions on
the lives of people in the communities.
The major agricultural production constraints facing the Gurawa woreda and recommended best
practices are summarised in Table 1.
vi
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Table 1: Summary of major agricultural production constraints in the Gurawa woreda
Subsector
Constraint
Suggested best practices
Crop
Moisture stress
In situ moisture conservation: build ridges, use of compost and
manure to improve soil moisture, clog soil cracks by intercultivation
during dry spells, use drought-tolerant crop varieties (e.g., improved
sweet potatoes)
Provide new, improved seeds varieties of major crops
Shortage of improved
crop seeds
Soil fertility
Livestock
Shortage of feed for
livestock
Integrated use of DAP, urea and farmyard manure; intercrop with
legumes; tether and feed livestock on farmlands on a rotational basis
Plant grasses along terraces, implement cut-and-carry system; fatten
bulls with haricot beans boiled with salt, teff grain boiled with salt,
soaking sorghum and maize flour in water, floured or boiled shelled
maize cobs with salt
vii
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Introduction
The Government of Ethiopia is committed to scaling up best practices through its Agricultural Growth
Programme (AGP). To complement this programme, the Capacity Building for Scaling up Evidence-based
Best Practices in Agricultural Production in Ethiopia (CASCAPE) project has been designed to
demonstrate integrated best practices to the AGP implementation team so as to raise awareness on the
need for an integrated farming systems approach to agricultural production.
To address the various community problems, it is imperative to design technically sound, economically
feasible and culturally acceptable research, extension and development strategies. To this end, the
Haramaya University (HU)-Wageningen University & Research centre CASCAPE project initiated a
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) study in Eastern Oromia. The main objectives of the study were to
assess the farming systems, determine major biophysical and socio-economic constraints and
opportunities for farming communities. Other objectives included identifying and documenting best
practices and innovations with respect to environmental, socio-economic, and agricultural production
conditions for further testing and possible upscaling.
The appraisal was implemented over the December 2011 and January 2012 period. It was conducted in
the Gurawa woreda in the targeted kebeles of Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Janata. Different groups of
stakeholders were selected, comprising men, women and youth.
Methodology
The PRA approach is used by many development
organisations to capture the knowledge and opinions of
stakeholders in the planning and development of projects
and programmes. A combination of tools and methods is
used to enhance interaction and the sharing of information
among rural people and help analyse the knowledge
imparted, so as to be able to plan, act, monitor and evaluate
(Bernd et al, 1999; RUDEP, 2004; and De Boef et al, 2007).
Prior to going into the field, HU-CASCAPE team held a series
of discussions, developed guiding questions on key areas of
interest. Various issues were discussed in detail so as to
have a common understanding among all members of the
team. Documentation sheets were also prepared to assist
note takers to capture and summarise the information
generated. Roles to be taken on during the PRA were shared
among the team members.
Groups surveyed
Selection of households was carried out prior to the start of
the PRA fieldwork. Different factors were considered in
selecting farm households. These included: sex, age,
location and category of the farmers. Accordingly, maleheaded households (MHHs) and female-headed household
heads were selected. The elderly and youth within the
farming community were also included in the survey. Given
that the resources and access to farmers differed across the
kebeles, households from different locations were included.
Other considerations included the wealth status, model and
non-model farmers and their educational levels. Between
12-15 households made up a group.
1
Group comprising men and women
Group comprising only women
Group comprising only men
Figure 1: Different groups consulted
during the PRA
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
To achieve the objectives, PRA tools were used to collect the required information from the communities
and sector offices. A mix of different tools was used, depending on the context and type of information
required.
PRA tools used
After a series of discussions, the HU-CASCAPE team made a list of the various PRA tools to be used in
the study. Refinements were made to the tools based on the type of data required, and the potential use
and limitations of the tools. Following the selection of the tools, the team had made a list of procedures
to be followed for each tool during the survey. The PRA tools used in the study were:

Trend analysis: used to highlight trends and key points in the history of the community or village
that households consider as having an impact on their livelihoods either positively or negatively.

Resource mapping techniques: used to identify natural resource problems and opportunities. The
primary concern was not to develop an accurate map of the area, but to get useful information
about local perceptions on resources and how they are used.

Focus group discussions (FGDs): used to understand local perceptions with respect to the available
resources and institutions, agriculture and socio-economic conditions. They helped to identify and
understand problems constraining development within the communities. FGDs were also used to
identify and understand mechanisms used in the community to cope with constraints.

Pair-wise ranking: this tool is used to help find out what the priority issues in the community are,
i.e., in terms of local resources, institutions, agriculture and socio-economic conditions. It is used to
rank problems and opportunities related to these conditions.

Problem tree analysis: is a tool used to investigate in some depth, the key problems identified by
the community. It helps to know the related causes and effects of a given problem once the main
problem is identified. The tool prepares the way for the setting of objectives for interventions to be
made.

Linkage diagrams are used to investigate local farming systems. They help determine the main crop
and livestock types, source of agricultural inputs, sale of products and the uses of by-products.
Linkage diagrams can identify under-utilised resources and assist farmers in identifying solutions to
improve local farming systems.

Seasonal calendars: illustrate important activities, problems or resource changes throughout a
calendar year or production cycle. They can highlight community-based activities, livestock
production, cropping and cultivation, weather and climatic conditions.
The PRA report
The data generated from the PRA were both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The results presented
in this document reflect the views of the community on four major topics: namely, environmental, socioeconomic, actor landscape, and agricultural conditions.
The report highlights the main findings and the implications of the results for the CASCAPE project. The
analysed PRA results were presented to the communities and other stakeholders during consultation
workshops, not only to share results but also to verify and endorse the results, generate feedback and
identify priority innovation themes for intervention.
2
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Description of the woreda
Gurawa woreda is located in East Hararghe Zone. The woreda has good agriculture potential. It is
bordered by Gola Odana Meyumuluke to the south, Bedeno to the west, Kurfa Chele to the north, and to
the east by the Fedis woredas. The altitude of the woreda ranges from 500 to 3,230 metres above sea
level (masl) with Mount Gara Muleta as its highest point. Of the total land area, 54.3% is arable or
cultivable, 4.4% is in pasture, 1.2% is forest, 21.8% is built-up, and the remaining 18.3% is considered
to be degraded or unusable. The woreda has an estimated total population of 247,992.
For this PRA study, two kebeles, namely, Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Janata were selected. The kebeles
have an integrated crop-livestock production system, although the livestock component is limited to a
small number of livestock holdings. Farmers in Lafto Ela-tatessa tend to produce mostly staple crops like
maize, sorghum and teff for household consumption and some vegetables (i.e., garlic, pumpkins and
onion) for cash income. The Lafto Ela-tatessa kebele is known for its intercropping and relay cropping
systems and intensive soil and crop management practices. In Rasa Janata, staple and vegetable crops
comprise the cropping system. Unlike Lafto Ela-tatessa, it is known for its potential to produce highland
crops (wheat, barley and Irish potato) and fruit (apple). Maize and sorghum are also grown by the
farmers.
3
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
PRA results
The PRA studied the prevailing biophysical and socio-economic conditions in the kebeles, Lafto Elatatessa and Rasa Janata, in some detail. Major topics explored included environmental, socio-economic,
actor landscape, and agricultural conditions.
Environmental conditions
Natural resources and constraints
The PRA groups in Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Jeneta identified forests, surface water resources (springs,
rivers and lakes), grazing lands and wildlife as scarce resources. Scattered forests (trees and shrubs)
with a few indigenous tree species can be are found on hillsides of the kebeles. As part of agroforestry
initiatives, some of the species grown on farmlands are Cordia, Acacia, Juniperous and walensu.
Resources such as land and rocks are available, to some extent, to farmers to use. Rocks and sands are
resources utilised by the community for local construction purposes, especially in Lafto Ela-tatessa. At
the moment, these resources have not yet been used as a source of income.
Farmers indicated that surface and groundwater resources are being depleted in both kebeles. During
the transact walks, the team observed that surface water, especially in Rasa Janata, is not being
properly utilised for irrigation. The groups interviewed also said that the soils in the kebeles are exposed
to severe erosion. Several factors that have contributed to this situation include a lack of awareness of
conservation and fertility management measures as well as severe deforestation.
There are no communal grazing lands in the kebeles. Farmers prefer free grazing on privately held
lands. In Lafto Ela-tatessa, there are two area enclosures that are managed by unemployed youths. The
areas are protected from human interference and are used by these youths for beekeeping, growing
trees and grasses.
Figure 2: Rasa Janata (left) and Lafto Ela-tatessa (right) resource maps
Communal ownership does not exist in this area. Land is owned and managed on an individual basis,
due mainly to problems associated with population pressure and diminishing returns of landholdings. As
a result, decisions on land use are made by the farmers holding the land, especially heads of
households. In the villages, land is not formally allocated, subdivision of holdings among household
members is based on inheritance. Landlessness and near-landlessness is, therefore, a common problem
in the kebeles. Farmers with small landholdings are poor, however, and it is only in very few instances
4
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
that they are able to access land—this is done by entering into temporary arrangements to rent the
land.
According to the farmers, deforestation, climate change (increasing rainfall variability and temperature),
depletion of water resources, soil erosion and the decline in soil fertility are the major environmental
constraints in Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Janata. The Rasa Janata kebele has seasonal streams which
are used to irrigate fields for a few months in the year. Cutting trees for the expansion of farmlands, fuel
and construction are some of the major factors cited for the major environmental changes in the
kebeles. Pair-wise ranking of the problems is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Pair-wise ranking of problems related to natural resources in the Gurawa woreda
Constraints
Deforestation (D)
Climate change (CC)
Deforestation
Climate
change
Soil
erosion
Soil fertility
depilation
Depletion
of water
sources
D
D
D
D
4
1
CC
SFD
DWS
1
3
SE
DWS
1
3
DWS
1
3
3
2
Soil erosion (SE)
Soil fertility
depletion (SFD)
Depletion of water
sources (DWS)
Score
Ranking
Identification and characterisation of soils
Farmers identified the major soil types and their fertility status. The soils showed high spatial variability
within short distances. Severe erosion of sloppy areas has led to shallow soils with rocky bases that
cannot sustain plant growth. Farmers identified different soil types and described their characteristics in
terms of physical properties (colour and texture) and productivity. They identified four soil types which
are known locally as: Ashawaa, Qeefara, Suphee and Faaroo. Characteristics of the four soil types are
indicated in Table 3.
Soil and water conservation practices
Soil and water conservation measures such as the building of terraces and bunds are the most common
methods that farmers use on their farmlands. They also construct these structures on the uncultivated
slopes so as to prevent erosion. The kebeles, especially Lafto Ela-tatessa, are also known for growing
strips of elephant grass along the contour slopes to control soil erosion. The grass serves as a valuable
source of livestock feed. Khat, grown alleys in their fields and in trenches made along strips of elephant
grass (locally called Katara), is also commonly used as a soil conservation measure.
Farmers also intentionally grow some multipurpose trees on farmlands for soil and water conservation
purposes. Some farmers make ridges in their fields to conserve moisture, which is highly beneficial for
the crops, especially during dry spells. In recent years, some farmers have been growing droughttolerant (improved) sweet potato varieties on the ridges during the dry season after harvesting other
crops. They have also constructed micro-catchment structures on their fields to catch water. However,
very few farmers have constructed ponds to collect water for irrigating khat.
5
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Summary of findings
There are some major environmental constraints in the kebeles such as deforestation, soil erosion,
depletion of water resources (both groundwater and surface water), and declining soil fertility. They all
combine to affect the livelihood of people in the communities. A key factor contributing to these
problems is the lack of awareness on the part of some farmers with respect to soil conservation and
fertility management. However, discussions with farmers in Rasa Janata and Lafto Ela-tatesa revealed
that innovations in soil and water management are being implemented by some of the farmers.
Interventions aimed at promoting integrated soil fertility management, enhancing irrigation efficiency of
the existing irrigation system, the training of farmers on integrated watershed management, on-farm
water management and use could help alleviate these problems.
Table 3: Farmers’ characterisation of major soil types in Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Janata
No.
Soil
type
Major characteristics
Farmers’
management
Major crops
grown
1
Ashawaa






Colour: red (top) and white (lower depth)
Mostly sand
Highly erodible
Low water holding capacity
Shallow rooting depth
Higher crop yields obtained when there is a good
rainy season
Less responsive to both organic (manure) and
inorganic fertilisers (DAP and urea)
Crops are susceptible to moisture stress
Colour: red to black
Moderately erodible
Good response to organic (manure) and inorganic
fertilisers (DAP and urea)
Moderate rooting depth
Moderate water holding capacity
Soil structure easily destroyed
 Terracing
 Dry and
frequent tillage
 Heavy manure
application to
maintain
productivity




Sorghum
Maize
Teff
Wheat (in
Rasa Janata)




Terracing
Wet tillage
Less tillage
Manure
application to
maintain
productivity






Maize
Irish potato
Teff
Wheat
Barley
Sweet potato
Colour: brown to black
Less erodible
High moisture holding capacity
Deep soil and good rooting depth
Sticky when wet and hard when dry
Less response to manure application
Moderate response to DAP and urea fertilisers
Water-logging problem during a season of heavy
rainfall
Crops able to tolerate moisture stress late in the
season
Colour: black
High water holding capacity
Less erodible
Good rooting depth
Less responsive to manure application in the first
season
Good response to DAP and urea fertilisers
Crops able to tolerate late season moisture stress
 Shallow and
frequent tillage
when soil is
moderately wet
 Drainage





Maize
Sorghum
Wheat
Barley
Haricot bean







Sorghum
Teff
Maize
Haricot bean
Wheat
Barley

2
Qeefara







3
Suphee









4
Faaroo







6
Frequent
tillage
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Socio-economic conditions
The Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa Jeneta kebeles are located at opposite ends of the woreda. The main
road from Haramaya to Gurawa crosses the top side of Rasa Janata, while the main road leading from
the town of the woreda crosses Lafto Ela-tatessa from one end to the other. This means that both
kebeles have access to a good transportation network compared with other kebeles in the district.
Farmers usually go to the nearby town for social services. Farmers use the local markets within the
villages to sell their produce. Farmers also have access to the main town of the woreda because of the
the main road running through the kebeles. Primary cooperatives established by the community serve as
the main source of agricultural inputs in both kebeles. In some cases, farmers also obtain inputs on the
open market— within and outside the kebele.
Agriculture (i.e., crop production, livestock and beekeeping) is the predominant source of income for the
community. Crop production of a wide range of staple crops is the primary source of income followed by
livestock production. Some farmers also obtain income from the growing of trees like Eucalyptus and
Juniperus. There are also a few poor farmers who earn income from non-farm activities, including casual
labour, and the selling of firewood and charcoal. The making of handicrafts is a minor source of income
for women.
Role of men and women
The majority of the households in the villages are male-headed. With respect to farming matters, men
dominate the decision-making process. According to the PRA participants, women’s participation in the
activities of agricultural production is specific and limited to certain field activities. They often provide
support to men primarily by preparing and carrying food and drinks to them in the fields. Women rarely
participate in weeding and harvesting activities. However, they are heavily involved in post-harvest
activities and household activities like cooking, cleaning and washing, milking cows, fetching water,
collecting firewood and purchasing consumable goods and caring for the children.
Agricultural constraints
Farmers indicated that high the prices of agricultural inputs, particularly seeds and fertilisers, are
main constraints to improving agricultural production. Inputs are often purchased at the time when
prices for grain are very low and this makes it difficult for farmers to improve their way of life in
community. Furthermore, the improved seeds sold to the farmers were also reported to be of
quality. Local seeds that the farmers have access to are less responsive to fertilisers, and are
yielding.
the
the
the
low
low
Access to markets is largely constrained by the traders who often collude with key individuals to set
unfair prices, limiting the bargaining power of farmers. The presence of third parties, brokers, has also
served to significantly affect the price of farm products. In recent years, however, agricultural inputs
(i.e., seeds, fertilisers and pesticides) are available at the local level. However, some farmers cannot
afford most of the inputs. Primary cooperatives facilitate the easy purchase of agricultural inputs. The
Cooperative Union in the woreda provides agricultural inputs to the primary cooperatives and supplies
edible oil, sugar, grain and seedlings to the community at affordable prices. Primary cooperatives also
sell goods like sugar and oils for household consumption.
Farmers’ access to finance is limited to local savings and credit institutions, and Oromia Credit and
Saving Association, which very recently started providing only credit services at the community level.
There are no formal institutions encouraging farmers to save. As a result, there is a poor savings culture
in the community, limiting the possibility of farmers to improve their production system.
7
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Table 4: Pair-wise ranking of major socio-economic constraints in the kebeles
Constraints
High price of inputs
(HPI)
Lack of small-sized
fertiliser packs (LSSP)
Poor seed quality
(PSQ)
Low grain price (LGP)
High price
of inputs
Lack of smallsized fertiliser
packs
HPI
Low income (LI)
Poor
seed
quality
PSQ
Low
grain
price
LGP
Low
incom
e
HPI
Score
Ranking
2
3
PSQ
LGP
LSSP
2
3
LGP
PSQ
3
2
LGP
4
1
0
4
Summary of findings
Both kebeles have better access to transportation and marketing services compared with other kebeles
in the woreda. Primary cooperatives in the kebeles organise the distribution and sale of agricultural
inputs. The main sources of income for the community are crop production, livestock production and
beekeeping. In addition, non-farm activities such as casual labour, the making of handicrafts, selling
firewood and charcoal are additional sources of income.
High prices of agricultural inputs, particularly seed and fertilisers, coupled with low grain prices, and the
poor quality seeds are the major agricultural constraints. Poor prices paid to farmers for their produce
are largely as a result of traders who collude with certain individuals to unfairly fix prices, limiting the
bargaining power of farmers. Access to financial services is limited, however, a formal financial
institution, namely, Oromia Credit and Saving Association has recently started providing credit services
to the communities.
Actor landscape
There are a number of informal community-based institutions, which have been established for a
number of different purposes (Table 5). These include Guuza, Marroo, Afoosha, Garee misoomaa,
Iqqubii, and the traditional saving and credit institution. The criteria for membership are determined
locally. Roles and responsibilities of the institutions are defined by traditional agreements among the
members. Some of these groups have formal (written) regulations for managing the institution,
implementing the activities, and service delivery. Individuals are assigned management and leadership
positions within these institutions based on their capability to implement, facilitate, monitor, and enforce
decisions regarding their services and activities.
A few formal institutions currently working in/with the community were also identified by the PRA
participants. These are the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (BoARD), Cooperative Union,
Oromia Credit and Saving Association and Haramaya University (HU). The roles and functions played by
these institutions, based on the perception of the communities, are presented in Table 6.
Summary of findings
There are a number of informal community-based institutions, which provide social and economic
services. These institutions include Guuza, Marroo, Afoosha, Garee, Misoomaa, Iqqubii, and a traditional
savings and credit institution. The roles and responsibilities of the institutions are based on traditional
agreements among the members.
BoARD, Union, CARE Ethiopia, Oromia Credit and Saving Association and HU are the only formal
institutions operating in the community rendering services such as the supply of agricultural inputs,
selling consumable goods at fair prices, and facilitating savings and credit facilities. There is a need to
improve the delivery of services by strengthening linkages among the different institutions operating in
the area.
8
Table 5: Local institutions in the kebeles
No.
Local
institution
Objective
1
Guuza
2
Marroo
To share labour during peak
periods of agricultural
activities (like tillage, planting,
weeding, harvesting)
To perform agricultural
activities based on a labour
exchange system
3
Afoosha
4
Garee
Misoomaa
5
Iqqubii
To support each other during
ceremonies (i.e., weddings,
funerals)
To support sick people in the
carrying out of agricultural
and non-agricultural activities
To resolve conflicts
To perform agricultural and
other development activities
in groups
To provide financial services
Community
members they
target
Men
Management
Criteria for
membership
No. of
members
Traditional
Not defined
Men; rarely are
women targeted
Traditional
Men and women
separately
Traditional (strong)
Ability to perform the
activities
Should be a villager or a
neighbour
Ability to perform the
activities
Should be a villager or a
neighbour
Not clearly defined but
should be married or
mature adult
Household heads
Written rules and
regulations
Should be a household
head
20-30
Women
Written rules and
regulations
Ability to contribute
Not defined
Not defined
Not defined
Table 6: Formal institutions, their functions and the people they target
Institutions
Role the institution plays
People they target
Remark
BoARD

Facilitates agricultural input delivery through primary
coops
Provides extension services on agriculture and related
development activities
Facilitates the organisation and linkage of farmers with
institutions/organisations providing services in the area of
agriculture and rural development
Provides agricultural inputs through primary cooperatives
Supplies edible oil, sugar, grain and seedlings to the
community at affordable prices
Facilitates marketing of inputs & outputs in limited cases
All of the farming community
They also involve in non
agricultural activities including
credit delivery and repayment, tax
collection, and others
Registered members at primary
cooperatives, but all members of the
community have access to the services
rendered
Access to the Union’s services of is
only through primary cooperatives

Provides credit services to groups of farmers for economic
activities like fattening, purchasing oxen, etc.
For those who have a capacity to borrow
and return the loans in time
Reaches few members of the
community

Supports the community through the provision of
improved seeds of a few crops (like teff, barley and
wheat)on a small scale
Provides technical support to development agents (DAs)
and selected members of the community
Establishes and supports village savings and loan
associations for women
Constructs warehouse for grain storage for the community
to safeguard against price risks and shocks
Creates job opportunities for landless groups in the
community through area closures and apiculture
Constructs water points, engages in sanitary activities and
supply improved seeds for the poor in the community
Select farmers based on certain merits
Service is irregular
Some members of the community selected jointly with BoARD and
community leaders
Also supports the community
through its emergency programme
during food shortages


Cooperative
Union



Oromia
Credit and
Saving
Association
Haramaya
University

CARE
Ethiopia




CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Agricultural production conditions
The agricultural production systems in the two kebeles are quite different, as a result, the agricultural
production conditions are reported on individually for each kebele.
Lafto Ela-tateessa
Major agricultural production practices
Lafto Ela-tatessa has a mixed farming system, comprising crop and livestock production. However, crop
production is more dominant than livestock production.
The major crops produced in the area are maize, sorghum, teff, wheat, common bean, onion, shallot,
garlic, tomato, potato, fenugreek, linseed and sweet potato. Livestock production takes place on a
limited basis due to the shortage of grazing land. However, the fattening of oxen, which is carried out on
their farm, is supported by a cut-and-carry grazing system. Some farmers also rear poultry. Other
livestock kept include goats, donkeys and cows. Traditional beekeeping is practised by some farmers.
There are also improved beekeeping activities carried out by unemployed youth in protected areas.
Farmers noted that, in terms of acreage under crops, maize ranks first followed by sorghum, teff, wheat
and barley. Maize, sorghum, wheat and barley are produced mainly as food crops while teff is mostly
grown for market. Lafto Ela-tateessa is known for its diverse, intensive cropping system -here most
farmers usually grow two or more crops in the same field per year. In some villages, farmers combine
intercropping and relay cropping systems. This practice has led to as much as three crops being
produced on the same piece of land during the same cropping season. Maize and haricot bean are
intercropped followed by relay cropping. Less commonly, maize and haricot bean are intercropped
followed by relay cropping of wheat or barley or linseed. The main crops, maize and sorghum, are
planted in rows while the bean is broadcast at the same time. Relay cropping is usually done at the later
stages of growth of the maize or sorghum (milk stage) when the bean is harvested.
Common bean is intercropped with sorghum at the same time of its planting (this is not the case with
maize). Teff is intercropped with garlic and shallot when the bulbs are fully developed. There is double
cropping of Irish potato and teff—teff is planted after harvesting the potatoes. Some farmers grow sweet
potato during the dry season with residual moisture, after harvesting maize and haricot bean, which are
intercropped. Farmers indicated that the improved sweet potato varieties grown on ridges during the dry
season after harvesting these crops is believed to enhance food security in the area. They noted that
they have already abandoned the practice of cultivating only one crop.
Crop production activities
Farmers indicated that they are engaged in a variety of crop production activities throughout the year.
Crop production starts with the clearing of the site, which mainly involves uprooting and removing
sorghum and maize stalks and stubbles. Then, the farmers till the land (by oxen and hand) and
construct bunds. Manure is collected, transported to the site and applied on field prior to planting. So, at
the time of planting, fertiliser application and mixing manure with soil is already completed.
The entire household is involved in activities related to the planting of the most widely grown crops, i.e.,
maize and sorghum. These activities are row making, planting on hills and band application of DAP. After
the plant emerges, farmers carry out interculture operations about four times. The first and second set
of interculturing is done mainly for weed control purposes, while the third one is mostly done for urea
application. The fourth interculturing is associated with haricot bean harvesting, to remove late
emerging weeds, and prepare land for relay cropping. Farmers noted that during the planting of the
second crop (teff) used in relay intercropping, the lower leaves are removed – i.e., the ones that have
dried up and the two older green leaves, in order to create favourable growing conditions (i.e., good
light penetration and enhance air circulation). After three to five days of sowing teff (emergence), the
soil is compacted and further sowing of the crop in gaps is done.
11
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
As a result, the first and second weeding of teff (which is relay intercropped) is done before harvesting
the maize. The emerging weed flushes after the maize is harvested and urea is applied to the growing
teff crop. The fourth weeding is then performed at a later stage. For other crops that are relay
intercropped (wheat, barley and linseed), a similar regime is followed for weed control and fertiliser
application. However, there may be some differences in the frequency of weeding.
Farmers regularly tie sorghum plants (locally called hagaaddii) at early maturity, because according to
them, it helps in preventing lodging, bird attack and water stress. At physiological maturity, all the
leaves, excluding the flag leaf, are defoliated to hasten maturity (as this perhaps has the effect of
enhancing the translocation of photoassimilate to the seeds rather than going to old, unproductive
leaves). At the time of harvesting or threshing, those farmers using local varieties, select sorghum
heads and maize ears to use as seeds. Some farmers select teff seeds when the crop is mature and still
standing in the field, harvesting (mow) separately for use in the next planting season.
The seasonal activity calendar for major cropping systems in the kebele is presented in Table 7.
Figure 3: Teff planted in relay under maize, after haricot bean is harvested
(photo taken during the CASCAPE fertiliser trials)
12
Table 7: Seasonal calendar for major crops production activities in Lafto Ela-tatessa
Activities
Months
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Site clearing
Ploughing
Bund construction
Manure transportation to farmland
Manure mixing with soil
Planting
1st Hagayi*
2nd Hagayi
3rd Hagayi & fertilising
4th Hagayi & H/Bean harvesting
Teff planting & urea application to
sorghum
Compacting & teff sowed
1st Weeding for teff
2nd weeding for teff
Maize harvesting
3rd weeding for teff
4th weeding for teff
Removing cobs from maize
Hagadi for sorghum
Woba dhahu** & harvesting for
sorghum,
Teff, wheat & barley harvesting
Maize threshing
Teff, wheat & barley threshing &
storing
Seed selection
Marketing
Key:
.- Ongoing activity, it doesn’t take place at a specific time
Note: * Hagayi is the local name for intercultivation as explained in the text. ** Woba dhahu means defoliating sorghum leaves
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Crop production constraints
Farmers identified the main constraints affecting crop production in the area as:

Diseases: these are mainly rust, root rot and bacterial wilt on maize. Farmers believe that the
occurrence and prevalence of rust varies with the sowing date and that the problem is more evident
on improved varieties.

Pests: insects such as termites and shoot flies have had the effect of reducing crop yields. Shoot fly
infestation is most severe on improved teff varieties than on the local varieties.

Lack of improved varieties: farmers noted that there aren’t any improved varieties for most of
crops. There are, however, a small number of improved varieties for maize (Bako hybrids), which
are provided through bureaus of agriculture.

Moisture stress: the problem is strongly related to the amount of rainfall, and its temporal and
spatial distribution.

Poor soil fertility: farmers stated that there were many factors that affect soil fertility and crop
productivity in the kebele—erosion, complete residue removal, lack of fallowing, low rate of mineral
and organic fertiliser application, and monocropping.
Table 8: Pair-wise ranking of crop production constraints in Lafto Ela-tatessa
Problems
Crop disease & insect
(CDI)
Lack of improved variety
(LIV)
Moisture stress (MS)
Crop
disease
& insect
Lack of
improved
variety
CDI
Moisture
stress
Poor soil
fertility
MS
MS
Poor soil fertility (PSF)
Lack of knowledge on soil
fertility management (LK)
Score
Ranking
PSF
Lack of knowledge
on soil fertility
management
PSF
1
4
LIV
LIV
2
3
PSF
MS
3
1
PSF
3
1
0
5
Soil fertility management and crop production
Soil fertility is the main constraint to crop production in the area—it is low and continuing to decline
even further. Farmers believe that soil fertility has been steadily declining over the past 20 years. As a
result, efforts are being made to maintain soil fertility through the application of chemical fertilisers (DAP
and urea), farmyard manure, and by intercropping legumes and implementing crop rotation. Farmers
apply fertilisers to most of their crops (maize, sorghum, teff, wheat and barley), except for the common
bean. They apply DAP to the crops at the time of planting and urea at later stages of crop growth.
However, a small number of farmers apply urea to teff (grown as a single crop), at reduced rates, at the
time of planting and an additional split application at the 3-4 leaf stage. Urea is applied when maize is at
the 7-8 leaf stage and to sorghum at the flag leaf stage (early heading).
There is general acceptance that manure is an important fertiliser, so nowadays there is almost no
competing demand for cow dung for fuel. Some farmers collect cow manure and household waste (e.g.,
vegetable matter, etc,) in ditches for about six to ten months. Later, the waste is transported to fields
and arranged in small heaps in furrows or ridges. The manure is then distributed on the farm and mixed
into the soil at the time of planting. A few innovative farmers use a combination of farmyard manure
along with reduced amounts of chemical fertilisers, especially for maize production. Farmers have not
started to use compost, although they have become aware of its usefulness in recent years.
Farmers are well-known for tethering their cattle on a rotational basis and feeding them (especially bulls
that are being fattened intentionally) during the day on or close to fields where crops are grown. This is
done mainly on less fertile farmlands. By doing this, they are able to collect and distribute the farmyard
manure on the fields, and at the same time the urine is also used as an important fertiliser in the fields.
14
Table 9: Rainfall amount and monthly distribution in Lafto Ela-tatessa
Conditions
Months
Sept
Conditions
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Rainfall distribution
(during optimum
rainfall seasons)
Rainfall distribution
(during optimum
rainfall seasons)
Rainfall distribution
(during seasons of
insufficient rainfall)
Rainfall distribution
(during seasons of
insufficient rainfall)
Relative rainfall
amount
(during optimum
rainfall seasons)
Relative rainfall
amount
(during optimum
rainfall seasons)
Relative rainfall
(during seasons of
insufficient rainfall)
Relative rainfall
(during seasons of
insufficient rainfall)
Table 10: Estimated yields of major crops under different fertility management in Lafto Ela-tatessa
No.
Crop type
Fertiliser
management
Rate of fertiliser application
Method of fertiliser
application
Time of fertiliser
application
Grain yield estimated
under fertiliser
application
(kg ha-1)
Grain yield estimated
when no fertiliser is
applied
(kg ha-1)
% yield
increment
1
Maize
DAP +
DAP = 100 kg ha-1
DAP = band
DAP = at planting
8,000
1,200
567
Urea = 100 kg ha
Urea = band
Urea = only at 7-8 leaf
Manure = 10 ton ha-1
Manure = broadcast
stage
4,466
1,500
198
1,000
300
233
2,400
600
300
Urea + Manure
-1
Manure = before planting
2
Sorghum
DAP +
DAP = 100 kg ha-1
DAP = band
DAP = at planting
Urea + Manure
Urea = 100 kg ha-1
Urea = band
Urea = only at flag leaf
Manure = 10 ton ha-1
Manure = broadcast
stage
Manure = before planting
3
4
Teff
Wheat
DAP +
DAP = 50 kg ha-1
DAP = broadcast
DAP = at planting
Urea
Urea = 50 kg ha-1
Urea = broadcast
Urea = at planting
DAP +
DAP = 50 kg ha-1
DAP = broadcast
DAP = at planting
Urea
Urea = 50 kg ha-1
Urea = broadcast
Urea = at planting
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Livestock feed and related activities
Livestock are mostly fed with crop residues and grasses (mostly elephant grass) based on a cut-andcarry system. The farmers store crop residues (sorghum heads and chaffs, maize cobs and husks, maize
and sorghum stalks and leaves, straws of teff, wheat and barley) and give them as feed to their
livestock during the dry season. Elephant grass serves as both dry and wet season feed. In addition,
farmers feed their livestock with weeds, crop leaves and thinned crop plants. Some farmers also feed
their livestock tree leaves, twigs, and barks, especially during the dry season.
Some innovative farmers fatten their bulls with the common bean, when it is at the stage of grain filling.
A small number of farmers remove the pods, boil them with salt, cool them and then feed the boiled
pods to their bulls for fattening. Other farmers feed their bulls with shelled maize cobs – they first crush
them and boiling the crushed cobs with salt. Well-to-do farmers feed their bulls on maize and sorghum
flour—this flour is soaked in water overnight. Teff grains boiled with salt (without grinding) are also used
to fatten the bulls.
Livestock diseases and parasites
The most prevalent livestock diseases and parasites identified by the farmers and the extent of their
severity are presented in Table 12.
Summary of findings for Lafto Ela-tatessa
Lafto Ela-tatessa has a mixed farming system, with crop production being the dominant activity. The
major crops produced in the area are maize, sorghum, teff, wheat, haricot bean, onion, shallot, garlic,
tomato, potato, fenugreek, linseed, and sweet potato. In terms of amount of area covered in crops,
maize is ranked as number one, followed by sorghum, teff, wheat and barley. Most farmers usually grow
two or more crops on the same field per annum. Various cropping systems are used to be able to do
this: intercropping, relay cropping, a combination of intercropping and relay cropping, double cropping,
and alley cropping. The crops used/not used in the various systems are based on the farmers’
experience and hence requires further investigation.
The most common constraints affecting crop production in the area are pest and diseases, a lack of high
yielding improved varieties for most crops, moisture stress and poor soil fertility. Low and declining soil
fertility is a top-ranking constraint to crop production in the kebele. Farmers manage soils by way of
applying chemical fertilisers (DAP and urea), farmyard manure, legume intercropping and crop rotation.
Estimated yield increment for different crops due to use of fertilisers in the area was reported to be in
the range of 198-567%.
Livestock production in the area is limited due to a shortage of grazing land. However, the fattening of
oxen and poultry production are carried out by some farmers in the area. Other types of livestock being
kept in the kebele are goat, donkey and cows. Some farmers do traditional beekeeping and unemployed
youthare involved in improved beekeeping in protected areas. Livestock are mostly fed crop residues
and grasses (commonly elephant grass) using a cut-and-carry system. Some farmers fatten their bulls
by feeding them common bean pods boiled with salt, crushed maize cobs boiled with salt, soaked flours
of maize and sorghum, and teff grain boiled with salt.
17
Table 11: Livestock feed calendar for Lafto Ela-tatessa
Types of feeds
Months
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Remark
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Crop residues
Green fodder
Elephant grass
Once
every month
Wild plant leafs
Hay
Grass (cut-and-carry)
Crop leaves
Furushka
Banana leaves
Grazing
Key:
Type of feed used:
Type of feed used occasionally
Along croplands
Table 12: Pair-wise ranking of livestock diseases and parasites in Lafto Ela-tatessa
Types of disease
(local name)
Months
Sept
Oct
Injire
Silmi
Cinni
Aba sanga
Gororsa dikko
Maasa
Dhalandhala
Cinintoo
Dhukuba tiru
Abbaa sonba
Cittoo
Kormamuu
Dhigdo
Key:
Solid line means frequently occurring
Broken line means occasionally occurring
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Remark
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Rasa Janata
Major agricultural production practices
Mixed farming is practised in Rasa Janata. However, the cultivation of crops is the predominant
agricultural activity there. Major crops grown in the area include maize, sorghum, wheat, barley, potato
and faba bean. Livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys are kept by the farmers.
Unlike Lafto Ela-tatessa, crop diversification through intercropping and relay intercropping is not
practised. The kebele has water sources that farmers could potentially use for food crop production, but
at the moment not much of this water is used for this purpose. Rather, some people use the water to
irrigate the khat crop during the dry season when its price is very high. PRA participants also noted that
many of the model farmers grow khat during the dry season.
The farmers also said that conditions in the kebele were favourable for the production of temperate
fruits like apple. However, very few farmers have made use of this potential due to lack of awareness in
the community in terms of its management and use, plus there is a shortage of planting material. Given
kebele’s potential to produce apples, this could be a possible intervention area that subsistence farmers
could venture into to improve their livelihoods.
Crop production activitities
Activities related to crop production include the clearing of the site clearing, followed by tillage and
terracing. Manure is transported to fields and placed in small heaps in furrows before planting. At the
time of planting, manure is distributed all over the farmland and mixed with the soil. Maize and sorghum
are planted in rows and DAP is applied in bands. Interculturing is performed four times; weed control is
carried out primarily during the first and second intercultural operation. The third interculturing has to
do with the application of urea, while the fourth one is to remove of late emerging weeds. Thinning
densely populated plants is carried out at different stages, at the start of the second intercultivation.
Harvesting and threshing are important activities performed at the end of the season.
Farmers developed an activity calendar of the major crop production activities for the kebele (Table 13).
Crop production constraints
The major factors constraining crop production are a lack of improved varieties for most crops (except
for maize), rainfall variability, low soil fertility, insects (stalk borers and cutworms) and diseases (potato
late blight, and rust on wheat, barley and maize). Rainfall variability, in terms of amount and
distribution, fluctuates widely, sometimes there are heavy storms that damage crops and there are dry
spells as well. Farmers believe that these factors affect crops, and result in a decline in yields.
20
Table 13: Seasonal calendar for crop production activities in Rasa Janata
Activities
Months
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Land clearing
Ploughing
Manure transportation
Reba’u 2ffa (2nd tillage)
Planting
1st Hagayi
Weeding
2nd Hagayi
3rd Hagayi & Urea application
4th Hagayi
Hagaaddi (for sorghum)
Maize harvesting
Woba dhahu (for sorghum)
Sorghum harvesting
Maize threshing
Sorghum threshing and storing
Marketing
Key:
The solid line means the specified activity will take place during that period:
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Table 14: Rainfall amount and monthly distribution in Rasa Janata
Months
Sept
Conditions
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Rainfall distribution
(during optimum
rainfall season)
Rainfall distribution
(during season of
rainfall shortage)
Average rainfall
during the optimum
rainy season
Relative rainfall
amount during
season of rainfall
shortage
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Table 15: Pair-wise ranking of crop production constraints in Rasa Janata
Problems
Lack of improved
varieties (LIV)
Rainfall variability
(RV)
Lack of
improved
varieties
Rainfall
variability
Insects
Diseases
Low soil
fertility
Score
Ranking
LIV
LIV
LIV
LIV
4
1
RV
RV
RV
3
2
DS
LSF
0
5
LSF
1
4
2
3
Insect (I)
Diseases (DS)
Low soil fertility
(LSF)
Soil fertility management and crop production
Low soil fertility is the third major constraint to crop production, next to the lack of improved crop
varieties and rainfall variability. Farmers noted that soil fertility is decreasing yearly. As a result, it has
now become impossible to produce without the use of fertilisers. The farmers usually apply DAP, urea
and farmyard manure on almost all crops grown in the area except faba bean. Rotating legumes (faba
bean) with cereals is practised by a few farmers to maintain soil fertility, although it is mainly done for
diversification purposes.
Farmers mainly apply DAP when planting maize and sorghum and urea is applied at later stages of
growth (at 7-10 leaf stage for maize, and at the boot stage for sorghum). Both DAP and urea are bandapplied on maize and sorghum planted in rows. There is broadcast application of fertilisers to wheat and
barley at the time of planting. However, few innovative farmers apply urea during the later stages of
growth, mostly at tillering. Farmyard manure management and its use are almost similar to that
reported for Lafto Ela-tatessa. The use of compost is minimal in the kebele although, in recent years, the
farmers are aware of its benefits. Only one innovative farmer in the kebele has started preparing and
using compost (using a standard procedure) to improve soil fertility.
Livestock feed and related activities
The feed used for livestock and the activities associated with this are similar to that of Lafto Ela-tatessa.
Fattening of livestock is, however, not common in Rasa Janata. Hence, the different feed management
strategies used by farmers to fatten their bulls in Lafto Ela-tatessa do not exist in Rasa Janata.
Summary of findings for Rasa Janata
Agricultural production in the Rasa Janata kebele is based on a mixed farming system. Major crops
grown in the area include maize, sorghum, wheat, barley, potato and faba bean. Crop diversification
through intercropping and relay cropping is not common. The kebele has water sources that can be
potentially used, but they are not used much for crop production. The kebele has the potential to
produce temperate fruits like apple.
The major factors constraining crop production in the kebele are a lack of improved varieties for most
crops, rainfall variability, low soil fertility, pests and diseases. To alleviate the problem of low soil
fertility, farmers apply DAP, urea and farmyard manure on almost all crops grown in the area except for
faba bean. Estimated yield increment for different crops by using fertilisers in the area is in the range of
100-500%. The fattening of livestock is not a common practice in the kebele.
23
Table 16: Estimated yields of major crop types under different fertility management in Rasa Janata
No.
Crop type
Fertiliser
management
Amount of fertiliser
applied
Method fertiliser of
application
Time of fertiliser
application
1
Maize
DAP +
Urea + Manure
DAP = 100 kg ha-1
Urea = 100 kg ha-1
Manure = 8 ton ha-1
DAP = band
Urea = band
Manure = broadcast
DAP +
Urea + Manure
DAP = 100 kg ha-1
Urea = 100 kg ha-1
Manure = 8 ton ha-1
DAP = band
Urea = band
Manure = broadcast
Irish
Potato
DAP +
Urea + Manure
DAP = 50 kg ha-1
Urea = 50 kg ha-1
Manure = 4 ton ha-1
DAP = band
Urea = band
Manure = broadcast
Wheat
DAP +
Urea
DAP = 50 kg ha-1
Urea = 50 kg ha-1
DAP = broadcast
Urea = broadcast
DAP = at planting
Urea = only at 7-8 leaf
stage
Manure =before planting
DAP = at planting
Urea = only at flag leaf
stage
Manure = before
planting
DAP = at planting
Urea = at tubering
Manure = before
planting
DAP = at planting
Urea = at planting
DAP = broadcast
Urea = broadcast
DAP = at planting
Urea = at planting
2
3
4
5
Sorghum
Barley
DAP +
Urea
-1
DAP = 50 kg ha
Urea = 50 kg ha-1
Grain yield
estimated
under fertiliser
application
(kg ha-1)
Grain yield
estimated under
no fertiliser
application
(kg ha-1)
% yield
increment
4,800
800
500
3.200
1,600
100
12.000
2,000
500
1,600
400
300
3,200
800
300
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Stakeholder workshops
Organisation of workshops and feedback received
The HU-CASCAPE team held a community workshop in each kebele to present the results of the study to
the group of farmers in the community. Presentations focused on four major topics; environmental
conditions, socio-economic conditions, actor landscape and agricultural production conditions.
Summary reports were presented to the group on:

Environmental conditions: natural resources and constraints, soil types and characteristics, and soil
and water conservation practices identified by the farmers.

Socio-economic conditions included major livelihoods and economic activities, access to finance and
markets, major constraints and

Actor landscape: formal and informal institutions working in/with communities and linkages, type of
services they provide, and target members and beneficiaries.

Agricultural production conditions which included major agricultural production systems, crop
production practices and activities, constraints to crop production, and soil fertility management and
crop production were presented.
Participants analysed the constraints identified under each topic and priority rankings. They agreed that
the list of constraints reflected the actual conditions in the kebeles studied. In addition, the practices and
the activities carried out to address problems were raised and discussed. The communities were
encouraged to keep on carrying out selected activities to address some of the problems so as to improve
production and the livelihood of members of the communities.
Community workshop participants requested that the project try to come up with possible solutions to
the problems identified under the different themes. In addition, they also asked for solutions to
problems that were beyond the mandate of the project like health services, drinking water, education,
road and micro dam construction, warehouse construction, etc. Following the issues raised, the PRA
team took the opportunity to again explain the objectives of the project, its scope and possible areas of
intervention as set out in the project document. This helped to develop a common understanding with
farmers in the community on what the project is about and in the identification of possible areas of
intervention.
A scoping study was conducted at the woreda level—this involved holding interviews with key
stakeholders, experts and officials to further identify constraints and existing opportunities. As a
consequence, a review meeting was conducted at the woreda level involving subject matter specialists,
input supply organisations, credit and savings institutions, and woreda officials, who also contributed to
the list of innovation themes. During the review meetings, PRA and scoping study results were
presented for feedback and prioritisation of the identified innovation themes. Lastly, a regional
stakeholders’ consultation workshop involving professionals and managers from different stakeholder
organisations (i.e., the Office of Agriculture at different levels, research organisations, NGOs and
university researchers) was conducted at HU. This meeting was fruitful, contributing considerably to the
list of innovation themes and further planning of project activities.
List of innovation themes
Based on the results of PRA study and stakeholders workshops, five priority innovation themes along
with their accompanying activities were identified for implementation in the woreda during the project
period, which started in 2012. The innovation themes were selected and prioritised based on the priority
of constraints, available opportunities and best practices identified. Issues like scope of the project,
feasibility under regional context, contribution to food security and income generation were considered
25
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
during selection of the innovation themes. The selected innovation themes for implementation in the
woreda during the project period included:

Rehabilitation of eroded and degraded soils using biophysical measures

Soil fertility management and plant nutrition

Increasing crop production through the introduction of improved varieties (technologies) and
multiple cropping systems

Market and institutional linkages

Livestock production and productivity improvement
Best practices
In the study, it was found the best practices were mainly carried out by innovative farmers. These
practices were implemented for them to cope up with the constraints they face and to increase
productivity, increase diversity of food and their income source. Accordingly, best practices that were
identified have been included in the list below on innovations.
Table 17: Long list of innovations/best practices identified in the kebeles
No
Interventions/innovation themes
Description
Kebele(s)
1
Soil moisture holding capacity
improvement
Lafto Ela-tatessa
2
Soil moisture conservation
3
Growing of elephant grass strips along
the terraces
4
Diverting run-off on to the farmland
5
Dry tillage and manure application
(during dry season) on vertisol to
improve its properties
Sweet potato production using residual
moisture
Compost and manures are found
improve soil moisture holding
capacity
Clogging soil cracks by intercultivation (by hand hoe) during
dry spells
Used for soil and water
conservation. Also used for
livestock feed.
It, however, competes for
resources with maize and
sorghum
Very useful when there is
moisture stress
Enables timely planting,
improves workability
Sweet potato planted after
harvesting maize and sorghum,
assumed to enhance household
food security
Weeds uprooted and buried and
left to decompose; advantage is
that weeds are always available
on farm
These institutions help solve
social and economic problems.
Only a few community members
benefit from institutions aimed at
addressing economic concerns
Poultry production and
marketing: use of local breeds
for incubating improved eggs
purchased from other sources
Lafto Ela-tatessa
6
7
Burying green weed plants in soil to
improve soil fertility
8
Traditional institutions as means for
livelihoods improvement
9
Creating alternative livelihood options
through poultry farming
26
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Lafto Ela-tatessa,
Rasa Janata
Lafto Ela-tatessa
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
No
Interventions/innovation themes
Description
Kebele(s)
10
Combination of intercropping and relay
cropping systems
Is important for both
intensification and diversification
Lafto Ela-tatessa
11
Intercropping common bean with maize
and sorghum
Common bean plated at 6-8 leaf
stages of maize and sorghum
Lafto Ela-tatessa
12
Application of urea on teff at 3-4 leaf
stage
Integrate application of farmyard manure
and chemical fertilisers
Most farmers apply only DAP at
the time of planting
For increased maize and potato
production
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Feeding fattening bulls with sorghum and
maize flour soaked in water overnight,
floured or boiled shelled maize cobs with
salt, haricot bean pods boiled with salt,
teff grain boiled with salt
Use of farmyard manure and compost to
improve soil fertility, and yields of maize
and sorghum
Temperate fruit production (apple)
Feeds give a good response,
fattening period is shortened
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Improves soil workability; the
carryover is used for the next
cropping season
Favourable agro-ecology for
temperate fruits
Rasa Janata
13
14
15
16
27
Lafto Ela-tatessa
Rasa Janata
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Evaluation of the PRA process by the team
The PRA activities were conducted from December 2011 to February 2012 in Lafto Ela-tatessa and Rasa
Janata kebeles in the Gurawa woreda in the Eastern Hararge Zone. The PRA was undertaken to assist
the HU-CASCAPE team gain a better understanding of household resources, farming systems on four
major topics—environmental, socio-economic, actor landscape and agricultural production conditions—to
support participatory planning processes. In the process, key problems and opportunities were
identified, as perceived by the communities in the kebeles.
In general, the IT members found that the whole PRA process went well, except for a few challenges
encountered. It was enjoyable and successful, in the light of the anticipated objectives set out. PRA
participants in the various kebeles, for the most part, thought that the PRA offered them the opportunity
to learning and reflect on issues. At the end of each PRA exercise, participating farmers departed from
the team with affection and a strong sense of fraternity.
Some of the challenges/difficulties included:

For PRAs to be conducted successfully, time is needed to develop a sense of confidence and trust
between the people in the villages and the researchers conducting the field visits. This is usually
done through multiple visits to the communities. However, due to the urgency of the work and other
factors, the PRA team could only stay for a relatively short time during the trips to the villages. This
also restricted the number of PRA tools used and information generated.

At the time of the PRA, farmers were busy in meetings and training workshops organised by the
regional government, which lasted for more than a month.

Considerable time was spent dealing with woreda officials in putting together the groups of farmers
to participate in the PRA.

Poor accessibility of the kebeles due to their topography.
28
CASCAPE working paper 2.3.1
Bibiliography
Bernd, S. and Callens, K. 1999. Conducting a PRA training and modifying PRA tools to your needs. An
example from a participatory household food security and nutrition project in Ethiopia.
Boef, W. S. de and Thijssen, M. H. 2007. Participatory tools working with crops, varieties and seeds. A
guide for professionals applying participatory approaches in agro-biodiversity management, crop
improvement and seed sector development.
Quang Ngai Rural Development Programme (RUDEP), 2004. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) report.
Prepared by URS Sustainable development in association with Kellogg Brown & Root and World Wide
Project Management Services Project Managers and Consultants, Adelaide Australia. Ba Dinh District,
Hanoi, Vietnam.
Theis, J. and Grady, H. M. (1991). Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development: A Training
Manual Based on Experience in the Middle East and North Africa. International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED/Save the Children Foundation. London.
29