The Economic Contrbution of Coffee Based Agroforestry On

Home , Forestry

THE ECONOMIC CONTRBUTION OF COFFEE BASED AGROFORESTRY ON

FOOD SECURITY FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMERS

IN CASE OF GURAFERDA DISTRICT, BENCH MAJI ZONE, SOUTHWESTERN

ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. THESIS

FEREDE MESERET GEBRU

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY WONDO GENET COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, WONDO GENET, ETHIOPIA

JUNE, 2018

THE ECONOMIC CONTRBUTION OF COFFEE BASED AGROFORESTRY FOR

SMALLHOLDER FARMERS

IN CASE OF GURAFERDA DISTRICT, BENCH MAJI ZONE, SOUTHWESTERN

ETHIOPIA

FEREDE MESERET GEBRU

THESIS SUBMITTED TO HAWASSA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF FORESTRY

GRADUATE STUDIES, COLLEGE OF WONDO GENET FORESTRY AND

NATURAL RESOURCES, HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THEREQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGROFORESTRY AND SOIL MANAGEMENT

MAIN ADVISOR: YOSEF MELKA (PhD)

CO-ADVISOR: MESELE NEGASH (PhD)

JUNE, 2018

WONDO GENET, ETHIOPIA

APPROVAL SHEET- I

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “the economic contribution of coffee based agroforestry for smallholder farmers at Guraferda district, southwestern Ethiopia’’ It submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Sciences with specialization in Agroforestry and soil management of the Graduate Program of the school of Forestry, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources and has been carried out by Ferede Meseret Gebru Id.No AfSm/007/06) under my supervision, and no part of the thesis has been submitted for educational institutions for achieving any academic awards. The assistance and help received during the course of this investigation have been duly acknowledged. Therefore, I recommended to be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement.

Yosef Melka (PhD) ______

Name of Main advisor Signature Date

Mesele Negash (PhD) ______

Name of Co - advisor Signature Date

Zerihun Girma (PhD) ______

Graduate program coordinator Signature Date

APPROVAL SHEET-II

We, the undersigned, members of the Board of examiners of the final open defense by

Ferede Meseret Gebru have read and evaluated the thesis entitled “the economic contribution of coffee based agroforestry for smallholder farmers at Guraferda district, southwestern Ethiopia‟‟, and examined the candidate.

This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science(s) in Agroforestry and soil management.

______

Name of Chairman Signature Date

Yosef Melka (PhD) ______

Name of Main advisor Signature Date

Mesele Negash (PhD) ______

Name of Co- advisor Signature Date

______

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

______

Name of External Examiner Signature Date

DECLARATION

This is to certify that this thesis entitled “the economic contribution of coffee based agroforestry for smallholder farmers” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of M.Sc. in agroforestry and soil management to the School of Graduate Studies, Hawassa university, wondo genet college of forestry and natural resources, through the school of forestry department, done by Mr. Ferede Meseret Gebru, Id. No. AfSm/007/06) is an authentic work carried out by me under my guidance. The matter embodied in this thesis work has not been submitted earlier for award of any degree or diploma to the best of my knowledge and belief.

FEREDE MESERET GEBRU

Signature ______

Date______

Wondo genet, Ethiopia, JUNE, 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I am glad to thank the almighty God who helps me throughout my life and for his mother found to the right side of him to ask mercy to me from her son. The word of God says “all things came into being through Him, and without Him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in Him was life and the life was the light of all people (John 1; 3-4).” All praise goes to the almighty God and St. Virgin

Marry for giving me strength and courage for my successful work. In the first place, I am profoundly indebted to my major advisor, Dr. Yosef Melka and Co-advisor

Dr.Mesele Negash for their frankness and comments and constructive idea provision truth advice, guidance, valuable suggestions, planning and giving immediate feedback on my progress research work. I am very much indebted to Mizan Tepi University staff members for their overall co-operation during my research period. My deep gratitude goes to my friends Dr. Desta and Mr. Hailu for his continuous & valuable technical assistance throughout the research period. My heartful gratitude goes to my beloved wife Gedamnesh Muluneh for her kind and lovely comprehensive support. This thesis owes its existence to the help, support and inspiration of many people. I acknowledge to sega and denkla kebelle agricultural extension experts and kebelle leaders for collecting socio-economic and biophysical data from the selected households in the study area.

iii

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

AF Agroforestry

ANOVA Analysis of variance

BMZBoFED Bench Maji Zone Bureau of Finance and Economic Development

GWANRO Guraferda Woreda Agricultural and Natural Resource Office

GWRDO Guraferda Woreda Rural Development Office

DAs Development Agents

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

EFAP Ethiopian Forestry Action Programme

ETB Ethiopian Birr

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

CBAF Coffee based agroforestry

Fr frequency ha Hectare hh Households km2 Kilometer square m.a.s.l Meter above sea level n Number of sample households

N Total population

PA Peasant association

TP Total plot

Kg kilogram

SNNPRs Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

Table of Contents APPROVAL SHEET- I ...... iii APPROVAL SHEET-II ...... iv DECLARATION ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ...... iv List of Figures...... viii List of tables ...... viii List of appendixes ...... ix ABSTRACT ...... x 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background and Justification ...... 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ...... 2

1.3. Significance of the study ...... 3

1.4. Objectives of the Study...... 3

1.4.1. General objective ...... 3

1.4.2. Specific objectives ...... 3

1.5. Research Questions ...... 4

1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study ...... 4

1.7. Conceptual frame works ...... 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 6 2.1. Concept of Agroforestry and Food Security ...... 6

2.2. Agroforestry and Biodiversity ...... 7

2.3. Socio-economic benefits of agroforestry ...... 8

2.4. The Role of Agroforestry in Sustainable Land Use ...... 11

2.5. Coffee shade trees plantation ...... 11

2.6. Deforestation Trend and Its Effect ...... 12

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 14 3.1. Description of the study area ...... 14

3.1.1. Location and Population ...... 14

3.1.2. Agro-Ecology and Climate ...... 15

3.1.3. Economy and Land use type ...... 15

3.2. Research Methods ...... 15

3.2.1. Data Type and Sources ...... 15

3.2.2. Research design ...... 16

3.2.3. Sampling techniques ...... 16

3.2.4. Sample size determination ...... 17

3.2.5. Socioeconomic data collection ...... 17

3.2.5.1. Reconnaissance survey ...... 18

3.2.5.2. Focus Group Discussion and Key Informant Interview ...... 18

3.2.5.3. Field observation and survey ...... 19

3.2.5.4. Questionnaires ...... 19

3.3. Methods of data analysis ...... 20

3.3.1. Socio-economic data analysis ...... 20

3.3.2. Data analysis procedure ...... 20

3.3.3. Vegetation assessment ...... 21

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 22 4.1. Results ...... 22

4.1.1. Household Socio-economic Characteristics ...... 22

4.1.2. Household characteristics ...... 22

4.1.3. Livelihood strategies of households ...... 23

4.1.4. Land use and size in wealth class land allocation ...... 24

4.1.5. Tree species preference for coffee shade in households ...... 25

4.1.6. Species diversity ...... 26

4.1.7. Comparison of useful plant species among wealth categories ...... 27

4.1.8. Types of Coffee Based Agroforestry Products ...... 27

4.1.9. Factors of CBAF Production ...... 34

4.1.10. Types of livestock product ...... 34

4.1.11. Types of cereal crop product ...... 36

4.1.12. Revenue, Variable Cost and Growth Margin ...... 37

4.1.13. Risk and income diversification of CBAF on smallholder farmers ...... 40

4.2. Discussion ...... 42

4.2.1. Land use type, useful tree species diversity and coffee preference ...... 42

4.2.2. Types of products and their contribution ...... 46

4.2.3. Livelihood strategies, income sources and variable cost in wealth classes ...... 49

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 53 5.1. Conclusions ...... 53

5.2. Recommendations ...... 54

6. REFERENCES ...... 56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 73

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of the study area ...... 14 Figure 2: Species abundances in each wealth class ...... 26 Figure 3: Risk and income diversification ranking of farm types ...... 40

List of tables Table 1: The Wealth Classification HH Profiles in District ...... 19

Table 2: Variables and characteristics of respondents in both selected kebele ...... 22

Table 3: Livelihood strategies of the three wealth class ...... 23

Table 4: Mean (±Std.)Of land use type and its size in wealth class ...... 24

Table 5: ANOVA table of land use type and its size in wealth class ...... 24

Table 7: Tree species preference of farmers for their coffee shade in study area ...... 25

Table 8: Vegetation stands density in households per hector ...... 27

Table 9: Mean (±Std.) annual CBAF gross income (birr) in wealth classes ...... 28

Table 10: Mean (±Std.) Fruit production kg/ households per annum in wealth class ...... 29

Table 11: Mean (±Std.) leaves and fodder productions kg/household per annual...... 29

Table 12: Mean (±Std.) of stem production in wealth class per annual ...... 30

Table 13: Mean (±Std.) of tuber and root production in wealth class per annual...... 31

Table 14: Mean (±Std.) of fuel wood production, and utilization in wealth class per annual .... 32

Table 15: Mean (±Std.) of medicinal and spices plants produced kg/hh per annual ...... 33

Table 16: Mean (±Std) of gross (birr) gained from animal by current estimation ...... 35

Table 17: The prioritized animal feed sources ...... 35

Table 18: Mean (±Std) of production (in kg) gained from cereal crop by wealth class ...... 37

Table 19: Mean (±std) of revenue from different types by wealth class ...... 37

Table 20: Mean (±Std) of variable cost for different types by wealth class ...... 38

Table 21: Mean of growth margin from different types in wealth class...... 38

viii

List of appendixes

Appendixes 1: Standard socio-economic questionnaire ...... 63

Appendixes 2: General household‟s farm information & income ...... 64

Appendixes 3: Production of coffee based agroforestry systems in household ...... 65

Appendixes 4: Production and Utilization of crop products in 2008/09 ...... 66

Appendixes 5: Off-farm activities ...... 67

Appendixes 6: Questions for the key informants ...... 67

Appendixes 7: Questioner for Focus group discussion ...... 68

Appendixes 8: Coffee species preference in households ...... 69

Appendixes 9: Mean (±Std.)Of species type per plot in wealth class ...... 69

Appendixes 10: Livestock type and total numbers of animals in each wealth class ...... 69

Appendixes 11: Risk and Income diversification Prioritized in wealth class ...... 70

Appendixes 12: Tree species preference of farmers for their coffee shade ...... 70

Appendixes 13: Species diversity ...... 71

The Economic Contribution of Coffee Based Agroforestry for Smallholder Farmers In Case of Guraferda District, Bench Maji Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia [email protected] Ferede Meseret 0919125296

ABSTRACT This study was carried out to the economic contribution of coffee based agroforestry for smallholder farmers in Guraferda district;with the overall objective of the study is to investigate the income contribution of coffee based agroforestry system and its role in improving the livelihood of smallholder farmers . As specific objectives, to measure the annual production of coffee based agroforestry practices, estimate the major income contribution of coffee based agroforestry products to households,determine risk share and income diversification role of coffee based agroforestry system on smallholder farmers and investigate structure and composition of coffee based agroforestry systems. Data were collected from 51 randomly selected households through semi structured interview. In addition focus group discussion, key informant interview; field observation and market assessment were employed. Socio-economic surveys were conducted in both sega and denkla kebele from stratified poor, medium & rich wealth classes and group interviews.To collect vegetation data 24sampling plots in 12 households were allotted. The analysis includes both qualitative and quantitative ways. In this study the livelihood strategies in all three wealth class the coffee based agroforestry practices were first ranked, 85%, poor, 57% medium and 76% rich households preferred as first choices. The result showed that in all wealth classes’ farm, a total of 56 species were identified and 21species were common for all wealth class .30, 36 and 44 species were found in poor Medium and rich respectively for this 33 species were produce different production for household. In rich households have greater species diversity of trees, shrubs and herbs than other. Tree density in rich, medium and poor household’s farm was234/ha, 244/ha&231/ha,respectively.Colocasia esculenta (Taro) had the highest production as compared with other herb layer species in poor 377 kg/hh, in medium 148 kg/hh and in rich 121 kg/hh households. Accordingly to feed these livestock, farmers were used different sources of feed. In poor, medium and rich class households 46%, 43% and 53% were produced fodders for their livestock from coffee based agroforestry systems, as a main source. As compared with other income sources in households, coffee based agroforestry were covered greater than other total income sources.Coffee based agroforestry system was used for food, cash crop, medicinal, spices, wood, fodder, shade and alternative income source for households .the coffee based agroforestry systems incomes were 4812 ,16822,431,8875, 15720, 57451 and 3558 birr fruit, leaves and fodder, stem, tuber and root, medicinal and spices, coffee bean and others respectively.The result of economical contribution of the total growth margin production income 94685.9 ETB,110783.4 ETB and 210739.6 ETB gained in poor,medium and rich households respectively that 70% coffee based agroforestry,19% cereal cropland 11% from animal husbandry were contributed and coffee based agroforestry 84% poor, 65% medium and 68% rich household contributed their livelihood but fruit and coffee were dominant income proportional than others in all wealth class in both study site.

Keywords: growth margin, revenue, variable cost, annual income, species composition and structure, risk share, income diversification, wealth class, household

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and Justification

From the history of most countries, forests have been the source of everything for the communities' daily life. Trees are one form of natural capital, the stocks of resources generated by natural biogeochemical processes and solar energy that yield flows of products which can be marketed or used domestically (e.g. Fodder, food, fruits, fuel wood, medicines), and services that increase and improve environmental resiliency

(ICRAF, 1997; Cooper et al., 1996).

In Ethiopia, the existing natural high forests are located in the less populated southern and southwestern parts of the country (EFAP, 1994). This resource is mainly used for the source of many commercially useful plant species such as spices and naturally grown coffees. To compete to exploit these common resources and by many of other deforestation causes, the forest is found under critical condition.

In this millennium most naturalists believed that to overcome the problems caused by deforestation, agroforestry is the comprehensive land use system in most part of the world. About 1.2 billion people living in abject poverty in developing countries, or

20% of humankind, depend almost entirely on agroforestry trees for their nutritional needs and economic wellbeing (ICRAF, 2000). As Leakey (1996) defined agroforestry, it is ecologically based, natural resource management system that, through the integration of trees in farms and rangelands (or other landscapes), diversifies and sustains plant and livestock production for increased socio-economic and environmental benefits for all the land-users". Agroforestry as a land use system has practiced for hundreds of years but its scientific study is recent. It is aim at mitigating deforestation, land degradation and rural poverty.

Generally, there are different types of agroforestry practices in our globe depending on different biophysical factors like agro-climatic condition, soil types, adaptability of trees etc. It is considered as one-way of attaining agricultural sustainability and environmental objectives (Nair, 1993). In some places where cash crop plantations such as coffee, tea & cocoa are grown, farmers often leave or plant trees for the need of shading and products generation role. In the study site farmers have long time experience on coffee based agroforestry practice by retaining and/or planting trees in their own farm? Since it is one of the sustainable land use system, ecologically & economically; to promote the trend and enhance the productivity, it is important to see in what sense does the practice used for the communities (households) to sustain their life. Therefore, this study was intended to assess and analyze useful plant species, products produced from the system and socio-economic contribution of coffee based agroforestry. This study aims at providing information for extension agents, policy makers and other institutions responsible for planning rural development strategies.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

In many countries the dwellers have an intimate relation with natural resources, especially with forest for a source of food, energy, construction materials, and others.

For instance in our country, Ethiopia, Natural Forests are found around the peripheries

Rather, nowadays, a better emphasis is given for cereal crop production than coffee based agroforestry by governmental organizations. The farmers in the study area take in to consideration its contribution in this sense or not, there is strong trend of coffee based agroforestry practices. In order to understand the ecologic and economic role of components in the system useful plant species at trees, shrubs, and herbs level have been identified and helped to manage the system and to maximize the output. Lastly

2 this study showed the potential contribution of agroforestry on the change of the livelihood of households.

1.3. Significance of the study

Sustainable agricultural development in the world is one of the basic issues for food security. Generally, agroforestry is one of the land use system that mitigate the need of food production, wood resources demand and environmental protection. Therefore, this study was initiated to evaluate the types of products produced from the coffee based agroforestry and income collected from the system. Moreover, it‟s over all contribution for families to be self-sufficient in food as compared with other income generation activities. Additionally, the opportunities and constraints in the area to intensify the coffee based agroforestry for all wealth class farmers have been observed.

1.4. Objectives of the Study

1.4.1. General objective

To investigate the income contribution of coffee based agroforestry system and its role in improving the livelihood of smallholder farmers in Guraferda district

1.4.2. Specific objectives

To investigate structure and composition of coffee based agroforestry systems

To measure the annual production of coffee based agroforestry practices

To estimate the major income contribution of coffee based agroforestry products to households

To determine risk share and income diversification role of coffee based agroforestry system on smallholder farmers

1.5. Research Questions

What is structure and composition of coffee based agroforestry systems?

How to measure the annual production from coffee based agroforestry system?

What is the income contribution from coffee based agroforestry system in households?

How coffee based agroforestry system diversified risk and income on smallholder farmers?

1.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study

To collect socio-economic data of households‟ in the study area, dwellers were categorized in to three classes. This wealth classification by key informants was relative to the community. Rich in one place may differ from the rich in other place.

Therefore, it cannot be used for generalizing the result elsewhere in the country.

To acquire information regarding tree, shrub & herb species in the system, various sized sample plots were arranged on transects having certain meter gaps as in Shimwell

(1971). Since this coffee based agroforestry is one of a managed farm, it is expected that plant components were placed systematically in the system. Therefore during sample plots layout, plots may be felled on areas where more plants are found or not.

Hence the result could be under estimated or over estimated.

This research was carried out under a situation of time limitation and financial constraints. The studied area on- farm trees coverage and diversity were not supported with GIS and satellite images.

Rural people do not commonly record their incomes and/or costs. Collecting income data could not be done few times in a year to come up with relatively „precise‟ information. People may not have reported all the incomes they earn from the on-farm

4 trees and other incomes. Farmers were generally reluctant to provide information to outsiders as it relates to income.

1.7. Conceptual frame works

The major income sources of coffee based agroforestry to households

 Fruit (Avocado, Mango, Papaya, Orange, Lemon, Guava, Banana, Pepper)  Leaves and fodder (Cabbage, Coffee leaves, Gesho, Chat, tree leaves, Purposely grown grass, weed, others)  Medicinal and spices (Garlic, demakesie, ginger/ginjibel, yemidir berberie, cardamon/korerima, rue/tena adam, theij sar, turmeric/eard)  stem (Sugar cane, Enset)  Tuber and root (Cassava, Yam, Taro, Sweet potato)  Coffee bean

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Concept of Agroforestry and Food Security

Agroforestry practices aim at mitigating deforestation, land degradation and rural poverty (Louise et al., 1998). It has generally been accepted that, "Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource management system that, through the integration of trees in farms and rangelands (or other landscapes), diversifies and sustains plant and livestock production for increased socio-economic and environmental benefits for all the land-users"(Leakey, 1996, ICRAF, 1997. Integrated production systems and soil and water conservation measures are adopted to efficiently increase food production while maintaining soil fertility and improving its physiochemical and biological properties (Nair, 1993). On the other hand agriculture is predominantly aimed at food crop, fiber and livestock production. Thus, agroforestry combines some elements of food as target products (Muschler et al., 1997). The Rome declaration agreed at the World Food Summit 1996 states that food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical &/or economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs & food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2003). In addition, the low establishment costs of many forest-based small-scale enterprises tend to make them accessible to women and the poor (Chambers and Leach, 1987).In terms of household food security, forest and farm tree resources serve to supplement existing food resources and income, fill in seasonal shortfalls of food and income as well as provide seasonally crucial agricultural inputs, and help reduce risk and lessen the impact of droughts and other emergencies. In addition, forests and farm trees appear to be especially important for the rural poor (many of whom are women), as they frequently must rely on off-farm employment opportunities

6 and available forest resources to help meet their household need (Nair, 2001). At the household level, the key objective is to ensure sufficient access to food to all household members. Chronic food insecurity can be tackled most effectively through policies that promote agricultural productivity, rural income generation and food production (FAO,

2001).

2.2. Agroforestry and Biodiversity

There is not enough forested habitat remaining in some landscapes to support some species of plants and animals. Even when there are forest reserves in an area, they may be too small to contain the habitat requirements of all species. In addition, most species have populations that extend beyond reserve boundaries (Kramer et al., 1997).

Agroforestry adds plant and animal biodiversity to landscapes that might otherwise contain only monocultures of agricultural crops (Noble and Dirzo, 1997; Guo, 2000).

Enhanced site-level diversity typically results in higher levels of belowground microbial diversity and production (Olson et al., 2000).

Furthermore, shaded coffee plantations have been proposed as refuges for biodiversity because they can potentially preserve high diversity of organisms such as birds, arthropods, mammals and orchids (Gallina et al., 1996; Greenberg et al., 1997). Shade coffee systems, especially those that are maintained under dense natural shade have been found to have a high level of biodiversity (Perfecto et al., 1996).

The need to investigate this relationship has been recognized as a priority by specialists in coffee agroforestry systems (Muschler and Bonnemann, 1997; Beer et al., 1998).

Some studies in Costa Rica indicates that the quality of coffee bean is higher when shade intensity was increased from 0% to more than 80% under un pruned Erythrina poeppigiana tree (Muschler, 2001).In Central and South America, shaded coffee

7 plantations integrate leguminous, fruit, fuel wood, and fodder trees (Beer, 2001). These systems have been documented to contain over 100 plant species per field and support up to 180 bird species. In mature complex multi-strata agroforestry systems of

Indonesia, plant diversity was in the order of 300 species ha-1, while bird diversity was found to be 50 percent that in the original rainforest. In addition, almost all mammal species were still present at some level in these agroforestry systems (Thrupp, 1997).

Scientific evidence is now available to show that the spatial and temporal heterogeneity created by the agroforestry plantings can help enhance resource, increase production, reduce risk of monoculture agricultural and forestry practices, and achieve system stability and sustainability (Sanchez, 1995; Ong and Huxley, 1996; Lefroy et al., 1999;

Nair and Latt, 1998; Nair, 2001).

Agroforestry plantings can help add structural and functional diversity to landscapes and, if strategically located, they can help restore many ecological functions (Olson et al., 2000). While agroforests are typically less diverse than native forest, they do contain a significant number of plant and animal species. This diversity can, in time, provide ecological resilience and contribute to the maintenance of beneficial ecological functions (Lefroy et al., 1999; Vandermeer, 2002).

2.3. Socio-economic benefits of agroforestry

Both forests and farm trees supply foods and other products, which may be consumed, sold directly, or processed and then sold (FAO, 1989). In many places, the focus of supply of some forest products is shifting from the forest to the farm. Those who have access to land and sufficient resources to work it are becoming increasingly reliant on on-farm cultivation of trees (Arnold and Dewees, 1995, cited in Byron and Arnold,

1999). Trees are often left or planted on farms for the food and fodder they provide.

The few studies that have examined their nutritional impact show that home gardens increase the total quantities of food consumed by households (Soemarwoto, 1985;

Immink, 1981).

In many arid regions, trees provide an important source of dry season fodder, ranging from nil to 100% of the livestock diet. In the Sahelian region browse represents an estimated 30-40% of the dry season feed (Le Houerou, 1986).

Weeds are often used as fodder, especially in the dry season. Almost any weed in a field after harvest serves as food for animals. During this period, some weeds are more digestible than cultivated forages, have higher crude protein content and are more widely available (Nuwanyakpa et al., 1983).

In some cases, farmers are increasing the value of production from farmland by processing higher value products and producing more products from the same area such as fuel wood and charcoal, byproducts of land clearing (Penny and Singarimbun, 1973).

While few studies have examined the possible impacts of fuel wood scarcity on household nutrition, a few important relationships can be identified. Decline in fuel wood supply may influence the amount of food supplied or cooked, and in some instances fewer meals are cooked. This trend may have a particularly damaging effect on child nutrition, as children may be unable to consume enough of the often-starchy staple foods in one meal (Chambers and Leach, 1987). In some areas the increasing prices of fuel wood have forced, the costs of processing foods. And these increases are in turn passed on to the consumer (Cecelski, 1987).

In addition, fuel wood shortages may indirectly affect household food security: as women are forced to spend longer time collecting fuel wood they have less time to spend on food production or income earning activities (Chambers and Leach, 1987).

A study in the Philippines revealed that a greater proportion of villagers became involved in rattan collection and trade as agricultural conditions worsened. In addition, villagers also turned to this activity when income was needed for emergencies to cover expenses of funerals, medical treatment or weddings (Siebert, 1985). Several authors have remarked that income earned in forest-based activities is often used to purchase inputs, such as seeds, needed for the following agricultural season (Engel, 1984; May,

1985). In these cases, forest-based income is quite closely linked to the agricultural production cycle.

In one of the more commonly occurring agro-forestry systems, the home garden, tree crops provide products which complement the high-calorie foodstuffs grown elsewhere in the farm system (Wiersum, 1981). Another benefit is that of raising incomes by exploiting tree crops, which provide higher returns from the land than alternative crops.

Recent studies have shown, for example, that eucalyptus grown on irrigated land in

Gujarat, India, to produce poles and firewood for sale (Gupta, 1979), and Albizia falcataria grown on agricultural land in Mindanao, Philippines, for sale as pulpwood

(Hyman et al., n.d.) produced higher returns to the farmers than the agricultural cash crops they displaced.

Food security and income are among the primary motivations that influence farmers to adopt certain agroforestry systems. Brown (2003) mentioned as one of the reasons that a farmer‟s adoption of agroforestry technology depends on income (providing cash to service & other needs) generation.

Trees are widely grown for this purpose by farmers; as they do not have to be harvested at a particular time, and usually accrue in value over time, they have unique value in this respect (Ndoye et al., 1997; Leakey & Simons, 1997).

2.4. The Role of Agroforestry in Sustainable Land Use

Arnold (1998), in examining the contribution of forests to sustainable livelihoods, defines forests "to include all resources that can produce forest products. These can comprise woodland, scrubland, bush fallow and farm bush, and trees on farm, as well as forests".

Agroforestry can complement the forestry sector efforts in sustainable forest management by providing a set of tree-based conservation and production practices for agricultural lands (Nair, 2001).

The ecological foundation for agroforestry lies in the structural and functional diversity that trees create at both the site and landscape levels (Shepherd et al., 1999).

Many „forest‟ products are no longer drawn from forests. Their supply can be as much fashioned by factors pertinent to agriculture and tree-crops. Resource management is therefore likely to need to be as much focused on management of farm resources and agroforestry as on forest management (Sanchez, 1995). In other words, forests might sometimes need to be managed to support growth, and sometimes to provide a safety net (Muschler and Bonnemann, 1997).

2.5. Coffee shade trees plantation

Farmers often leave or plant trees to provide shade for plantation crops such as coffee and tea. It has been assumed, and to some extent documented, that the shade tree-crop association is beneficial, ecologically as well as economically (Beer, 1987). They insulate the soil surface from direct solar radiation during the day and reduce heat losses at night, thereby narrowing the amplitude of daily temperature variation. These conditions favored production of certain crops such as cocoa, coffee, etc (Lassoie and

Buch, 1991).

The use of shade trees in coffee plantation is common in the tropics and legume trees as mostly used for this purpose (Baggio et al., 1997). A major function of such trees is contribution of nutrients to low fertility of soils wherever inorganic fertilizers are not used. The shade uniformity in a coffee plantation, and the fact whether or not the shade tree sheds its leaves in the dry season (Willey, 1975) must be considered in evaluation of coffee-shade tree systems.

Tree shade reduces coffee plant stress and influences quantity and quality of light.

This also affects coffee productivity, coffee bean weight, size and quality (Cannell,

1971; Willey, 1975; Muschler, 2001).

In the coffee plant high berry production in one year which demands more photos- assimilates for fruit formation is followed by a lower production the next year when the plants increase the supply of photo-assimilates to their vegetative parts (Cannell, 1975).

(Bergez et al., 1997). Another benefit of the tree shade is that it reduces the fluctuations in the bi-annual coffee production cycle by maintaining the microclimate suitable for fruiting of plantation crops (Willey, 1975).

In addition to these, shade trees reduce nutrient leaching losses; the litter should decompose at rates commensurate with the nutrient requirements of the associated crops (Imbach el al., 1989; Beer et al., 1990).

But during shade tree species selection the characteristics of the tree should be first identified. Fast-growing timber trees may compete significantly for natural resources

(the complex of water, light, and soil nutrients) when associated with coffee plants

(Beer et al., 1998), especially when established simultaneously.

2.6. Deforestation Trend and Its Effect

Deforestation is the major problem facing Ethiopia. Its current rate is estimated to be

150,000 to 200,000 hectares per year (FAO, 1988). The major force behind the loss of

12 the forest resources is lack of a proper policy framework to develop, conserve & utilize the forest and population pressure, which lead to expansion of agricultural land, overgrazing, and indiscriminate felling for fuel wood and construction material (EFAP,

1994).

All people affect the environment, but the poor tend to be the most vulnerable to the effects of environmental degradation (Watson et al., 1998).

Farmers extract a variety of non-timber products from forests to consume or to generate income. These products include foods, fodder, medicines, spices, resins, dyes, construction materials, fuel wood, and household utensils. Non-timber forest products are important for food security, health, and social and economic welfare of rural communities (FAO, 1989). They obtain from them income needed to feed and clothe the family, as well as fuel for cooking (Hopkins etial, 1994, cited in Byron and Arnold,

1999). In cultures where women and girls suffer from intra-household discrimination in food distribution, the contribution of forest foods can be very important (Shepherd et al., 1999).

On the other side, deforestation promotes soil erosion and nutrient loss from the system. Soil erosion is particularly serious in deforested tropical high lands, which also receives high rainfall, with steep slopes in such areas exacerbating the problem

(Anthofer et al., 1998).

As a remedy, on farm domestication of high value trees through agroforestry can reduce pressure on threatened species in the wild and at the same time reduce farmers' search for desirable tree species in the forest (ICRAF, 2000).

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the study area

3.1.1. Location and Population

Guraferda is found in the southwest part of Ethiopia, in Bench Maji Zone at about 630 km southwest of Addis Ababa. It is located between 35o00´ to 35o15´ E and 6o 45´ to

7o00´ N (EMA, 1976 & Abeje, M 2011).

According to the 2007 census of the country the population of Guraferda district was

35,678 (CSA, 2007). This population number increased in to 40,789 from GWANRO in 2012 this 22,442 is males and 18,347 is females. Now, the district became the place of multiple ethnic and linguistic groups. Therefore, the Wereda is home for

Amhara, Sidama, Wolayta, Kambata, Guragie, Hadiya, Bench, Gedeo, few Oromo and others (Abeje,M ,2011). In Guraferda district there are 27 PAs with administrative town of Biftu (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Map of the study area

3.1.2. Agro-Ecology and Climate

Agro-climatic zones of Guraferda are lowland (Moist Qolla) and medium (woyna dega), which constitute 78% and 22% respectively. The altitude ranges from 700 to

1995m (GWANRO, 2012). The annual rainfall of Guraferda district varies from 1601-

2000mm with the average annual rainfall 1332mm with a bi-modal pattern at Belg and

Meher, the maximum and the minimum annual average temperature is 39oc and 25oc respectively (GWANRO, 2012).

3.1.3. Economy and Land use type

Like the economy of the Zone, Guraferda is predominantly plough-based agriculture dominantly of cash crops, like coffee sesame and rice. The first three major products of the Wereda are coffee, rice and sorghum. Perennial cash crops such as coffee and fruits being intensified and enset (a banana like plant whose stem and root is used as source of food in SNNPR) is planted in the state-organized resettlement sites(Abeje, 2011). The livelihood of the host population is based on gathering and production of honey and cattle production.

There was various land use types in the woreda such as Forest land (natural, plantation and agroforestry)128024.91ha, Crop land 13,135.09ha, Grazing land 497, Bushes and wetland 86,363,and Settlement land 261.25ha .The total land of Guraferda woreda is

228,281.25(ha) (GWANRO, 2012)

3.2. Research Methods

3.2.1. Data Type and Sources

For the purpose of this research both primary and secondary data were used. Primary data were obtained through field survey, GPS measurement, group discussion and key informant interviews around study areas. Whereas secondary data were obtained

15 through relevant publications such as books, journals, articles and other data from district land administration offices and censuses recorded. Biophysical data‟s of the district like a temperature, rain fall, agro-climatic zone, soil type, topography, vegetation type, types of agroforestry practices and farming system etc. Different literatures obtained from journals, publications, and reports of other line agencies, published or unpublished and relevant literature, library and the relevant websites to make better understanding, interpretation and analysis of the research.

In this study qualitative and quantitative data was collected to meet the research objectives. The use of mixed method designs those provide an opportunity to avoid deficiencies and weaknesses that was come from a single method.

3.2.2. Research design

A cross-sectional research design was conducted in this study because it allows data to be collected at a single point in time without repetition from the representative sample.

The reason for the choice of such a design is that, it is easier and economical to conduct especially where resource constraints like time, labor and money dictate the results, as it was the case for this study (Creswell, J.W 2003).

3.2.3. Sampling techniques

Stratified and simple random sampling procedure was used to select site that were highly adapted coffee based agroforestry practices for long period of time and household in order to ensure adequate representation of the ecological patterns respectively. The total households were stratified in to three based on wealth class similarities. Due to time, resource limitation and accessibility only two site was selected by purposive sampling methods, from each wealth class.

Stratified random sampling technique was employed on the basis of the socio-economic class as in Biggelaar 1996.

3.2.4. Sample size determination

The overall sample size was determined by the method proposed by Bartlett et al.

(2001). A total of 51 samples of households were randomly selected, 10% of the total

HH using simple random sampling technique from Kebeles household list of 510 households provided by the Kebeles agricultural development office and administration. According to the district finance and economy development office data of the sample Kebeles total households: sega = 280, denkla = 230

Totally 510 (N) households are the target households of sample Kebeles.

Therefore, in order to determine the sample household size for each Kebeles, the researcher was applied proportional sampling formula.

Therefore: = 28

Where: = 23

= samples size of each kebele

n= total sample size of the study;

= Total households of each kebele;

N= total number of households in all sample Kebeles;

3.2.5. Socioeconomic data collection

For this study two kebeles were purposively selected from 27PA based on coffee based agroforestry practices adaptation and time & resources also limited sampled kebeles.

3.2.5.1. Reconnaissance survey

Before the actual research work and data collection, a reconnaissance survey for this study was made in December,2017 to have a general overview of the representatives sites, the livelihoods of the community, and the conditions of the coffee based agroforestry practices in the study area and questionnaire development . From February

2017 up to April 2017 the actual fieldwork for the research was conducted.

3.2.5.2. Focus Group Discussion and Key Informant Interview

Focus group discussions (FGDs) were held in both sample Kebeles. A total of 2 FDGs were conducted each with 6 members in all sample Kebeles, one from each Kebeles for preparing the checklist of the coffee based agroforestry practice and trees species found on farmlands. The groups were formed by including development agent, district administration and community elders.

3.2.5.2.1. Wealth Classification Criterion

In wealth classification, the total list of the dwellers within the development site taken from Guraferda woreda health center. Because it was recorded the household heads in a better way than other organization for vaccine and to deliver other medication services and farmers themselves were very much volunteer to register.

The key informants set their criteria for the classification of wealth. Accordingly, they stratified the head of the households in to three-wealth classes, namely rich, medium and poor (Table 1). Wealth classification is a comparative observation of individuals or groups. So, in order to minimize the biasedness committed during classification, the criteria that were taken by Mesele, N., 2002, in Sidama zone was adopted by little modification based on the context of the study communities.

Table 1: The Wealth Classification HH Profiles in District

Criteria wealth category

Rich Medium poor Land size (ha) >2ha 1.5-2ha <1.5 ha Number of cows >2 1 -2 0 Oxen >2 1 -2 0 House type >50corrugated <50corrugated Made from iron sheet iron sheet grass roofed Average amount of >800kg 400-800kg <400kg Coffee harvest/year Land under CBAF >1ha 0.5-1ha <0.5ha

Sources „‟Key informant and FGD stetted criteria for wealth class stratified of households in Gurefarda wereda level because of it was more related with more adapted criteria‟‟

3.2.5.3. Field observation and survey

Total tree species and their numbers were counted species wise with the help of farmers in their farmlands using a checklist. A total of farmlands were visited with the farmers for obtaining the accurate information about the farm trees in their farmlands. Forest coffee, semi-forest coffee, garden coffee and plantation coffee production systems were assessed for both vegetation and production. Production focus on all coffee production systems but vegetation also focused on garden coffee, plantation and semi –forest coffee systems.

3.2.5.4. Questionnaires

The questionnaire was pre-tested in 2 households in each area during the preliminary survey and was finalized by incorporating the feedbacks from farmers. The questionnaire was be prepared in English first and then translated into Amharic.

3.3. Methods of data analysis

3.3.1. Socio-economic data analysis

Quantitative data from household questionnaire survey was collected, coded and fed in computer and analyzed using computer software Packages MS Excel and SPSS

(Statistical Package for Social Science) 20 versions. Descriptive statistics method of data analysis was used to analyze the data collected from the sample households.

Household characteristics such as sex, age, family size, marital status, educational level, landholding size, and other characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data information also was systematically organized and analyzed.

3.3.2. Data analysis procedure

Semi-structured household interviews were conducted for the collection of basic socio- economic data and tree species preference for the survey households. In this procedure, household size, land size, types of products from the coffee based agroforestry, income sources, marketing conditions of products, labor and input availability was estimated, coffee & tree species preference, and types of system management data were collected.

In the questionnaire, some questions addressed the type and amount of products produced from the households' coffee based agroforestry system. So, during the interview the respondents were not giving the quantity of production in terms of scientific measuring units, rather they used local measurements to quantify production, consumption & provided for market. Therefore to be converted in to scientific units, from each product, samples were taken in local measuring instrument.

3.3.3. Vegetation assessment

The study was conducted for vegetation assessment on 12 households‟ farm were assessed to investigate structure and composition of coffee based agroforestry systems

In the study area 12 households were selected from the three wealth categories (6 households‟ farm from each area) and 24/48 nested plot/ sampling plots were taken for vegetation data collection. Trees, Shrubs, Coffee, and Herbs were identified and counted in nested plots having 400m2, 200m2, 100m2, and 50m2 areas; respectively

(Shimwell, 1971).

The data, which were collected from each household, were analyzed in hectare basis.

By averaging out the values for each wealth category, the comparison was made among each other. Where:

 400m2 for trees having greater than or equal to 5cm DBH and greater than or equal to 6m height  200m2 for coffee plants only which have greater than 1 meter height.  100m2 for shrubs, plants which have less than 5cm DBH and in between 1 &3 meter height.  50m2 for herbs, woody and non-woody useful plant components which are found under 1m height

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Results

4.1.1. Household Socio-economic Characteristics

The socio-economic characteristics of farmers examined in this study were educational status, sex, relation to household, religion and main occupation. The purpose of choosing these characteristics was to get general overview of what the sample households were composed of and how these characteristics could influence coffee based agroforestry practices towards the economic contribution of food security on smallholder farmers in the study area. Although the majority of the respondents were male headed HHs, female household heads were also included in the household survey.

4.1.2. Household characteristics

Table 2: Variables and characteristics of respondents in both selected kebele

Denkla (=23) Sega (n=28)

Variables Character Fr 23 Variables Character Fr 28 Sex Male 22 Sex Male 27

Female 1 Female 1

Education Status Illiterate 22 Education Illiterate 27 Status Grade 8-10 1 Grade8-10 1

Relation to hh Head 22 Relation to hh Head 27

Wife 1 Wife 1

Religion Orthodox 11 Religion Orthodox 12

Protestant 10 Protestant 14

Muslim 2 Muslim 2

Main Occupation Farmer 23 Main Occupation Farmer 28

Sources: - survey data

In each household, on average, there were 5 family members living together under the same roof. The size of family members within each wealth class varies from each other.

In poor, medium, and rich households, there were 4, 5, & 7 family members, respectively.

4.1.3. Livelihood strategies of households

Farmers have their own perception to prefer useful sources for food &/or income to sustain their family life. From these various activities in the study area, cereal crop production and coffee based agroforestry were playing the leading role than animal husbandry, off-farm activities, and credit. In study area first and second choice 85% and 15% for poor, 57% and 43%, for medium and 76% and 23% of household heads practice coffee based agroforestry. In crop cultivation a first and second choice 15% and 85% for poor ,43% and 57% for medium, 24% and 65% of household heads practice crop cultivation. In the poor and rich households, livestock had the highest response by the farmers as a third choice.

Table 3: Livelihood strategies of the three wealth class

Livelihood strategies % Poor(n=13) % Medium(n=21) % Rich(n=17)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Crop Cultivation 15 85 43 57 24 65 12

CBAF 85 15 57 43 76 23

Off-Farm 46 54 57 43 23 76 Activities(Trade)

Livestock 54 46 43 57 12 65 24

Even though land use preference of the majority was given the first place for coffee based agroforestry, as compared with the land allocation of farmers for different land use types, under all wealth classes more area of land was allotted for cereal crop production than others.

4.1.4. Land use and size in wealth class land allocation

In the study area there have been different land use system in each household categorized in to coffee based agroforestry land use, cereal crop land use and other land use systems .the land size of each household in local measurement unit Gemed was recorded during data collection time but after data collected this local unit measurement changed in to hectare.

Table 4: Mean (±Std.)Of land use type and its size in wealth class

wealth class CBAF land use(ha) crop land use(ha) other land use(ha)

poor 0.4135a±.15633 0.5769a±.15761 0.0577a±.10963

medium 0.5774b±.21822 1.1190b±.23210 0.1131a±.14740

rich 1.4412c±.53422 2.6324c±1.04252 0.1471a±.19880

They were significant difference in both coffee based agroforestry and cereal crop land use in between wealth class. Total mean of the different land size under the three wealth classes‟ coffee based agroforestry land, cereal crop land and other land use was

0.8235, 1.4853 and 0 .1103 (grazing and woodlots) hectare respectively.

Table 5: ANOVA table of land use type and its size in wealth class

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

CBAF B/n Groups 9.944 2 4.972 41.063 .000 land use Within Groups 5.812 48 .121 Total 15.756 50 Crop land B/n Groups 35.911 2 17.956 45.929 .000 use Within Groups 18.765 48 .391 Total 54.676 50 Other land B/n Groups .059 2 .030 1.171 .319 use Within Groups 1.211 48 .025 Total 1.270 50 Coffee based agroforestry and crop land use were significant difference between groups by wealth class but no other land use. This study also tested by post hoc tests of multiple comparisons to test significance within group of wealth class.

4.1.5. Tree species preference for coffee shade in households

Table 6: Tree species preference of farmers for their coffee shade in study area

Tree species preference %Poor(n=13) %Medium(n=21) %Rich(n=17)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Gravilia robusta 54 46 43 52 5 82 18

Albizia gummifera 46 46 8 57 34 5 5 18 82

Millettia ferruginea 62 38 29 71 35 65

Persea americana 8 38 54 14 61 24 65 35

In the study area, farmers have different preference and priority for trees according to their necessity and functions of trees. The most common the respondents was ranked as first choice tree species, second choice tree species, third choice tree species and forth choice tree species‟ Gravilia robusta in wealth classes accounted about 54% poor, 43% medium and 82% rich had the first place and second place also 46% poor, 52% in medium and 18% rich had the in their coffee based agroforestry. Albizia gummifera first place accounted about 46%, 57% and 18% percent of respondents in poor, medium

& rich households, respectively. Next to Gravilia robusta as second choice Albizia gummifera had the second share in poor (46%), medium (34%) and rich 82% of the households. Even though, they are preferred by some households; Cordia africana,

Grevilia robusta, Sesbania sesban, Persea americana, Vernonia amygdalina, &

Eucalyptus camaldunese multipurpose tree species had their own share to contributing for the wellbeing of households in the area. Next to tree species, as the name implies, the main component of this coffee based agroforestry is coffee plant. So, there were three coffee varieties domesticated in the study area. Generally the first choice Coffee arabica the second choice Coffee robusta and third choice Catimor coffee verity was

25 selected in each house hold wealth class, poor, medium and rich based on their household preference of coffee Varity (appex 8)

4.1.6. Species diversity

Generally 56 species was identified (appex 13). From this 21 species was common for all wealth class,16 species was found only in rich,7 species common only rich and medium wealth class , 7 species also common in medium and poor wealth class, 2 species was found in poor class and 1 species only found medium.

56 species Poor=2

7 Medium=1 21

7 Rich=16

Figure 2: Species abundances in each wealth class A total mean of vegetation abundance in the household 237 tree/ha, 1029 shrubs/ha, &

3208/ha herbs species were found in the three wealth categories' of coffee based agroforestry land use. Within the three wealth categories on average there were 234,

244, and 231 tree species per ha found in rich, medium, and poor class households in study area (apex 9& table 8).

On average in this study, underneath multipurpose tree species, there were 1113, 1050, and 925 shrub species per ha and 3525, 3225, and 2875 herb species per ha within rich, medium, & poor wealth class households.

This does not mean that all species were available within each household in all wealth classes. But it observed proportion in the total sample plot of households, 26.4% of

26 trees, 28.8% of shrubs, & 44.8 % of herbs were identified in both study area of their on farm. Especially in the poor households shrubs and herbs are most of them were used for consumption and income generation by provided for local market. This implies that the poor households were relatively depending on common edible plants diversity than medium and rich households.

Table 7: Vegetation stands density in households per hector

Wealth class

ha ha

Tree Tree

Stem

Herbs Herbs

per ha ha per ha per ha per per

Shrubs

density Poor Mean 318.75 231.25 925 2875

Medium Mean 362.5 243.75 1050 3225

Rich Mean 409.375 234.375 1112.5 3525

Total Mean 363.5 236.5 1029 3208

In study area from common plant species in all wealth class 7 were dominant tree species in all wealth class, A. gummifera, M. ferruginea, C. africana, P. americana, M. indica, E. camaldunese, and G. robusta and the remained vegetation and spices were also common for all wealth class in both site .

4.1.7. Comparison of useful plant species among wealth categories

In the three wealth classes, it was expected that the difference would exist in the three types of plants. To compare the species of trees, shrubs & herbs, in wealth class data were analysis by mean comparison in the household from coffee based agroforestry system. There were no significant differences in species per plot size in all wealth classes between households at (ANOVA, p <0.05)

4.1.8. Types of Coffee Based Agroforestry Products

The types of major coffee based agroforestry products produced from this system are fruit, leaves & fodder, stems, root & tuber, spices & medicinal plants,

27 coffee bean and other agroforestry products was estimated through questioner, interview, under taken direct measurement and market assessment. All products from AF were estimated mean annual coffee based agroforestry products produced by wealth class. The blow variable latter indicates there were significances differences b/n wealth class on the CBAF income types

Table 8: Mean (±Std.) annual CBAF gross income (birr) in wealth classes

root

fruit

stem bean

class

other

coffee coffee

fodder

wealth wealth

tuber and and tuber

leave and and leave

medicinal medicinal

and spices and P 32172a± 14610b± 599a± 8638a± 8335a± 30000a± 3794a± 7611 5086 388 4007 1528 9129 2175 M 34550a± 1213a± 345a± 7945a± 15481b± 45476b± 3429a± 17873 5407 368 2400 6078 19033 2203 R 77103± 24305c± 410a± 10203a± 21663c± 93235c± 3536a± 137410 14710 363 4819 5270 40502 2210

In this coffee based agroforestry, there were seasonal and perennial crops grown in the system. From the products harvested in the system, farmers have their own priority. For cross check I was given questioner to all sampled households in order to prioritize their interest on the types of coffee based agroforestry products.

From the survey results, 100% of all wealth class households had given the first rank for coffee beans than other products. At a second order fruits were preferred by 100% in all households, correspondingly. And also at a third and fourth rank, tuber and root and medicinal and spices were chosen by of households respectively.

The food sources plant parts & other products mainly fruits, leaves, stem, tuber, roots and honey were given due attention.

In each fruit types were produced in each wealth classes with reasonable amount.

Table 9: Mean (±Std.) Fruit production kg/ households per annum in wealth class

apaya

wealth wealth class avocado mango P No orange lemon guava banana pepper Poor 938 738 151 169 77 252 855 40

±446 ±731 ±35 ±118 ±57 ±174 ±457 ±31

Medium 695 1100 207 329 115 157 907 27

±451 ±822 ±137 ±355 ±71 ±154 ±791 ±47

Rich 1438 5682 414 441 138 324 876 75

±2369 ±16612 ±356 ±505 ±125 ±434 ±852 ±91

On mean production in the poor class 938 kg, in the medium 695 kg and in rich 1438 kg of avocado fruits were produced in study area per annul. Generally from the study site, total mean of avocado fruits were 1005 kg per annum in each wealth class Per year in each household, the total mean, 2535 kg of Mango, 262 number of papaya, 325 kg of orange, 113 kg of lemon, 46 kg of pepper, 237 kg of Guava, and 884 kg of banana were produced in the study site.

Table 10: Mean (±Std.) leaves and fodder productions kg/household per annual

Wealth status

chat chat

grass grass

leave leave weed

Other Other

coffee coffee

Gesho Gesho

cabbage cabbage

tree leave leave tree Poor 331 71 8 5 38 152 195 27

±125 ±103 ±5 ±11 ±19 ±113 ±109 ±39

Medium 211 93 6 7 14 87 305 8

±136 ±125 ±5 ±10 ±18 ±115 ±193 ±17

Rich 337 99 14 6 112 231 474 61

±374 ±117 ±11 ±15 ±106 ±269 ±338 ±93

Under plants grown in the system, leaves and fodder produced for consumption & commercial purposes such as cabbage, coffee leaves, Gesho & “chat” were obtained. A lot of leaves and fodder products like tree leaves, grass, weeds and others were consumed by livestock‟s. The total mean production of cabbage in poor 331kg,, in medium 211 kg & in rich class households 337 kg per household were produced per annum. Chat products were grown by some farmers in study area. All produced was provided to sale without consumed because of higher market demand on its product.

“Among the leaves and fodder products, from this coffee based agroforestry system, coffee leaves were almost used by all wealth class households throughout the study area. It is used as tea in every household, especially at breakfast and lunchtime. The shoot parts of coffee leaves are collected and dried directly over flame of fire or on iron/clay plates and boiled with ginger, garlic, chili and other spices to add flavor. It is locally called

"Tredational Chemo Drinking ".Therefore, the total mean of coffee leaves production in all wealth class household 89 kg produced in households per year, accordingly.

Table 11: Mean (±Std.) of stem production in wealth class per annual

Wealth class Sugar cane no / hh Enset no/ hh poor 145.77±130.222 7.38±5.781 medium 97.43±140.248 3.95±5.104 rich 163.53±150.580 3.94±6.329 Total 131.78±141.713 4.82±5.792 Sugar cane & enset were considered as stems in the study area. Enset has pseudo stem, which is the source of edible materials. In southern and southwestern parts of the country it is used as a staple food. In the study area, mostly, along with coffee

30 plantings, Enset is one of the components in the coffee based agroforestry system.

Although all parts of this plant were used for the household in different forms, in this study only it‟s contribution as a food source was assessed. The total mean production in wealth class households in poor, medium & rich class households 146, 97, and 164 numbers of sugar cane were produced per annum respectively.

The total mean production in wealth class households in poor, medium & rich class households 7, 4 and 4 numbers of enset stems were produced per annum, respectively.

During processing of enset, the remnant parts were used for livestock fodder and other service role in the system.

Table 12: Mean (±Std.) of tuber and root production in wealth class per annual

Cassava(kg/hh) Yam(kg/hh) Taro(kg/hh) Sweetpotato(kg/hh)

class

Wealth Wealth

poor 46±77.625 200±54.006 715±146.322 146±161.325 medium 60±79.403 205±80.475 438±132.198 160±120.665

rich 6±16.605 450±512.957 297±158.578 300±61.237

Total 39±68.089 285±318.323 462±215.311 203±134.484

Cassava was one of main tuber crop grown in the area. Total mean of Cassava 46, 60 and 6 kilograms of cassava were produced in, poor, medium & rich households respectively. Further than the tuber produced from cassava plants, its leaves were highly needed for livestock feed.

The staple cultural food in the society, in the study area, is found under root crops, i.e., taro. In every household's farm, it has some portion of land occupied. The only difference was the extent it expanded in the farm. So, in rich households 297 kg, in medium 438 kg, & in poor 715 kilograms of mean taro crop were produced in study

31 area. In some households, in addition to taro, sweet potato was intercropped within coffee based agroforestry. Total mean of 462 kg of taro was produced per household per year. Yam was another root crops types growing in the system. On average it was produced 200 kg in poor, 205 kg in medium, & 450 kg in rich households.

In addition to food produced from the system there were other products collected in this coffee based agroforestry. According to the result obtained, regarding fuel wood, as indicated that in the three wealth class households there was a wide difference in fuel wood produced from branches & twigs, Tree boles, construction material, Thinning of coffee, Coffee rejuvenation etc. categorized under other products included with honey production.

Table 13: Mean (±Std.) of fuel wood production, and utilization in wealth class per annual

Wealth class Fuel wood consumption sale production(qotaro/hh (qotaro/hh (qotaro/hh

Poor 49.23±20.600 26.15±9.822 23.85±14.599

Medium 45.48±14.134 33.57±12.859 11.90±10.663

Rich 47.29±21.318 35.00±17.766 11.76±14.994

Fuel wood or construction material production were collected from the coffee based agroforestry systems in all wealth class household for the purpose of home consumption and provided for sale.

On average in poor households 49 qotaro, in medium 45 qotaro & in rich 47 qotaro of fuel wood in wealth class households were produced, respectively collected per year per household. Other than branches & twigs there were other parts of trees & plant components used for fuel wood. Most of fuel wood production produced woods were used for household consumption.

From the coffee based agroforestry in the study area farmers were well familiar for utilized of medicinal plants in traditional way. Other products were utilized direct or indirect ways of spice production in terms of stimulation and medicinal purpose of the production. From spices and medicinal plants households were produced the production and from production some of consumed for households and the remaining products provided to, market sale

Table 14: Mean (±Std.) of medicinal and spices plants produced kg/hh per annual

Dema

Garlic Garlic

(hand) (hand)

Ginger

berberie berberie Theijsar

Yemidir Yemidir

Turmeric

Cardamon

Tenaadam Tenaadam

kesie(hand)

Wealth class Poor 20 17 24 8 21 16 17 13 ±10 ±5 ±4 ±4 ±9 ±8 ±11 ±7 Medium 20 12 27 19 41 18 8 22 ±13 ±7 ±6 ±4 ±27 ±10 ±8 ±10 Rich 70 17 109 12 59 11 24 19 ±96 ±11 ±101 ±10 ±20 ±17 ±17 ±16

Currently, farmers are diversified their coffee based agroforestry farms to acquire the necessary benefits from the system. In most farm households, integrating farming has taken place based on the products' commercial contribution for the households.

Previously, the majority of spices were grown in natural forests. Meanwhile, the nearby farmers collected the products from the natural forests. But now, in relation with forest destruction, these resources become scarce & unavailable. So, to maintain the money obtained from spice sales, varieties of spices such as garlic, rue/tena Adam, theij sar, dema kesie, cardamom, turmeric, yemidir berberie, & ginger were domesticated in this agroforestry system. Rich households had more experience on spices domestication than the remaining two wealth classes. Because of rich farmers were mainly focusing

33 on commercially demanded products for income generation. On average in rich class households 59 kilogram of cardamom, 109 kilograms of ginger, 19 kilograms of turmeric, and 70 kilograms of garlic mean production were produced per annual in study area.

4.1.9. Factors of CBAF Production

Generally from simple observation of biophysical condition of the study area, one can guess the potential of the area to domesticate different valuable crops. By taking in to consideration this, numerous farmers were tried to produce varieties of fruits, vegetables, cereal crops etc. But there are factors affecting these activities. Concerning products from coffee based agroforestry, there were challenges to continue farming activities. From the respondents 100% of poor, medium and rich households were complained by major and common problems that was affecting the demand of agroforestry products in whole wealth class in the study area due to low price of products, Lack of transportation, Lack of market information, Lack of storage facility and Lack of know how to handle & processing was the major cause affecting farmers to produce more. The main problem considered by, poor, medium and rich households, which affecting the demand of agroforestry product was the number of local traders not available in the area. Poor, medium, and rich households responded that products deterioration by different insects & disease infections were the main problems encountered in the area.

4.1.10. Types of livestock product

In addition to coffee based agroforestry and mono cropping farming in the study area farmers were familiar to livestock farming in wealth class household as intermediate ways of farming. During data collection livestock number and their current production and market prices were estimated like small ruminant, poultry, eggs, milks and butter products of the households in each wealth class. This estimation was used for

34 determine the contribution of coffee based agroforestry for livestock husbandry as fodder or feed sources. On this study livestock were highly dependent in both directly and indirectly ways I was cross check by questioner and direct interview provided to households. From the survey results, on average there were 7, 5, & 2 numbers of cattle in rich, medium and poor class households in study area (appex 10).

Table 15: Mean (±Std) of gross (birr) gained from animal by current estimation

bulls

oxen

cows

goats

sheep

calves

heifers

poultry

donkeys

wealth class P 00 a 380a 385a 231a 900a 206c 577a 135a 731a ±0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 3357 960. 563 1121. 112 1411 896.8 483.7 7 3 M 1250b 814b 123b 405a 161a± 83b 157b 111a 118a ± ± ± ± 1364 ± ± ± ± 3025 5012 1405 1280 730 2445 818 630 R 1752c 927c 251c 682a 144a 606a 308c 982a 912a ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 5456 7056 2085 1827 2140 978 3289 995 999

The different letter indicates in above table there was significant differences in wealth class of the animal husbandry estimated gross income at (ANOVA P<0.05)

To determine the contribution of coffee based agroforestry in addition to their product it also highly contributed to livestock farming in all wealth class as animal feed sources (table 17).

Table 16: The prioritized animal feed sources

Sources of feed Poor % Medium % Rich %

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Grazing land 54 46 52 38 9 23.5 65 12

CBAF 46 54 43 52 5 53 29 18

Crop residue 100 5 10 86 23.5 6 70

Other sources 100 100 100

Accordingly to feed these livestock, farmers were used different sources of feed. In poor, medium and rich class households 46%, 43% and 53% were produced fodders for their livestock from coffee based agroforestry systems , as a main source (first source) respectively from grazing lands 54% in poor, 52% in medium and 24% in rich class were first feed sources for livestock from common grazing land. . In poor, medium and rich class households 54%, 52% & 29% percent were produced fodders for their livestock from coffee based agroforestry, as a second main source (2nd source).

Whereas, in rich class households cut and carry from agroforestry was the first feed source as compared with other sources.

Generally, there were three sources of fodder in this coffee based agroforestry system especially for rich and medium class households, such as tree leaves, "weeds" and purposely grown grasses within the system. But in poor households the first two sources were used for livestock feed and other like as house construction raw materials.

In all classes, weeded herb species had the highest contribution for animal husbandry.

In rich 474 kg, in medium 305 kg in poor class households 195 kilograms of fodder from weeds were produced per annum. It is more or less greater than from the other sources that were the total mean of tree leaves 53kg, the total mean of purposely growing grass 152 kg and 333 kg total mean of weeds produced for livestock as feed sources. Weed in study area not considered as economic value for households but when

I was asked animal feed sources those respondents reflect highly dependent on weeds in the coffee based agroforestry system.

4.1.11. Types of cereal crop product

In these study areas the households were adapted cereal crop or mono cropping farming in addition to coffee based agroforestry practices and animal husbandry for sustain their

36 livelihood. In this study the major cereal crop type products were estimated in sampled household in each wealth class.

Table 17: Mean (±Std) of production (in kg) gained from cereal crop by wealth class

wealth maize sorghum rice pepper wheat other class farm farm Poor 288a± 181a± 15a± 66a± 69a± 92a± 191.6 80.4 37.5 85.0 94.7 75.9 Medium 755b± 919b± 300b± 221c± 371b± 100a± 556.7 903.6 178.8 186.5 319.5 130.3 Rich 2853c± 1462c± 1341c± 179b± 653c± 138a± 1234.4 1157.7 1317.2 138.1 947.4 113.9 Except other farm, all mean product obtained from cereal crop in each wealth class was significant difference at (ANOVA P<0.05)

4.1.12. Revenue, Variable Cost and Growth Margin

In addition to the products gained from the CBAF system for the household, farmers need extra products for different purpose. Therefore in the study area, farmers were got three major sources of income generation. These are from the cereal crops, animals & animal products, products from coffee based agroforestry, and rarely off-farm activities and credits not common like to others.

Table 18: Mean (±std) of revenue from different types by wealth class

Source of income Poor (Birr) Medium (Birr) Rich (Birr)

CBAF income 98148a±17527 119360b±26829 230455c±148441

Crop income 11392a±7636 42862b±17966 81129c±37957

Animal husbandry 10046a±3281 28610b±7521 37035c±12743 income The different letter indicates in above table there was significant difference of gross income gained between wealth classes at (ANOVA P<0.05). Between group in gross

37 income sources of the all type has significances differences in all wealth class at

(ANOVA P <0.05)

Table 19: Mean (±Std) of variable cost for different types by wealth class

cost cost cost

dry

crop

class

e e e

CBAF

animal animal

variabl variabl variabl

husban

Wealth Wealth Poor 3462.10 a±1433.6 1439.51a±1385.7 1858.78a±2168.1

Medium 8576.60b±3705.4 6823.55b±2308.6 4143.43b±537.4

Rich 19715.41c±7416.3 13570.61c±5912.44 5333.17c±1463.6

The different letter indicates in above table there was significant difference of variable cost between wealth classes at (ANOVA P<0.05). The variable cost was spend generally for management, establishment and harvesting cost for all income sources like fertilizers, seeds labors, materials ,etc.

GROWTH MARGIN = REVENUE –VARIABLE COST

Table 20: Mean of growth margin from different types in wealth class

Source of income Poor (Birr) Medium (Birr) Rich (Birr)

CBAF income 94685.9 110783.4 210739.6

Crop income 9952.49 36038.45 67558.39

Animal husbandry income 8187.22 24466.57 31701.83

From coffee based agroforestry system the total growth margin production income

94685.9 ETB, 110783.4 ETB and 210739.6 ETB gained in poor, medium and rich households respectively. Fruits, leaves and fodder, tuber and roots, stem, medicinal and spices plants, coffee and others were accounted in the total agroforestry gross product incomes based on their proportional but fruit and coffee were dominant income proportional than others in all wealth class in both study site .

In addition to coffee based agroforestry, the total growth margin production incomes from cereal crops have its place for the income of the household. Therefore in poor households on average 9952.49 ETB and in medium households 36038.45 ETB and in rich households 67558.39 ETB gross income were collected from cereal crops in study area. On the other hand, the total growth margin production incomes from animals and animal products were accounted the 8187.22 ETB in poor, 24466.57 ETB in medium and 31701.83 ETB in rich wealth class.

The total mean income sources in all wealth classes households in the area, gross income collected from agroforestry products, crop product and animal husbandry was significantly different in between groups (ANOVA, P<0.05) . The total gross mean income in the three wealth class households was calculated per year.

As per the post hoc tests of multiple comparisons among the wealth classes, in rich class households there was significant difference in coffee based agroforestry gross income than others wealth class. But medium and poor class households no significant difference in coffee based agroforestry income (P<0.05) was observed.

4.1.13. Risk and income diversification of CBAF on smallholder farmers

In this study all wealth class of households and FGD react to coffee based

agroforestry systems were more risk diversification share and continuous gain

multiple production unit throughout the year from the systems than others mono

cropping and livestock husbandry .

For this study risk diversification means burden sharing in terms of creating more

alternative option to gain products with in systems. That means in the other side

coffee based agroforestry were reduced risks through diversifying productivity for

household multiple and continuous production, so this was found as first rank

choices of coffee based agroforestry than others Based on their prioritization of the

sampled households the first rank was coffee based agroforestry systems, the

second rank animal husbandry and third rank were cereal crop farming for risk

share and income diversification in all wealth class (figure 3 & apex 11).

120 100 80 60 poor 40 medium 20 0 rich 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd CBAF cereal crop animal hasbendary

Figure 3: Risk and income diversification ranking of farm types

As general in this study the following major tasks were assessed : - (i) coffee based agroforestry normally involves two or more species of plants (plants and animals), at least one of which is a woody perennial;( ii) coffee based agroforestry system always has two or more outputs;( iii) The cycle of coffee based agroforestry system is always

40 more than one year; and (iv) Even the simplest coffee based agroforestry system is more complex, ecologically (structurally and functionally) and economically, than a mono-cropping system. The concept of coffee based agroforestry is based on the development of the interface between agriculture and forestry that combines agriculture and forestry technologies to create more integrated, diverse, productive, profitable, healthy and sustainable land use systems. The resulting biological interactions provide multiple benefits, including diversified income sources, increased biological production, better water quality, and improved habitat for both humans and wildlife.

Coffee based agroforestry is a sustainable multiple production system whose outputs can be adjusted to local needs. The main components of agroforestry systems are trees and shrubs, crops, pasture, and livestock together with the environmental factors of climate, soil, and landform (Abdu Abdelkadir, 2003). Coffee based agroforestry, therefore, involves two or more species of plants and /or animals at least one of which is a woody perennial and with two or more outputs. Owing to the variety of mixtures, therefore, even the simplest agroforestry system is more complex both ecologically and economically than a mono-cropping system. The aim and rationale of agroforestry lies in optimizing production based on the interactions between the components and their physical environment. This will lead to higher sum total and a more diversified and /or sustainable production than from a monoculture of agriculture or forestry alone.

Agroforestry, as a science and practice, has the potential to contribute to the improvement of rural livelihood, due to the capacity of its various forms to offer multiple alternatives and opportunities to smallholders to enhance farm production and income, while protecting the agricultural environment (FAO, 2004). Livelihood is a means of deriving a just and dignified living by the society, family and individuals. It comprises of the assets available to households (human, financial, physical, natural and

41 social capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the society, households or individuals (Ellis, 2000).

4.2. Discussion

4.2.1. Land use type, useful tree species diversity and coffee preference

Diversity of useful plants specie varies depending on the size of land and wealth status condition of dwellers (Zebene, 2003). In this study CBAF land use and cereal crop land use were significant difference between group but not other land use. agroforestry land use in rich wealth class households the mean land holding under the system was significantly different (ANOVA, P<0.05) with medium and poor class households and in agroforestry land use between medium and poor wealth class was no significantly different (ANOVA, P<0.05) and in crop land use all wealth class was significantly different (ANOVA, P<0.05) but in other land use there was no significantly different between and within group (ANOVA, P<0.05) (table 6 &7)

In this study there were found different plant species classified as tree, shrubs and herbs based on criteria‟s from the coffee based agroforestry 30 species from poor, 36 species from medium and 44 species from rich(figure 2). In this study the mean number of

231.25 trees in poor, 243.75 trees in medium and 234.375 tree species in rich household per hector were assessed. The mean tree species in sample plot size in medium households' farm greater than rich & poor households‟. Likewise, in medium class household the farm size and the number of species of trees, shrubs and herbs were higher than poor households (table 10). Zebene (2003) found 18, 16 & 12 tree species in three different sites within the rich, medium, & poor wealth class households in

Sidama Zone, respectively. But on the contrary Mesele (2002), in the same area, the

42 study results indicated that the average number of tree species per hectare was higher for poor (34/ha) than middle (17/ha) and rich (12/ha) households. Middle and rich farmers gave attention to specialization. This was due to eucalyptus that accounted for the highest proportion and occupied the area in which other species would have been planted in kararu villages and another study in central Ethiopia showed that, a small landholding was a hindrance to tree planting (Omati et al., 1999). This may possibly be because the rich and medium farmers have larger land holdings than the poor.

Moreover, they might have diversified sources of income so that they would allocate some portion of their land planting trees and able to wait until the tree matures. In this study species composition were more emphasized on trees, shrubs and herbs abundance based on criteria of classification .this made higher difference of species existence per hector than other‟s studied . Because of a single species redundancy or overlapping provability occurred as tree, shrubs or herbs

In this research, similarly in all wealth class farmers didn‟t suspect any risks related with the presence of trees and as well as shrubs and herbs. Reasonably trees were considered as one of the asset in the households. In relation with farm size, more focus was given for cash crop plant in rich class households; which generate income and food for home consumption and for market sale, especially coffee and fruit trees. These commercial tree species were arranged around the boundaries and near to houses.

During the discussion carried out with key informants and experts from Agriculture

Office revealed that in the first introduction period of fruit tree species most of the dwellers were volunteer to plant these fruit trees. But after some years when these trees produced fruits, the products faced market problems. Consequently, the farmers were discouraged to plant and manage fruit trees specially mango tree. In the contrary;

Zimbabwe, Mangwende, the study investigates the role of mango (Mangifera indica)

43 within agroforestry that 82% of households had mango trees. Neither the degree of natural wood land depletion nor the wealth status of a household had an influence on mango planting. Wealthy & poor household managed mango trees in the same way. It provide fruit, fire wood, poles, organic matter, soil amendment, living fence post, shade, soil conservation & cattle feed (the rotten fruit). Ninety four percent of households sold mangoes from their farms (Campbell & Musvoto, 1995).

According to Zebene (2003), villagers having the access for market had the experience of planting and retaining Persea americana (Avocado) multipurpose tree in their garden. This is in agreement with the conclusion that tree planting goes hand in hand with increasing access to market (Warner, 1995).

The result of vegetation assessment in this study indicates that the occurrence of average plant density was higher in rich households than medium & poor households.

In the medium and poor class households, trees were used frequently for different purposes. Zebene (2003) showed that the contribution of fruit producing multipurpose tree species to food security can be indirectly assessed the value for Persea americana

& other major fruit trees from farms of poor households were higher than from medium

& wealthy households. In all wealth class households, Albizia gummifera had the highest density than others. Since this tree had many contributions in the system, most of the households in each wealth class were growing Albizia gummifera in their coffee based agroforestry. According to farmers, the reasons behind the domination of Albizia gummifera in the area are that it has good shading role for shade demanding plants. It increases the fertility of the soil and produces enough amounts of wood products. Also during dry period its‟ leaves were used for animal fodder. However, other tree species didn‟t qualify more of these criteria. In rich & poor class households Gravilla robusta was first preference tree values, but in medium wealth class was second preference tree.

Persea americana and Millettia ferruginea trees were followed as a third & fourth important tree species in medium and rich households. Further than this, according to

Lamprecht (1989), as cited in Kindeya (2003), stands that yield more or less the same value for the characteristics of species indicate the existence of the same or at least similar stand composition, structure, site characteristics and comparable dynamics.

Since this land use system is purposely managed as per the interest of the households, only some trees in the households‟ farm had similar result of important value index.

The study by Muschler (2001) in Costa Rica notes that when shade intensity is increased in coffee plantation from 0% to more than 80% the quality of coffee bean produced was increased likewise. Therefore, by implication, further than wood production from the system farmers in the study area need to maintain the quality of coffee produced.

In all wealth class households Albizia gummifera, Millettia ferruginea & Cordia africana were preferred in a first, second & third places, respectively. Fruit tree species such as Mangifera indica & Persea americana had very little supporters. As studies indicated, heavy shade standing by the most fruit tree would hamper the growth of another crops adjacent to &/or under it. That made them the least order of preference by farmers (Azene et al., 1993; Mesele, 2002).

To acquire the necessary benefits from the system, trees were managed from planting up to maturity. In all wealth class households thinning of trees at any level of growth was applied as a first measure to minimize competition of light, nutrients, minerals & water between useful plant species in the system and to produce for different wood products for the household‟s purpose.

Even though the number of species of shrubs and herbs were more than trees in all wealth class households, the sum of the density of each shrub and herb species were

45 greater than tree in all wealth class. Most of these species were short seasoned and therefore used for home use & market sales. Arnold (1987) also agreed that as farm size declines farmers gave priority to food crops. Similarly the most stable food crops in the area, such as Musa sapietum (Banana) & Colocasia esculenta (Taro) had the highest density per hectare in medium and poor households.

As the study in Chagga home garden shows, from different food & income source plant species; commercially the most important plant, Coffee arabica was one of the dominant & valuable crop (UNUP, 1985). Similarly in this system, coffee was the main component. There were three varieties of coffee grown in the area. This coffee cultivation system is categorized under traditional polyculture. It is more managed than rustic coffee, involving deliberate integration of beneficial plants (fruits, vegetables, nuts, medicinal plants, etc David (1985). The highest percentage of farmers in all wealth class households preferred Coffee arabica from the others due to its continuous products provision, disease resistance and local & national level marketing demand. By contrast Arabica coffee with Robusta coffee, Arabica beans are generally considered to provide better quality & more flavorful results.

4.2.2. Types of products and their contribution

Dwellers in the study area had different strategies to lead their life. From all activities in the area, coffee based agroforestry had many supporters in the three wealth classes.

As vegetation assessment result indicated that more than 56 useful plant species are found in the system in all wealth class households. From these species greater than 33 products were produced by farm households. According to FAO (1991), forest food often particularly important for poorer groups of rural people. They provide an available and accessible source of a diverse range of foods. Hence, as a food source around five parts of plants (fruits, leaves, stem, tubers, & roots) were cultivated in this

46 coffee based agroforestry system. The study carried out in chagga prevailed farmers were grown numerous species of trees and shrubs in home garden for the purpose of producing diversified products for sales and home consumption (UNUP, 1985) .

Similarly in this study area, fruit was one of the products widely domesticated.

Especially; avocado, mango, papaya, orange & banana were the main fruit types in the farm of many households. Except mango, from the total production, the highest percentage of these fruits was used for home consumption. As the result of the research indicated that the low price in market for each type of fruits made farmers to retrieve back from their activity to manage these plants in the system. But according to Tsegaye

(1997), diversification of products from trees may provide some insurance against uncertainties in market reliability for more products. Comparatively, orange had better price than the remaining ones of major fruit types and therefore some farmers in rich wealth class household need to maintain and given emphasis to avocado trees in their farm. In all wealth class household, attentions were given to coffee bean and fruits used for commercial purpose. All of the residents were not given the value for products used for home consumption and in all household farmers were not accurate estimation of production, consumption and market provided from coffee based agroforestry system because of they have not given attention to all economical contribution of products from the coffee agroforestry system except coffee bean and major products like avocado and banana. But general problems of all farmers in study area product account of total product, total consumed and total sale was due to throughout the year continuous gain of products and lack of management on the coffee based agroforestry system from wildlife (fruit eaters like ape, monkeys, gorilla, fox, dog, bird etc.), human being (local child‟s), domestic animals and farmers traditionally given less attention to agroforestry products. Scoones et al (1992) underline that the importance of edible

47 products from forests or complex agroforestry systems contribution from trees outside forests is higher. The study carried out in Java showed that 60 percent of the family's food comes from home gardens in which trees are prominent, and that these gardens are mostly managed by women (FAO, 1989). Generally within this system there were plant species providing their leaves for home consumption. Mostly cabbage, & coffee leaves had an immense role in the daily diet of the dwellers in the area. Because of they were consumed with the main stable foods, Taro & Enset in the societies. The other food source from useful plant parts are enset and sugar cane from stem, cassava & yams from tuber, & taro from roots crops. They are highly produced traditionally without external factors (market, inputs, etc) influence. And most of them are starch rich food staffs; therefore, they have their own contribution on the nutritional values of day-today feed of individuals.

Regarding fuel wood, the study carried out in Taita, Keneya; Fleuret (1983) notes a pattern of fuel wood utilization dependent on availability & family size. In this study site, Taita, on average, the residents were consumed 1852 kg of fuel wood for different purposes. Likewise for cooking of foods, lighting and heating in the study area, all of the residents used wood from the system. On average, 49 loops from poor, 45 loops from medium and 47 loops from rich households were produces per year. From this fuel products 26 loop in poor, 34 loops in medium, and 35 loops as fuel wood and construction materials in rich households were utilized in home from the system (table

16). This implies that the household having more access to wood resource & large family size are consuming more loop of fuel wood resource than poor. The study in

East Usambaras, Tanzania, the most preferred types of agroforestry product used at home was fire wood (Raisanen, 1998). The availability of fuel wood in farmers' compounds has multiple uses for the family members in the households. All wood

48 resources produced were not consumed in the households. No money was spent for fuel wood purchasing. Rather it saved money for other purposes. In addition to the produced wood products, in each households there were 231 trees/ ha in poor, 244 trees/ ha in medium, & 234 trees /ha in rich households for future use. However, there was no significance difference (ANOVA, P<0.05) among them of the tree density in all wealth class households. It was considered as an asset for the households depending on the availabilities of tree. In Sidama community wealthy households had the higher stem number per farm than poor households. However, except at Enta site, no significant stem density differences were noticed among wealth categories. Generally this implies that trees were used for fuel wood, construction, to ensure food security, cash generation and maintenance of agricultural sustainability (Zebene, 2003).

Various agroforestry technologies are enormous in the East & Central Africa (ECA) region & are lifting many out of poverty & mitigating declining agricultural. Fodder trees that can be used in smallholder zero-grazing systems used to supplement or substitute commercial feeds (Bashir, 2004). Livestock in households were feed from the system from various parts of plants.

Especially "weeds" were used by most of households in a highest quantity than others.

Even though, generally, weeds were considered as competent plants with crop stand, in this system farmers retained & exploited some palatable weed species in dry period.

4.2.3. Livelihood strategies, income sources and variable cost in wealth classes

Generally, growing trees on farms and the agricultural landscape, or agroforestry, is clearly a major livelihood strategy for the world‟s economically disadvantaged billions.

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including material, social resources) and activities required to earn a living (Carney, 1998). Similarly in the study area, greater than 70% of growth margin contributed in the households of three wealth classes from

49 coffee based agroforestry than other income sources, 19% cereal crop and 11 % animal husbandry after estimated the whole income sources but before estimate the actual products medium and rich households was given preferred 1st cereal crop, 2nd agroforestry and also poor given preferred livelihood income sources 1st agroforestry,

2nd cereal crop. According to Ravindran & Thomas (2000), in addition to increasing income and/or food flows, livelihood strategies should also focus on the long-term improvement in social and economic relations within the family cycle as well as addressing aspects of vulnerability.

To ensure food security, the type & amounts of food produce & accessibility are very important. In addition, the health & other basic needs of the societies should be maintained. Therefore to be fulfill their basic needs, for example in Indonesia, farmers cultivated rattan for consumption and market sales and through time the price of rattan raised seven fold from the early 1970s until the mid-1980s. In response to a rising market, smallholders expanded their plantings of rattan. All households in Dadahup cultivate rattan, which accounts for more than 99% of villager‟s cash income. The information suggests that rattan accounts for a highest proportion of household income among full-time farmers than among shop owners or rubber tappers. Among full time farmers, rattan account for 95% of household cash income (Richado and Tan, 1991).

In rural Pakistan, the study finds that agricultural income is not the most important source of household income. Of the five sources of income; agricultural, non-farm, transfer, livestock, and rental, non-farm is the most important. It accounts for between

30 and 34 percent of total per capita of household income. Agricultural income is the second most important source, accounting for between 23 and 27 percent of total per capita household income (Richard et al., 1995).

Similarly in the study area, the communities were participating in food and income generating activities. Mainly cereal crop production, coffee based agroforestry, animal husbandry & rarely non-farm activities were some of them. In most households, products obtained from agricultural activities (cereal crop production & animal husbandry) and agroforestry were used for direct consumption. Out of this, to fulfill other needs of households, money is important. Therefore, either the production was excess or not, households supplied their products to market for sale. From these activities the money collected from coffee based agroforestry products had the first rank in all wealth classes in the study area.

According to FAO (2006), in more developed countries like Panama, the share of rural household income derived from non-farm activities reaches 75 percent while for

Nicaragua, a lower income country, the share is 28.5 percent. In the contrary the study in Indonesia by Stefan (2004), indicates that agricultural activities (cereal crop production) are the most important source of income for rural households in the region and make up 70% of the total household income. However, in this study income from non-farm activities were found next to animal husbandry. Generally this implies that the sources of income of households differ place to place depending on the resource they have. The non-farm activities mentioned at the top of the list in medium & poor class households were baking & selling "injera", making & selling local drinks (Tej ,

Tela and chemo), selling different agricultural & agroforestry products in local market and income from retirement fees. In rich households, trading (shopping of fabricated products), butcheries and bars were some of non-farm activities used for additional income sources. Including cashes obtained from credit, but it was very limited and rarely was incurred annually per household by the rich, medium & poor classes.

Generally, from the total produced growth margin in each household; coffee based

51 agroforestry accounted about 84% in poor, 65% in medium & 68% in rich households from the propositional income sources.

The study in Dak Lak Province, Vietnam, on coffee based agroforestry indicates that in some first years, coffee monoculture systems need a large amount of capital to invest seedlings, fertilizers and the cost of labor planting. Intercropping with durian or pepper also requires another considerable amount of capital to buy seedlings and fertilizer

(Huynh et al., 2002).While, in this study, during the occasion of planting of useful plants in the system no farmer used inorganic fertilizer. Rather by most of the farmers manure & mulch were utilized to increase soil fertility. This makes the system sustainable. Because there is no negative effect on the soil and microorganism existed for the future.

To do any kinds of tending operation in the system in all wealth class households‟, husbands were more concerned than other family members. A study of male and female labor on food and cash crops was carried out in an agroforestry system in the Central

Highlands of Kenya. The study tested that farmers concentrate most of their labor on crops with the highest gross margins whilst women concentrate most of their labor on food crops and males concentrate most of their labor on cash crops (Kihiyo, 2004).

Generally, from the total variable cost in each household; coffee based agroforestry accounted about 11% in poor, 27% in medium & 62% in rich households from the propositional income sources

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, the following main conclusions have been reached:

1. The wealthiest households have more species composition and density than others.

In relation to the farm size and capital they own, the poor farmers mainly give attention for food production from the system.

2. In all wealth class households‟ coffee based agroforestry farm, the number of tree species is lower than shrub and herb layered plants. Similarly, in terms of density also the same is true. From the general observations of these shrub and herb layered species, they occupied large area of the farm as compared with trees. In order to increase the production of underneath products from the system, crown coverage should not too high to avoid too much shading. Therefore, the number of trees should be limited.

3. Even though the difference exists between farmers in the three wealth classes in terms of production and consumption of products from the system, in the study area all farm households were mainly depending on different tree, shrub and herb species for food production and income generation as compared with other activities.

4. All of households in all wealth classes practiced tree plants in their coffee based agroforestry. Naturally regenerated seedlings in the system were mainly used in most households. These species were indigenous and compatible with coffee and other shade demanding useful plant species. Whereas, commercially important tree species like

Ecualyptus & Avocado seedlings were purchased for planting around boundaries and within the system.

5. Albizia gummifera, Millettia ferruginea, and Persea americana multipurpose trees are preferred by the majority of farmers.

6. However, households preferred this coffee based land use type as compared with

other income generating activities such as cereal crop production; animal husbandry &

non-farm; there are different problems that hinder farmers to involve in the practice

with their potential. Some of the main problems are market unavailability, low price for

products and lack of storing facility.

7. The diversified product collection from agroforestry system showed that at any time

the households will not be affected by resource constraints. Therefore, in the

households, an access to direct food and feed on nutritious and diversified products

from the system and/or acquired increased purchasing capacity to buy their foods and

for other needs throughout the year means that they have secured food for the

household members.

5.2. Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are drawn:

• The dwellers have different preference of tree species in the coffee based agroforestry

system based on the benefits obtained from each species. Whenever any governmental

and/or non-governmental organization in the position to assist the farmers for the

development of agroforestry practices should sense the interest of the communities to

provide appropriate support. Therefore agroforestry extension and capacity building

program should be designed and implemented to increase the awareness and to provide

technical support for farmers.

• Most agroforestry products were not demanded in the local market in the study area.

The expectation of farmers and the income gained were not fitted. Facilitating the

conditions to improve the marketing value of agroforestry products is very important.

Therefore, strong promotion work is crucial to agitate investors to introduce small and

large processing industries, to promote export or to provide it in the domestic market

and to search other possible ways.

• To introduce other productive and commercially demanded plant species in the system,

ecological interaction of species and other service role of plant components should be

studied further. By referring past works elsewhere in the world and adopting the most

valuable plant species compatible with the components in the coffee based agroforestry.

• From the experience of most developing countries to maintain the qualities of products

and their output, Cooperatives had valuable contribution. Since the main products from

this coffee based agroforestry (coffee bean, tuber, root, stem, medicinal spice & fruits)

were demanded in developed nations market, organizing farmers in cooperatives will

be strengthen the productivity capacity of farmers & will be generated appreciable

currency.

• To fulfill households‟ daily need, introducing seasonal crops in the system will made

the practice more preferable than other land uses in the area. Therefore cultivating

valuable seasonal crops (in terms of nutritional value and income generation) such as

mushrooms, vegetables, spices and other will be made the system more sustainable.

6. REFERENCES

Abeje Menberu. 2011. Differential livelihood and adaptive strategies of spontaneous

and organized resettlers in Guraferda Wereda of Southwestern ETHIOPIA

(SNNPR).MSc thesis, Addis Ababa University.

Anthofer, J., Hanson, J. and Jutzi, S.C., 1998. Wheat growth at influenced by

application of agroforestry tree pruning in Ethiopian highlands. Agroforestry

systems 40: 1-18.

Baggio, A.J., Catamori, P.H., Anderocioli Filho, A. and Montoya, L., 1997.

Productivity of Southern Brazilian coffee plantations shaded by different stocking

of Grevilia robusta. Agroforestry Systems 37:111-120.

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., and Higgins, C. C. 2001.Organizational research:

determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research. Information

Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 19(1): 43−50.

Beer, J. (ed)., 2001. Highlights of CATIE‟s research in agroforestry during the 1990s.

Agroforestry Systems, Special Issue, 51: 75-176.

Beer, J., 1987. Advantages, disadvantages and desirable characteristics of shade trees

for coffee, cacao and tea. Agroforestry System 5: 3–13.

Beer, J., Bonnemann, A., Chavez, W.I., Fassbender, H. W., Imbach, A.C. and Martel,I.,

1990.Modeling agroforestry systems of cacao (Theobroma cacao) with laurel

(Cordia allidora ) or poro (Erythrina poeppigiana ) in Costa Rica.

Beer, J., Muschler, R., Kass, D., Somarriba, E., 1998. Shade management in coffee and

cacao plantations. Agroforestry System 38:139–164.

Biggelaar, C.D., 1996. Farmer Experimentation and Innovation: A case Study of

Knowledge Generation Processes in Agroforestry Systems in Rwanda.

Brown, DM., 2003. Considering the role of landscape, farming system and the farmer

in the adoption of trees in Claveria, Misamis Oriental Province, Philippines.

Cannell, MGR., 1971. Production and distribution of dry matter in trees of Coffee

Arabica L. in Kenya as affected by seasonal climatic differences and the presence

of fruits.

Cannell, MGR., 1975. Crop physiological aspects of Coffee bean yield: A review

journal of Coffee Resource 5 (1-2): 7–20.

Cecelski. E., 1987. 'Energy and rural women's work: crisis response and policy

alternatives', International Labour Review, 126(1), 41-64.

Chambers, R. and Leach, M., 1987. 'Trees to Meet Contingencies: Savings and Security

for the Rural Poor', Discussion Paper 228, IDS, University of Sussex.

Creswell, J.W (2003). Research design: A qualitative, quantitative and mixed method

approaches.

Douglas, J. n.d. "Consumption and Supply of Wood and Bamboo in Bangladesh."

Project Working Document No. 2, FAOIUNDP Project BGDI781010, Dacca,

Bangladesh.

EFAP, 1994. Ethiopian Forestry Action Program. Final Report Volume II – The

Challenge for Development and Volume III - Issues and Action.

Engel, A., 1984. Promoting Smallholder Cropping Systems in Sierra Leone. An

Assessment of Traditional Cropping Systems and Recommendations for the Bo-

Pujehun Rural Development Project, Studien NE IV/86, Berlin.

FAO, 1988. Report of the mission to Ethiopia on tropical forestry action plan. Rome.

FAO, 1989. Forestry and food security. FAO Forestry Paper 90. FAO, Rome. 128 p.

FAO, 1989. Forestry and nutrition: a reference manual. Roma.

FAO, 1991. Household food security and forestry an analysis of socio-economic issues.

FAO, 2001. Household food security, care and health are essential elements for

ensuring good nutrition of all household members

FAO, 2001. Statement by M. Hartwig de Haen at the Fourth WTO ministerial

conference, Doha, 11 November 2001.

FAO, 2003. Regional Integration and food security in developing countries.

FAO, 2006. Rural income diversification is an important way out of rural poverty.

Rome

Gallina, S., Mandujano, S., González-Romero, A., 1996. Conservation of mammalian

biodiversity in coffee plantations of Central Veracruz, Mexico. Agroforestry

System 33: 13–27.

Greenberg, R., Bichier, P., Sterling, J., 1997. Bird populations and planted shade coffee

plantations of eastern Chiapas. Biotropica 29 (4), 501–514.

Guo, Q., 2000. Climate change and biodiversity conservation in Great Plains

agroecosystems. Global Environmental Change 10:289-298.

Gupta, T., 1979. "Some Financial and Natural Resource Management Aspects of

Commercial Cultivation of Irrigated Eucalyptus in Gujarat, India. " Indian Journal

of Forestry, 2 (2), 1 18-137.

Huynh, T.T.T., Nguyen, V., Thuong, P., Trinh, X. H., Viet, H., 2002. Agro-Forestry

Systems in Dak Lak Province: Ecological Impacts and Economic Effects.

Hyman, Eric L., E.U. Seggay, R.S Joves and R.C. Carpio n.d. "Tree Farming from the

Viewpoint of the Smallholder: An Ex Post Evaluation of the PICOP Project."

ICRAF, 1997. Medium Term Plan, 1998-2000. International Centre for Research in

Agroforestry.Nairobi,Kenya

ICRAF, 2000. Trees of change. Corporate Report 2000. International Center for

Research in Agroforestry. 73pp

Immink, M.D.C., 1981. 'Home gardens and the energy and nutrient intakes of women

and preschoolers in rural Puerto Rico', Ecology of Food and Nutrition.

Kramer P., C.P. van Shaik, and J. Johnson., 1997. Lost stand – protected areas and the

defense of tropical biodiversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Lassoie, J.P. and Buck, L.E., 1991. Agroforestry in Northern America: New challenges

and opportunities for integrated resource management.

Leakey, R., 1996. Definition of Agroforestry revisited. Agroforestry Today. Vol 8(1)

pp 5-7.

Leakey, R.R.B. & Simons, A.J., 1997. The domestication and commercialisation of

Indigenous trees in agroforestry for alleviation of poverty. Agroforestry Systems

38: 165-176.

Leakey, R.R.B., 1999. Potential for novel food products from agroforestry trees: a

review. Food Chemistry vol. 64, 1-14.

Lefroy, E. C., Hobbs, R. J., O‟Connor, M. H., and J. S. Pate (eds)., 1999. Agriculture as

a Mimic of Natural Ecosystems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands.

Louise E. Buck, James P. Lassoie, and Erick C.M.Fernades, 1998. Agroforestry in

sustainable systems.

Mesele, N., 2002. Socio-Economic Aspects of Farmers' Eucalypt Planting Practices in

the Enset-Coffee Based Agroforestry System of Sidama, Ethiopia.

Muschler R., 2001. Shade improves coffee quality in a sub-optimal coffee zone of

Costa Rica. Agroforestry System 51(2): 131–139.

Muschler, R.G., and Bonnemann, A., 1997. Potentials and limitations of agroforestry

for changing land-use in the tropics: experiences from Central America. Forest

Ecology Management 91, 61–73.

Nair, N. K. R., 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publisher,

Dordecht, The Netherlands.

Nair, P. K. R. and C.R Latt, (eds)., 1998. Directions in Tropical Agroforestry Research.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 245 p.

Nair, P. K. R., 2001. Agroforestry. In: Our Fragile World: Challenges and

Opportunities for Sustainable Development.

Ndoye, O., Ruiz-Perez, M., & Eyebe, A., 1997. The Market of non-timber forest

products in the humid forest zone of Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry

Network Paper 22c, ODI, London. 20pp.

Noble, I.R. and R. Dirzo, 1997. Forests as human-dominated ecosystems.

Science277:522-525.

Nuwanyakpa MY, Bolsen KK., 1983. Nutritive value of seven tropical weed species

during the dry season. In: Agronomy Journal Vol. 11, 191-199.

Olson, R.K., M.M. Schoeneberger, and S.G. Aschmann., 2000. An Ecological

Foundation for Temperate Agroforestry. p. 31-61.In: H.E.,Garrett, W.J. Rietveld,

and R.F.

Omati, J.M., Parton, K.A., Sinden, J.A., and Ehui, S.K., 1999. Monitoring changes in

the land- use practices following agrarian de-collectivisation in Ethiopia.

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 72: 111-118.

Penny, D.H. and Singarimbun, M., 1973. Population and Poverty in Rural Java: Some

Economic Arithmetic from Sriharjo, Cornell International Agricultural

Development Monograph 41, Ithaca (USA): Cornell University, Department of

Agricultural Economics.

Sanchez, P.A., 1995. Science in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 30:5-55.

Shepherd, G., Arnold, J.E.M. & Bass, S., 1999. Forests and sustainable livelihoods.

Background document, World Bank Forest Policy Implementation Review and

Strategy.

Shimwell, D.W., 1971. The description and classification of Vegetation

Siebert, S. and Belsky, J.M., 1985. 'Forest Product Trade in a Lowland Filipino

Village', Economic Botany, 39(4), 522-533.

Soemarwoto, O., 1985. The Javanese home garden: an integrated agro- ecosystem',

Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 7(3), 44-47.

Thrupp, L.A., 1997.Linking biodiversity and agriculture: challenges and opportunities

for sustainable food security. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.

Vandermeer, J. H. (ed.),2002.Tropical Agroecosystems CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

268 p.

Watson, R.T., Dixon, J.A.,Hamburg, S.P., Janetos, A.C. & Moss, R.H., eds.,

1998.Protecting our planet, securing our future - linkages among global

environmental issues and human needs.Nairobi, Kenya and Washington, DC, USA.

Willey RW, 1975).The use of shade in coffee, cocoa and tea. Hortic. Abstr. 45(12):

791–798.

World Bank, 2001.African Development Indicators. Washington.

Zebene A., 2003.Tree species diversity, Top soil conditions and Arbuscular

Mycorrhizal Association in the Sidama Traditional Agroforestry Land Use,

Southern Ethiopia.

Appendixes 1: Standard socio-economic questionnaire Name of the respondent------interview date------

District ------kebelle------

Interviewer ------

Wealth class ------Code ------

Household characteristics and family size

No Name Educational Age Sex Relation to Religion Main occupation

status household

3 etc

Code for household characteristics

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

Illiterate=0, Years of Male=1, Head=1, Orthodox=1 Farmer=1 each of Basic family Female=2 Wife=2, Protestant=2 Beekeeping=2 education=1 members Muslim=3 Son=3, Student=3 Grade1-4=2, Catholic=4 Daughter=4, Merchant=4 Grade4-6=3, Others=5 relative=5 Grade6-8=4, housemaid=6, Grade8- 10=5 permanent Grade10- Labor=7 12=6, Grade>12=7

Appendixes 2: General household‟s farm information & income Livestock enterprise on the farm

No Livestock type Number Total current market estimation+ products per year in 2008/09

1 Oxen

2 Cows

3 Heifers

4 Young bulls

5 Sheep

6 Goats

7 Donkeys

8 Horses

9 Poultry

10 Calves

Others (specified)

1. What is /are the main livestock feed source (S) in your household? (Select according to

their priority) Grazing land=1, Cut and carry from coffee based agro forestry =2 Crop

straw/hay=3 others=4 (specify)

2. Do you have coffee based agro forestry? Yes=1 No=2

3. If yes, what size of land? ------Gemed (local measurements)

4. . Do you have crop land/ mono crop? Yes=1 No= 2

5. If yes, what size of land? ------Gemed (local measurements)

6. Do you have other land use? Yes=1 No= 2

7. If yes, what size of land? ------Gemed/Timad (local measurements)

8. In which activity the livelihood strategys are more adapted?(Prioritize based on their

importance to your household) Crop cultivation=1 coffee based agroforestry=2 off-

farm=3 livestock =4 others=5 (specify)

9. From which production system HHs get more product for livelihood stretagy?

(Prioritize based on their importance to your household):crop cultivation=1 coffee

based agroforestry=2 off-farm=3 livestock =4

10. Which income production type play great role due to risk share and income

diversification (Prioritize based on their importance to your household). Coffee based

agroforestry, cereal crop, animal husbandry

Appendixes 3: Production of coffee based agroforestry systems in household

Total Total Total Production Consumed Sales

Quantity Quantity Quantity Fruit Types

Production Local Unit Avocado

Mango

Papaya

Orange

Lemon

Guava

Banana

Pepper

Fruit Cabbage Coffee Leaves Gesho Chat

Tree Leaves

Fodder

grown Grass

And

Weed

Others Like Gulo

Leaves

Sugar Cane

Enset

Stem

Cassava

Roots Yam

And Taro

Sweet Potato

Tuber Coffee Bean

Garlic

Dema Kesie

Ginger/Ginjibel

Yemidir Berberie

Cardamon/Korerima

Rue/Tena Adam

Theij Sar

Turmeric/Eard

Medicinal And Spices Plants Spices And Medicinal Honey

Fuel Wood Or Construction Materials

Others(Speci fy)

Appendixes 4: Production and Utilization of crop products in 2008/09

Total production Total consumed Total sales

Cereal Quantity Quantity Quantity products

Local unit Local Maize Sorghum Rice pepper wheat others

Appendixes 5: Off-farm activities 1. How many household members are participating in households?

Off-farm activities ------

Non-Farm activities------

Ser.no What is his/her/first off- How much did s/he make in cash farm or non-farm from these activities on average per activity? month? (Birr)

2 etc

Appendixes 6: Questions for the key informants 1. From four common on tree species, which tree species preference of farmers for coffee shade? (Describe according to their preference/prioritize) (Grevilia robusta =1

Albizia gummifera =2 Millettia ferruginea =3, Persea Americana =4, others=5)

2. What are your criteria to classify wealth class of the households?

3. Which land use types were predominating in the area? coffee based agroforestry=1 mono crop=2 other=3(specify)

4. Their coffee based agro forestry around your “gote”? Yes=1 No=2

5. If yes for Q4, what types of products that community obtained from them? (Prioritize based on their importance to your household): 1=Coffee bean, 2=Fruit, 3=stem,

4=leaves and Fodder, 5=medicinal and spices plants, 6 = tuber and root, 7=others

(honey, fuel wood, construction material like branches, twigs, tree pole, thinning of coffee)

6. From which land use system you get diversified and contineous production?

mono crop =1 coffee based agroforestry =2 other =3 (specify)

7. Did you receive appropriate price for your products? Yes=1 No=2

8. If No for Q7, what will be reasons? (Low price, Lack of transportation, Lack of

market information, Lack of storage facility, Lack of know how to handle & processing

and others?)

10. what kinds of land use do you have? (Prioritize based on their importance to your

household): mono crop =1 coffee based agroforestry =2 other =3 (specify)

Appendixes 7: Questioner for Focus group discussion

1. If the household grows trees mainly for the purpose of shade of coffee, what kinds of

management activities carried out for different purpose?

2. Which types of tree species are preferred by the farmers in coffee based agroforestry,

depending on multipurpose plants?

3. What are the major types of products produced from coffee based agro systems?

4. did you get diversifyed product from coffee based agroforestry as compare with other

system?Yes = 1 No = 2

5. If yes Q3, why?------

6. Do you have any biophysical factors affact on your farm production? Yes = 1 No = 2

7. 6. If yes Q5, which land use system productions are highly affacted? Prioritize based on

the level of risk on a given production unit. mono crop =1 coffee based agroforestry

=2 other =3 (specify)

8. What are the major types of household expenditure?

9. How much percentage gives to expenditure from total income production in all each

wealth class proportionally?

Appendixes 8: Coffee species preference in households

Ser. Coffee species Wealth class & ranking order

No. Poor (%) Medium (%) Rich (%)

1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd

1 C. arabica 100 - - 100 - - 100 - -

2 C. robusta - 76.92 23.08 - 85.71 14.29 - 58.82 41.18

3 Catimor - 23.08 76.92 - 14.29 85.71 - 41.18 58.82

Appendixes 9: Mean (±Std.)Of species type per plot in wealth class

Wealth class Tree per plot Shrub per plot Herb per plot

Poor 18.50a±3.317 18.50a±2.887 28.75a±7.228

Medium 19.50a±1.732 21.00a±4.243 32.25a±10.340

Rich 18.75a±6.946 22.25a±6.946 35.25a±11.587

Abundance 227 247 385 Appendixes 10: Livestock type and total numbers of animals in each wealth class

Wealth class Oxen Cows Heifers bulls Sheep Goats Donkey Poultry Calve

Poor 0 10 2 2 21 38 2 103 10

Medium 38 29 13 2 54 39 9 169 21

Rich 46 26 16 3 37 19 14 127 18

Appendixes 11: Risk and Income diversification Prioritized in wealth class

Wealth class CBAF (%) Cereal crop (%) Animal husbandry (%)

1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd

Poor 62 38 0 15 0 85 23 62 15

Medium 67 33 0 5 0 81 29 67 5

Rich 71 29 0 0 0 100 29 71 0

Appendixes 12: Tree species preference of farmers for their coffee shade

90 80 Gravilia robusta 70 60 Albizia gummifera 50 40 Millettia ferruginea 30 20 Persea Americana 10 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Poor(n=13) Medium(n=21) Rich(n=17)

Appendixes 13: Species diversity

scientific name

Albizia gummifera Millettia ferruginea Cordia africana Persea americana Mangifera indica Ipomoea batatas Cynodon aethiopicus Curcuma longa Aframomum korarima Ocimum lamiifolium Musa sapientum mz Coffea arabica Carica papaya Eucalyptus camaldunese

local name

Sat(bench) Ziyagu(bench) Giku(bench) Avocado(Eng) Mango Sweet potato (Eng) Bermuda grass(Eng) turmeric ard(Eng) cardamon/korer ima dema kesie(Amr) Banana(Eng) Coffee(Eng) Papaya(Eng) Keyi zaf(Amr) baher

scientific name

maxi

vulgaris

Vernonia amygdalina Zingiber officinale Spilanthes acmella Colocasia esculenta Gravilla robusta Sapium elipticum Lysopersicon esculentum Leucaeana lecocephala Sesbania sesban Beta Allium sativum Cucurbite ma Dioscorea sp Bersama abyssinica local name

Ziampu(bench) ginger/ginjibel(A mr) yemidir berberie(Amr) Taro(Eng) Gravilla(Eng) Boseka(bench) Tomato(Eng) Lucina(Eng) Sesbania(Eng) key sir(Amr) garlic(Eng) Duba(Amr) Yam(Eng) Azamire(Amr)

scientific name

Ensete edule Citrus sinensis Psidium guajava rue/tena adam(Amr) Cynpopogan citratus limonCitrus Catha edulis Daucus carota Bridelia micrantha Cordia alliodora Milicia excelse Ricinus communis Piper nigrum Artocarpus heterophyllus

71 local name

Enset(Eng) Burtuk(Amr) Zeytuna(Amr) rue/tena adam(Amr) theij sar(Amr) Lemon(Eng) Chat(Eng) Carrot(Eng) Uchi(bench) Allidora(Eng) Gonji(bench) Tsogu(bench) qondo berbera(Amr) Jack(Eng)

scientific name

Cassava(Eng) Capsicum abyssinicum Brassica oleracea Saccharum officinarum Phaseolus vulgaris Rhamnus prinoides africanaCeltis Annona senegalensis Spatoda nilotica Euphorbia abyssinica Pterolobium stellatum Ehretia cymosa Akirma(Amr) Maesa lanceolata

local name

Cassava(Eng) chilli pepper(Eng) Cabbage(Eng) Sugar cane(Eng) adangora(Amr) Gesho(Amr) Shishu(bench) Gesheta(bench) Spatoda(Eng) qulqol(Amr) Kentefa(Amr) Ulaga(bench) Akirma(Amr) Keleha(bench)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ferede Meseret Gebru, was born in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State on October

16, 1990G.C. He attended his junior primary and elementary education at Huletu chaja and Azena elementary and junior primary school respectively. The author also attended his Secondary and preparatory education at Agew Gimjabet secondary and preparatory school. Then he joined Mekelle University in 2008G.C and graduated with BSc degree in Forest and nature conservation on July, 2011. He had taught under the Ministry of

Agricultural College in Mizan Teferi SNNPR, Benchi Maji Zone, from 2011 -2015 and also he had taught in Mizan Tepi university from 2016 still now. Soon after, he joined

Hawassa University Wondo Genet Collage of Forestry and Natural Resources in July

2014 to pursue his MSc degree in Agroforestry and soil management.