THE FARMING SYSTEMS OF A 'S |W HARARGHJE REGION: IIIARY STUDY

OF AGRICULTURE W EN T PROJECT

V : v \ NOVEMBER 1986 c

THE PRODUCTION OF COFFEE IN THE FARMING SYSTEMS OF DAROIJSBU, HABRO AND KUNNI CIPA: S IN HARARGHIK liBGJOWs A PHSLIMIN&aY STUDY

MIKISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

COFFEE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ADDIS ABABA NOVEMBER 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1• Summary 1 2* Objectives of the study 5 3 „ Methodology 6 4c Physical features of the area 13 5* General description of the farming systems 20 Coffee production 25 5 o1 Coffee marketing and production 25 6.2 Traditional methods of coffee production 35 6*3 Coffee development activities 42 6*4 lieturns from coffee production 50 7o Chat production 52 So Sorghum production * 57 9. Maize production 60 10. Teff production 63 11„ Other crops 65 12. Livestock 66 13. Foodf water and fuel supplies 68 14* Farm labour supply and demand 70 15c Farm income and expenditure 73 16„ Possible means of improving farm and coffee productivity 79 Figures 1„ Location of study area- 15 Average monthly rainfall at Bedessa and Gelemso* 19 3. Annual Hararghie coffee arrivals, auction prices and rainfall, 2a 4» Hararghie coffee arrivals and auction prices* __ 5» Hararghie coffee auction prices and far^r^f^^p^iceS^^^1 . Vc,%*

: .. - - T- v " j - y tl° I -fc* Tables 1, Textural classification of coffee fields soils samples 17 2„ Annual and monthly rainfall at Bedessa and Gelemso, 13 3* Land use estimates for Darolebu, Habro and Xunni* 21 4 Hararghie coffee arrivalsf prices and export value* 27 5„ Estimated fariagate coffee prices* 32 6 o Estimated coffee yields* 34 7, Ages of coffee treesD ' 37 8* CBD Incidence and dieback* 41 9, Summary of CIP Activities. 43 10. CIP Spraying Achieveiaents, 46 11 * Estimated returns to traditional coffee production, 51

12. Labour calendar for recommended coffee management* 53 13» Estimated returns to chat production« 56 14* Principal Sorghum varieties* 58 15o Labour and Cash Budget for Sorghum production» 59

16« Principal Baize varieties- 61

17, Labour and cash budget for maize production, 52 IS. Labour and cash budget for teff production., 64 19, Livestock ownership* 67 20, Labour use on a representative farm* 72 21o Comparison of returns from major crops* 74 22, Comparison of returns from different cropping patterns Notes If no source is given for a tablet its contents were derived during the study, from field work and secondary sources listed in appendix 1„ Append iceSs* 1 o Secondary sources used in the study« 2«, Checklist of information used in collecting: information from primary and secondary sourceso % 3, Cropping patterns recorded in farm interviews- 4» Cash, food and labour budgets for representative farm.

GLOSSARY AID Bank Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank <> CBD Coffee berry disease* CIP Coffee Improvement Project CIPA Coffee Improvement Project Area (wexedai CMC : Coffee Marketing Corporation EC Ethiopian calendar GC Gregorian calendar Inj era Pancake eaten as staple food, made.from cereals, principally teffo Kunna Local unit of volume* approximately 7kg of cereal grain. Kutti Coffee leaves used for making a beverage. MCTD Ministry of Coffee and Tea Development MoA Ministry of Agriculture PA Peasant association , Tannica Local unit of volume, approximately 18kg of cereal grain. Temad Local unit of area measurement, the area ploughed in one day by one pair of oxen, generally reckoned to be 0*125 ha. Wot Sauce eaten with staple food* /

. 1

1* Summary

This report represents an initial attempt to study the farming systems of the three CIPAs in Hararghie with the objectives of understanding some of the constraints affecting peasant coffee production in these areas and of collecting information about the costs and benefits of coffee production* It draws upon secondary information sources and information collected from farmers and local officials during a 10 day field trip to the area* It therefore represnts a preliminary study from which tentative conclusions may be drawn and from which topics worthy of more concentrated study may be identified. Since this is the first report of its kind to be produced by CIP, it is also a test of the methodology of rapid rural appraisal used* The report therefore contains a description of methodology before going on to describe and analyse different aspects of peasant agriculture in the area, with the final sections considering the relative merits of different enterprise and actions that could be taken to increase coffee production and farmer welfare. No analysis of yields or costs and returns from planting and stumping are included in the report as it was considered that this would be premature in view of the data that should shortly be available from CIP yield studies. The reader is advised to consult the table of contents and select those parts of the report of relevance to him or her*

The principal conclusions regarding the current problems affecting the farming systems in the area are as follows:

/.« 2 a). There is some statistical evidence of a recent decline in Hararghie coffee arrivals, but variation in annual jpainfall appears to be a much mojcva. important .factor cau- sing variartioa in artrkralsr*

Coffee production has been advers&ly effected by coctpeti- £ion foy farm resources from chat in some areas, and by serious OBB attack. These problems have been added to by recent drought K^nditi-ans, aixl iasnre ancoura^d poor 7 management of many* coffee fields.

• ). ©evelopmant activities aimed at encouraging chffee produc­ t i o n have encountered problems of poor water supplies for spraying against GBD-, poor management of planted and stumped coffee, and the adverse effects of two seasons wiiih poor rainfall distribution.

The farming systems in^fche three CIPAs are highly suscepti~ T ,;v to drought* hail, and other natural factors which may ****&© o»opr-4/>sse^ and the maintenance of minimum levels of ineom^ in the face of this are an important considera­ tion f03> many farmers*

Yields may be increased by improved management, with greater adoption of the agronomic recommendations made by CIP* Consideration should be given here to overcoming constraints that farmers face in adopting them. In particular the provision of water suuplies or use of ULV methods for fungicide spraying and the use of herbicides with hand weeding for effective perennial weed control need to be given further attention.

/ • o Improved management normally requires a higher level of * labour and capital input* While the project at present can provide short and medium term credit, labour use can present more of a problem* as evidenced by peasant associations having to use campaign labour to complete certain operations such as planting and weeding* The use of herbicides is one means by which labour demands may be lowered, and the development of a planning methodology relating planting areas to labour demand and the supply of land and labour should also address this problem, A further means of increasing the efficiency of labour distribution and use on common and individual holdings might be to replace some campaign labour on common holdings by voluntary labour which received an immediate payment in advance of part of the cash distribution which the peasant association may make to its members at the end of the harvesting season. This system could only work when thePA common holdings have a significant area of bearing coffee, but it has a number of potential benefits in terms of improving the efficiency of labour allocation between common and.individual holdings, assisting poorer farmers to get extra cash at the time of the year when they most need it, making the coffee production on the common holdings more attra­ ctive to such farmers, and giving such farmers who need i| a greater share of the benefits of common holding production by increasing their share of the labour contribution* This proposal could be implemented in association with the . .Viz r/.c proposal for advance payment for coffee by cooperatives, with such payments made in this instance to the PA. Appropriat safeguards would have to be introduced to ensure that there w as no overpayment before the full proceeds of the coffee harvest are realised, and to ensure that the system provided sufficient labour to carry out the necessary work. . 4

Turning now to consider other farm enterprises where more efficient production might encourage greater or more efficient coffee production, increasing and stabilising food crop yields is critically important,, Improved soil and water conservation and land use planning v ; • . •;*: o; • i.-v.1 would contribute to this- A relatively cheap and rapid means of increasing sorghum and maize yields would be to encourage the application of chemicals to control stalkbarer attack* This would need better supplies of chemicals than are currently available, more farmer training as regards proper methods of application, and possibly some provision of credit for its purchase. Longer term and more expensive action to improve cereal crop production might involve the introduction of maize and sorghum varieties with shorter growing seasons, and greater extension and other support for the use of fertilisers*

These suggestions are explained in greater detail in section 16 of this report. They Should be followed up with more detailed study and proposals* This should be accompained by continued data collection by ClP on coffee yields and production costs, and crop and input prices, with periodic repetition of the type of data collection and analysis described in this report. o 6

Methodology

The basic methodology uses an approach commonly described as ’ rapid rural appraisal'. The essence of this approach is to use a small professional team of workers to collect relevant information about the farming systems in a study area* No attempt is made to use random methods of sample selection for data collection in the field* Instead, as much secondary information as possible is collected before any field visits are made* The areas subsequently visited in the field, the selection of farmers interviewed and the topics covered in each inter**!, view are determined by an ongoing process of analysis and identification of variation between areas and farmers and of critical features of the different farming systems which need more intensive examination*

Prior to the field visit, a number of secondary sources were consulted regarding coffee production an^- marketing, physical features, climate, agricultural activities, etc* These sources are listed in Appendix 1 and will now be discussed briefly*

Collection and analysis of secondary information prior to the field trip was caried out with two objectives - to gain some preliminary understanding of farming systems in the area in order to construct checklists for preliminary information needs and to gain a picture of variation across the area in climate, topography and farming systems*. This latter type of information was needed for planning fieldwork, so that all the major agroecological zones in the area should be studied in the field in as short a time as possible*

/. Information on the climate was obtained from two sources. Meteorological Maps of Ethiopia (Ethiopian Meteorological Service 1979) contains a wealth of information about precipi­ tation, temperature, humidity, etc* shown on maps of Ethiopia. This publication therefore provides very general information which was supplemented by monthly records for rainfall at Gelemso (in Hab£o) and Bedessa (in Kunni). These redords were provided by the Meteorological Service and summarised for 15 years data by D T Johnson (Technical Discussion Papers 8/85* June 1985)»

A number of information sources were available on the question of land use patterns. CIP had 1:50,000 land use maps prepared by the Ethiopian Mapping Agency, with a summary of areas under different uses. Unfortunately the aerial photography on which it relies is extremely dated (1967) and the 1 :50,000 scale, when compared with the field sized, is likely to lead to errors in estimation of the areas of land under different uses« The other sources of information which are discussed below are based on surveys in which farmers were interviewed about their holding size and land use. Such sruveys may be subject to farmers’ over-or under-reporting for different reasons (for example under-reporting may result from fears of tax assessment, over-reporting may result from hopes of obtaining credit for farm inputs and to inaccuracies in estimation of quantitative data. The first of these studies was carried out by CIP in 1975 E*C(1982/3 in the Gregorian Oalandar). This (Basic Data, unpublished) involved an enumeration of all farmers in demrcated peasant associations in Habro and Kunni. Unfortunately, no information was . 8

collected, about areas under chat or minor crops, and the terms 'grazing* and ’fallow* were not defined properly. In' 1982/3 and 1983/4- MCTD carried out the 32 wereda Survey,, This sample survey gives some information about the area per household under coffee and the total holding size. (Report on the Sample Survey of 32 Major Coffee Growing Weredas (1982/3)» MCTD, June 1984). Finally, the Ministry of Agriculture carried out a General Agricultural Survey in 1982/3 and 1983/4-, again using a sample Surveyo Four peasant associations were sampled in each Wereda, with 6 farmers interviewed in each peasant association. The sample . size in each wereda is therefore very small, and unfortunately this survey provides no information about coffee areas v (General Agricultural Survey, Preliminary Report, 1983/84-, Vol II, Hararghie, Ministry of Agriculture 1984-). These sources of information about land use also provide information about population.

The land use information from the Land Use Maps and the CIP Basic Data was ^available for each Peasant Association. This was then mapped using simple bar charts to show holding size and proportion of land under different uses in each Peasant Association. This allowed a simple visual analysis of diffe­ rences in^land use areas in each CIPA, as estimated by these two sources. Although somewhat tedious to draw, these maps were invaluable in comparing these two sources of informations in ■_ identifying unreliable information, and in recognising consistent patterns of change across each area "to guide field­ work and identification of distinct cropping patterns.

/. The final topic for which some secondary information was available in Addis was coffee' marketing statistics. This was not available for the- three weredas which are the subject of this study, but for the whole of Hararghie* The Coffee Statistics Handbook (MCTD 1984 ) provides information about coffee arrivals at Dire Dawa, Further information about auction prices was obtained from MCTD direct„

Much of the Secondary information was then gathered together in a discussion paper which included a preliminary analysis of factors affecting official coffee purchases and suggested a range of topics which should be examined in the field.

In the field, information was collected in each Wereda by interviewing officials with local knowledge of agriculture (i»e0 representatives for the Ministry of Agriculture, v Coffee Improvement Project, Coffee Marketing Corporation)o On the basis of all secondary information then available regarding variation across each Wereda in climate, topography, soils and agriculturalactivities, the general areas to be visited were decided upon.

Since this work was undertaken at the same time as supervision of surveys on yields of planted and stumped coffee, the location of sampled fields was also taken into account in deciding each day's field programme., .= 10

In th§"field*.observations were made frort the road about cropping patterns- and methods of cultIvation,*.. Then, in previously selected Peasant Associations| attempts were' made • to find and interview one or more farmers * Interviews 5 t . t - normally lasted approximately 1„5 hoursj and night be with a single farmer4 a group of farmets ox! committee members of Peasant Associations or Coopsv Sinde most farmers do hot speak. Amharid, English/Oromigna or Amharici/Oroinigna interpre­ tation was usually required and this, was provided either by the Farm Management-Enumerator, Assistant ]?arm Management Enumerator or a local CIP Extensioh Ageriti

Interviewing was carried out mainly by Ato Kibru Mamusha and Dr* Dorv/afd* both Agricultural Ekohoitiists. Ato Masrisha Fekade (Statistician) also cabled out* a interviews* Ih future it would be helpful to haVe &h agronomist as part of a team* ■ .

Some difficulties faced during field work were due , to the time at which it was conducted, from 30 May to 8June* This unfortunately coincided with Ramadan, when many farmers were fasting and therefore resting during the day. • As a result it was sometimes difficult to find farmers willing to be inter­ viewed and many coop offices were closed* Another reason for difficulty in finding farmers to interview was that they were extremely busy as there was rainfall in the area throughout the field trip, and farmers were therefore busy in' their fields preparing land, planting and weeding crops,, High rain­ fall also made it impossible to visit the southern and major coffee growing areas in Kunni* However in other respects this was a very suitable time to carry out such field work as many of the crops could be seen growing in the field, and one would expect that time of year to be the most critical period in the cropping seasoh with high labour demands, food shortages and the highest likelihood of morbidity from seasonal diseases such as malariai /'i. A further difficulty w&s experienced in finding suitable inter- preterso On one occasion only one interpreter could be found and on another the quality of interpretation was sp poor that the interviewing for that afternoon had to be abandoned* This difficulty arose partly because of the-survey supervision which we carried out at the same time as interviewing, as this required the presence of the Farm Management Enumerator & Assistant, and as a result they were not both available to act as interpreters*

It was normally possible to conduct three interviews in a full day in the field, and with two interviewers working independe­ ntly gave a maximum of 6 interviews per day. However, one worker (Dr DorWard) was dividing his time between interviewing and survey supervision. This, with difficulty in finding farmers and interpreters, reduced the number of interviews actually made„

Topics to be covered in the interviews were determined by first making & checkl3j$&t; of all likely relevant subjects. These were selected after reviewing secondary information before the start of the field trip. The topics are. listed In Appendix,'2* No attempt was made to discuss every topic with each farmer interviewed. Instead an inductive approach was followed within each interview and for all the field work as a-- whole o Within each interview a structured approach was followed, with the introduction of each topic by the intervi­ ewer, and discussion with the farmer arcund its various aspects. Discussion amongst the field team each evening and while trave­ lling then highlighted topics on which information was lacking or contradictory, new topics which appeared to be relevant and on which further information was needed, and topics where enough consistent information had already been collected. Information was collected using local units of measurement,. . 12 and. these are listed in the glossary. One unit presented difficulty-* the temad is .’the general unit for area, and it is defined as the area ploughed by one pair of oxen in one day* This obviously wil^ vary with,the condition of the oxen, length of the working day soil type* vegetation etc, A standard of 8 temads to the ha is widely used, and it was adopted in this' study* but it may will give overestimates of yield and labour use per hectar if this underestimates ox working rates,' However, where returns to labour are being considered, any .errors should cancel each other out, and this variation should not affect comparisons between crops.

During interviews notes were taken in rough note books, and observations made while travelling were recorded on micro-- cassette. An attempt was made to summarise this information in the evenings onto summary sheets, These summary sheets were arranged with one sheet for each major topic and separate columns for each sub topic, in line with the checklist. It was not possible to keep the summarisation up to date with the fieldwork, and some had to be completed in Addis after the fieldwork was completed, but the attempt to summarise the information while in the field was worthwhile as it ■■■‘was of some assistance in highlighting which topics needed further study during field work. It was also beneficial to summarise as much information as possible while it was still fresh in the mind, and it reduced the amount of rather tedious summarisation that had to be done back in the office after field work,

/# , From ths summary- sheets, information on each topic from different sources was compared, and conclusions drawn.from theme These are discussed in subsequent sections ofthe report, and where particular analytical methods are used, these are described where relevant".

The total time allocated to this work required about 10 man days of professional time collecting and analysising . secondary data, preparing maps for field, work, and writing a preliminary discussion papero In the field, about 15 man days of professional time were used (excluding travelling time to the area) with about 12 man days of interpreters time. Summarisation in the. office took a further 7 Rian days* Analysis and report writing then took approximately 12 more man days, • . 14

Physical Features of the Area

The three Weredas which are the subject of this study are located in eastern 3thiopia5 within Hararghie Region., Habro Awraja0 Their location is shown in figure 1. The three Weredas lie in a row running’ from the south west to the north easts with Darolelou in the south west, Kunni in the north east, and Habro in between^ Along the northern or north western boun'aiy of each runs a range of hills generally over 2200 m and bounded by a steep escarpment which falls onto land gently sloping to the south east between 2000 m and 1400 rru The majority of each Wereda consists of this sloping land, though topography varies.. In the northern parts of Kunni and north east Habros wide gently sloping valleys and basins are common„ The southern part of Kunni and Habro and more dissected with roclsy ridges and ravines running to the south and south easto In the north, western part of Habro and northern part of Darolebu5 the wide valleys and basins running off the escarpment become less common5 and the land is dissected by numerous small steeper valleys<, As these run south, however5 they widen out. to give a generally undulating landscape with marshy valleys and rounded ridgeso

Two principal soil types are common, black alluvial clay soils in the valleys and red sandy clay soils on the ridges* As could be expected from the topography described earlier,, black alluvial soils are most common in Habro and Kunni We re das below the escarpment where the land slopes gently in wide valleys and basins* Red sandy clay soils are more common in the southern parts of Kunni and Habro and in Darolebu* The red sandy clay soils appear to have a low water holding capacity and are easily eroded and degraded* « 16 j

Ifeamination of textural qualities of soils sampled and analysed as reported in the Giessen Report on Soil and Foliar .Analysis supports tho general pattern of soil distribution observod in the field and described above (see table 1), Analysis of soil samples suggests that soils in the area, tend to have a higher PH than is normally found in coffee soils in other parts of the country,, with an average HI of 6*15 for all samples in tho three Weredas* Phosphate and Zinc levels in tho soil are generally low while potassium and manganese? iron and copper are high. Calcium is found at medium levels. llainfall is highest and probably most reliable along the escarpment in the north west of each Wereda? and then both average rainfall and its reliability tend to fall away as ono moves to the south oast. Rainfall data for two stations (Gelomso a,nd Bedessa) are given in table 2o These stations are both fairly near the escarpment and arc thus in parts of the study area whore rainfall is relat-ively high and reliable as compared with parts further to tho south east away from the escarpment.

Figure 2 shows that tho general rainfall pattern is bimodal5 but with a long diy season running from Uovemoer to February* Average rainfall is between 1000 mm and 1200 mm and very variable* In 1934 ? for example? annual rainfall was some 200 mm or nearly 20^ below normal whereas in 1985 although the total annual rainfall was nearly normal3 much of this (4-B^) fell in March and April causing floods^ and then the period June to October received only 40% of the seasons rain instead of tho average 60%. August and September wore particular^ dry.

During the diy season (November of February) diurnal temperature variation becomes high with near monthly maximum tomporatures of 22 'to 24 Oj near monthly minimum temperatures of 5 to 7^C and ,. _ 0 diurnal temperature variation of some 17 C, Oliis falls to 12 to 14^0 during the wet season. f

. 17

^ble 1 Textural classification of soil samples from Coffee 51 elds

Texture Larolebu. Habro Kunni All. 1 Clay 0 2 efo 63$ 36$ 2 Loam clay. 11$ 21 $ 21$ 19$ 0 3 Silty clay 0 0 0 4 Sandy clay loam 22$ 0 0 4$ 5 Silty clay loam/silt loam 0 0 O 0 6 Sandy clay 22$ 32$ 16$ 23$ 7 Clay< * sand 22$ 11$ 0$ 9$ 8 Sandy loam/sandy silt loam ll/o 5$ 0$ 4$ 9 Loamy sand 11$ 5$ 0$ 4$ Total observations 9 19 19 47

i

Source s - Report on Soil and foliar Analysis in 15 CIPAs in Socialist Ethiopia Hofher and Schmitz I985*

04/ Gommuni c ations -within tho area are generally poor apart from an all weather gravel road which enters Kunni from the north east and runs along "beneath the escarpment as far as Mechara* Access to Darolebu is by a dry weather road from Mechara, and dry weather roads extend south from the all weather road in Habro and ICunni (see figure l)a Tho three major towns have telephone systems, but it is rarely possible to communicate by telephone between the towns or with other exchanges, Tho Coffee Marketing Corporation and CIP in Gelemso both have radio telephones* Bedessa and Gelemso are served with 24 hour electricity but this does not extend west of Gelemso*

Table 2 Rainfall Data, Annual Rainfall (mm) b) Monthly Rainfall (mm)

Bedessa Gelemso Micheta Bedessa Gelemso 1973 1044 733 Jan 24 '— ro ~ 1974 886 798 Feb 35 29 1975 1280 899 Mar 81 59 1976 MA 1TA Apr 144 142 1977 1132 895 May 159 155 1978 m. TTA June 121 m 1979 : 1289 .1252 ■V i July 130 136 m 1980 804 769 ■Aug 195 158 i 1981 1460 790 Sept 65 120 . 1982 1431 1485 Oct 67 56 1983 1829 1890 .Nov 26 38 1984 715 931 Dec 7 11 1985 HA NA 1277 15 year - Mean 980 1149 Total 1149 980

Source t - Ethiopian Meteorological Service Records* I i ^ vjLci 1 «E ■1 i M 'TMr 'Yl/JJi s 'Wnnr*, •mnnnnnrA I mrmnnr, > msnnn/:, mnnnr//////,\ : » io MZMZM7L[ I ? Tim////////',■ ? \wwm/M .3 "i ^ ? /,; 1 -5 o g TMM7nn a 0 MMUF7/7/,'- -5 * fMMIL ■? 'TJJW,i - I WTnnr//,-\ \mnrm/,| ! 'te u m j///,as hWmn/A •minr////,\ w m im ////. mr/nrw/nr* L. -■WJai i *7r7nr, 5 sTnnnrA

f -! '■’la • s t c ______;______* • C 7 ; - f » I » I 1 t I I I 1 lit 1 1 I I’■7/ I I I n t i !' f i I i r v i i r r i 1 - r r n ? i t n r “ i t t t r r f r l

\ 6 .0' 0 0 & 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 0 0 & t> Q 0 * £1 9 § S ^ ^ $ d o o o i & D , a £ e & ♦ *> n <> d i o *> 3 o * ! 2 < » N t- 0 ft0 Oh 0 o o* N o«- t oooooooooo ooooooooo wt-rr'ft-rrrr' 1 & E Is IP 0 •t B W 0 16 D h 0 0 + JJ'W f o 20

5* General .Fanning Systems

Rainfall and altitude are two important determinants of tho suitability' of an area for the production of different crops. The remainder of this report will concentrate on describing tho agriculture in the so areas where coffee is an important crop, and ■' such areas are restricted to a central band in each Wereda running from tho south west to tho north east within 20 to 30 kms of the escarpment. In tho hills themselves, tho altitude is too high for coffoo? whereas in the south east, away from tho escarpment, rainfall becomes too low and unreliable for coffee and other crops9 and settlement is therefore increasingly sparse* '.[ho area studied in the remainder of this report is shown in figure lo

Across this area as a whole, the principal crops grown arc Maiso. Sorghum, Toff, Coffee and €hat (Catha dul:Ls)» Table 3 compares •'■he gonoralcropping patterns estimated from a number of sources, which are discus sod, with their shortcomings, in section 2.

ITo clear pattern emerges immediately from this table, dispite the fact three of the sources decribe surveys conducted in 1982/83* A complication arises from the possibility of obtaining two crops off the same piece of land in one year* The General Agricultural Survey distinguished between main and belg rain season crops, but this destination was found to affect only maize and it is not clear how much of the.belg season maize crop was followed by another crop, Ho such distinction was made in the Basic Data or in the General Agricultural Survey of 1983/84. 'Hie maize areas in table 3 are therefore assumed to describe both main and belg season maize, crops, and there may therefore be some double counting in estimation of total holding siao. Another possible complication arises from the common practice of intercropping cereals with chat, or coffee or both, and none of the sources state how such forms of land use were recorded and analysed*

o a o / . • 21 Table 3° Land Use. Estimates for Parol ebu, Kunni and Habro

¥ereda Source Date Ho/hh. Holding size Average areas per (ha) holding (ha) Coffee Mai ze Sorghum Teff Pulses Chat Grazing ■+• f al low Daroiebu LUM 1964 (7170) 3,18 0,47 2.47 0.23 0

MOA 1982/83 7170 ( 0 . 6 9 ) HA o. 32 0.06 0.09 0- 0.10 0

MOA 1983/84 . . . l l i o ...... (0,15.1 . HA 0.30 0.08 0.18 0 0.10 0.06 Habro BD 1982/83 12073 '(0.67) 0.17 Oo 14 0.23 0.03 HA HA 0.10 LUM 1964 512410) 3° 20 0.28 2-50 0.10 0.32 * MOA 1982/83 12410 (1 .02) HA 0.30 0.51 0.05 0.01 0.13 0 MOA 1983/84 12410 (led) HA 0.23 0.42 0 .11 0.03 0.13 0*09 Kunni BD 1982/83 8OI5 (0.5-3) 0.06 0.12 0.21 0.13 HA . .HA 0 . LUM 1964 (12531) 2*02' 0.16 2.80 0.18 0 MOA 1982/83 12531 (0.66) ' -HA 0.17 0.22 0.14 0*03 0.10 0 MOA 1963/84 12531 (0.79) HA 0.18 0.28 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.06 Habro ICunni BD 1982/83 20088 (o.61) 0.13 0.14 0.22 0.07 HA HA 0.06

Habro + Kunni LOM 1964 (3 2 111) 2.73 • 0.25 2.22 0.14 0.12 Darolebu MOA 1982/83 32111 (0.8l) HA 0.25 0.32 0.09 0.02 0,13 0 MOA 1983/04 32111 (0.87) HA 0.22 0.29 0.13 0.03 0.13 0.07 MCTD 1932/33 (16093) 1.15 0.31 O .58 0.12 0.14

( ) indicates § total is incomplete*

. o o / • 22

Interviews in the field suggested, that there is quite a wide range in holding sizes and in enterprise mixes on each holding right across tho area, and variation in holding, sise was not always related, to variation in household size* Ibis holding sizes of 0*4 up to 1*2 ha were quite common, smaller holdings tended to be dominated by food crops (coreal crops and sweet potatoes) with coffee and chat more common on tho larger holdings, though sweet potatoes, groundnuts and toff might also be grown as cash crops*

In general, cropping patterns on each holding appeared to depend upon tho complex interrelationship of tho following facturs* a) Land availability and holding s i so s where holdings are small, duo either to high land pressure in the Peasant Association or to other circumstances ~ such as rocent establishment of tho holding, or inability to cultivate as a result of poverty or sicknoss - priority would be given to food crop production, cereals or sweet potatoes., 5’urther land use acquisition would then bo for chat or coffee, or may be groundnuts or sweet potato, for sale* b) Land type available s alluvial soils in Habro and Kunni are not suitable for chat or coffee, and are generally used for cereals, (maise, sorglruiiis or toff) and haricot beans5 red sandy clay soils are suitable for coffee and chat if not degread,ed by erosion or over us©, The relative availability of such land types varies from peasant association to peasant association and, within each peasant association, access to such land varies from household to household, c) Climato and risk aversion % following two years of bad rainfall, many farmers are planting more sweet potatoes as this crop appears to bo more drought tolerant than raaize or sorghum* Toff tends to become less common, and sorghum more common, to the south whore rainfall is loss reliable* • 23

d) Market access s chat is a highly perishable crop. Best prices are therefore paid on the main road from Mechara to Bedessa, along which, pick-up trucks can carxy it easily and continue their journey to Dire Dawa and Jijiga, which are centres for the chat market* Ghat is therefore a relatively more attractive crop close to this road, and its attractiveness declines progressively as one moves to the south in Habro and Kunni and in E&rolebu it is also less attractive as the all- weather road does not extend into the Woreda at all. However, chat is also grown for domestic consumption, and decisions to grow chat for this purpose are not affected by accessability.

Almost all the major crops are grown to some extent for both sale as cash crops and for domestic consumption. Thus coffee cherzy is sold off the farm to the Coffee Marketing Corporation, local traders, co-operatives and private exporters* In addition coffee beans, dried hulls, and leaves may be used for browing coffec in the home. Some loaves may also be sold in local markets as •Kutti*. As indicated earlier, chat is also grown for local consumption and for sale* Most adults in the area chew it regularly, and where they do not grow it for themselves they usually obtain it from relatives or friends either free or in exchange for labour. Cereal crops are grown mainly for domestic consumption* However, the grain may also be sold either because it is surplus to household needs or to meet some sudden demand for cash* Maize and sorghum stalks are also important, as they may bo used for fuel, for feeding livestock in the dry season when feed is short, or in the case of sorghum stalks, for construction* Around Bedessa and Golemso there is a market for these stalks* Crop thinnings are also used for livestock feed.

/ Principal livestock found in the areas are cattle* goats and poult iy* Of small number of sheep and donkeys are also present. Cattle are used as source of draft power and milk, and all livestock are important assets which may bo sold in times of needo Important interactions between livestock and crop ^ltorprises involve the use of oxen in cultivation* the use of manure for fertilising fields* and the use of crop thinnings and residues as animal feedo

Before going on to discuss in more details the particular enterprises in these farming systems* a little needs to be said about social organisation* Prior to the 1975 Land Reform Proclamation* land was ownod by landlords and farmed by their tenants* normally on a share cropping basis, Hired labour was used, extensively (a survey conducted during the planning of the first phase of 01P estimated that 56$ °f farmers were using temporally hired labour on their faims). Since the 1975 Land Proclamation* all land is hold in trust by Peasant Asso­ ciations (PAs) and distributed to their individual member households by the PA Committees* It is' intended that this distribution should be. made on the basis of land availability* household size and ability to work the land* and should ensure that each household is able to cultivate the different major types of land found in the PA« Each household normally consists of a man* one wife* their children and perhaps one or two other relatives staying on a temporary or permanent basis0 In addition to land allocated to individual holdings* each PA also has land held in common (the common holdings)* 1111030 are principally used for the cultivation of recent plantings of coffee with the assistance of CIP„ Ihe Peasant Association may require the labour of its members to cultivate these common holdings* to maintain roads* to cultivate the holdings of men serving with the Militia* and to cultivate the land of PA Committee members who are too busy to cultivate their own land* As a result faxmors may regularly give one or two days each week to the PA. In times of peak labour requirement on tho common holdings and. on Militia men *b and commit too members farms ? the demand, for such labour may increase5 with three or four days labour required per week. This will normally coincide with times of peak labour demand on farmers’ own holdings.

Previously in each PA? settlement was scattered in a number of small hamlets. In the last eighteen months villagisation has resulted in all farmers in each PA building new houses together in a single large settlement. In most PA*s in the area this was completed during the 1985 (1977/8 EC) cropping season*

Peasant Associations are grouped together to be served by service co-operatives? which are formed principally to provide marketing services to their members*

6. Coffee Production

¥e will now discuss in more detail each of the major agricultural enterprises found in the study area and mentioned in the previous section. As coffee production is the principal topic of this report we will bc-gin by discussing that crop. Coffee produced in Hararghie has a unique quality that commands a high premium in specialist marketsj but has shown wide fluctuations in prices and sales on the world market* We will therefore begin by examining these fluctuations before moving on to consider the actual production o f coffee on the farm.

60I Coffee Marketing and Production Despite the growing share of the coffee market taken by tho Coffee Marketing Corporation (CMC)? tho structure of the coffee market has not substantially changed. Farmers sell their coffee in the form of dried cherry to cooperatives local traders or direct to CMC or a private exporter at one of the major markets* In the study area those are found at Mechara, Gblomso and Bedessa* Local traders and, increasingly coops, may buy from faimers nearer to the farmgate and carry the dried cherry to the markets, but farmers indicated a preference for bearing, the transport costs themselves and getting the full price at the principal markets. Prices paid -by CMC and the single private exporter operating in the area are determined by the auction prices at Dire Dawa* This is where the coffee is taken once it is hulled*

Although this official marketing system provides a wealth of statistics about volume of coffee purchases from farmers and about prices, little is known about the quantity of coffee produced, consumed locally or sold into the unofficial market and smuggled across to Djibouti and Somalia and to neighbouring areas in Ethiopia* Table 4 and figure 3 show the volume of arrivals of coffoo from Hararghie at the Dire Dawa Auction floor, and the average price paid in recent years* Wide variation in quantity and price are evident and there has been some concern recently that coffeo production in Hararghie is declining and that the industmay die out* Given the unique quality of Harar coffee, this would bo great loss to Ethiopia.

Viewing table 4 and figure, 3? there does not immediately appear to be any evidence of a long term declining trend in sales of coffee through the official market* Although thG volume has been very low in recent years, it has been equally low in some previous years* What is immediately noticeable from figure 3? however, is an apparent close correlation between annual rainfall (using Gelemso figures) and coffee arrivals at Dire Dawa* Regression analysis of the relationship between arrivals, and rainfall shows a strong relationship, with a weaker relationship between time and arrivals* A number of forms of the time variable were investigated, but that two giving the best fit suggests an accelerating decline in arrivals (see figure 3)* The estimated coefficients are as followss . 21

A = 20|7 - 98.732 + 6i8r

Whore A «* Arrivals at Dire Dawa in tonnes S !■. time variable* 0 in 1977/78 GC r = annual rainfall at Gelemso in mm 2 ? R = 0„52 n = 13ot ratio of s = 2„35 r = 5.00

Table 4 Hararghio Coffee Arrivals and Auction Prices at Dire Dawa<

Year(SO) Arrivals Auction Real’ • Auction Annual Rain­ (tonnes) Price Price fall at Gelemso (Birr/ton) (3irr/ton) (14 ) ^ 1966 5865 BA 733 1967 3795 HA 798 1968 9291 m 899 1969 4741 h a HA 1970 12564 3470 1361 895 1971 9374 3545 1214 HA 1972 9819 3769 1115 1252 1973 4130 551G 1561 769 1974 3048 \ 7753 2066 790 1975 11260 4542 1147 1485 1976 9367 3170 804 1890 1977 4691 6307 1502 931 1978 2608 HA HAHA

Sources s MCTD Met Office Real price? deflated by Addis Ababa Retail Price Index? 0 1 0 —

1963 (GC) + 1 y 'GOO tonnes, '00 mm, BIrr/IQkg O uto price, 3/kg Auction □ Arrivals, '000 tons Arrivals,tons '000 □ Fif . OFE RIAS ACIN PRICES AUCTION ARRIVALS, COFFEE 3. AN DR A i N F A L L A Year (GC) Year Rmol 0 mm m f00 Ramfoil, + Pred orrs/000 tons orrs/000 Pred *28 The relationship botwoon arrivals and rainfall appears to be particularly strong. %

If wo now turn to look at the relationship between Dire Dowa auction floor pricos and arrivals, figure 4 suggests these are voiy closely connected* with a'general fall in price in 1982/33 (1975 IX)). ¥hon a regression equation is fitted to these figures* the results are as follows?

P - 2,531 - 0.134 A - 235 D Whore P ~ real pricos of clean coffee at the auction floor (Birr/tonne) deflected by the Addis Ababa General Retail Price Index.

A ~ arrivals at Dire Dawa in tonnes* two year moving* average (compared with pricc in second year)

D --- dummy variable* 0 from 1971 1974 SC* 1 from 1975 to 1977 SC« R'~ = 0o9 0 ^ n - 3 t ratio A - 5•ol502 partial r2 A = 0.87 D = 2.70s d = 0*59

Despite the small sample sis50? this shows a highly significant relationship* and suggests that the major price variations are caused by variations in supply (which it appears are largely caused by variation in rainfall), 'Bigre has* however* been a drop in general prices recently. The replacing of' *S* in the earlier regression by TD ! as.defined above does not* however* give as good a fit* which suggests that the apparent overall trend of declining arrivals is not simply caused by this fall in prices. The auction price has not in any event had a constant relationship to farmgate prices in recent years, and famors are reportedly getting a higher proportion of the export prico now than they did five years ago.

It is" interesting to note that from the demand equation estimated above it is possible to estimate the level of arrivals at which the national income from official Hararghie coffee sales will be maximised. This is calculated by assuming that V* the value of coffee sales is equal to pricc multipled by arrivals. Figure 4 ARRIVALS AND AUCTION PRICE

4iu ’C Cl fO m « a? - vj 0 OC iTS in £

(Thousands) 2 Year Moving Averocj*s Arrivate (tonnes) Q Action price 8/ion ------Regression, 0=0 Regression, D*«1

Figure 5 FARM AND AUCTION PRICES 1977-1984 GC

LCt *31 0 « C ? >•1c £u \ * 1 2 S £ •»y C CL

(Thousands) Auction Price, Birr/ton, 1363 prices □ Farm pricev 0/ton ------Y^'X — ►— Regression fine • 31

V = PA - A (2531 - 0.134 A - 285 D) V is maximised when cLV/^. = 0oAssuming that D = 1, this occurs Mhon A = 8364 tonnes and P •- 1130 3/tcnno at 1963 (GC) prices*.

Hie discussion thus far has centred on the whole Hararghie coffee* industry* Information on volumes o.f sales and farm gate prices in the study are .a are not so easy to obtain and do not stretch hack over such a long period® However, what internally consistent data there is shows a similar pattern of relationships between rainfall? official purchases of coffee, and prices® JSxamination of information available on fo,mgato prices and comparison with auction pricos given an estimated relationship.

'C ~ 0*29 0 o 72 P where IP ----- farrogate price in P>irr/kg P = auction price in Birr/kg (all pricos deflated by Addis Ababa General Retail Price Index) H2- 0.83** n ~ 8 (from 1970 to 1977 DC) rBie apparent higher proportion of the price paid to farmers when pricos are low may he a result of falling pricos when coffee starts to pour onto the auction floor during years when coffee production is relatively high- In these circumstanco .the use of current auction floor prices to determine prices paid to farmers coupled with time lags between purchase from the farmer and arrival at the auction floor may cause the price fetched by a consignment at the auction floor to be consistently lower than that prevailing earlier when the consignment was purchased from farmers at the local CMC depot.. ■lliis effect of the lag between purchase and delivery may not be the same in years of poor production when pricos are rising or stable. It is, however,, important that any organisations, such as co­ operatives, who are engaged in coffee marketing should bo aware of the financial implications o f this feature of tho marketing systema In years of high production, it seems they should resell coffee as quickly as possible.

r/ . 3?

Table 5 JOstimated FarmgoVto Coffee Prices (Birr/kg)

Farm Auction Real farm- Real auc; Year(H/) Ifcitailpr 5E price prico price price'

1970 2.55 3.10 3,470 1.22 1,361 1971 2»92 3,09 3 5 545 1.06 1,214 1972 3-38 4.13 3,769 1.22 1,115 1973 3.54 5.42 5,510 1.53 1,561 1974 3.75 6.81 7,753 1.82 2,066 1975 3c 96 5.02 4,452 1,27 1,147 1976 3-95 3° 25 3,170 .82 804 J977 4* 20 5.00 6,307 1.19 1,502

Notes “ s Deflated by Addis Ababa Retail Prico Index, 1963 (GC)=loOO Sources 1 auction prices ?j MCTD farm prices 5 CMC, cooperative purchases real prices, in 1963 (GC) prices0 • 33

This discussion has 'been concerned merely with salos of coffee through official channels,, and therefore takes no account of domestic consumption or other sales. Since there is virtually no information on these topics, tho o n ^ means of estimating total production is "by combining estimates of yield and area* • The area under coffee in the aroa was discussed earlier# An average aroa of 0*30 ha per c of fee growing household or 0*2 ha for all households seemed reasonable? giving a total estimated area of about 6000 ha* Estimating an average yield, however, is extremely problematic. The preceding discussion has shown how variable official coffoe sales are and suggested that variations in rainfall might bo a primary cause for this. Dieback and CBD attack can also cause further discrepancies between seasons. Farmers reported poor yields of rjcro and good yields of 600 to 800 kg clean coffee per hoctaro as commonf with yields of about 400 to 500 kg clean coffoe in an average year.

Yields estimated in the 32 woreda survey are shown in table 6 and consequent production estimates compared, with the corresponding marketing statistics. It should be noted that both these years had above average rainfall. While this rainfall was very well distri­ buted in 1982/39 in 1 933/4 annual rainfall was well above average and concentrated into the seven months from April to October. One might therefore expect good yields in 1 982/3 'and then in 1 9^3/4 lower yields might result from the observed high CBD infestation associated with high rainfall and from dieback duo to overbearing the previous year. However, even given these factors, the average yields estimated for 1 982/3 seem ver;-r highl and the average yields estimated for 1983/4 seem very low.

./

¥

I Table 6 Estimated Coffee Yields, Production and Official Sales

4. Yield3(kg/ha Area Prodn (tons) % Official Sales 82/03 83/84 (ha) 82/33 83/84 change 82/83 33/84 Darolebu 1150 262 2059 2368 539 77% Habro, 845 441 2770 2341 1222 48% Kunni 586 101 748 438 76 33% Total 923 329 5577 5147 1837 64%

Gelefflso and Bedessa sales 16% 2817 2359 Total Ilairarghie arrivals 17% 11260 9367 •Sourbes s Draft 32 Wereda Survey for yields, production and area See table 4 for coffee arrivals CMC and private traders for Gelemso and Bedessa sales •■35

'Iho extreme estimated yield changes between years, with associated extreme estimated production changes, are not mirrored by equivalent changes in officially marketod coffee, as shown in table 6* Furthermore, in 1983/34 sales in Golems© and Bedessa and in Hararghio as a whole wore still some way above average levels for the last four years, suggesting that yields in 1 933/4 were average or above# It appears therefore that the production estimates overstate the fall in production between the two years although some discrepancies between changes in estimated production and coffee marketed through official channels might bo allowed by changes in the proportions of production marketed through different channels or consumed locally. However, increases in tho proportion of coffee marketed through official channels would not bo expected to bo very largo in the face of a 30^ fall in price between the two years# Wo must therefore conclude that the yield and production differences estimated between tho two years in tho 32 Woreda survey are too high, with tho estimated yield in 1932/3 too high and/or tho estimated yield in 1933/4 too low. Whatever the case, tho average yields estimated from those two seasons cannot bo considered as representative of yields in those areas over a longer period of time as both those seasons had rainfall and official coffee purchases above averages years of poor rainfall and generally low official purchases are not represented in this sample#

602 Traditional Methods of Coffee Production 'The previous section has drawn attention to the wide variation in volumes of coffee reaching tho auction floor and being sold through CMC in the study area, and it appears that these variations are highly correlated to annual rainfall, but that a, declining trend in general coffee production is also evident# We will now examine in more detail tho different aspects of peasant coffee production, •

./ . 36

Two principal typos of coffee production may bo distinguishod.s— traditional methods of production with local varieties cf coffee on individual holdings5 and moro modern methods of production on recently planted fields, nony under common holdings?ofton -with OKD resistant varieties, The area of coffee grown on individual holdings far exceeds that grown on common holdings. Tho estimated area of coffee on individual holdings may he taken as approximately 0*3 ha per grower or 0*2 ha per farmer (growers and non growers ) ( see table 3)* This gives an estimated area of coffee on indivi­ dual holdings of 6000 to 6500 hectares in the three Feredas, This compares with an area of 1 256 ha of coffee planted by CIP up to the end of 1973 (1984/5)* Improved, plantings therefore account for something like 15 % 20$ of the current coffee area3 as of the 1 256 ha planted.^ some fields have.d.ied and boon abandoned, duo to poor management or drought in the 1976 and 1977 seasons,

Traditional methods of coffee production in Hararghie are very different to those found elsewhere in Ethiopias and are adapted to the local dry conditions, A number of different varieties are favoured by farmers. During field work eight different variety names wore quoted ( Abodir, Shumbura? Muclic? Bunahalla? Guraina, Guracha ( also known. as Tilcur bunna) and lantoro). • The two most commonly mentioned were- Abadir and Shumbure, Both are widely recognised to bo highly productivo, but there wore conflicting responses regarding their susceptibility to CBD« Most of these varieties are bronze tipped and adapted to no shade and relatively dry conditions. They grow rapidly and arc maintained at a height of 3 metros or more? bei-jag picked from ladders*

Despite their vigorous growth, the average age of coffee trees in Hararghie as reported in the 32 Foreda survey is little different from other regionss with an average ago of about 13 years in tho three Forodas ( see table 7) • 'E.io younger plantings appear to bo more common in parclobu and Ilabrc than in Eunni* A survey conducted by CIP extension staff in Kunni indicated that 27^ of trees wore less than 7 years old, 3 7 were between 7 and 20 years old and 35$ were greater than 20 years old. \

. 37

Table 7 Ago of Coffco Trees ( in years )

Percentage of trees by ago group Average

<1 1-3 4-10 11-20 21-30 >30 Darolebu 0 0 67 29 4 0 10 Habro 0 2 49 41 5 4 10 * Kunni 0 1 27 53 20 0 15 All 0 1 44 40 11 4 13

/ - 38

During interviews in the field, farmers reported the age of their trees varying from 3 years old to more than 20, with some farmers expressing an intention to plant coffee (with Chat) should the? be able to obtain suitable land. It was noticeable, irwever, that tho younger coffee reported during these interviews tended to bo in the southern parts of Dalrolebu. and Habro (the main <,offde .{.rowing areas in southern Kunni were not visited) . In these areas there is more- suitable land available for coffee^ and f,hat production for sale is low duo to poor ommunications.

Traditional methods of planting involve digging a ver" deco hole (about 1 meter deep) in row at wide spacings and planting (with compost) during the main rains* A generally accepted estimate of traditional plant density used by CIP extension staff is 300 trees per hectare? but tho 32 ¥oreda survey reports average tree densities of 94^? 1185 and 1194 trees per hectare respectively in Darolebu. Habro and ICunni. Trees are expected to begin yielding three or four years after planting, depending upon varieties and climatic conditions. Once coffee is established, the principal input requirement .is labour for weed control, harvesting and perhaps manuring. Weed control is normally be hoeing, which may be carried out three or four times a year, or more, depending upon rainfall affecting weed groth, and labour avs,ilablity. The 32 ¥oreda survey showed the majority of fields having three or more we ©dings, with an average of 3 <>49 and 2.63 woodings per season in 1982/3 and 19^3/A* In 1933/4, a ’rear of high rainfall, yield was significantly correlated with weeding in a multiple regression analysis.

The final hoeing at the end of the rainy season may be designed to produce a fine dry tilth round the tree to serve as a soil mulch. Cultivation may be carried out by hand, or by oxen, and when done by hand may be done in such a way as to create a micro cachment round each tree. The formation of micro cachments round each tree was not commonly observed during a, field trip in May/june, when rains wore heavy, and appears to be a feature of cultivation at the end of tho rains and start of the dry season. However, terracing of coffee is common with the slope of each terrace carrying water throughout the year back into the hill, around the trees. . 43

Table 9 Summary of Principal CIP Achievements (ha) »

Year (SC)1970 1971 *1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1973 Total Planting

Darolebu 0 0 5 19 35 49 33 34 02 306 Habro 0 0 0 0 0 105 74 226 142 547 Kunni 0 0 0 0 0 99 67 115 165 447 Total 0 0 5 19 35 253 174 425 308 1299 Stumping

Darolebu 3 10 3 35 3 4 4 7 5 87 Habro 0 0 0 0 0 25 5 42 50 122 Kunni 0 0 0 0 0 22 15 38 46 121 Total 0 18 3 35 3 51 23 OO *7/ 101 330 Spraying

Darolebu 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 Habro 0 0 0 0 0 21 14 11 58 105 Kunni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 16 Total 0 0 0 0 0 21 16 14 75 125

Sources Project Annual Reports - 44 -

Stumping s -

Stumping coffg o is intended to increase productivity in two ways?

- through, rejuvenation of the tree and by removing old wood and a dense tree canopy which may oncouragc CBD infection* Stumping- should also make the trees more omenable to spraying* Trees should he stumped in Tahisas ( December/ January ) immediately after picking* Several different methods of stumping have been recommended in Hararghie. Robinson recommended stumping at knee height or 1*45 ra with a half tree conversion. Kiara reiterated this recommendation? and observed that common practice was to stump at 45 cn* and bring up three bearing heads* Stumping at groitnd level has also been practiced*

In general stumping is not reckoned to have been successful in Hararghie. A number of farmers interviewed reported that their coffee had died after stumping, and it is believed that some farmers are stumping as a moms of destroying their coffee* However, Kiara reported that stumping demonstration plots were vigorous and bearing a healthy crop* A consensus from farmer interviews was that stumping could be very successful provided that it was carriod out at 1.45m height and was accompanied by good management ( principally weed control ), and protection from livestock, and some very good stumped fields were observed* Some farmers also suggested that it would only bo successful if soil fertility and rainfall were good* Hie trees will normally start bearing three to four years after stumping ( i*e* missing two or three crops*) Throe is no information about the proportion of stumped coffee fields which have been abandoned due to coffee deaths*

* P * - 45 -

Spraying s -

Spraying of fungicides against CBD lias only boon carried out to any appreciable extent in Habro* In Darolebu spraying has not been pursued as 'CBD incidence has generally been low* In Kunni although CBD attack has been mor:, severe than in Darolebu lack of water has been a major problem* problems reported in Habro have no doubt also contributed to the lock of spraying in Kunni* These problems are firstly that chemicals have not been available to farmers in suficient quantities on time? and secondly that low production and rainfall in the 1976 and 1977 ( 19^4/5 and 1985/6 ) seasons moant that yield potontial and unfavourable condition for CBD did not .justify spraying. Clean water supply problems are also faced in Habro? and some attempts to overcome these are being made by digging water storage pits in the corner >. of each field to be sprayed*

Spraying normally commences in"May? and six or seven spray rounds are required for full protection^ continuing up until October at roughly 3 week intervals* Howevers as table 10 shows, farmers seldom complete the full spray round* Research in Kaffa and Kenya suggest that an incomplete spraying programme may actually encourage development of the disease,

Three different chemicals are currently recommended for CBD spraying* Konogard ( Captafol) is reckoned to be the cheapast and most effective* This currently costs 1 20 Birr/ha to apply 6.rounds ( after 60 $ government subsidy)* Farmers may obtain credit to cover the cost of sprayers and chemicalse This credit is provided by CIP through service co-operatives9 at an interest rate of 9*5 /» per annum* Co-operatives pass the credit on to their members at an interest rate of 11$ per annum* From 22nC^ June 1986 interest. - has been changed to 5 $ to cooperatives and 6*5 $ to farmers* . 46

Table 10 Suimnary of CIP Spraying Achievements (ha)

Spray round 1 2 3 4 5 6 | V 1375 21 16 0 0 0 0 1976 14 2 0 0 1 0 0 911 14 13 10 3 3 0 1 378 75 50 36 :m HA NA Total 124 81 46 3 3 0 Source s % CIP &tnnual 3Reports Planting g -

Although spraying and stumping activities havo been encouraged principally on individual holdings, until 1977 ( 1 984/85 ) Planting of now coffee seedlings supplied by CIP was only Carried out on common holdings* In 1977 and 1978, however, some planting under the CIP programme has been carried out on . individual holdings* Planting of coffee on common holdings usually ontials the expansion of the common holding with individual holdings being absorbed and the individual (s) effected being given other land as replacement,though land of tho same typo and equivalent area is not always available. Few plantings may thus be on land previously growing cereals, chat or old coffee* In Kunni where land pressure is particularly high, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find sufficient land for common holding plantings*

A number of distinctions may be made between traditional planting methods and those recommended by CIP* Traditional methods involve digging wide and deep holes at wide spacings, often on terraces. CIP plantings havo used smaller holes,, and at higher plant populations, though the recommended plant populations have varied from year to year* Current recommendation are for a plant population of 2500 trees/ha Seedlings on the CIP supported plantings are produced in CIP nurseries. Intially local varieties ( principally Abadir ) were used, but then CBD was reckoned to be sufficient serious to warrant the planting of CBD resistant varieties, though there wore, and still o,re5 serious questions about both the environmental adaptation of these varieties,from the western regions, to Hararghie conditions and their qualify as compared with local Harar coffees. At present both local and CBD resistant varieties are being planted, but it is generally observed that the local varieties look more healthy and vigorous. CIP plantings were previously mainly in July (Hamle) "but recently April planting has "been adopted to a greater extent* Holes are supposed to be partly filled with compost and fertiliser before planting, and after planting mulch applied for the first two years, with regular wooding* Only legumes are recommended for intercropping.

Tho degree of adoption of these recommendations and hence the health of the coffee plantations has varied to a large extent* Some planted fields have been abandoned, while others are healthy and vigorous® Unfortunately no surveys of yield have yet been completed on planted plots*

A number of problems have been observed in the past* First*, sites selected for coffee planting have not always been on suitable soils* The black alluvial soils are not free draining and therefore do not suit coffee. Other coffee plantings have been located on hillsides and, without the traditional and laborious preparation of terraces, the light soils have been subject to severe gully erosion* This problem is observed to a limited extent in most fields* but in a few fields is extremely serious? with grave implications not only for the coffee but also for the land and crops further down the slope below the coffee*

Secondly, although farmers appear to accept CIP methods of digging holes, as they are less laborious than the wide deep holes traditionally dug, manure is seldom available for mixing with the soil in each planting hole* Under these circumstances even if fertiliser is applied, as has not always been the case, the coffee seedlings will not gat the best start when planting out*

A major problem that is both widespread and serious in its effect on coffee growth is infestation by perennial weeds such as Digitaria sp* and Cynodon Dactylan. These do not appear to be eliminated during land preparation, and rapidly become established under the recent planted coffee. Large amounts of labour are then needed to keep them under control., but traditional methods of weeding (hoeing and slashing), arc largely ineffective as the roots and rhizomes are merely disturbed and spread across the field* Intercropping with legumes is one measure that has been adopted to help control such weeds, and this appears to be popular with farmers as it both reduces their labour input and provides some extra return. However, weeding continues to demand large labour inputs, with peasant associations frequently calling on campaign labour to ensure that common holdings have timely weedings. Alternative weed control measures that have been suggested are land preparation one year before planting and chemical weed control*

Drought has been a serious problem in the last two years, and 1 975 2nd 1976 plantings were particularly severely affected* with a very high percentage of coffee deaths and some fields needing to be completely replanted. The dproblems were exacerbated by planting of seedlings that were too small in 1977, and by wide­ spread failure to mulch, "While planting of small seedlings resulted from nursery management problems that appear to have been solved, failure to mulch is more difficult to change, as there is a chronic shortage of mulching material,owing to competition with livestock for grass and crop residues. Planting of mulching grass has not been adopted, and this appears to result from lack of knowledge of appropriate species to plant, lack of seeds, and shortage of land.

These problems with planted coffee will be discussed again at the end of this report, with possible solutions, in the context of the profitability and competing resource demands of other enter­ prises in tho farming systems. . 50

6 o.4 Returns from coffee'Production

We will round off our discussion of coffee production by considering the returns achieved from growing coffee using traditional methods. This is made veiy difficult by the highly variable yields and prices of coffee in the region, the lack of reliable data on yields and labour inputs, and the perennial nature of coffee production. An attempt will therefore be made only to estimate annual returns from established coffee, in order to provide some sort of benchmark against which to compare the profitability of coffee with that of other crops. Table 11 suggests possible returns per hectare and per manday that may be achieved by established coffee using different yield and price assumptions. It is assumed that farmers v&ry the number of weedings in line with expected yields. If we assume that low yields are generally associated with high prices, and vice versa, then a rough average of about ;1 500 Birr/ha gross inccmo and 10 Birr/manday each productive season may be reasonable. However, in any season and for any farmer, variation in price, weather and disease may lead to returns widely differing from this* It should be noted that since lower yield is associated with higher price but lower weeding and harvest labour inputs, while returns per hectare are higher at higher yields and lower prices, returns per unit labour are higher at lower yields with higher prices. Although the differences estimated in table 11 a,re very rough, it is interest­ ing to note that higher production is likely to be more advanta­ geous in terms of-returns per hectare that in terms of returns per manday. However, this may not affect individual farmers decision making as they cannot choose to produce at low levels in order to get high prices. Table 11 Estimated P.3turns from Traditional Coffee Production

Price Yield Gross Labour Yield Return Birr leg/ha Income Weeding Harvest Total / 15D per /kg r>irr/ha no Total (MD) (MD) (kg) (Birr) (MD)

5.5 700 3850 4 120 175 295 •&SO O £ >4 1 3 o 1 5 „ 5 400 2200 -3 90 100 190 2.1 11 ..6 5«5 200 1100 2 60 50 110 1 .8 1 0.6

4.5 700 31 50 4 120 175 295 2.4 10.7 4 c. 5 400 1800 3 90 100 190 2.1 9 „ 5 4 5 200 900 2 SO 50 110 1 c8 8 *2

3.5 700 2450 4 120 175 295 2.4 8 <. 3

3.5 400 1400 3 90 100 190 2.1 7 * 4 3.5 200 700 2 60 50 110 1 o 3 6.4

2.5 700 1750 4 120 175 295 2.4 5.9 o 2 c. 5 400 1000 90 100 190 2 o 1 5 0 3 2.5 200 500 2 60 50 110 1 4 o 5

As sumptions i Weeding labour (HD 30 Harvest labour (MD 0 = 25

Labour Use (FO/fta)

i-3ag l&m Gin Sen Bam Ndi ms TUc Hid Tah Tir ite ?%$: I fey June July I'ksg Sept Oct IStov Dec Jan Feb ‘Ibtal Vfeoding 30 30 30 90 Jforvest 20 40 40 100 ”btal 0 0 30 30 30 0 0 20 40 40 0 0 190

£ssuoe! yield of 100 kg/lia • 52

In table 11, the only costs of production allowed for are labour costs for weeding and picking* On established, traditional coffee, there are the only annual costs - CIP recommendations for raising yields, however, require additional labour and material costs each year, both during establishment and. subsequent main­ tenance. Little information is currently available regarding labour coefficients for these activities but table 1? shows annual labour profiles based on extension recommendations,

7* Chat Production

Chat, ( Catha edulis) is a shrub which is grown for the narcotic substances found in the tips of young leaves, which are chewed when fresh* In many ways- it occupies a similar place to coffee in the farming systems, in that it is a perennial crop, which is grown in order to satisfy domestic consumption and for cash sales* However, cultural methods, environmental requirements, marketing systems and their role in local culture are in many ways critically different for the two crops.

It was extremely difficult in the field to get information from farmers about the area of chat, the number of trees, and plant density® This was because they normally reported the amount of chat in terms of fKotera* or rows which might be of any length and contain any number of trees. Plant spacing was observed to vary according to the type of intercrops ( if any) grown amongst the chat, but probably lies between 2500 and 4000 plant per hectare.

Chat will normally be planted between Miazia and Sene, involving similar work to coffee planting-namely clearing the land, if necessary, tilling and pitting, before planting with cuttings* 'The first pickings will be taken 2 or 3 years, after planting, that is one or two years quicker than coffee* like coffee, chat may be stumped after eight years or more, and will resume production after one year.

cte . 53

IicJble 12 Rxo'iHKnclad Oiramtional C&lonchr for Jftpccwcd Cbffao Ifeagiqanant

I’iyj Mia Gin Seal IJsn Mil Has Tik Hid Itsh ri.lr Yek I-i.ir lipc ?'hy Jun Ju l Iwg Sgp Oct I.’fov Dac Jan Feb Lair! Cleeorim x m x x m x m x x PmxLtatian >0

J%od Sterna x^xxm}r^Kxx^

PmiiDg Pruniog/ s h y i n g xjQoscmxxKmx idling ‘ .x&sffix^&xxmx R^sad^riixj Sud^^r salcctiaa

Fortilicor ap^limtiai XKmXKX MX

Bmgicdd^ paying 2Q£X&{X>G{X5E20C^^

PifivLrig JG20SQCKm^DQQQ0QJXXKXX)C{X

Sources :?Uiirpian Cbffc-Si i t a n l , JJStara Once planted, the only management required for chat is weeding and harvesting,- Weeding is by hoeing, and four times in a year during tho wotter months seems to be normal* Like coffee, chat may suffer a weed problem from perennial grasses.

Farmers will be continually picking a few branches for their own consumption. However, pickings for sale will normally be made three to five times a year. Yield is higher and prices lower during tho wot season, but yield is low and pricos high in the dry season. Tfhere irrigation is possible it can bo highly profitable. The crop seoms to suffer from few diseases. Yiold may be depressed by poor rainfall, but chat seems to be more resistant to drought than coffee.

Yields and prices are extremely difficult to estimate owing to the difficulties in knowing land allocated to chat, and the number of trees harvested, and to seasonal and geographical variation in yields and prices. A four to five fold variation in prico from the begining to tho end of the main harvesting season is likely, with more like a ton fold change in yield from the main to the last picking. The highest yielding picking may yield from 0.5 to 1 bundle per tree, depending on age and siae and at that time the price may be up to 0.50 Birr/bundle. With estimated plant population of 2500 to 40($trees per hectare, annual income may be expected to be anything up to something like 3000 Birr/ha. (see table 13)o Labour requirements per weeding will be similar to coffee though chat may be wpeded more frequently. Harvesting labour, however, should be considerably lower. Returns per man day may be up to 15 or 20 Birr/man day. In addition the crop may provide caht for chewing by the family and is also commonly given to farmers who do not have their own chat in exchange for labour. Chewing of chat has an important role in local culture. . 55

When compared with the returns estimated from coffee5 chat would appear to have several potential advantages to the farmer, provided that he can obtain reasonable prices for it. Since it needs to be purchased fresh9 the farmor can only got a good price if he or a trader is able to get the crop to an all weather road within a few hours of picking it» If satisfactory pricos for chat can be obtained^* returns from chat arc likely to be higher and more reliable than frem coffee,, both in terms of returns per hectare and per man day. Chat yields are likely to bo less affected by drought or disease? and prices? though fluctuating within a season? more predictable„ Chat would also appear to give production sooner very important difference between coffee and chat is that chat is picked several times during the year? and can therefore provide cash sales at different times, This may be especially important during tho Ginbot to Hamle period when food and cash stocks may be running low* Coffeo sales on the other hand, are concentrated in one period, after the harvest of cereal crops9 and therefore occur at a time when cash needs are lower. The importance of time preference for money will bo further discussed later in this report*

Finally, production fcr domestic consumption also plays a far more prominent role in the local culture as chat chewing is considered an essential part of life for most households in the area* A farmer believe that after chewing chat they work much more efficiently* However when the effects were off they are much less efficiently and ^orraajiy s-fc0p working. Table.13 Estimated Keturns from Chat Production

Pick- Brico Yield Gross Labour Yield Return ing Birr h/hs -Income deeding liar- Total bundles per MD /bundle Birr No Total vest (MD /MD (Birr) /ha (MD) (3E-5D) 1 0 <, 25 2250 553 13 18 2 0.55 1350 743 11 11 3 0*85 675 57v" 5 5 4 1 ,25 225 281 2 2 total 4500 2160 4 120 35 156 29 13.8 Assumptions: Weeding labour 30 MD/ha Har/est labour 0.8 MD/b

b= bundles Labour ttes (ID/hn)

Meg im Gin Sm Sfcm J&jh j&fes Tik Hid T?th Tir Yok I>fer Jjfey June July £ug Sept Oct i:\bv Dac Jnn Feb Otofcal Vfeac3ir^ 3D 30 30 30 120 Harvest 18 11 5 2 36 Ibfeil 0 18 30 41 30 35 0 2 0 0 0 Q 156 8o Sorghum Production ■ Sorghum is probably the dominant cereal and food crop in the area* anci Table 3 showed that it occupies an average of about 0.3 ha pe£ household or about 30% of each holding although its importance varies Across the atea. The grain is grown for sale and for domestic consumption* and the stalks may be used for fencingp house coristrliction. or fuel (round Bedessa there is a market for them)* Thinnings during the growing period znay also be used for cattle feed. . . * Sorghum .may be grown in rotation with maizeV and farmers generally recognise that it needs a fertile soil to produce good yields. Land preparation ig normally carried out from Yekatii. to Miazia/with two ploughings Farmers ^ho do not own oxen can usually borrow them in exchange for labour<, The sorghum seed x^ill then foe broadcast at a seed rate of about 4Okg/ha, in Miagia or GinbotWeeding (and thinning) will then be carried out three tiifles at roughly monthly intervals,, the first weeding using a hoeP the second being a thinning/weeding operation using oxen? with the thinnings being used as a cattle feed dr left in the field as a milchu This will then be followed by earthing Up using a hoe again,, Yields are highly variable. Farmers generally reckon that 15 quintals per ha is a good yield, arid 4 to 6 qt/ha a bad yield» The General Agricultural Survey estimated average yields of about 6 qt/ha in &abro* G to 9 'qt/ha in Darolebu f and 9 to 12 qt/ha in Kunni. Ministry of Agriculture demonstration plGts in Darolebu gave yields of 10 to 20 qt/ha with the local Buie variety,, -with and without fertiliser* Equivalent yields in Kunni show a wide variation, Highest yields were 25 to 30 qt/ha*. Yields of 8 to 13 qt/ha were commono The higher fields were obtained -with fertiliser applications8 higher seed rates and early planting,, However£ out of 77 plots? 37 had zero yield recorded due to stalk borer (16 plots), bird damage (14 plots) and rust {7 plots). Problems of stalk borer and bird attack were widely reported by farmers« Howeverr few farraefs appeared to be applying' the chemicals, available from the Ministry of Agriculture for stalkborer controland most talked about using varieties of sorghum which aire tolerant or resistant to stalk borer and bird attack.

A wide range of varieties appear to be grown in the -area, with more than 10 different names being mentioned by farmers- These differ in their time to maturity, colour and size'of grainy possession of protective husks round the grain to reduce bird damagej ability to produce suckers if -attacked by stalk borer? and in yield and quality (see table 14)„ Prices in the local market vary according to tho stags of the season and.the overall.quality of the previous harvest, A common variation froni about Birr G.S/kg at harvest time to Birt 1 *0/kg Tahisas was reported, though prices have been higher recently as food has beeii very scarce«, Prices in the official market are much lower, with M C paying 0»25 to Go 28 Birr/kg to farmers (depending on quality) through the service cooperatives. This, grain.is bought under a quota« The wereda quota is allocated to cooperatives and Pi\s, and then within e?3ch PA farmers are allocated a quota, in one PA .in Kunnij for example* the quota ranged from 30 to 60 kef per farmer per year, depending on each fairmer^s Wealth, In recent yea^s AMC have not collected all the grain bought for them by service

Table 15 giv< a rough picture of the labour demands £nd returns fr&d sorghum cultivations .but it should be noted that no atterupt is made to value the by-products of sorghum cultivation, namely thinnings for cattle feed and crop residues for fuel, construction and cattle feed.

Table 14 Principal Sorghum Varieties

Variety Growing I-Iajor comments by farmers Period (months >

4 Coimnon in Darolebu. stalk borer tolerant High yielding,, white. Zinghada 4 Hod and black, high yields bird resistant Gebabe 6-{- Unite7 good taste, stalk borer tolerant, most common in Kunni, gets good price„ Wogaro White j bird resistant;, stalks strong and long for fences and fuel* 4 Rad: good taste, common in Hab.ro? stalk borer tolerant«

\ Table 15| Labour and Cash Budget for Sorghum i Labour Use {?:aD/ha }■

nog liici Gin Ben Hara JSfeh Mes Tik Hid Tah 1’ir Yok Mar Apr Hay Jun Jul I^ug Sop Oct Hov Doc Jan Feb s.?otal Land Pire?> 12 20 32 Planting 2 2 Ivocicllug 20 10 20 50 H a r v e s t 30 30 Total 12 22 20 10 20 0 0 0 30 0 114

Price (3/kg) Local 1 ,0 0.5 /-V'-Vv. 0.27

Yield Harvest Gross Harvest Other Total Keturn (kg) Price Income labour labour labour labour (B/3cg) (B/ha)

500 Do 28 140 19 84 103 1 o4 500 0.50 250 19 84 103 2.4 500 0.75 375 19 84 103 3.6 500 1 .00 OSZ 's A vj 19 34 103 4 o 9 500 1 o 25 625 19 84 103 6.1 800 0.28 224 30 04 114 2.0 BOO 0 * 50 <500 30 84 11 4 3«5 O *.J *>J 0 -.75 600 30 84 114 5,3 800 1 .00 800 30 84 114 7o0 800 1 .25 1000 30 84 114 8.8 1200 0,20 335 45 84 129 2 o 6 1200 0 * 50 50 0 45 84 129 4.7 1200 0,75 900 45 i.* -i 129 7.0 1200 1 ,00 1200 ■45 84 123 9.3 1200 1.25 1 500 45 34 129 11 „ 5 Note?*« Cost of sood, say Birr 40. 00 por ha , not include-id * Harvest labour is adjusted in line v/ith yields. assuming 30MD/300. 9, tlaiv-e Production * v A fte r Rorghuif maize is probably the most important cefeal crop, and in Darolebu covers a greater area than sorghum. Table 3 showed that it occupies an average o f '0.2 to 0...25 ha per holding across the whole area, with about 0-3 ha per holding and 0-3 ha per holding in -Darolebu and the other two Cl?.as respectively. This pattern is supported by information collected during .fatin interviews (see Appendix 3) „

Cultural practices and uses of maize are very similar to those of sorghum,, and will not be discussed in detail. However- an important difference results from the short growing period of some maize varieties allowing their planting with the first Belg rains {in Yekatit to Miazia? depending on the arrival of the rains); and harvesting in Hamle or Sichassie in tlm o for the land to be replanted to teff* There are thus two types of maize production, one using the Belg rainse and one using the Kiremt rains e hpart from timing., cultural practices for the two types of maize production are generally similar? though land preparation for the early crop may be loss thorough {only one or two cultivations instead of two or three, in order to get the crop in quickly).. 5i*he early crop is also xaore likely to be harvested and oaten green.

Few farmers apply fertiliser, complaining of lack of capital though they recognise its benefits« Manure is also little applied? though some farmers reported applying it in the past. The main difficulty here appears to be the distance it has to transported from the homestead to the fields. hs with sorghust- yields vary with variety and time of planting, soils, rainfall, and other factors., Farmers appeared to reckon that a good yield would be about 15 qt/ha* possibly needing fertiliser., and this was contrasted with poor yields of about 5 qt/ha ? though last year many yields were lower due to lack of rainfall in the 'latter part of the growing season, IJarlv plantedf quick maturing varieties would normally give a lower yield than the later crop, but in years of poor rainfall could per form better. l\ few farmers cosamented that more quick maturing maize was being planted now as a result of the experience of the two previous years poor rainfall. The General Agricultural Survey reports yields of Kiremt maize which average about 10 qt/ha across the throe CIPi\s. Results from ISoJi demonstration plots in Kunni and Darolebu are principally for Kiremt maise. These suggest that farmers methods achieve het#eon 6 and 10 qt/ha., improved practices without fertiliser caa, achieve 10 to 20 qt/ha, and the use of fertiliser and higher yielding varieties can give yields of up to 40 qt/ha. Late planting generally depressed yields but the effects of seed rates between 20 and 33 kg/ha were not clear, Compared with sorghum/ the demonstration plots seemed , little affected by pests and diseases., though chemicals were applied to control stalk borer.,

Pa rimers reported stalk borer as the principal pest, though in Darolebu cut iiora was also mentioned as a significant problem.. It was recognised that chemicals were available from Mofc but there were some doubts about its efficacy and also difficulties in finding cash for its purchase« Other problems mentioned were availability of seedflooding in the uorthern parts of 'Sunni and Habro, and labour shortages preversting proper weedings * This latter: problem was evident in the northern areas of Habro and Kunni f V7.ith maise often suffering from heavy t/eed competition and looking .yellow*.

Farmers grow a range of. varieties (see table 16) * and over .time a number of improved varieties released by the HoA or CIP have become incorporated into the stock of local* varieties, these differ in the length of their growing period, tolerance of stalk borerP yield under different soil and rainfall conditions,- tastev and storage qualities. Farmers' decisions as to what variety to grow will depend upon their assessment of these factorsf the availability of seed., (and their assessment of the rainfall pattern as they plant the Belg and jXi.remt crop each season.

The marketing structure for maise is broadly similar to that of sorghumwith local market prices varying in a good year froiH about 1 Birr/kg' in (Sinbot to 0*4 Birr/qt around XJidar«' The price paid by M C is 0*23 Birr/kg to the service cooperative, and farmers get about 0*2 Birr/kg. Table 17 gives a rough picture of labour demands and the returns for the two different xaaise crops u

Table 16 Principal Maize Varieties.

Variety Growing Major comments by farmers Period (months) Shashesiane 7 Good taste,- - tall*- can be high yielder* Li mat * 4 Common in Darolebu,. white, good taste and storage* performs well in drier years,, Ha&reth Stalk borer resistant, Bufcure 3 &roa declining f low. yielder but very short growing period,, eaten green. Gebabe 6 White9 good on poor soils,

.Notes Limat is a general toria describing improved varieties previously released in development,programmes* It thus describes a range of types, but in Darolebu appeared to consistently describe the variety released under the CIP I crop development r»rogr?« » Table 17 Labour and Cash Budget for Belg and Kiremt Haisse Labour Use (I-SD/ha) Meg Mia Gin Son Ham Hah Mas Tik Hid Tali Tir Yek Mar Apr Jun Jul liug Sop Oct i?ov Doc Jan Feb Total Bolg crop Land Prop 2'4 24. Planting 2 2 deeding 20 10 20 50 Harvest 20 20 Total 24 22 10 20 20 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 Kiremt 'crop X*&n& Prep 12 12 8 32 Planting 2 2 Weed ing .20 10 20 50 Harvest 30 30 Total 12 12 10 20 10 20 0 0 30 0 0 0 114

Price {B/kxj) * Local 1,0 0 r 4 AllC 0 o 20 Yield Harve st Gross Harvest Other Total Return to < kc?} Pri.ce Income labour labour labour labour (B/kg) |3/ha} i m ) (MD) M-2D) m / m ) l>elq crop 400 CK20 30 12 76 03 0.9 400 0,40 160 12 76 00 1 08 40.0 0.75 300 12 76 00 3.4 400 1,00 400 12 . 76 SB 4.5 <100 1 - 20 480 12 76 80 5.5 700 0,20 140 21 75 97 1 ,4 700 0< 40 280 21 76 97 2 „ 9 700 0 75 525 21 76 07 5,4 700 1.00 700 21 76 97 7.2 700 1 * 20 040 21 76 97 8«7 1000 0o20 200 30 7S 106 1.9 1000 0.40 400 30 75 106 3.8 1000 0.75 750 30 75 106 7 o 1 1000 1.00 1000 30 7S 106 9.4 10C3 1.20 1200 30 76 106 11 „ 3 Motes s Cost of seed? say Birr* 30 per ha, not included. Harvest labour is adjusted in line with yields, assuming 30!SD/1000kg ■ Returns to labour for kiroat crop are approximately'90% of Bolg returns with equivalent prices and yields* due to one extra cultivation before planting. 1 0 o T e f f Pr odu cti oil

The average area of teff;grown par household is 0.1 to 0-15 ha ( table 3 aad appendix 3} <, However* this is likely to be a slight underestimate as some teff is grown following the Belg rnatze crop,- and it is unlikely that all the sources of information have fully counted the areas under both these crops« *1*113 area of teff will vary from year to year too; depending upon the time that the. Belg raaiaie is planted. Three varieties are commonly grown, white, mixed and red. Farmers have different' preferences for these, as their taste., market, price an£: yield characteristics vary. TThite teff gains the highest p r i c e b u t seed is not always available and is OKpsnsivGo One farmer also commented that the red soils in some areas mako it difficult to produce white teff that appears sufficiently pure„ Farmers1 comments differed as regards the relative yield performance of the three varieties,.

Most teff is planted in*Hamle and Hehassieo Seed is broadcast on a finely prepare# seedbed. Land preparation;, using oiten usually starts in Ginbot and 3 to 5# or even moref ploughings are cotamoa to get a fine seed bed and eliminate weeds. For teff which follows Belg maizef only two ploughings are normally carried .out* The crop may be weeded one. two or three tivaes, depending on labour availability and weed growth. Wooding is by hand and extremely laborious.

Harvesting is in Hidar and Tahissas ^ with threshing following in subseeaent months. Yields quoted by farmers generally lie in,tho range fron 2 qt/ha {poor) to 8 qt/ha (good)o Yields achieved on lioh demonstration plots in Kunni and Darolebu li e between 5 and 10 qt/ha with improved management but without fertiliser, with higher yields being obtained in Kunni if fertiliser and improved varieties are used. Yields recorded in tho General agricultural Survey averaged nearly 9 qt/ha across the three CIPAs-. though this seems rather high. Prices in the local market vary between seasons. In a season following a reasonable harvest, they may range from 1,1 to 1 r>irr/kg« The fixed hi:C price is 0„4 to 0.45 Birr/kg* depending on quality * Estimated production costs and returns are shown on table 18* Table 1C- Labour and Cash Budget for Toff Production

Labour Use ( MD/lia)

i>“3g Mia Gin Sen Ham Seh Mes Slik Hid Tab Tir Yek Mar Apr May Jun Jul .Tkuq Sep Oct 33ov Dec Jan Feb *?otal . . . _ 3 Land Prep 12 12 40 Plantliig . v* d e e d i n g 40 40 8G Harvest etc 25 15 40 Total 0 12 12 8 40 40 25 15 0 154 Price (3/kg) Local 1 .0 1 .1 AMC 0„43 ielci Harvest Gross Harvest Other Total Z'ieturn (kg) Price Income labour labour labour labour (B/kg) CB/ha) (W) (HD) (MD) (B/.UD } 300 0„43 129 24,0 1 24 148 r> ^ 300 1 o 1 0 330 24.0 124 1 4 8 2-2 3 7') 1 ,60 48 j 24.0 1 24 I 00 3 o 2 300 2, 00 600 24,0 124 1 48 4,1 500 0,43 215 40.0 124 164 1 <.3 5.00 1,10 550 0\.s o 0 124 164 3 * 4 500 1 .SO 300 40.0 ■124 154 4 „ 9 500 2 .. ' 0 1 000 * f , 124 164 5,1 300 0 „ 03 344 6 4 o 0 1 24 188 1 o 8 000 1.10 830 64.0 124 138 4 , 7 r ^ 800 1 „ 6 0 1230 V J o ’■ ; 1 24 103 fi:>8 n r- SCO *** •> w 1600 54.0 124 188 8.5 3otass Cost of Beerf, say Birr SO per ha? not .included „ harvest labour is adjusted in line with yields* assuming 51-10/100kg and 3I-5D/1 00kg for threshing* 1 ^ * Qther Crops .>

In addition to coffee, dhat> maize* sorghunv and teff., small amounts of other crops aire grown by sOftie farmers, either as * ‘ intercropsWith the major crops, or iri pure stands* Sucii crops include Parley, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, haricot beans, ftdirse bean& ? jMimpkins, sugar canG; pepp£rsf chick p&ady gwaya ^Lathyrus sativus) and cabbdgeSo Of these, barley is generally j^ound in the higher ground to the north o£ Habro ahd Kunni * Purhpkin& , sugar cane? peppers* and vetch are normally intercropped with one of the major crops* Haricot beans mky be grown in the lower land in the noirth of Kunni and llabifo^ where they are planted early < in Megabit or 1'iiazia) and then mature quickly to allow harvesting in Sene and Hamle before a crop of teff is planted*

Sweet potatoes and groundnuts are more common in the coffee growing areas. They may be intercropped with one of the major crops but are often planted in pure stands« Two varieties of sweet potatoe are common* a quick maturing white variety (Bikule) which takes about 6 months from planting to maturity, and a black variety (Tikur) which takes about 9 months to mature» Farmers varied in theix* preferred variety * The black variety was generally reckoned to have a better taste and better storage qualitiesf but the quick maturing characteristic of the white variety was an offsetting advantageo Preparation and planting times varied. By staggering planting from Miazia to Hamle* and by planting both varietiesj farmers can arrange a fairly continuous supply of sweet potatoess particularly as the black variety keeps quite well in the ground* Land preparation involves ploughing or hoeing, followed by ridge construction* Weeding operations include earthing up« The area of sweet potatoes is reckoned to be increasing following two years poor rainfall as they represent a good insurance crop against drought. The crop appears to be most common in Darolebu-

Groundnuts are also more common in Darolebu than in the other two woredaSo When planted in pujre stand* ploughing is followed by hand ridging and planting in Miazia* Plant populations do not appear to be very high. Weeding is followed by harvest in Tikemt and Hidar* 12, Livestock Tho General Agricultural Survey indicates that draft oxen form 30% of the cattle population (nearly 40% of the adult cattle population) and cows make up 34% of the cattle population (see table 19). Average ownership is 3 head of Cattle per householdwith an average of approximately one ox and one cow per household* Other cbmfcioh livestock are goats and poultry,, with donkeys and bheep in ^iriciller numbers. £he General Agricultural Survey giVes tio indication of the proportion of households otonihg different types of livestock0 During the limited number of interviews held in 1986, approximately 50% of households reported ownership of oxen and cattle. Ownership, however ■■ was below that recorded in the General Agricultural Survey,, with an average of approximately

Livestock can contribute to crop production in other ways* notably in providing dung for manuring fields, and in providing an alternative source of inconie if crop 'production is very low in any yoar. The extent to which manure is * applied to fields is closely related to the distance of the homestead from the fields* One of the effects of villagisation has been to increase this distance and this has appeared to result in fewer farmers applying manure to their fields, although the benefits of the practice are widely recognised.

I The importance of livestock as assets which can bo sold for cash in hard times has been very apparent in the last two years of drought and poor harvests. Common reports of recent cattle sales to obtain cash for food purchases wore mentioned earlier„ Another indication of this is given by. the seasonal variation in livestock prices, with variations of approximately 100% reported between Miazia/Ginbot and Nehassio to Tahissas* The first period is the time of food shortage, and prices then may be half those at harvest time {an ox selling for 150 to 200 Birr in Ginbot and 300 to 400 Birr in Moskorem), though some allowance should also be made for condition,, which is likely to be poorer in Ginbot„

Two other uses of livestock* particularly cattler should be mentioned. Milk from cows is normally used in the homo, but may also be sold in times when cash is short., Dung may be used as fuel, though this is not widespread,,

(•'iajor difficulties in livestock production were reported by farmers as shortages in feed supplies „ *?eed is generally short at the end of the dry season, from Tir to Megabitt when crop residues fed at the beginning of the dry season are exhausted. During the wot seasonr grass is available on grazing land; and crop thinnings are also fed to the animals* However,, increasing land pressure in some areasg particularly in the north western parts of the area., mean that grazing land is also becoming short. Some farmers reported cattle deaths in recent years due to shortage of feed under drought conditions- .Little mention was made of deaths due to disease., Ministry of Agriculture representatives reported vaccination and other curative arid preventive programmes against rinderpest, blackleg, anthrax# and internal and external parasites.

Table 19 Livestock Ownership

c:alvos cows oxen goats a:->oultr^ he if e;rs bull s sheer> donkeys Kunni no 7351 4700 15568 5745 12534 3656 9401 6789 22458 no/hh 0 - 58 0.38 1 o 25 0 <,46 1 0.29 0,75 0»5^ 1 .79 Habro no 6725 2070 10343 3104 11900 905 10343 2070 16556 no/hh 0 34 0 01 7 0 o 83 0.25 0.96 0„07 0 o 83 0.17 1 .33 Darolebu no 3285 590 7768 1195 5578 1707 6253 1494 13443 no/hh 0 * 46 0,03 1 o 08 0.17 0 « 78 0 o 24 0.87 0 „ 21 1 *87 Total no 17323 7368 33784 10044 30012 6268 26002 10*53 52457 no/hh 0.54 0,23 1 o 05 0/31 0 o 93 0.19 0 o 81 0.32 1 .63 Sources General Agricultural Survey 13., Food, Water and Fuel Supplies

As will have been apparent from our earlier discussion of the crops grown in tho area, the major staple foods are maize and sorghum, which may be eaten in the form of injeray porridge., or nifro (boiled grains)* Maize may also be roasted, Teff is consumed to a lesser extent., but nay be mixed with maize or sorghum to give a better quality inj era D Small amouhtS of barley and whe.it may be purchased in the markets, and some barley is grown on the higher land to the north of the area.

Tho principal foods used for wot are chick peas„ cabbage, horsebeansy peppers, tomatoes, pumpkins? onions, irish potatoes, lentils„ fenugreek (known locally as abysh) and Lathyrus sativus (known locally as guaya and causing paralysis of the lower limbs if eaten in large quantities). Heat may also be used from time to time* Some of these crops are grown on the farm* others are imported from Arrsi, notably 'fenugreek* horsabeansf irish potatoes and lentils. Even for those crops which are grown locally, there appears to be a considerable amount of trade* with many households buying in a significant amount of their wot* Groundnuts do not appear to bo consumed locally to any groat extentt and are sold off the farme Sweet potatoes are an important supplement to the main staples at times of food shortage«

Shortages of staples and foods for wot appear to be most serious at roughly the same time, that is Ginbot to Hamle, just before the time that the early maize crop matures„ This time is also a period of high labour demand<, During 1985 and 1985 relief supplies of food were being distributed in the Darolebu area owing to acute food shortages resulting from two poor harvests, In some areas in Darolebu fairly large scale emigration to neighbouring Arrsi was reported, in/ search of food and employment., The seasonal food shortages which occur oven after good harvests are minimised by some farmers by growing slow maturing sweet potatoes which can be harvested from' Ginbot to Sarnie* Food shortages at this time may also be met by selling livestock and in some parts of Dar 'Aobu by taking f irewood to marketa A sma11 number of women may also take Kutti to market * The proceeds from coffee sales are commonly used to buy food earlier in /the seasonj but food becomes short when this money is exhausted„

Water availability varies, with better water supplies in the north western parts; up against the escarpment „ In1 the southern parts whore more coffee is grown and the land is more dissected, water supplies are much more of a problem. Rainfall tends to be lower., and the steeper topography means that there is high runoff and little water is retained * Water must therefore generally be collected from the larger streams flowing south,, and this means that water- sources for domestic and livestock consumption are generally some distance from the settlements* The distance to water* and in the dry season unreliability of the sources, not only detracts from the quality of life of the local people and consumes much of their ticio and energy» but it also constraints the spraying of coffee against CBD0

The position as regards firewood supplies is the reverse of that for water* Whereas there is iiiore water in the more densely populated north western parts of the area, these are the areas which are jsost critically short of firewood» The more southerly parts, particularly in Darolebu, are less densely populated and still retain some wooded areas. As was mentioned earlier, there is some exploitation of this resource not only for local consumption but also for local sales., !-?oraen engaged in this carry bundles of firewood on their backs or 021 donkeys to the local markets* Other sources of fuel are dried dung and maize and sorghum stalks, though these stalks are not considered ideal by some as they tend to burn too fast* 1 4 * Farsi Labour Supply and Demand

The principal source of farm labour is the farm family, though there is some labour exchange aryl hiring of labour too. The General Agricultural Survey estimated mean household membership as S „2f 5*7,, 6.0 and 5,>4 members per household from Kunnit, Habror Darolebu and the three areas together repectively. Among the small number of farmers, interviewed in 1985, mean household size was just over 5 people per household, with one husband- one wife and 3 children*' Occasionally a maxi might have more than one wife-* or relatives might be staying in the household.

Within the household4> the man takes primary responsibility for the cropping enterprises, and the woman for the arduous tasks of looking after the household, with fetching water and fuel., cooking, carrying food to men in the fields * looking after the children, and assisting with tending livestock« She will go to market to buy food for wot and perhaps to sell small items to raise cash, and will also assist with many field activities such as weeding {before and after planting of the crops)F and harvesting^ and also with crop processing, Most children who are old enough will go to school, and as time allows will assist with looking after livestock and* when older, with cropping activities*

The normal working day is three to five hours, with farmers chewing chat before they go out to work, and usually having a break in the middle of their work to chew mora. During ramadan they work very early at first light and then rest and fast during the day * and both the time they work and their strength are much diminished.

Most farmers reported that they normally work on their own holdings three to five days each week- Other days -are taken up with working on the comsaon holdings, cultivating farms of PA o.;mmitteo members and militia men, working on reforestation prograrasaes (some of which use common labour and some food for work), and engaging in other activities such as going to market* However, at times of peak labour demand for coffee la nd p r e par a t i on* p1anting or weeding, they may be required to work for several consecutive days on the common holdings„ These times of peak labour demand on the common holdings coincide with the busiest period on individual holdings-

3?armers; reports of the busiest times on their farms varied somewhat,- as might be expected given the different mix of crop enterprises they adopt* There was universal agreement that Biazia and Ginbot were very busy months, Farmers growing Belg maize then laid greater emphasis on Megabit and on Sene to beskerera as being the next busiest months„ while farmers growing Kiremt maize and Sorghum considered the busy period .g further into the season to ILidar and Tahisast when.sorghum* kir-emt maize, toff and coffee are all being harvested. The general pattern is illustrated in table 20 which puts together in a repretentative farm tho labour .budgets previously pro sent eel for each xaa j or crop*

The time of peak labour demandf in tho Belg rains and early part of the Kiremt rains, is also tho time of greatest food shortage■ During this time many farmers work together using, a traditional form of common labour on the individual holdings of each farrasr in turn. There is also some hiring of labour, t/ifch payment in cash or in kind. Rates quoted varied from 1 u5 to 2 Birr per day* with the labourers being poorer farmers in need of cash or food, even though their own holdings might need their labour, bore common are informal arrangements by which farmers who grow chat give it to their neighbours in return for sonic 'labour*

Table 2 0 illustrates the approxim ate balance of labour supply and demand in tho peak months. Assuming men supply 16 man days per month to their individual holdings (4 days per week for four weeks) and women supply half of that to cropping activities, labour available will be about 24 man days per montho Depending on the crop mix on an average sized holding,; labour demand in the peak months will be up to 20 man days« If allowance is made for e^tra days work required on common holdings during those months,.farms of average size being operated by a man and his wife are probably reaching the limit -of family labour supply during the peak months of Ginbot to Hehassie (that is within the current convention of working about 4 hours per day),. Howeverfarms sizes vary considerably, hence the need for some hiring in and out of labour, Table 20 Illustrative Monthly Labour Budget for Xioprosontativo F a r m

Moj Mia Gin Son Ham Neh Ues Tik Hid Tah Tir Yok Liar Apr i:oy Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct I-lov Dec Jan Fob Total

Crop Faria Labour Ugo (MD) aroa Sorghum 0 „ 3 4 7 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 9 0 * 0 34 Maize Bolg 0,1 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Kiremt 0 * 2 2 2 2 4 2 4 0 0 6 7T1."X , C 0 0 0 23 A £ A. 0 , 1 5 0 0 0 1 2 5 6 0 4 0 2 0 21 Coffee 0 „ 2 0 0 6 5 6 0 0 8 8 0 0 30 Chat 0,1 0 2 3 4 3 4 G o’ 0 n 0 0 16 TOTAL 0 ,>95 8 13 13 20 21 14 6 A 1 3 1 7 2 0 141 Monthly labour available 2-4 MD

La I;,our coofficionts taken f:rom oarlior ta!.>io*5 for each crop. AssuriG bolg isaizo is follow;cid by toff., 15, Farm Income and Expenditure

It is notoriously difficult to obtain from farmers accurate information regarding their income and expenditure, and virtually no secondary information was available on this topico During the field trip? farmers were not asked about their income; though soma volunteered information about income from the sale of their crops. Information was. however, collected about major items of expenditure such as taxes and contributions. Farmers pay a standard 20 Birr in land tax, and in addition to this are asked to make contributions to support particular causes. Those contributions vary. In Darolebu whore food aid was being distributed,- some farmers.w$re exempted from any contributions„ In other are^s ? farmers paid up to Birr 40 lac>t year, depending on the area of land they farm and their income.

Farmers' incomes can be estimated from an analysis of cropping patterns / yields and prices * With the uncertainty of yield ostiinatea and prices already discussed for the different crops such an analysis in this study can give no moro than an indication of their situation. Furthermore? no information is available regarding non-farm income,. Income must also be compared with their subsistence requirements., and there is no local information about domestic consumption of grain and pulses»'

'lith these provisos, an indicative analysis of farm incomes in the area is given in table 21, Four different farm types are shor*mr ;?ith different croppping patterns, and for each an average/satisfactory year is compared with a poor year. For one farm type a detailed budget for all enterprises s showing assumptions, is shown in appendix 4 0 For a poor year it is assumed that lower yields for aTl crops are caused by widespread adverse rainfall., and hence are followed by general food shortages and price riseso It is probable that the consumption levels assumed in the analysis are higher than actual consumption, and food crop yield assumptions may als > bo unduly pessimistic, so that cash losses may not be as high as the table suggests. A number of points of interest should he noted. Table 21 Comparison of Returns from Different Cropping Patterns

Mixed Cereals Cereals Cereals Coffee Chat Farm Only -*■ Coffee + Chat Only Only Crop Area (ha (ha)

Sorghum 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.25 G 0 Maize Belg 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 Kiremt 0-2 0 ,25 0.3 0,3 0 0 Teff 0,15 0 „ 2 0.15 0.2 0 0 Coffee 0 * 2 0 0.3 0 0 o 7 5 0 Chat 0.1 0 0 0«. 2 0 0«55 FARM SISB 0,95 0.95 0,95 0.95 0*75 0,55 Good Years normal yioIds Net Income 70 -290 110 0 480 300 Cash Deficit -335 -345 -530 “30 -690 140 Good Years higher cereal yia: l d S Net Income 200 -150 200 150 Cash Deficit -200 “-220 -400 -40 Poor Year Net Income -630 -860 -700 -590 -480 -230 Cash deficit -750 -900 -940 -590 -1000 -300 Notes£ Good yoar and bad year yields and prices as in table 22 * Area of Belg maize assumed to be planted to teff later« Income and cash deficit measured in Birr* Incase net of subsistence (except chat) and basic cash needs. Cash deficit is difference between cash stocks in months of highest and lowest stocks.

First, it appears that for most farmers even in a good year? farm incomes are low and barely covet subsistence requirements and cash expenses. The margin of income over costs may be greater than estimated if farmers consume less than assumed here,. and if they engage in petty marketing of items such as milk, firewood, and kutti* The income estimated for bad years is,, as expected, much lowers and would require further reductions in consumption and the sale of livestock for farmers to survive, and this matches observations made after two bad years in 1976 and 1977 liC» The situation will be worse for farmers with less land per family member^ and les3 critical for farmers ^ith more land.

Table 21 is also of interest in the comparison it gives between farms adopting different croppping patterns, In earlier sections an attempt was made to compare the returns to land and labour for the different crops under varying assumptions regarding yield and price„ These are summarised in table 22 using the same price and yield assumptions as in table 21 for an avaraga and a poor year,, also allowing for f armers achieving slightly higher average cereal yields * It is immediately apparent that chat comes out as host* with coffee second, whether returns per unit land or labour are considered, in good or bad years, with cereal crops trailing some way behind„ However, some Allowance should be made for the fact that chat and coffee are perennial crops needing establishment costs, and if a rough discounted cash flow analysis is done over 10 years7 the net present values of the gross incomes from coffee and chat fall to 400 Birr/ha at discount rates of about 15% and 25% respectively. It should also be noted that the estimated returns to chat assume that the whole crop is marketed. In fact* a considerable quantity will be consumed on the farm? and some may bo given to others in return for labour? probably at a lower value than the market price*

Table 22 Comparison of Returns from Major Crops

Season Harvest 'Net jf^-et Labour Return Price Yield Income Use to labou: i Birr/kg} £kg/ha) (Birr/ha) (MD/ha) (Birr/Ml

Coffee good 4.5 400 1800 190 9.5 poor 5.3 200 1060. 110 9.6 Chat good 0 * 25 4500 2138 156 13.7 poor 0.4 2500 1900 140 13.6 Sorghum higher 0 „ 5 1000 460 121 3 . 8 good 3.5 800 360 114 3 .2 poor 0.75 500 315 103 3 o 1 Mai ze Belg higher 0.7 1003 671 1 06 6 o 3 good 0 7 '670 440 96 4 „ 6 poor 1 o 05 400 375 88 4 o 3 Kiremt higher v-' nx 1200 450 120 3.8 good 0.4 1000 370 114 3.2 poor 0,6 600 320 102 3.1 Toff higher 1 J 600 610 172 3.5 good 1 .1 500 503 154 3 o 0 poor 1 „S 300 400 1 43 2,7 Teff+Relg higher 1261 278 4 * 6 maize good 940 236 4 o 0 poor 775 21 2 3.7

Notest Chat yield s and pric es in bundles/kg and Birr/bundle Chat price quoted is first picking price only Incone shown is net of seed A number of criteria should be considered when comparing the different enterprise mixes, namely the net incomcr and the cash flow for go x'i and poor years.

In good years 9 the farms which grow coffee appear to do best* In a mixed farm situation, coffee has an advantage as although it has a higher labour requirement than chat, the chat labour use is concentrated in the months of Miazia to Itfohassio as weeding and harvesting are both carried out during this period. Hence it is possible to grow more coffee than chat before labour shortages are encountered« However, the concentration of chat harvesting and weeding together in the early months of the wot season has an opposing advantages namely that it gives farmers some income during tho months before cereals and coffee are harvested and when food and cash reserves are most critically short*. Thus t%o farm which has most chat and no coffee has a well distributed stream of income and although income and expenditure are finely balanced? at no point do the farm reserves of cash and food fall more than 100 Birr below those at the start of the year. However, for the more profitable farms with less chat but more coffee,, that is the mixed and cereals+coffee farms on table 22 3 cash reserves in Iiidar and Tahisas fall to 335 and 530 Birr respectively below their level at the start of tho season. This requires the farmer to have large stocks of food and cash at the start of each season to carry him through the hungry gap before harvest„ Chat production,, however, provides income precisely when it is needed .most , and this gives it a distinct advantage over coffee and cereal crops. Farms which roly solely on cereals appear to have 3.ower incomes than farms which grow coffee and chat <> However, where land is in short supply , there may be difficulties in establishing coffee or chat unless it can be intercropped with cereal crops* as in the establishment years the opportunity cost of the lost cereal yields may be very high„ When we compare the different farm types in a year of poor rainfall,, with lower yields and higher prices„ coffee loses some of its advantage over chat as we may assume that local chat x^ic^s will riso in response to lower yieldss but coffee prices are lagged and may be less sensitive to widespread yield and hence supply changes.. In these circumstances, and using assumed price and yield changes, the coffee/cereal farm performance is little different from the cereals only farm,, and lags some way behind the farms which include chatin terms of both net income and cash flow* t The major points which wo may conclude from this discussion, which should not be sensitive to changes in the particular price ancl yield assumptions la3ed in. constructing tables ars: 1 e For many farmers •> current farm incomes even in good years ar.5■ scarcely enough to support thoir families5 '* needsand increases in farm incomes:? are constrained by shortages of land and cash flow difficulties which inhibit investment in inputs for cereal production and planting of chat an! coffee.

2 «. Changes in assumptions regarding the yields of cereal crops and price changes in years of poor rainfall may well change the relative profitability of food and cash crop production„ It is, however, evident that the relative advantage of coffee over food crops is reduced in unfavourable years as compared with more favourable years? and may even be reverse?.*. The relative profitability of chat is likely to bo less variable„

3., The analysis above has not examined the effects of drought occurring at different times in the season. When this is considered, farmers would be advised to grow a mixture of cereal and cash crops with varying sensitivity to dry spells; at different stages of the season.

4. Labour does not generally appear to be a major constraint affecting farm incomes and production, but- along with the risk aversion factors mentioned above, considerations of labour supply and demand in the months of Ginbot to Mehassie are likely to limit farmers* specialisation in any one crop.

5* When comparing chat and coffee, chat appears to have two principal advantages, namely returns from chat are more stable than those from coffee, as production and price variation are wore likely to balance each other out, and chat provides farmers with income during the time when they most need it? and thus helps to solve the annual cash flow problems encountered in growing annual cereal crops and coffee„ Chat also has higher returns to land and labour than coffee, but it suffers from the disadvantage that its labour demands are „ concentrated in the months of Ginbot to Hehassie^ which are also times of high labour demand for other crops, and this feature is likely to limit the area under chat in any one holding. All the above analysis and discussion presupposes that chat < can be sol 3 and achieve the prices paid in the wideir market which supplies Chat to Dire Dawa and other areas. This assumption c' :)es not hold in much of Darolebu and the south eastern parts of .Habro and Kunni where access roads* are very poor. For such areas? the above arialysis should only consider the relative advantages of growing coffee and cereals, with perhaps a little chat for domestic consumption.

It should be rioted that no account has been taken in the above analysis of income which may be expected from the recently planted coffee on the common holdings*. From- the 1300 ha planted to the end of 1978- farmers in coffee growing areas may expect to get around 50 Birr per annum per household when thay have all come into bearing assuming that a significant proportion of the revenue from coffee sales is distributed as cash to peasant association members. This would be a significant addition to their incomec *

15» Possible means of increasing farm productivity

efficient coffee product1oh by farmers, whether on common or individual holdings, will only occur when coffee production complements rather than competes with farmers1' other activities. Proper attention by farmers th their coffee fields will depend upon their simultaneous production of a secure suppily of food for their owri consumption« Fot this reason it id relevant to examine Vde problems farmers face in food crop production as well as in coffee production„

The major problem that was quoted by almost all farmers during field interviews was the shortage of food, The principal reason given for low fo o d ahd ca&h crop production vas poor rainfall in the two previous Reasons and the field visit was conducted at a time when fo o d supplies would normally be short anyway, even following a good, harvest* The report that some farmers were planting; more sweet potatoes was a response to this problem* Furthermore-recent low cash and food incomes themselves caused problems ;of insufficient seed for planting and a shortage of oxen fo^ cultivation, following cattle sales and deaths. However-, most farmers cited other problems which consistently reduce yields and make.their farming systems much more Sensitive to unfavourable conditions such as the recent droughts Thus although it may he difficult to introduce many innovations which will specifically taise )p.roduCtion in drought conditionsv the harmful effects of drought might be much reduced if these oth<2£ problems could be dealt with, In the north western areas under the hills and along the main road; where cultivation on the black soils of the wide valley bottoms is predominant, increasing land pressure was reported., with a number of associated problems„ Fallow periods and the amount of grazing land are diminishing, with consequent shortages of livestock feed and declining soil fertility. These changes are associated with increased erosion,, loss of top ^oilf washing out of crops on slopes3 and flooding of crops in the valleys. At the same time the application of manure to the fields lias diminished as homesteads are now some distance from the fields.

Increasing land pressure9 with declining soil fertility and increased run off and erosion are also problems in the ■ steeper southerly parts o f the area, with cultivation of annual crops spreading to steeper hillsides, and the sandier soils zaore prone to loss of structure and nutrients...

It ^aomsj thereforep that increased and more stable farm incomes s>hou3.d generally be achieved, by more intensive labour i use without expansion 'of cropped areas. This must be accompanied by measures to protect the land from erosion and declining soil fertility*

An immediate way of improving cereal productivity might be the widex" use of chemicals to control stalkborer attack on maize and sorghum* This appears to be a widespread and serious problem which was mentioned by nearly all farmers interviewed. Sons of those, interviewed were using chemicals available from the Ministry of' Agriculture, and it appeared that these chemicals '.rere often in short supply and, when applied/ were often not correctly applied„ Further information is required to assess the extent of damage caused by stalkboror, and the willingness of farmers to adopt chemical control methods. However.- this would appear to be an innovation requiring a relatively small outlay in cash and labour, little in the way of equipment and farmer training, / and with the potential for giving rapid results. Cereal productivity might also he increased by the use of more quick maturing varieties of aaize and sorghum and varieties of sorghum riore resistant to bird damage and rust- These could have the advantage of being less susceptible to drought, and might also allow further opportunities for taking two crops off the same piece of land in one season„

More intensive land use will demand greater protection of soil structure and fertility, and this problem needs- to be addressed not only in the content of faming systems but also in the context of catchment planning. Possible means of maintaining soil fertility are to increase the application of organic and inorganic manures, to use short season green raanuresy or to lengthen fallow periods. The concentration of stock in villages means that regular application to all cereal fields is very laborious. Nevertheless, some attention could be given to identifying waya of putting this resource to good use on specific individual or common sites near the village» Widespread use of inorganic fertilisers is constrained by cash flow difficulties, availability of credit , and farmers fears of taking credit even when'both credit ana fertilisers are available„ The use of short season green manures might therefore be investigated, to take advantage of the belg rains and be ploughed in before the planting of a crop for the Kiremt rains. More intense land use# with, more double cropping or higher yields as a result of higher soil fertility,, might also allow the release of rao.ro land for fallow. Erosion control needs to be tackled at two levels, with specific action taken to reduce erosion on each holding, and wider coordination of this on a catchment basis<, The Ministry of Agriculture is already taking action to encourage afforestation and bunding and consideration could be given to encouraging planting of maize and sorghum on ridges? with examination of the labour implications and possibility of introducing ox drawn ridgers* Erosion control measures on individual fields might be made more offective if they wore combined with moro formal planning of land use in each catchmentj m t h planning of appropriate locations for woodlandf grazing land,, and annual and perennial crops. CIP, for example.* might plan the planting of coffee on common holdings in strips running along the contour with proper protection against erosion. Bunding between and within fields could be encouraged with bunds supporting grasses chosen either for their ability to produce feed for livestock or as sources of mulch for coffee., A further incentive to erosion c >ntrol might he fco make farmers responsible for damage to their'neighbours1 crops resulting from erosion on their own fields causing washouts down slope. The benefits of such action might bo conservation of top soil,, increased water conservation., reduced damage to crops by wash outs and flooding down slope of eroding fieldsand more efficient use of land...

Closely related to water and soil conservation is the issue of water supplies. In the southerly parts of the area water is scarce* particularly in the dry season« In the north western-parts of the area* f aria era complained of flooding coming off the stoop escarpment to the north east and damaging their crops. An expensive and ambitious scheme might involve dam construction on the larger streams coming off the escarpment9 such dams having the dual function of wet season flood control with water -‘storage for dry season irrigation. Unfortunately, there would be long distances from these dams to the southern areas with more acute water shortages* However* small scale water storage using stock ponds and diversion of streams is commonly practised by farmers on the edge of the escarpment. Such methods might be modified to improve water supplies in the more southerly areas too. aliov/ing some irrigation of dry season crops v perhaps a little emergency irrigation to main season crops, and better water supplies for spraying coffee against CBD „

Having considered some possible courses of action to improve the general productivity 'of the farming systems and of cereal crops .in particularwo now turn to consider the main constraints to coffee production<. Haro' we need to distinguish between traditional coffee production,, which we will consider first, and the improved methods being recommended by CIP, Traditional coffee production on individual holdings appears to suffer from three principal problems3 namely variable yields and prices between seasons, declining yields and vigour as a result of CBD attack, and competition from chat„ Those are related as variable yields and prices and declining' yields result in coffee comparing unfavorably with chat, and this in turn results in farmers giving less attention to thoir coffee? which in turn leads to lower yields. Means should therefore be found of breaking out of this downward spiral * » Analysis of Hararghie arrivals earlior suggested that variation in rainfall and a lagged prico response to reduced arrivals were tho main causes of variable yields and pricos» There -appears to be little that can be done about this problem apart from encouraging measures that will make the crop less sensitive to seasons of poor rainfall* Farmers are already using soil mulches and micro catchments in the dry season*, but less intercropping and bettor weeding during the wet.saason; along with a general improvement in soil and water conservation* might increase the efficiency of water use.

Measures to reduce the incidence of CBD might not only lessen the direct loss of fruit as a result of CBD attack, but also increase the vigour of thp coffee trees and hence lesson their sensitivity to low rainfall* In the long term., planting of CBD resistant varieties would appear to be the solution to this? but while planting continues and varieties are evaluated on other criteria apart from CBD resistance, farmers must retain an interest in coffee production and be assisted in fighting the disease. Despite a 60% subsidy on chemicals? the spraying programme faces a number of difficulties, a major one being the lack of water supplies near coffee fields needing spraying. A number of possible solutions to this problem have been proposed in the past, namely the use of ULV sprayers, increasing the subsidy on chemicals, subsidising the fetching of water to spraying sites, providing other forms of assistance to improve water supplies (such as assisting with the construction of stock ponds}} and coneentrating p1anting of CBD resistant varieties in areas where water shortages are most acute*

Measures which increase or stabilise the yield of coffee should assist in making coffee .more attractive when compared vrith chat, However; as was evident from the analysis and discuss?ion in section 15 of this report, a major attraction of chat is the way that it can provide farmers with an income at the time of year when their food and cash supplies are likely to be running out., before any income is generated by food crops and coffee., IThile there is little agronomic action that can,be taken about this problem, there does appear to be potential to intervene in the marketing system to make coffee more attractive in this aspect.

At 'present service cooperatives are actively engaged in marketing dried coffee, and in hulling it before selling it to CMC, To enable them to engage in this activity, they are obtaining loans from AID Bank and commercial banks to finance their purchasing until they deliver the coffee to and receive payment from C M C w It might be possible for cooperatives to obtain some of these loans earlier in the season, and then >

buy coffee in advance from their members* There are a .rminbar of alternative means by which this might bo accomplished, A system of forward contracts might bo established using' pricos current at the time that a farmer receives his advance* payment, Alternatively; it would be mere simple and less risky for the cooperatives to give farmers a simple advance tc be paid off by coffee sales later in the season* The amount of advance might be related to the volume of sales made by a farmer through the coop in the previous season,, to expected prices at the time of harvest- and to the expected general standard of yields in the season, with a considerable safety margin to ensure that a farmer was not advanced more than he would be able to realise from his coffee harvest. A small interest charge would also be appropriate.

There could be many advantages to such a system. The cooperatives would be providing a valuable service to their members * and by tying the eligibility for participation in the scheme to sales through the cooperative in the previous season, could gain a significant marketing advantage over the private traders they compete with,, and hence would stand to pain an increased share of the market and hence increased revenues from coffee marketing„ At the same time farmers would stand to benefit from a cash income at the stage of the season when their reserves of cash and food are lowest* ‘Phis should allow them to continue working on their own farms rather than leave them to look for off farm employment for fool or cash* Coffee production would also be encouraged * as the existence of such, a scheme would make coffee a much more attractive crop, and would reduce the advantage that chat currently has over coffee in .terms of seasonal cash flow. Of course-, such a scheme would have to. be carefully administered by each cooperative: to ensure that the loans given were in proportion to farmers0 expected income from coffee^ and to ensure that repayments were properly made. However, it oould appear that the finance for such a scheme could ho found with only small extensions to the arrangements by which cooperatives currently get credit to finance their coffee marketing activities. The introduction of advanced payments for coffee would appear to be one of the simplest means of improving the competitiveness of coffee as compared with chat <, Other measures might be to increase the proportion of the coffee auction price paid to farmers ? though this would need to be examined in the light of transport and marketing costs and government revenues from coffee. Administrative measures aimed at limiting chat production are likely to be evaded or resisted by farmers with consequent reduced effectiveness unless they allaw for some compensation* Possible measures are to impose controls on the planting of chat (it is reported that this has been done in Kunni but it is not clear how effective this has boon) or to introduce a tax on the sale or movement of chat* Stopping is an improved cultural practice being encouraged by the project as a means to improve the productivity of old coffee and to facilitate spraying against CBD. As discussed earlierf it has had mixed success,, Any measures which make coffee production aiore attractive are likely to benefit the stumping programme? encouraging farmers to give better care to their stumped coffee <, 1 lea sure s recommended by the T9C6 Joint Evaluation Team to improve the effectiveness of the stumping prograiiima were bettor pruninghigher tree densities, intercropping with appropriate legumesand better shade tree provision.. Other measures might be more Mulching, better weeding and general care of stumped coffee., and planting of stock proof hedges around stumped coffee fields.. It is clear that if farmers are to adopt these practices they must be convinced first that stumping can stimulate yield increases which will be sufficient t6 outweigh the yield lost immed.lately after stumping, and secondly that the returns from this increased yield will justify the extra labour needed to stu;ap and properly manage the coffee.

Problems identified earlier with coffee plantings vroro Improper site selection and soil and water conservation measuresplanting of poos; seedlings, lack of manure and fertiliser application at planting, difficulties with perennial weed control¥ lack of mulchv and failures to prune to prevent diebacka Some of these problems have been successfully addressed. Seedling quality appears to have improved, inorganic fertilisers are now more widely applied before planting, and more planting in Miaaia during the Belg rains is giving betttor seedling establishment,

Ceoiments regarding site selection in tho context of land use planning were made. earlier in this section of the report„ Action along these lines might include proper planning of areas for mulch grass..- on bunds * or grassed waterways, Other measures to improve the availability of mulching material might be the collection of woods to make compost, • which could be used later either for mulch or for filling into planting holes instead of iuanuro.. The use of herbicides appears to be the only effective means of properly controlling perennial weeds« However, the chemical and application costs of herbicide use need to be compared with labour costs and supply to determine the appropriate balance between the two methods of weed control, and the appropriate frequencies of herbicide use and hand ueoding* The shifting of coffee planting back £ro:.a Jlamlo to. lliazia should help to reduce the concentration of labour demand in the period from Ginbot to itesiierem:, and thus alloo more. labour to be used for weeding a However., attention should be paid to planning the planting of coffee on common holdings in each peasant association in line with the labour available for its management * In considering this, due regard should be given to the harmful effects of campaign labour far the ■ common holdings if this prevents proper cultivation and weeding of the food crops and coffee on farmers3 individual holdings.

This issue of planning of planting areas in each peasant association in line with land and labour availability is recognised as a topic needing more attention and t*he design of a specific methodology to assist in extension planning* However, consideration should also be given to ways of meeting periods of high labour demand on common holdings without resorting to compulsory campaign labour with its potentially damaging effects on efficient food crop and coffee production on individual holdings., To illustrate the potential inefficient labour use that might be caused by compulsory work on common holdings? it is possible that farmers -L/.lt.h larger holdings may be enable to properly cultivate their existing coffee fields if large demands on their labour are made for establishing and managing new ! plantings on common holdings, However,, as .compared with wojrk on the comMon holdings,, which may not give any yield for two or three years , work on their own established coffee f if it is healthy, is likely to be much more productivev. both for themselves and for the national economy * One laeans of achieving more efficient labour distribution m g h t be co restrict normal common holding work to one day a week as at present, and then to raise extra labour needed at peak times by offering'immediate payment for it in the form of an advance of the cash distribution to be made at the end of the season „ Once the coimnon holdings are giving regular yields,, the peasant association might be able to get an advance payment for its coffee from the service cooperative;; if the system allowing advance payments outlined earlier were introduced» Based on the distribution made to PA members for their work oa the common holdings the previous yeary and again allowing a safety margin to ensure that there was no over payment, farmers could immediately be paid from this advance part of the distribution they would expect to be entitled to at the end of the season* The balance of underpayment would be given to them at the end of the season*

This system has a number of potential benefits. By giving farmers a lot? and fi^ed compulsory commitment to common holding work, it should allow them to plan and execute their work on the individual holdings in ore efficiently,, At the same time;, the use of voluntary labour with the incentive of immediate payment of part of the end of season cash distribution should attract the labour of farmers who either need the cash urgently or who do not have productive work to do on their ox?n holdings * The effect of this should be to assist the poorer faraers who are running out of f ood and cash stocks. < since the time of peak labour demand on the common holdings will be from Ginbot to Uehassio) and to give a more efficient distribution of labour between common and individual holdings0 It might also lead to more efficient 1

« work on the common holdings« Should the voluntary labour * attracted be insufficient to complete the necessary work then there would be the option# of increasing the advance payment or of introducing some;, but hopefully less, compulsory campaign labour,

"

In the light of the above discussion*- of constraints to agricultural development in general and to coffee production in particular^ and as a supplement to the Recommendations of the 1935 Joint Evaluation Team regarding coffee breeding strategy and agronomy,, the following action is recommended to be taken by CIP or by other responsible agenciess a) The possibility of introducing shorter season sorghum and maize varieties should be investigated, with examination of farmers3 specific requirements sand of potentially suitable varieties«, b) Attention should be given to improving both supplies of chemicals for stalkborer control and farmer training regarding its use, with consideration of its provision on appropriate credit terms.. c) Consideration should be given to introducing land use planning on a more formal basis into CIP activitieswith examination cf land‘scarcity and use in the different areas of the three CIPAs and the establishment of land use planning criteria in the siting and layout of planting sites? soil and water conservation works^ and areas for mulch production* This should, be associated with the development of a methodology relating planting on common holdings to labour availabilityand be coordinated with soil and water conservation programmes ox other organisations. d ) A mor e d et a i 1 ed s tucly s h ou Id' be mad e c £ the costs a nd benefits of alternative means of improvingiwater supplies to the southerly parts of the ClPJis^ e) Further agronomic and economic evaluation of ULV fungicide spraying should be conducted , with the formulation of specific recommendations regarding its use. f ) Further information should be collected regarding labour and other costs of and! coffee yields from planted,* stumped and sprayed coffee, g) There should bo further study of the advantages and 'disadvantages of intercropping coffee with chat* cereals* and legumes*• with both trials and further information collection from farmers,, and investigation regarding the introduction of new cash or food crops to intercrop with coffee. h) There should be an investigation of the institutional feasibility of suggestions made earlier regarding advance payment for coffee by service cooperatives, and advance cash distributions .by PA ’ s to farmers for voluntary labour on common holdings„ i) Thera should be further evaluation of the most approriate methods of weed control, and in the meantime 'preliminary introduction of herbicides to control perennial weeds„ j ) There should be continued data collection regarding the general farming systems in the area in order to check and add to the preliminary data and analysis presented in this report, Given the limited resources available to CIP for such i/ork, and the great amount of variability in the farming systems, this should be confined to periodic collection of data by extension staff on cropped areas in their peasant associations (as in the Basic Data collected in 1975 in CIP II areas); continuing collection of data on food and cereal prices, surveys on the costs and benefits of coffee production as outlined under point (f) above, and periodic repetition of the sort of rapid rural appraisal work on uhich this report is based. AFPBHDIX 1 Secondary Sources Used in the Study

Monthly rainfall records for Bedessa and Gelejaso, Ethiopian ileteorological Service i&steroloqical Maps of Bth.lop.ias Ethiopian Meteorological Service, 1979

Evaluation of total and seasonal rainfall by CIPA, Technical Discussion Paper 8/85,= D„T«Johnson

Land Use Maps (Is 50,030) for Kunni, Darolebu and Habro, prepared for CIP by the Ethiopian Happing agency

Basic Data for Kunni and Habro, CIP (unpublished) Draft Report on the Sample Survey of 32 j^ajor Coffee Growing Wereda3 1982/33 and 1933/8^ , MCTD,

General Agricultural Survey Preliminary IIsport volume II, Hararghie* MoA; 1984

Coffee Statistics Handbook, MCTD 1984

Coffee Improvement Project; Annual Reports for 1971 to 1978

Report on Soil and Foliar Analysis in 15 CIP Areas in Socialist Ethiopiaf W^Hofner and M »Schmitz, 1985

7k Report on Some Aspects of the Coffee Improvement Project in Socialist Ethiopia, Hobinson, 1982

A deport on a Shield Trip to Hararghie CXPA * a .. Technical Discussion Paper 5/35f Klara. 1985

Ethiopian Coffee .manual j JJLKiarn, 1906

CBD Loss Assessment Surveys, CIP. 2 Checklist of Information Collected fron Primary and Secondary Sources a

1 Physical features £ climate, topography, altitudey soils) and variation across tho area., 2, General patterns of land use found across the area * 3.. Dexaogr aphic information, population distribution? social organisation„ For each ran j or cropt aroa cultivated par household % varieties grovm, cultivation not h o d s {. timing and resource needs °e yields? seasonal prices^ marketing system;, end uses| pests and diseases, other* problems? innovations cad extension recommendations and activities} farmers5 attitude to these. 5, Similar but less detailed information for minor crops.. f> * itivos tock types and aimeruhip per housohold, uses ? f ead supplies, diseases., seasonal prices. 7» Seasonal food preforencore and supplies. 8- 77ator supplies and availability. 9*. Fuel supplies and availability„ 1 - Human diseases, 11.. Maj or problems facing farmers«. 12. Changes and trends over time in farming systems end environment (physical, social or economic). 13, Pattern of labour supply and use, hired labour market«, 1

itoea per holding under diffcmit crcps (ha) / no of traes per Mdiiig location CbffeaM'oze Pure-coffee f-fcize Soztih,m rife£x Chat Others Ibfcal I^nlly Area urea trees area araa area ar?a araa trees araa 5.folclirin size par 3 ha no ha OD ha ha ha ha no ha ha K3 i*i ■r\ msia) 3.00 Q 'F'\ 'v 0.10 0.25 V;0 0.00 0 0.05 ^ O 'itvJin 5 0,08 V. ^ n> ms(b) . ’ 0 ./ 1 ; J 6. OS *J i 0.25 0,25 0.30 OoOD \J 0.10 0.65 4 0.16 B\3 W, m ■TA .MT\ 0*10 JT\ 3J 0 300 4 JrvO ry^ m K\5 300 0,00 I*/ 0.50 V !0 o«x- 0 J -3 *1J , 1 .,1 0 4 0.20 PA15 " J o ' '-J '0.00 0.53 0.25 0.10 300 0, :T1 r*. 1.30 3 0,43 PAIS ") "I'-! 0 > 0 -1A;£%/ 0,03 o^oo o.no 0 0.05 0.45 5 9,09 avarage 0,03 SO 0.02 20 A '>2 0.27 0.07 0/33 100 0,05 0.78 4.2 0,19

Habro KV6{a) ^ • 's 0 'Jo/J 0.25 0.00 0.1 ) 200 0.00 1.10 M m Hi6(b) v > J^y 0 0,13 : /yj 0.25 0.00 AJ OoOO 0.35 2 0.18 B'J m m M-i i'sOj, m m m m 0075 4 0.19 m 3 0,00 n 0,00 A 0.40 9.25 0,25 0.00 A '■j 'r'l 0.93 5 0.18 £033J a) 0.25 100 OuOO 0 0.00 A 0.00 0=05 100 -v 0 0o30 2 0.15 ^33 9.33 2 0.15 3^25 0„90 0^03 0 0,40 0*53 0.00 0,00 AJ ^luJ 0,90 5 0.18 m 3 9 0o00 0 9*05 so 0.10 0,25 0*25 0.95 100 0.00 0.70 4 0,18 average ■0 J 0 ,y\y\) 43 0.01 7 0o2!> 0.18 0,11 0,03 57 Jo Ju/ O066 3.4 0.18 riaraLGfau -SoriGra a r\ \x. .) 0*40 Jf-J- j 0o25 0.25 3^25 0.05 100 ju20 1 „40 m. X.'&.Kt?\ A -Sarissa b 0,00 -.00 n. 0.40 0^,00 ^ r'>~.J 0.00 0 r\/ O p?\-£ J 0.80 0.27 OoOO 0,25 200 0.39 J 0 / - j 0.30 0.00 0 ry\ 0.85 2 0.43 K*2(b) 0,>00 '’s 153 3,40 0,25 0,05 100 'V 0o00 0.00 0.90 2„5 0,36 :/w^ \ "• J 0.25 230 0.09 0.25 3,10 300 0-20 1.00 3..5 0.29 103 J,}) ■'Ni 0.20 230 ki i m 1.10 0.05 130 m m m m Ivniina a 0-30 ;) 0.20 20:) 0.60 -J> &: 0..13 0o25 603 JJ)S 1.80 3 0,60 Kajim b ■">./ <> r'/'i.. *J r) 0.,5r:400 3.50 0.43 0.00 0035 200 0.50 1.95 7 0.26 Foxuaddit- )^) 1 600 0J50 .j 0 ,ju 0*00 0.05 200 0.25 1.20 5 0*24 'ibrak£xi a ' /. 1 300 0,00 0-0) 0.00 0.00 0,40 3 0.13 i&matesa b 0,00 j 0,30 250 0.20 0.40 OoOO 0.05 160 0,15 1.10 5 0.22 avc2.cKy;i 0.04 27 0.25 227 0.34 0o17 0.23 0,07 176 0.18 1,14 3.8 0.29 C\ ^ " • 33 0,12 115 0.>28 0.23 0.15 0..05 120 0.09 0.94 3.0 0.22 .'Tota^o XocaticriS are airlara:! oast to -^ost in '-ijtniii and Ifetaro ard ?o ± h bo south in Daral^ohju, Kuriaing dcvai tho page der^cril'x^s a cmscxsit across the az>e& fraa siarth oast to south ™>sfc., i'pprc&dnELte !>$i (raon ’or^jiivaLarits) cslaxLated as 1 adult ~ 1MS, child -- O.Stf:;. Cto hidings in OliSCa) , Sarissa {a),- and Soriss^ {b) adcUbLorxil tcsff m il fo lia r cxx fjsra aarly planted 35k inteaevisw In BB 9 v.es mt h a praSioer aoap* Family holding size calculated hf dividing aaqp holding 3by m Stas* coxv> tabjrciqoccxl -with oaff02 ari part of coffee field Other ccqps are principally swesb LXitataes, Tfcsc irifcamtian about aaffoa or dial vas given with only arm or troos, a raigh cenwersim was caloj&aixd APP.^i'IiJlX 4 Labour and Cash Budget for Representative Farm

Labour '{Jse {VxD/ ha)

Meg Mia Gin Sen Ham Heh lies Tik Hid Tah Tir Yek Mar Apr Hay Ju« Jui Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Total

Sorghum Yie:Id assumed {kg/ha)s SCO Labour HD/ha Land Prep., 12 20 32 Planting 2 2 Weeding 20 10 20 50 Harvest 30 30 Total 12 22 20 10 20 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 114 Total ha 0.3 If, Total :\D 3,6 6 o 5 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 ‘i 9 0 0 34 see'! leg/ha 40 40 yield kg/ha 300 800 price B/kg 0 > 9 1 1 0.9 0,8 0 o7 0.5 0o5 0.5 0,7 0-8 cash B/ha 0 -40 V.4*\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 360 Enterprise ea-ish flow

Belg crop Yielc■ as;turned (kg/ha): 670 Labour MD/ha Land Prep, 24 * 24 Planting 2 2 deeding 20 1 0 20 50 Harvest 20 20 Total 24 22 10 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 Total ha 0.1 Total HD 2 o 4 2,2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 seed kg/ha 30 30 yield kg/ha 670 670 price B/kg 1 1 0.9 0.0 0.7 e.,6 0.5 0*4 0,4 0,4 0 o 6 0.3 cash B/hi? 0 -•30 0 0 469 0 0 0 0 0 O' 0 439 Enterprise (cash • flow (B> 0 -3 0 0 47' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 h «5

Meg Mia Gin Sen Ham Web Mes Tik Hid Tah Tir Yek Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Total

Kiremt crop Yield assumed (kg/ha); 1000

Labour I’D /ha

.Land Prep„ 12 1 2 8 3 2

P l a n t i n g 2 2

W e e d i n g 2 0 1 0 2 0 5 0

H a r v e s t 3 0 3 0

T o t a l 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 4

Total ha 0 o 2

T o t a l M D 2 . 4 2 , 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 3

s e e d k g / h a 3 0 3 0

yield kg/ha 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

price B/kg 1

1 # UI

0 * 9 0 . 3 o o 0 . 7 0 . 6 . 4 0 * 4 0 . 4 0 o 6 0 o 3

cash B/ha 0 0 - 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 3

Enterprise cash

0 f l o w ( B ) 0 - 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 7 5

Teff (follow ing Y i e l d a s s u m e d ( k g / h a ) ; 5 0 0

x a a i z e )

Labour MD/ha

L a n d P r e p „ 3 3 1 6 P l a n t i n g 4 4 W e e d i n g 4 0 4 0 8 0

H arvest etc 2 5 1 5 4 0

T o t a l 0 0 0 8 1 2 4 0 4 0 0 2 5 0 1 5 0 1 4 0

T o t a l h a 0 « 1

T o t a l M D 0 0 0 1 . 2 1 08 s 6 0 3 . 3 0 2 o 3 0 2 1

s e e d k g / h a 3 0 ? 0 yield kg/ha 5 0 0 5 0 0 price B/kg 1 ,5 1 . 7 1 0 8 1 . 8 1 * 8 1 « 8 K 7 1 ,, 5 1 o3 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 . 3 cash B/ha 0 0 0 0 - 5 3 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 4 9 7

Enterprise cash

f l o w ( B ) 0 0 0 0 ~ 8 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 7 5 A, 5

Meg Mia Gin Sen Kam Neh Mes Tik Hid Tah Tir Yek Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Total

Coffee Yield assumed (kg/ha)s 400 labour 0s e (MD/ha)

Weeding 30 30 30 90 Harvest 20 40 40 100 Total - 0 0 30 30 30 0 0 20 40 40 0 0 190 Total ha 0,2 Total MD 0 0 5 6 6 0 0 4 8 8 0 0 38 yield kg/ha 400 400 price B/kg 4,5 4 o5 4 .5 4»5 4 . 5 4.5 4 *5 4.5 4*5 4.5 4.5 4.5 cash B/ha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 Snterprise cash flow (B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 360

Chat Yield assumed (b/ha); 4500 Labour Use (MD/ha) ' Weeding 30 30 30 30 120 Harvest 0 18 0 11 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 36 Total 0 18 30 41 30 35 0 2 0 0 0 0 156 Total ha 0.1 Total MD 0 1 D 3 3 4*1 3 3.5 0 0*2 0 0 0 0 15.6 yield b/ha 2250 1350 675 225 0 4500 pricfe B/b 0,2 0.6 0*8 1 o2 cash B/ha 0 563 0 743 0 574 0 259 0 0 0 0 2138 Enterprise cash

flow (B) i0 56 0 74 0 57 0 26 ' 0 0 0 0 214

Farm Labour Use (MD Sorghum 3.6 6.6 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 9 A 0 34 Maize r\ Belg 2 o 4 2 o 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 10 Kiremt 2 o 4 2.4 2 he 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 23 Teff n 0 0 1 o 2 1 *8 6 6 0 3 o 7 0 2.2 0 21 Coffee 0 0 6 6 6 0 0 4 3 8 0 0 38 Chat 0 1 .8 3 4.1 3 3.5 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 16 TOTAL 8.4 13 18 20 20 14 6 4.2 18 17 2.2 0 141 h, 7

Meg Mia Gin Sen Ham Weh Mes Tik Hid Tah Tir Yek Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Total

Farm Cash 1*1ou I Birr)

Sorghum 0 -12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 108 Maize Belg 0 -3 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 Kiremt 0 a ~5 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 75 Teff 0 0 0 0 -8 0 9 0 0 82 0 0 74 Coffee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 360 Chat 0 56 0 74 0 57 0 26 0 0 0 0 213 TOTAL 0 41 ~5 74 39 57 0 26 30 562 a 0 874 Food supply (Kg Sorghum 0 -12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 a 0 228 Maize Belg 0 ~3 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 Kiremt 0 0 -6 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 194 Teff 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 33 Total 0 -1 5 -6 0 63 0 0 0 200 278 0 0 519 Beg stock 73 -15 0 63 0 0 0 200 378 278 178 Consumption 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1200 Purchase 22 115 106 100 38 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 681 Bnd stock 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 100 279- 78 Cash supply (Bir) Teff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 41 Coffee 0 0 o 0 * 0 0 0 0 n 360 0 0 360 Chat 0 56 0 74 0 57 0 26 0 0 0 0 214 Total 0 56 r* 74 0 57 o 26 0 401 0 0 615 Stock (beg 900 894 779 758 678 709 649 625 585 966 966 966 Buy food 22 115 95 80 26 60 50 40 0 0 0 0 489 Consumption 40 20 60 Stock (end) 833 779 683 578 651 649 599 585 565 966 966 966 Cropping pattern Yields Harvest price (ha) (kg/ha) (Birr/kg) Sorghum 0.3 800 0.5 Maize Belg (later under teff) Q <,1 670 ICiremt o • 2 1000 0 o4 Teff 0 <• 15 500 1 .1 Coffee 0.2 400 4„5 Chat 0.1 • 4500 0.25 Total 0„95

Household size (MS) 4 Grain consumption/HE (kg/year) 300

Notes Processing labour and wat consumption omitted