FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF - … Safety Net Program Final Report Metaferia Consulting Engineers v II) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A) General Chronic food insecurity has been a salient feature

Productive Safety Net Program Final Report

Metaferia Consulting Engineers i

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF

ETHIOPIA

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (MoA)

PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET PROGRAM (APL III)FINAL REPORT

CONSULTING SERVICES

FOR CONDUCTING PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET

PROGRAM 2nd 2011 PUBLIC WORKS IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

CREDIT#: 4666 - ET

METAFERIA CONSULTING ENGINEERS

P.O.Box 3192

Tel.: 0115 51 56 47/ 551 70 36

Fax.: 0115 51 44 66

E-mail: [email protected]

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Website: www.metaferia.com

May 2013


Metaferia Consulting Engineers ii

1 Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................... IV

II) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. V

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... XV

ANNEX-1: NATURAL RE-GROWTH OF TREES, CHANGES IN WOODY BIOMASS STOCKING RATES WITH CHANGE IN

VEGETATION TYPES FOLLOWING FIVE YEARS CLOSURE .......................................................................... XIX

ANNEX - 2: PLANTED TREES CALCULATION: AREA + TREES/HA AND VOLUME GROWTH OF ONE TREE............ XIX

ANNEX - 3: SOIL LOSS RATE ESTIMATION BEFORE & AFTER PSNP PWS INTERVENTION BASED ON RUSLRE

(A=R*K*L*S*C*P) FOR SAMPLE WATERSHEDS ...................................................................................... XIX

ANNEX -5: GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SAMPLE MICRO-WATERSHEDS AFTER PSNP PWS .............................. XIX

ANNEX -6: TYPES OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE (SUB-PROJECTS) CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE SELECTED SAMPLE

WATERSHEDS ................................................................................................................................. XIX

ANNEX -7: PICTURES OF DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED BY THE PSNP PWS

..................................................................................................................................................... XIX

ANNEX -8: PSNP LOGFRAME – PW INDICATORS FOR 2012 PWIA ............................................................. XIX

ANNEX – 9: PSNP LOGFRAME – PW INDICATORS FOR 2012 PWIA AS PER OUR ASSESSMENT........................ XIX

2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 BACKGROUND TO PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET PROGRAM (PSNP) ...................................................................................1

2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTANCY WORK..................................................................................................................2

3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 4

3.1 APPROACH.............................................................................................................................................................4

3.2 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................................4

3.2.1 Review of Secondary Sources .......................................................................................................................4

3.2.2 Household Survey..........................................................................................................................................5

3.2.3 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and KII .......................................................................................................6

3.2.4 Discussion with program officials ................................................................................................................6

3.2.5 Direct Observation ........................................................................................................................................6

3.2.6 Case Studies...................................................................................................................................................6

3.2.7 Economic Impact Assessment Approach & Methodology..........................................................................7

3.2.8 Method of Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 11

4 DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE MICRO-WATERSHEDS ......................................12

4.1 LOCATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS OF THE MICRO-WATERSHEDS........................................................................ 12

4.2 BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................................. 14

4.3 FEATURES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS................................................................................ 16

4.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................................................................... 17

4.4.1 Households & Family Members Benefiting from PSNP PWs ................................................................... 17

4.4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the HHs Benefiting from PSNP PWs .................................................... 17

4.4.3 Sources of Livelihood ................................................................................................................................. 18

5 GIS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................19


Metaferia Consulting Engineers iii

5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 19

5.2 OBJECTIVE OF GIS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 20

5.3 CAPTURING BASIC DIGITAL DATA AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF MICRO-WATERSHEDS ........................................ 20

5.3.1 Delineation of the Selected Micro-Watersheds and Mapping of Infrastructures ................................. 20

5.3.2 Generate Biophysical Information for Soil Loss Estimation .................................................................... 21

5.3.3 Land Cover Change Analysis from Temporal Variations of Satellite Imagery ....................................... 23

6 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ................................................................................................................27

6.1 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATERSHED IMPACTS OF PSNP PWS ................................................................. 27

6.1.1 General ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

6.1.2 Estimates of on-site Soil Losses and Reductions due to SWM Activities ................................................ 27

6.1.3 Estimation of On-Site Productivity Impacts on Crop, Herbaceous and Woody Biomass ...................... 36

6.1.4 Changes in Woody biomass productivity ................................................................................................. 38

6.1.5 Analysis/Estimation of Carbon Sequestration ......................................................................................... 41

6.1.6 Changes in Water Availability ................................................................................................................... 43

6.1.7 Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) ................................................................. 45

6.2 ANALYSIS OF LIVELIHOOD AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 47

6.2.1 Livelihood Capital Asset ............................................................................................................................. 47

6.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................... 72

6.3.1 Economic Impact Assessment Techniques and Procedures Used ........................................................... 72

6.3.2 Financial and Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 73

6.3.3 Identification, Quantification and Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs ...................................... 74

6.3.4 Economic Impact Assessment of PSNP PW Subprojects.......................................................................... 74

6.3.5 Economic Impacts of Enclosed Areas........................................................................................................ 78

6.3.6 Overall Economic Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 99

7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 103

7.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 103

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 105

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 107


Metaferia Consulting Engineers iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This 2nd 2011 Productive Safety Net Program - Public Works Impact Assessment (PSNP - PW

IA) work and report could not have been realized without the participation and support rendered

by many of the organizations, officials, experts and Development Assistants (DAs) working for

the program at different levels starting from the Federal level down to the level of Woredas and

Kebelles. Special thanks goes to those who were very helpful in providing documents and

reports as well as data and information required for the assessment. The naming of such

individuals becomes very difficult, in this respect, due the wider scope and nature of the

assignment and the sheer number of people involved. We thank you all.

Again, it could have been impossible to properly undertake such an assignment without the

collaboration and participation of the communities residing in the sample micro-

watersheds/Kebelles particularly the PSNP - PWs beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who

willingly participated in the household survey (HH survey), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs),

Case Studies, etc. We thank them for their support and their patience in the participation of

sometimes lengthy interviews and discussions.

Last but not least we are very much indebted to the team of officials and experts in charge of

coordination of this assignment at both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Food Security

Directorate. Special thanks goes to Ato Solomon Gizaw and lately Ato Nesredin Rube and Ato

Abinet for their constant encouragement and support.


Metaferia Consulting Engineers v

II) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A) General

Chronic food insecurity has been a salient feature of rural Ethiopia in any year, irrespective of

the presence of unusual climatic or economic shocks. The response to such a chronic problem

has for a long time been emergency food aid through an emergency appeals approach

(emergency relief). However, this approach has been costly and have had limited effectiveness

at protecting productive assets and mitigating drought shocks. Hence, it was felt by both the

Government of Ethiopia (GOE) and the donors that there is an urgent need to look for an

approach that would give sustainable and lasting solution to the problem.

To this effect, in 2005, the Government of Ethiopia revised its strategy of distributing food aid

whereby emergency appeals were replaced with a standing safety net in areas suffering from

chronic food insecurity. The Productive safety Net Programme (PSNP), which began in 2005, is

the Government’s response to the above scenario. It is a component of the GOE Food Security

Program (FSP), and is an essential feature of the FSP investment strategy for chronically food

insecure woredas. The focus of the new program was provision of more reliable and timely

support to chronically food insecure households in hundreds of Woredas (districts) across

Ethiopia and increased funding for complementary programs to foster graduation from the

safety net.

Its objectives are to provide transfers to the food insecure population in chronically food

insecure Woredas so as to prevents asset depletion at the household level and create assets at the

community level. The Program will thus address immediate human needs while simultaneously

(i) supporting the rural transformation process, (ii) preventing long-term consequences of short-

term consumption shortages, (iii) encouraging households to engage in production and

investment, and (iv) promoting market development by increasing household purchasing power

(Ethiopia FSP 2004).

The Public Works Program (PWs), which is the subject of this Impact Assessment, is a major

component of the PSNP. PWs are labor-intensive community-based sub-projects designed to

address underlying causes of chronic food insecurity through the provision of employment for

chronically food insecure people while at the same time addressing the rehabilitation of the

environment and implementation of other basic infrastructural requirements thought to be the

root causes of the problem.

The PSNP, being a huge program involving a very huge budget, has already put in place a

monitoring and evaluation framework. Accordingly, the PSNP PWs passes through two

Reviews and two Impact Assessments in any one year. The PSNP PW IA is normally conducted

by independent Consultants. This 2nd 2011 PSNP PW IA has therefore been carried out by

Metafeia Consulting Engineers Plc (MCE) with the main objective of assessing how the


Metaferia Consulting Engineers vi

program is doing against its objectives, the extent of achievement of anticipated impacts, etc.,

and to learn how to do things better in the future.

B) Summary of Results of the Impact Assessment

Summary of the results of the Impact Assessment is presented hereunder based on the three

areas of analysis put as i) Analysis of Environmental and Watershed Impacts, ii) Analysis of

Livelihood and Social Impacts and iii) Analysis of Economic Impacts.

i) Analysis of Environmental and Watershed Impacts

The study on environmental and watershed impacts examined the performance of various

indicators of agricultural productivity, natural resource management and human welfare

statuses. Indicators were collected at the level of watershed project sites from household

interviews, focus group discussions (FGD) and field observations.

According to the household questionnaire analysis, 75% of the respondents confirmed that they

have benefited from the implementation of soil and water conservation activities including area

closure, farm area and communal land conservation works, etc. The findings show that there is

generally land cover change, increase of vegetation cover as a whole, which indicated a gradual

transformation from grass land to shrub land and then to bush land and forests. At some micro

watersheds new water ponds are built for multipurpose use (livestock watering, irrigation, etc.).

Throughout the twelve sample micro watersheds, there is an increase of about 493 hectares in

forest land, 96 hectares increase in Bush-shrub land and 34 hectares in grass land. There is also

an increase in water bodies due to the implementation of different water harvesting schemes.

Except in the two pastoralist micro-watersheds (Halie-Ella and Bikie) where recurrent drought

is enhancing a reverse process, 80% of FGD participants in all watershed project sites reported

that the effect of soil and water conservation along with regeneration of vegetation measures on

hill slopes and wastelands was substantial. Runoff water and soil loss on barren hills, which

was a stark reality before the treatment, was significantly reduced. The progressive reduction in

soil and water loss and sediment yield, as a result of quick recovery of vegetation on hill slopes

and lands adjoining the foothills, has resulted in substantial improvement in the surface and

groundwater regime of the micro-watersheds.

In general, in all micro-watersheds, more than 2,623ha of hillsides, 2,697ha of cultivated lands

and grazing lands as well as 36ha of gullies have been treated with various physical

conservation techniques. The findings indicate that the most commonly reported problems such

as soil erosion, recurrent drought, deforestation, gully formation and lack of food and feed

resources are getting appropriate solutions.

Estimation of soil loss rates (in tones/ha/yr) of the visited micro-watersheds are given in the

chapter on Analysis of Impacts. Although the soil loss rate reduction varies from one micro-

watershed to another mainly because of differences in factors influencing the process, there is a


Metaferia Consulting Engineers vii

decrease in soil lose of more than 12 tones/ha, on the average, taking the 12 sample micro-

watersheds into account.

Crop yield increment has also shown a substantial increase of 66.17, 22.35, and 8.03 percent for

cereals, pulses and perennials, respectively, as shown in Table 1, below.

Table 1: Crop yield changes of PSNP PW Activities in sample MWs

Frequency

of crops

Crop Type Prior

PSNP/2005/1997EC

Post PSNP Yield

increment

(qt)

Yield

increment

(%) Area

(ha)

Yield/ha (qt) Area

(ha)

Yield/ha

(qt)

5 Cereals 147.16

16.8414/5

=3.37

151.74

28.0113/5

= 5.60

2.23 66.17

3 Pulses 39.93

14.7085/3

=4.90

37.07

17.9845/3

=5.995

1.095 22.35

3 Perennials 6.65

12.2308/3

=4.008

5.8

13.0095/3

=4.33

0.322 8.03

Source: 2nd 2011 PSNP PW IA, MCE HH survey, December 2012

Observation in sample micro-micro-watersheds indicated that herbaceous vegetation cover in

the degraded upper, middle and lower slopes of micro-watersheds have tremendously increased,

especially in closed areas resulting in an increase of feed for cattle and flowering plants for

beekeeping.

For instance, out of the 327 surveyed households 35 households have been engaged in

beekeeping; out of which (25.7%) were before PSNP, (31.4%) before and after PSNP and

(42.9%) after PSNP indicating that the number of bee keepers has increased dramatically due to

increment in bee flora.

From among the 12 micro-watersheds, the highest woody biomass change is recorded in Adi-

Tsalka watershed of Aheferom Woreda of Tigray, with 2500 seedlings/ha planted in 124ha and

82% volume increment with a total of 248,320m3 of woody biomass. Whereas, the lowest

woody biomass change is recorded in Legebero-Wekelo watershed with 1,700 seedlings/ha

planted in 51.7ha and 58% volume increment at a total of 70,352m3 of woody biomass.


Metaferia Consulting Engineers viii

The amount of carbon sequestered in each land cover type of closed areas by the above ground

biomass is given in (Table 2 below). The below ground sequestrated carbon in tones is

estimated at 30% of the above ground weight.

Table 2: Estimation of carbon sequestration amount after 5 years of PSNP interventions

Cover

type

before

PSNP

PW

Stoking

Rate

(tone/ha)

Cover type

After PSNP

intervention

s

Stoking

rate

(tone/ha

)

Stockin

g rate

change

(tone/ha

)

Estimat

ed

carbon

content

(%)

C:CO

2 ratio

Estimated

sequestrate

d Carbon

(tons/ha)

Degrade

d

Grasslan

d

2.67 Open shrub-

land

5.07 2.4 55 3.666 4.839

Open

shrub

land

7.74 Dense shrub

land

10.25 2.51 55 3.666 5.061

Bare soil 1.09 Grassland 1.58 0.49 55 3.666 0.988

Source: Calculated based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) recommended method (Parson et al., 2005)

Eighty six percent of the household survey respondents indicated that springs and underground

water recharge have increased since the implementation of PSNP PWs within all the micro-

watersheds except those micro-watersheds in Afar, Somali regions and Dire Dawa City

Administration where it was reported that the PSNP PW did not start properly in these regions

until the last two years. The other reason is that there was no improvement in the status of water

availability both for humans, livestock and pasture since the last two years due to shortage of

rainfall and drought.

Change in water availability also seems to be appreciable when one considers the fact that out

of the 28 households who currently use irrigation in the sample WSs, 20 households (71.4%)

reported that they started to use irrigation after the commencement of the PSNP PWs while 8

households (28.6%) reported that they already had some irrigated plots prior to PSNP PW

interventions.

ii) Analysis of Livelihood and Social Impacts

The livelihood and social impacts have been analyzed in terms of what has been done and

changed in terms of

Livelihood capital assets (natural resources, social, financial, human, physical, etc.),

Vulnerability context,

Livelihood strategies,

Livelihood outcomes,

Transforming Structures and processes, and


Metaferia Consulting Engineers ix

Impacts related to Equitable Access to PWs (different wealth groups/gender)

enhancement of community natural capital.

The assessment and analysis made confirms that there was significant change in natural capital

(land, water, vegetation, biodiversity, etc.) and environmental services as a result of the

implementation of the PWs. This is also reported to have led to an even greater improvement in

the livelihood of the communities in the watershed.

Eighty two percent of the household respondents indicate that there are positive changes in the

development of natural resources. These includes land, vegetation cover and improvement in

the volume of streams and spring waters as well as in ground water resources within the micro-

watersheds thereby contributing to efforts being made by the communities to improve their

livelihood.

Overall, 21.4 percent of the households interviewed in the 12 micro-watersheds reported that

they are engaged in irrigation farming with the major part of the water coming from stream

diversions (53.6%), hand dug shallow wells (10.7%), water harvesting in ponds (17.7%), flood

(10.7%), and others (7.1%). As indicated above, though the majority of the irrigation users

responded that they started irrigation after the commencement of the PSNP PWs, the average

irrigated farm size of the households has been found to be less than one fourth of a hectare.

As per the assessment of social capital, in much of the cases, it has been found that the PW

strategy was designed in such a way that it involves all community members in organized

groups for identification, prioritization and implementation of projects and sub-projects at

watershed level to achieve the overall goal of integrated watershed management. Such

participatory implementation process has brought positive changes on community members’

outlook and attitudes towards natural resources maintenance, protection and manage ment.

When it comes to the assessment and analysis of changes in human capital, information and

data obtained from the FGDs conducted in the micro-watersheds indicate that PSNP PWs

participants, engaged in the different types of soil and water conservation activities like terrace

making, trench bund making, construction of stone check dam, stone hauling, making gabion,

etc. have gained sufficient skills. Similarly, those who were engaged in the construction of

infrastructures like earth road, additional class rooms, dry pit latrine, teachers’ residence,

satellite school, fencing of school, health posts, etc. have acquired additional skills. As a result,

it was found that some of the participants could make design of soil and water conservation and

other structures to be constructed within their micro-watersheds without any external support.

These engagements have helped them to develop different skills like masonry, building,

carpentry, etc. and have changed the livelihood status of many households. Apparently, much

has been attained by way of progress in gaining knowledge, improvement in working culture,

etc. signifying the enhancement of local potential for carrying out further developmental tasks.

The major implemented infrastructures in the PSNP supported areas, through community

mobilization, are small-scale water supply and irrigation structures, feeder road constructions,

expansion and construction of social service institutions like additional blocks of classrooms in

existing schools and support in the construction and implementation of Farmers Training


Metaferia Consulting Engineers x

Centers (FTCs) with additional support by way of fulfilling internal facilities. Moreover, sub-

projects like rural roads, health posts, schools and water points used by community members on

communal bases are maintained both through community labor mobilization and PSNP PWs.

Irrigation schemes are maintained by the direct beneficiaries through their own established

organizations and water supply points are maintained by water committees. It was also

confirmed, during FGDs held in each of the micro-watersheds, that engagement in PSNP PWs

has been one of the major sources of income for both the farming and pastoral communities.

FGDs participants during PSNP PWs impact assessment confirmed that their participation in

PSNP PWs has created opportunity to generate income for household members that narrowed

food gap for at least six months (44.0%), four months (40.3%) and nine months (9.9%),

respectively.

HHs survey and FGDs indicated that the majority of the participants in the highland areas were

selected from the poorest of the poor and 84.4 percent of them did not own adequate farmland

and consume the income they earn from participation in PSNP PWs. Only very few of them and

the better offs were able to save some money to buy additional livestock that contributed to their

asset building. Therefore, data and information gathered could not substantially support that

many of the participants were able to save income obtained from PSNP PWs that contributed to

their asset building.

However, the envisaged channeling of HABP loan fund through RUSACCOs was not being

implemented to the level of the community expectations, although progressing gradually, as far

as responses from PSNP PWs participants are concerned.

Findings also indicate that there are limitations in extending credit facilities, organizing

marketing cooperatives, construction of access roads to irrigated areas, which are, of course,

very instrumental in attaining the objectives of the PSNP.

When it comes to the vulnerability issue, the overall finding shows that many of the PSNP PW

participants have not overcome shortage of food and they are still vulnerable to shocks that

could come from any failure of rainfall. They will still be exposed to shocks if income from

PSNP PW ceases in a very short period of time. This is mainly due to the fact that capital assets

created at household level due to the interventions have not been sufficient to reduce asset

depletion and vulnerably to shocks.

Moreover, 84.4% of the HHs responses indicated that family annual food requirements is only

covered for about six and less months from own production or asset created (see table 6.16).

Whereas 61.1% and 74.4% HHs of the farming and pastoral communities, respectively,

responded that they cover their food gaps from the income obtained through participation in

PSNP PWs (See table 6.17).

Even though it would be difficult to conclude that tremendous improvements in the livelihood

of the PSNP PWs participants have been gained, community capital assets created have brought


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xi

significant changes in natural resources rehabilitation, which would definitely result in

betterment of livelihoods. The impact of the undergoing soil and water conservation is not fast

enough to bring immediate results and would be noticed in the future. Yet, the most serious

problems affecting livelihood of the PSNP PWs participants in the micro-watersheds assessed

are recurrent drought and shortage of farmland. These can be improved through the continuous

implementation of natural resources rehabilitation programs with the support of the PSNP PWs

and expanding on-farm and off-farm income generating schemes.

With regards to changes in Transforming Structures and Processes, the PSNP PWs

implementation process has contributed to the formation of different structures at different

levels like micro-watershed planning groups, water users groups, KA and Woreda level

planning, different types of Technical Committees and Task forces, etc., which are able to plan

and promote community mobilization in the process of implementation of the PSNP PWs.

These community assets have been contributed to address the root causes of food insecurity by

improving soil moisture and productivity of land, improved availability of fodder for livestock,

improving health and reducing morbidity and mortality, enhancing access to water supply for

domestic and livestock use, as well as the development of small scale irrigation farming

practices.

When it comes to equity based on wealth category and gender, it has been found that livelihood

capital assets enhanced through all PSNP PW activities are equally used by all community

members regardless of their economic status and social grouping. This is very important in

terms of the desired overall improvement of the wellbeing of the communities, at large. In most

of the micro-watersheds, the management of the rehabilitated natural resources on hillside and

enclosed areas are under the Kebele Administrations.

The decision making and the processes in the implementation of the PSNP PWs are still male

dominated but improvements are also being made in this regard with some women coming as

active committee members. Access to water supply has vividly reduced the burden of fetching

water for women which is, of course the most time consuming job.

However, differences exist in the engagement and adapting of new technologies like modern

beekeeping, irrigation development, fattening, etc. These are limited to those who have better

financial resources of their own or have the capacity to get credit from MFIs. These groups,

who can benefit from such technologies, are the ‘middle’ and the ‘rich’ as categorized by the

community members, themselves. In the case of irrigation practice, it is limited to those who

own irrigable farmland in the respective command area.


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xii

iii. Analysis of Economic Impacts

The overall aggregate community micro-watersheds NPVs were found to be ETB 166.69

million. This overall total NPV is the incremental benefit enjoyed by the community of sampled

micro-watersheds due to PSNP PW sub-projects implemented in the areas. The sub-projects

comprised of high economic NPVs include water supply (ETB 30.89 million), school

infrastructure (ETB 28.56 million), beekeeping (ETB 24.88 million), rain-fed crop production

(ETB 22.3 million), and rural feeder roads (ETB 20.27 million), Fig.0.1. The contributions of

natural re-growth of woody biomass, carbon sequestrated, and pole/tree plantations are

relatively low with ETB 15,149.95, 4,906.40, and 2,384,608, respectively.

Although implemented in eight (8) micro-watersheds, the NPVs of water supply were found

comparatively high and significant because benefits from water supply in terms of saved time,

labour and costs in fetching water from remote areas were substantial and important,

particularly in dry areas like Lega Dhugo (Dire Dawa), Bulabora (Somali), Gola Gorba

(Oromia), Arbegna Koste and Doyancho (SNNPRS). Micro-watershed wise, the aggregated

economic NPVs were found high in Keshi Aynalem (ETB 35.03 million) and low in Gara

Guracha (ETB 2.44 million).

The percentage share of sub-projects in the total aggregate micro-watershed level economic

NPVs is presented in Figure 0.2. Accordingly, the economic benefits to water supply sub-

projects in the sample micro-watersheds comprised 18.5 percent of the total quantifiable

benefits followed by incremental benefits to school infrastructure (17.1 percent), honey

production/beekeeping (14.9 percent), rainfed crop production on or adjacent downstream to

SWC treated areas (13.4 percent), and rural feeder roads (12.2 percent). Benefits to tree

production from plantations and the indigenous trees, fuel wood, and forage production in

enclosed areas are relatively small, 1.4, 4.3 and 4.3 percent, respectively.


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xiii

- 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Rainfed Crops

Irrigated Crops

Beekeeping

Forage grass

Fuel Wood

Poles plantation

Wood biomass re-growth

Carbon sequestrated

Rural roads

Water supply

Health posts

School Inf rast.

NPVs in Million ETB

Su

b-P

roje

cts

Figure 1: Micro-Watershed Wise Aggregated Economic NPVs of Sampled Micro-Micro-

watersheds

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

SWC-Crops

Irrigated Crops

Beekeeping

Forage grass

Fuel Wood Plantation

Poles Plantation

Wood Biomass Re-growth

Carbon Sequest.

Rural Road

Water Supply

Health Posts

Schools

Percentages

Su

b-P

roje

cts

Figure 2: Percentage share of Sub-projects in Aggregated Mico-Watershed Level Economic NPV

The overall incremental economic benefits achieved at community micro-watershed levels due

to PSNP PW sub-projects implementation are all positive and ranged from ETB 2.4 million


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xiv

(poles/eucalyptus trees plantation) to ETB 30.9 million (water supply) aggregated for all

sampled micro-micro-watersheds studied. Furthermore, the overall aggregated program/

national level economic NPV for all sub-projects was estimated to be ETB 10,201.9 million.

Water supply sub-project contributed ETB 1,890.9 million followed by school infrastructure

(ETB 1,748 million), beekeeping in enclosed areas (ETB 1,522.6 million), SWC based crop

production (ETB 1,365.5 million), rural feeder roads (ETB 1,240.5) and health infrastructure

(ETB 830 million). These results imply that investments made by PSNP PWs on SWC, area

closures, small-scale irrigation, and infrastructure activities are worthwhile and enabled

beneficiary households to increase income and enhanced asset building.

1,365.5

580.0

1,522.6

443.1

145.9

433.7

0.9

0.3

1,240.5

830.4

1,890.9

1,748.1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

SWC Crop production

Irrigated crop production

Beekeeping (Honey production)

Forage grass

Poles/ Eucalyptus trees

Fuel woods

Woody Biomass

Carbon Sequestrated

Rural Feeder Road

Health Infrastructure

Water Supply

School Infrastructure

NPVs in Million ETB

Su

b-P

roje

cts

Figure 3: Figure Aggregated National Level NPVs by Sub-projects


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BoA Bureau of Agriculture

CBPWP Community-based Watershed Development Planning

CBR Cost Benefit Ratio

CSA Central Statistical Authority

CWT Kebelle Watershed Planning Team

DA Development Agent

DM Dry Matter

DMFSD Disaster management and Food Security Directorate

ESMF Environment & Social Management Framework

FGD Focused group Discussion

FSP Food Security Programme

GIS Geographic Information System

GoE Government of Ethiopia

Ha hectare

HH Household

IRR Internal rate of return

IWSM Integrated watershed Management

KA Kebelle Administration

KII Key Informant Interview

LUPRD Land Use Planning & Regulatory Department

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

MWS Micro Watershed

NGO Non-Government Organization

NPV Net Present Value

NRM Natural Resource Management


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xvi

NRMPO Natural Resource Management Process Owner

NRM-PW Natural Resource Public Works

PSNP Public Safety Net Program

PW Public Works

PWIA Public Works Impact Assessment

PWIA Public Works Impact assessment

RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

SDR Sediment Delivery Ratio

SOM Soil Organic Matter

SWC Soil & Water Conservation

USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation

WSM Watershed Management


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xvii

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................................... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ V

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................... XV

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND TO PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET PROGRAM (PSNP).....................................................................................1

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSULTANCY WORK ...................................................................................................................2

2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 4

2.1 APPROACH ..............................................................................................................................................................4

2.2 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................4

2.2.1 Review of Secondary Sources .............................................................................................................................4

2.2.2 Household Survey................................................................................................................................................5

2.2.3 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and KII .............................................................................................................6

2.2.4 Discussion with program officials ......................................................................................................................6

2.2.5 Direct Observation ..............................................................................................................................................6

2.2.6 Case Studies.........................................................................................................................................................6

2.2.7 Economic Impact Assessment Approach & Methodology................................................................................7

2.2.8 Method of Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 11

3 DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE MICRO-WATERSHEDS ......................................12

3.1 LOCATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS OF THE MICRO-WATERSHEDS ......................................................................... 12

3.2 BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................................... 14

3.3 FEATURES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS ................................................................................. 16

3.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.1 Households & Family Members Benefiting from PSNP PWs ......................................................................... 17

3.4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the HHs Benefiting from PSNP PWs .......................................................... 17

3.4.3 Sources of Livelihood ....................................................................................................................................... 18

4 GIS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................19

4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 19

4.2 OBJECTIVE OF GIS ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................... 20

4.3 CAPTURING BASIC DIGITAL DATA AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF MICRO-WATERSHEDS ......................................... 20

4.3.1 Delineation of the Selected Micro-Watersheds and Mapping of Infrastructures ....................................... 20

4.3.1.1 Delineation of the Selected Micro-Watersheds ..................................................................................................... 20 4.3.1.2 Mapping of Infrastructures................................................................................................................................... 20 4.3.2 Generate Biophysical Information for Soil Loss Estimation .......................................................................... 21

4.3.3 Land Cover Change Analysis from Temporal Variations of Satellite Imagery ............................................. 23

5 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ................................................................................................................27

5.1 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATERSHED IMPACTS OF PSNP PWS .................................................................. 27

5.1.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................. 27

5.1.2 Estimates of on-site Soil Losses and Reductions due to SWM Activities ...................................................... 27 5.1.2.1 Baseline Soil Losses (before intervention) ............................................................................................................. 32 5.1.2.2 Soil loss and Yield after Intervention (Closed Areas and, Crop Land) ...................................................................... 34


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xviii

5.1.3 Estimation of On-Site Productivity Impacts on Crop, Herbaceous and Woody Biomass ............................ 36

5.1.3.1 Crop Production................................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1.3.2 Changes in Herbaceous Biomass Production ......................................................................................................... 37 5.1.4 Changes in Woody biomass productivity ....................................................................................................... 38 5.1.4.1 Planted Trees ....................................................................................................................................................... 38 5.1.4.2 Natural Re-growth of Trees .................................................................................................................................. 40 5.1.5 Analysis/Estimation of Carbon Sequestration ............................................................................................... 41

5.1.6 Changes in Water Availability ......................................................................................................................... 43 5.1.6.1 Assessment of downstream effects of SWC Public Works – SDR (Sediment Delivery Ratio)..................................... 44 5.1.6.2 Downstream Water Availability ............................................................................................................................ 44 5.1.7 Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) ....................................................................... 45

5.1.7.1 Identification and Assessment of Potential Adverse Impacts of PW Projects .......................................................... 45 5.1.7.2 Natural Resource Base ......................................................................................................................................... 45 5.1.7.3 Social Impacts ...................................................................................................................................................... 46 5.1.7.4 Assessment of the ESMF performance .................................................................................................................. 47 5.2 ANALYSIS OF LIVELIHOOD AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ........................................................................................................ 47

5.2.1 Livelihood Capital Asset ................................................................................................................................... 47

5.2.1.1 Community Natural Capital .................................................................................................................................. 47 5.2.1.2 Assessment and Analysis of Changes in Social Capital: networks, groups, social relations, etc. ............................... 51 5.2.1.3 Assessment and Analysis of Changes in Human Capital (Skills, knowledge, good health and ability to engage in

labour) 54 5.2.1.4 Assessment and Analysis of the Potential Impacts of Infrastructural PW’s (schools, clinics and roads) .................... 56 5.2.1.5 Assessment and Analysis of Impacts of PSNP PWs Infrastructures ......................................................................... 56 5.2.1.6 Assessment and Analysis of Changes in Financial Capital (income, saving, access to credit, loans, etc).................... 61 5.2.1.7 Vulnerability Context ........................................................................................................................................... 68 5.2.1.8 Changes in livelihood strategies............................................................................................................................ 71 5.2.1.9 Changes in livelihood Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 71 5.2.1.10 Changes in Transforming Structures and Processes ............................................................................................... 71 5.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................ 72

5.3.1 Economic Impact Assessment Techniques and Procedures Used ................................................................. 72 5.3.1.1 Cost Benefit Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 72 5.3.1.2 Discounting.......................................................................................................................................................... 73 5.3.2 Financial and Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................... 73

5.3.3 Identification, Quantification and Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs ............................................ 74

5.3.4 Economic Impact Assessment of PSNP PW Subprojects................................................................................ 74 5.3.4.1 Economic Impact of SWC Measures on Crop Productivity...................................................................................... 74 5.3.4.2 Farm Level Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 75 5.3.4.3 Community Micro-Watershed Level Economic Analysis......................................................................................... 77 5.3.5 Economic Impacts of Enclosed Areas.............................................................................................................. 78 5.3.5.1 Changes in Herbaceous Biomass Production ......................................................................................................... 79 5.3.5.2 Changes in Woody Biomass Productivity............................................................................................................... 84 5.3.5.3 Economic Impact Assessment of Irrigation Structures ........................................................................................... 88 5.3.5.4 Economic Impact Assessment of Economic and Social Infrastructure Subprojects .................................................. 91 5.3.6 Overall Economic Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 99

5.3.6.1 Overall Economic Impacts of Sub-Projects at Sampled Micro-Micro-watersheds .................................................... 99 5.3.6.2 Overall Economic Impacts of Sub-Projects at National Level ................................................................................ 101

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 103

6.1 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 103

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 105


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xix

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 107

Annexes

Annex-1: Natural re-growth of trees, changes in woody biomass stocking rates with change in

vegetation types following five years closure

Annex - 2: Planted trees calculation: Area + Trees/ha and volume growth of one tree

Annex - 3: Soil Loss Rate estimation Before & After PSNP PWs intervention based on RUSLRE

(A=R*K*L*S*C*P) for sample watersheds

Annex -4: National/ Program Level Aggregated Economic NPVs of PSNP PW Sub-projects

Annex -5: General conditions of sample micro-watersheds after PSNP PWs

Annex -6: Types of the infrastructure (sub-projects) constructed within the selected sample watersheds

Annex -7: Pictures of Different Infrastructures Constructed by the PSNP PWS

Annex -8: PSNP LOGFRAME – PW Indicators for 2012 PWIA

Annex – 9: PSNP LOGFRAME – PW Indicators for 2012 PWIA As Per our Assessment

List of Tables

TABLE 2-1SUMMARY OF KEY HOUSEHOLDS INTERVIEWED TO PROVIDE DATA ON ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS ........................ 10 TABLE 3-1: ADMINISTRATIVE LOCATION OF THE MICRO-WATERSHEDS ......................................................................................... 13 TABLE 3-2: BIOPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE MICRO-WATERSHEDS .............................................................................. 15 TABLE 3-3: HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITING FROM PSNP PWS IN THE MICRO-WATERSHEDS (2011/12) .................................................... 17 TABLE 4-1:AREA, RAINFALL, TEMPERATURE, SLOPE PERCENT AND LENGTH OF MICRO-WATERSHEDS ............................................... 19 TABLE 4-2: RAINFALL, SLOPE LENGTH AND % OF WATERSHED...................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 5-1: HAVE ANY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE PSNP PWS IN YOUR LOCALITY?..... 28 TABLE 5-2: SIZE OF AREAS TREATED IN THE SAMPLE MICRO-WATERSHEDS .................................................................................... 31 TABLE 5-3:SOIL LOSS RATE ESTIMATION BEFORE & AFTER PSNP PWS INTERVENTIONS BASED ON RUSLRE ................................. 33 TABLE 5-4: CROP YIELD CHANGE OF PSNP PW ACTIVITIES IN SAMPLE MWS ................................................................................. 37 TABLE 5-5:NUMBER OF BEEHIVE OWNING HHS AS INDICATOR OF BEE FLORA INCREMENT ............................................................ 38 TABLE 5-6:MAJOR PLANTED TREES, PERENNIALS AND GRASSES IN PASTORAL AND AGRICULTURAL SAMPLE MICRO-WATERSHEDS....... 39

TABLE 5-7:NATURAL WOODY SPECIES OBSERVED IN SAMPLE MICRO-WATERSHEDS ....................................................................... 40 TABLE 5-8:ESTIMATION OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION AMOUNT AFTER 5 YEARS OF PSNP INTERVENTIONS ....................................... 42 TABLE 5-9: MAJOR SOURCES OF INCOME AND ITS PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION OF PSNP PWS PARTICIPANTS .................................. 61 TABLE 5-10:HOUSEHOLDS RESPONSES INDICATING INADEQUACY OF CROPS PRODUCED FOR 12 MONTHS........................................ 62 TABLE 5-11:AGGREGATED LIVESTOCK OWNSERSHIP IN HIGHLAND AREAS OF THE MICRO WATER HHS........................................... 64 TABLE 5-12:LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP OF SOME FGD MEMBERS GRADUATED FROM PSNP PWS PRIOR AND AFTER JOINING THE PSNP PWS

AT KESHI AYNALEM WATERSHED, ATSBI-WOMBERATA .................................................................................................. 65 TABLE 5-13:AGGREGATED LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP OF HHS IN PASTORAL COMMUNITY AREAS PRIOR AND AFTER PSNP PWS

IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 67 TABLE 5-14:NUMBER OF MONTHS THE HOUSEHOLD CAN COVER FOOD NEEDS FROM OWN PRODUCTION .......................................... 70 TABLE 5-15: CURRENT FOOD SECURITY STATUS OF PSNP PWS PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................ 70 TABLE 5-16:A ONE HECTARE CROP (RAINFED) FINANCIAL BUDGET FOR KESHI AYINALEM MICRO-WATERSHED, PROJECTED OVER 25

YEARS PERIOD............................................................................................................................................................... 76


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xx

TABLE 5-17:FARM LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO OF RAINFED CROP PRODUCTION ON SWC TREATED AREAS IN SAMPLE

MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS, USING 15% DISCOUNT RATE OVER 25 YEARS ....................................................................... 77

TABLE 5-18:ECONOMIC NPVS AND C-B RATIO FOR RAINFED CROP PRODUCTION IN SWC TREATED AREAS AT MICRO-MICRO-

WATERSHEDS LEVEL, DISCOUNTED AT 10% OVER 25 YEARS ............................................................................................. 77 TABLE 5-19:FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO FOR ONE IMPROVED BEEHIVE IN ADI-TSALKA MICRO-WATERSHED ......................... 80 TABLE 5-20:FARM LEVEL NPVS AND B-C RATIO FOR IMPROVED BEEKEEPING IN ENCLOSED AREAS OF SAMPLE MICRO-MICRO-

WATERSHEDS, CALCULATED USING 15% DISCOUNT RATE OVER 25 YEARS .......................................................................... 80 TABLE 5-21:FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO OF IMPROVED FORAGE GRASS PRODUCTION ON ONE HECTARE PLOT IN ADI-TSALKA

COMMUNITY MIRO-WATERSHED ................................................................................................................................... 82 TABLE 5-22:FARM LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO FOR FUEL WOOD AND POLES PRODUCED IN ENCLOSED AREAS OF SAMPLE

MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS, CALCULATED USING 15% DISCOUNT RATE AND OVER 25 YEARS ............................................ 85 TABLE 5-23:ECONOMIC NPVS AND C-B RATIO OF FUEL WOOD AND POLES PRODUCTION IN ENCLOSED AREAS AT COMMUNITY MICRO-

MICRO-WATERSHEDS LEVEL, DISCOUNTED AT 10% OVER 25 YEARS................................................................................... 86 TABLE 5-24:ECONOMIC NPVS OF INCREMENTAL WOOD BIOMASS/ FUEL WOOD IN SAMPLED MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS,

DISCOUNTED AT 10% OVER 25 YEARS ............................................................................................................................. 87 TABLE 5-25:CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND VALUE OF BIOMASS IN SAMPLED MICRO-WATERSHEDS ........................... 88

TABLE 5-26:FARM LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-CR FOR ONE HECTARE IRRIGATED CROP PRODUCTION FOR GOLA

GORBA MICRO-WATERSHED ................................................................................................................................... 90

TABLE 5-27:FARM LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO FOR SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION CROPS PRODUCTION IN

SAMPLE MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS, CALCULATED USING 15% DISCOUNT RATE AND OVER 25 YEARS .......... 90

TABLE 5-28:ECONOMIC NPVS AND C-B RATIO OF SMALL-SCALE/ SPATE IRRIGATION CROP PRODUCTION AT MICRO-

MICRO-WATERSHEDS LEVEL, DISCOUNTED AT 10% OVER 25 YEARS .................................................................... 91

TABLE 5-29:HOUSEHOLD LEVEL CASH FLOW OF RURAL FEEDER ROAD FOR KESHI AYINALEM MICRO WATERSHED. 92

TABLE 5-30:HOUSEHOLD LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO FOR PSNP PW SUPPORTED RURAL FEEDER ROAD

IN SAMPLE MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS, CALCULATED USING 15% DISCOUNT RATE AND OVER 25 YEARS...... 92

TABLE 5-31:ECONOMIC NPVS AND C-B RATIO OF RURAL FEEDER ROADS AT COMMUNITY MICRO-MICRO-

WATERSHEDS LEVEL, DISCOUNTED AT 10% OVER 25 YEARS................................................................................. 93

TABLE 5-32:HOUSEHOLD LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO FOR PSNP PW SUPPORTED WATER SUPPLY IN


TABLE 5-33: ECONOMIC NPVS AND C-B RATIO OF RURAL WATER SUPPLY AT COMMUNITY MICRO-MICRO-


TABLE 5-34:HOUSEHOLD LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIO FOR PSNP PW SUPPORTED HEALTH FACILITY IN


TABLE 5-35:ECONOMIC NPVS AND C-B RATIO OF HEALTH FACILITY/ HEALTH POST AT COMMUNITY MICRO-MICRO-


TABLE 5-36:HOUSEHOLD LEVEL FINANCIAL NPV AND B-C RATIOS FOR PSNP PW SUPPORTED SCHOOLS IN SAMPLED

MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS, WITH 15% DISCOUNT RATE OVER 25 YEARS ......................................................... 98

TABLE 5-37: ECONOMIC NPVS AND C-B RATIO OF SCHOOLS INFRASTRUCTURES AT COMMUNITY MICRO-MICRO-


TABLE 5-38: OVERALL COMMUNITY MICRO-WATERSHED LEVEL ECONOMIC NPVS DUE TO PSNP PUBLIC WORKS

SWC, AREA ENCLOSURES, AND SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURES .............................................................................. 102


Metaferia Consulting Engineers xxi

List of Figures

FIGURE 3-1: LOCATION OF MICRO MICRO-WATERSHEDS .................................................................................................. 12

FIGURE 3-2: AREA IN HECTARE BY WATERSHED/SETTLEMENT ......................................................................................... 14

FIGURE 4-1: WATERSHED BOUNDARY AND LAND COVER MANAGEM ENT FACTOR AND SOIL COLOUR MAPS OF

NEGADIRAS WATERSHED ......................................................................................................................................... 20

FIGURE 4-2: INFRASTRUCTURE MAP OF ADITSALKA WATERSHED ................................................................................... 21

FIGURE 4-3:INFRASTRUCTURE MAP OF KESHI AYNALEM WATERSHED........................................................................... 21

FIGURE 4-4:TRIANGULATED IRREGULAR NETWORK (TIN) OF ADITSALKA WATERSHED ............................................... 22

FIGURE 4-5:SLOPE % AND LENGTH OF GOLEGORBA AND DOYANCHO MICRO-WATERSHEDS ........................................ 22

FIGURE 4-6:LAND COVER CHANGE OF LEGEBRO WOQELLO WATERSHED ....................................................................... 24

FIGURE 4-7:LAND COVER CHANGE OF ADI-TSALKA WATERSHED.................................................................................... 24

FIGURE 4-8:LAND COVER CHANGE OF NEGADIRAS WATERSHED ..................................................................................... 25

FIGURE 4-9: LAND COVER CHANGE MAP OF KESHI AYNALEM AND LEGEBERO-WEQELLO WATERSHED ....................... 25

FIGURE 4-10: LAND COVER MAP OF MOLLA GEREMOCH WATERSHED ............................................................................. 26

FIGURE 4-11: LAND COVER MAP OF HILLE-ELLA WATERSHED ....................................................................................... 26

FIGURE 5-1:IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE FOR HORTICULTURAL CROPS AT KESHI-AYNALEM WATERSHED, .............. 58

FIGURE 5-2:MICRO-WATERSHED WISE AGGREGATED ECONOMIC NPVS OF SAMPLED MICRO-MICRO-WATERSHEDS

................................................................................................................................................................................ 100

FIGURE 5-3: PERCENTAGE SHARE OF SUB-PROJECTS IN AGGREGATED MICO-WATERSHED LEVEL ECONOMIC NPV . 100

FIGURE 5-4: AGGREGATED NATIONAL LEVEL NPVS BY SUB-PROJECTS........................................................................ 101


Metaferia Consulting Engineers 1

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background to Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP)

Food insecurity has long been a wide spread problem in Ethiopia. Chronic food insecurity has

been a salient feature of rural Ethiopia in any year, irrespective of the presence of unusual

climatic or economic shocks. The major causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia are believed to be

land degradation, recurrent drought, poor and inadequate management of risk, population

pressure, and subsistence agricultural practices dominated by rain-fed farming and characterized

by low inputs and low outputs. These, in turn, have made many of the households extremely

vulnerable to changes in weather conditions. There has been a secular decline in per capita food

production as high population growth has contributed to a decline in farm sizes, while

environmental degradation has deepened. As a consequence, there have been a number of severe

famines caused by drought over the last four decades.

The response to such a dire situation has for a long time been an emergency appeals approach.

Every year, for over two decades, the Government has launched international emergency appeals

for assistance. This annual emergency assistance was channeled to meet the consumption needs

of all food insecure households. It did not distinguish between different types of food insecurity

– whether it was temporary and caused by specific shocks, or whether it was regular and a

reflection of general poverty. Hence, Ethiopia has long been one of the largest recipients of

emergency food aid in Africa. It has been receiving a relatively huge amount of food aid

annually, and the figure has been rising dramatically. According to some sources, since 1996,

food aid quantities appealed for have been multiplied by 4.5 while beneficiaries have seen a six

fold increase (Food Security Program, Ethiopia, 2004). Both predictable (chronic) and

unpredictable (acute or transitory) needs have largely been met through emergency relief.

While this mechanism has saved millions of lives over the last two decades (and continues to do

so), it has failed to protect livelihoods and assets. The emergency appeals approach has been

costly and have had limited effectiveness at protecting productive assets and mitigating drought

shocks. Evaluations have shown that it was unpredictable for both planners and households,

often arriving too little, too late. The delays and uncertainties meant that the emergency aid could

not be used effectively and did little to protect livelihoods, prevent environmental degradation,

generate community assets, or preserve physical or human household assets. The unpredictable

timing and level of relief resources flowing through the emergency channel means there are few

opportunities to do more than address humanitarian needs (World Bank, Sept, 2009).

As such, despite some growth and fall in poverty as witnessed in recent times, the poverty gap

remains severe and millions (sometimes tens of millions) experience food gaps of three mo nths

or more on a regular basis.



Following the 2002-2003 drought, when more than 13 million Ethiopians (a record number)

required assistance, the government established the New Coalition for Food Security and sought

a new approach to tackling food insecurity. The need for change of approach was felt by all

stakeholders. This change had its roots in the recognition that the appeals system often resulted

in untimely delivery of food and was increasingly unsustainable (Raisin 2001, Smith and

Subbarao 2003).

As a result, in 2005, the Government of Ethiopia revised its strategy of distributing food aid

whereby emergency appeals were replaced with a standing safety net in areas suffering from

chronic food insecurity known as the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). The PSNP, which

began in 2005, is the Government’s response to the above scenario. It is a component of the

Government of Ethiopia (GOE) Food Security Program (FSP), and is an essential feature of the

food security investment strategy for chronically food insecure Woredas.

The PSNP is now in its third phase. Previous phases were as follows:

Phase 1: from January 2005 to December 2006. This phase established PSNP processes

and delivered transfers to 4.84 million food insecure people in Ethiopia.

Phase 2: from January 2006 to December 2009. During this phase the PSNP scaled up

significantly to cover 7.57 million people.

Phase 3: from January 2010 to December 2014. This phase will further strengthen

implementation of the PSNP to achieve the objectives in all programme areas and

maximise linkages with other elements of the FSP to promote graduation from food

insecurity.

The PSNP itself, being one of the components of the FSP in turn has other interrelated elements

one of which targets transfers to poor households in two ways, through public works (PW) and

direct support (DS). Public works, which is the major subject of the Impact Assessment is the

larger of the two programs, pays selected beneficiaries either in the form of cash or food delivery

for their labor, on labor-intensive projects designed to build community assets.

There are several monitoring and evaluation tools in place as far as assessing the performance of

the overall FSP and the PSNP, in particular, are concerned. These assessments are carried out at

different levels of administrative strata and at different times. Public Works Monitoring, Public

Works Review and Public Works Impact Assessments are part of this overall monitoring and

evaluation process. The current task at hand is the 2nd 2011 PSNP PW Impact Assessment

undertaken by Metaferia Consulting Engineers Plc from October 2012 to March 2013.

2.2 Objectives of the Consultancy Work

The objectives of the consultancy work is primarily to come out with an independent assessment

of whether or not the PW work is producing the expected results, and secondly, to help develop

improved directions, policies, and procedures through the dissemination of lessons drawn from

experiences. The main purpose of the 2nd 2011 PSNP PW IA is to assess how the program is



doing against its objectives, whether it is having impact as designed, and to learn how to do

things better. The Impact Assessment is performed in such a way that it allows implementers, at

all levels (Woreda, Regional, and Federal) and in all organizations (Food Security, Natural

Resource Management, Finance) to see whether or not the Public Work plans are working and

whether circumstances have changed. In addition it aims at providing the stakeholders with the

evidence they need to continue the program and/or to make changes and improvements. Within

such a process, the objectives of the program remain constant but it is hoped that the Impact

Assessment study enables all concerned to improve the program so that they can better meet the

objectives of PSNP.



3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Approach

It is to be noted that a guideline to be followed by the 2nd 2011 PSNP PW IA has been provided

by the Client as an attachment to the Terms of Reference (TOR). The approach and methodology

utilized in this study has, in as much as possible, strictly followed the given guideline.

A combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods was, therefore, used to collect data for the assessment in order to close gaps that can emanate from the exclusive use of either one or

the other due to the merits and demerits of each data collection system.

The approach to the assessment was deliberately made to be watershed-based, involving and

addressing the impacts of the totality of activities (PSNP and non-PSNP) on the entire watershed.

Twelve micro-watersheds, which cover all PSNP Regions, were selected before the

commencement of the fieldwork based on consultation and participation of the PSNP woreda

representatives and focal persons.

The most important criterion was the covering of more agro-ecologies, in as much as possible,

and giving due consideration to the varied and comprehensive nature of PSNP PW activities

being implemented in the micro-watersheds in such a way that linkages are easily observable.

Micro-watersheds, with upstream and downstream linkages of activities, were given priority.

Accordingly, two micro-watersheds each were selected from the four regions of Tigray, Amhara,

Oromia and Southern Region making a total of eight. Four micro-watersheds, one each were

selected from Harari, Dire Dawa, Somalia and Afar regions. Ten of the micro-watersheds

represent the farming communities while the remaining two are from Pastoralist/agropastoralist

regions (see list of micro-watersheds in Chapter 3).

The study team has used topographic sheets of the respective micro-watersheds to delineate

boundaries and major infrastructures constructed by PSNP PW interventions. Besides, the team

used GPS readings of coordinates of major infrastructures of the micro-watersheds.

Characteristics of the micro-watersheds like soil type, color, vegetation cover, soil erosion status

as well as location of major infrastructures have been recorded/located for the consumption of

the GIS work.

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Review of Secondary Sources

The methods used for data collection included review of literature and relevant documents on

PSNP, gathering primary and secondary data/information. Review of secondary data and

information relevant to the PSNP PW activities implemented at regional, wereda and watershed

levels published and unpublished documents like reports, midterm evaluations, short and long

term plans, etc, has been conducted. The review of secondary data has helped the study team to

get an initial picture of the situation of the target group and the socio-economic and institutional



context. It has also helped the team to determine gaps and possible contradictions in the available

data.

In general, the study team has given due attention to the review of:

literatures including publications and journals on the conceptual issues, technical

standards and practical aspects of watershed development, NRM and related topics as

relevant to the Ethiopian context;

relevant documents on the backgrounds of the PSNP and its different aspects as well as

previous scheduled PW reviews and impact assessments ;

bio-physical and socio-economic data of the selected micro-watersheds and targeted

households;

statistical data of PSNP PW beneficiary households, graduated households, HABP beneficiaries, etc.;

type and volume of implemented natural resource rehabilitation activities;

type and number of implemented social infrastructures;

annual reports (plan versus achievement); and

progress and monitoring reports, etc.

3.2.2 Household Survey

A well structured household survey questionnaire was prepared for both beneficiaries and non

beneficiaries in the farming and agropastoralist/pastoralist areas and administered in the twelve

micro-watersheds (ten farming and two pastoralist micro-watersheds). Separate questionnaires

were prepared for the farming and pastoralists’ in order to capture issues that emanate from the

peculiar nature of the two categories. The study team received list of beneficiary and non-

beneficiary households from the Kebelle Agriculture and Rural Development Offices. Stratified

and random methodology was used in order to draw an adequately representative sample. Ten

percent of the beneficiary households (30% of them women headed) as well as five percent non

beneficiary households have been interviewed in each watershed.

Wereda and kebele level experts and development agents of the respective Agriculture and Rural

Development Offices were selected for running the questionnaire and data collection. These

people have wide knowledge and experience of the micro-watersheds under study and the overall

implemented activities of PSNP PW. However, the supervisors and enumerators received

training for one day to acquaint them with the objectives of the assessment and the details of the

questionnaire. Members of the study team were also engaged in overall supervision by filling

their own questionnaires for checking and cross checking purposes. The number of enumerators

deployed in the assessment varied from watershed to watershed depending on the sample size of

respondents.



3.2.3 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and KII

The study team applied FGDs and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) In order to get more insight

into certain topics and to check whether patterns found in the households are validated in the

whole group. This methodology was also used to analyze a certain situation or problem in more

detail. This was also helpful in the identification and evaluation of potential solutions to these

problems. Knowledgeable people, women, men, youth, beneficiary and non beneficiary

households of the PSNP PW participated in this process. Accordingly, four FGDs in each

watershed that comprises (three groups from beneficiary households categorized as poor,

medium and rich as well as one group from non-participants of PSNP) have been undertaken.

Each group consisted of people ranging from 8 to 15. A uniform and intentionally designed

checklist has been utilized in all FGDs of micro-watersheds.

3.2.4 Discussion with program officials

One of the methods for collecting data and information during the field work was through

discussion with program officials working at regional, zonal, wereda and kebele levels. Series of

discussions have been held with regional and wereda level steering and technical committees as

well as other relevant stakeholders. In Amhara and SNNPR regions, however, discussions were

made with zonal technical committees zonal level structures have been found functioning.

3.2.5 Direct Observation

Direct observation has been applied to obtain a better picture of the current situation, more

specifically of:

The bio-physical situation of the micro-watersheds (soil loss control, vegetation cover,

fodder availability, gully control, etc.); and

The humanitarian situation (their physical appearance, wellbeing status, their reaction, in

relation to the implemented interventions, etc.).

These methods have intentionally been applied to enable the Consultant understand the social

processes behind the statistics. Generally, as the impact assessment survey is focused on the

gathering of socio-economic as well as bio-physical situations of the micro-watersheds

(comparing before and after interventions of PSNP PW on the micro-watersheds), the survey

methodologies have focused on the analysis of the five major components including socio-

economic status with main focus being on households’ livelihood impacts, communal resource

regeneration and their uses, social infrastructures and services, environmental and social impacts

as well as capacity and institutional impacts.

3.2.6 Case Studies

Case studies of some selected households have been undertaken for in-depth analysis of the

situation of food security and livelihood. This tool was found to be useful as the ultimate

objective of the program is to improve household food security and has planned to implement an



innovative, community based activities mainly in the integration of food security with

community empowerment. A guiding checklist has been prepared for the administration of case

studies in the micro-watersheds as required.

3.2.7 Economic Impact Assessment Approach & Methodology

The approach and methodology utilized for the assessment of the Economic Impacts is treated

separately as a matter of emphasis and in depth utilization of the methodologies recommended

by the TOR. The Case study method was used intensively for undertaking the economic impact

assessment. It was conducted by selecting farmers that are engaged in the different areas of

farming activities to determine the benefits of the PWs such as soil and water conservation,

afforestation and any other technologies or inputs that are associated with the PWs. The benefits

that can be gained by way of improvement in rain-fed farming, irrigation, honey production,

livestock, etc., as a result of appropriate implementation of relevant PWs have been assessed and

analyzed, in this respect. A separate questionnaire was designed and administered in each of the

micro-watersheds. In addition, the assessment has made use of some of the data captured through

household questionnaire, FGD, etc., on watershed and environmental and socioeconomic

aspects, as found appropriate, in order to elicit economic impacts.

The TOR has specified tools for calculating the potential economic benefits of the PW

subprojects examined, through the determination of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) covering

parameters of net present value (NPV) and benefits-costs ratio (BCR). Economic impact

assessment of social infrastructures has also been made using appropriate and comparable

techniques of economic valuation.

Evaluation can be based on a number of decision criteria including internal rate of return (IRR),

benefit-cost ratio (B:C) and net present value (NPV). As the PSNP PW would be implemented

under budget constraints and the interventions are mutually exclusive, the discounted cost benefit

ratio, as stated by Gittinger (1982), is the most appropriate measure of comparison. For this

reason, net present value (NPV) and benefits-costs ratio (BCR) were used in the current

economic impact assessment of PSNP PW subprojects. A typical Benefit-Cost (B/C) analysis

calculates the discounted benefits per discounted costs to get a benefit-cost ratio over a period of

time. NPV is defined as the difference between the sum total of the present value of discounted

benefit streams and the discounted value of cost streams over the life of the project.

The PSNP PW subprojects considered in this economic impact assessment included SWC (crop

and related products productivity), enclosed areas (biomass productivity), irrigation (crop and

related products productivity), and social infrastructures (rural roads, rural health facility/ post,

and water supply) subprojects in the 12 sample community micro micro-watersheds. In order to

identify measure and quantify the economic impacts of these interventions, the following data

collection and analysis approaches and procedures were used.

i. SWC subprojects: The economic impact of SWC structures like soil/stone bunds,

terraces, gully control, etc. on either private cropland or communal hillsides has been

assessed in terms of the changes in soil fertility and crop productivity under rainfed



condition on-site or downstream (crop land located adjacent and below the structures)

compared to non-treated areas in the concerned watershed or micro-watershed. The

benefits of SWC measures that are attributed to PSNP activities and structures have been

considered. In cases where the SWC interventions were carried out on croplands, the

positive impacts on crop productivity was estimated involving well informed beneficiary

household from the cropland (on-site estimation). In cases where the SWC intervention

carried out were located just above the cropland, the positive impacts on crop production

due to reduced run-off and sedimentation have been estimated/ quantified from croplands

located just below/ downstream to the treated areas involving concerned beneficiary

household farmers (off-site estimation). Investment costs on SWC and annual operational

costs and direct benefits obtained from the interventions were considered. For the

assessment, production data and involved costs were collected by interviewing at least

two informed beneficiary household heads in relevant sites as well as from kebele and

DA offices. Average crop prices and related data were also taken from kebele, woreda

and regional offices.

ii. Enclosed Areas: The economic impact of enclosed areas that are attributed to PSNP PW

in terms of changes in herbaceous and woody biomass has been estimated and quantified

in the respective micro-watersheds or micro-micro-watersheds. The positive impacts in

enclosed areas include changes in woody biomass (trees and fuel wood), forage or grass,

beekeeping package, fruits production in relevant community micro-micro-watersheds, as

the case may be.

The economic impacts originated due to changes in forage or grass and chat or fruit

production in enclosed areas were quantified by involving at least two beneficiary

household heads in relevant micro-micro-watersheds. Similarly, the productivity changes

in honey production, as a result of increased bee forage production in enclosed areas,

were quantified using data obtained from concerned beneficiary honey producers as well

as from kebele and development agent offices.

The economic impacts of woody biomass (tree plantations and fuel woods) were assessed

using the quantity of biomass estimated for each micro-watershed under the

environmental impact assessment section and supplemented with data obtained from

previous research studies. The annual costs and initial investment costs incurred on

production of relevant herbaceous and wood biomass products including honey

production have been collected by interviewing beneficiary representative individual

households (at least two in each case) as a case study for each product that has been

practiced in the micro-watershed. Additional data were also taken from Kebele and

development agent offices.



iii. Irrigation Infrastructure Subprojects: The valuation of irrigation structures

attributable to PSNP PW included two types: small scale and spate irrigation. Small scale

irrigation generally originates from a rejuvenated spring or an extended base flow

resulting from increased rainwater infiltration in a Closed Area. On the other hand, spate

irrigation generally uses flooding water and involves a diversion weir or similar structure

which may be semi-permanent or re-built each year and used as supplementary irrigation

to rainfed crops. Quantified data on economic benefits of either irrigation structures were

collected from key representative beneficiary households (at least two in each micro-

watershed wherever irrigated crop production is practiced). Annual costs incurred on

production of crops practiced and initial investment costs were collected in the same way

and data on number of beneficiaries practicing irrigation and area put under irrigation

were collected from kebele, development agents and woreda offices.

iv. Infrastructure Subprojects: In this impact assessment, infrastructure subprojects

included water supply, rural feeder roads, and health posts implemented by PSNP PW

interventions. The benefits these infrastructure subprojects have been quantified and

valuated indirectly in terms of time and cost savings at individual household level.

Hence, the benefits in terms of time and cost savings and the annual operating and

maintenance as well as investment costs/capital costs were collected from representative

individual households (at least two) as case study for each subproject in relevant micro-

micro-watersheds. Data on number of beneficiaries of the infrastructures and related

information were taken from kebele, development agents and woreda agriculture offices.

In general, the economic impact analysis of PSNP PW interventions were based on the

data collected from key beneficiary households as case study, elaborated above.

Accordingly, a total of 75 key beneficiary households were interviewed on economic

impact of the sub-projects described above (see table 3.1 below).

The data collected through this process was complemented by the assessment made by

the different expertise of the team working on benefits brought to environmental and

watershed phenomena in terms of the improvements made to the natural environment,

agricultural production, and the overall improvement in socio-economic/livelihood

aspects of the interventions mentioned above.



Table ‎3-1: Summary of Key Households Interviewed to Provide Data on Economic Benefits

and Costs

Region Micro-watershed

Number of Representative Households Interviewed per sub-project

SWC based

Crop

Production

Area

Enclosures

(Beekeeping,

Forage

Grass, Fuel

Wood, etc)

PSNP PW

Irrigated

Crop

Production

Economic &

Social

Infrastructures

(Roads, Water

Supply, and

Health)

Total

Tigray Adi – Tsalka 2 2 2 2 8

,, Keshi Aynalem 2 2 2 2 8

Amhara Mola Geremoch 2 2 0 2 6

,,

Legabero

Wakelo

2 2 1 2 7

Afar Hale Ela 2 2 0 2 6

Oromia Gola Gorba 2 2 2 2 8

,, Kogna 2 2 0 2 6

Harari Negadras 3 0 0 0 3

Dire

Dawa Lega Dhugo

2 2 0 2 6

Somali Bike 0 0 0 2 2

SNNP Genebo Koste 2 2 0 2 6

,,

Doyancho

Tumedo

3 3 0 3 9

Total 24 21 7 23 75



3.2.8 Method of Analysis

The data collected from field level and from secondary sources, as specified above, have been

classified and quantified in quantity and money terms. The quantified da ta were valuated into

stream of benefits and costs using market prices and projected over expected life of the

subprojects, which on average is taken as 25 years. Discounting was used to calculate the present

value of future costs and benefits using appropriate discounting rates. In this analysis, a financial

discount rate of 15% and economic discount rate of 10% (to consider price distortions) were

used. Economic analysis using cost benefit analysis, assesses the impacts of interventions on the

economy as a whole. The analysis examines whether the intervention will contribute to the

development of the total economy. Market prices are adjusted to take into account distortions

due to market failures and government policies. Thus, taxes and subsidies are not included.

Based on these data, the net present value (NPV) and benefits-costs ratio (BCR) of the

subprojects were calculated and interpreted for each micro-watershed.



4 DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE

MICRO-WATERSHEDS

4.1 Location and Administrative Areas of the Micro-watersheds

As indicated above, 12 micro-watersheds were assessed in seven different National Regional

States and one City Administration that include Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, Southern, Somali,

Afar, Harari and Dire Daw City Administration. The location and names of the Woredas,

Kebeles and micro-watersheds assessed and areas covered are indicated in Fig 3.1 and Table

3.1below, respectively.

Figure ‎4-1: Location of Micro micro-watersheds



Table ‎4-1: Administrative Location of the Micro-watersheds

Region Woreda Kebele(KA) Micro-watersheds Remarks

Name Area

(ha)

Tigray Ahiferom Zata Adi-Tsalka 1685

Tigray Atsbi-

Womberta

Barka-Adi

Subha

Keshi Aynalem 420

Amhara Habru Gosh-Wuha Molla-Germoch 809

Amhara Were-Babo Legebero Wekelo 1158

Oromia Melka

Belo

Mekenisa Gola Gorba 202

Oromia Habro Legabera Garaguracha/Garayaya 215

SNNP Humbo Bukie dengola Arbegna 99.2

SNNP Lemu Semein Beleisa Doyancho 380

Harari Sofi Sofi Negadiras 1305

Dire Dawa Dire Daw Adada Lega Dugo 2262

Somali Afdem Bike Bulabora/ Biokulul 184 The whole area of

the Pastoral KA

Afar Yallo Hallie Ella Hallie Ella 112 The whole area of

the Pastoral KA

Total

8,831.2

Source: Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Offices, December, 2012.



Figure ‎4-2: Area in hectare by watershed/settlement

4.2 Biophysical Characteristics

Though each and every watershed has its own peculiar biophysical characteristics, it was

possible to make some generalizations in order to portray the biophysical characteristics in a

summarized form. Accordingly, the following generalizations were made and the specific

characteristics are presented in table 4.2, below.

The rain fall amount varies from 400 mm in Hille Illa in Afar Regional State to 1322mm in

Golegorba of Harbo in Oromia Region. Similarly, the slope % varies from 0-2 to 0-39 in

Golegorba and Legedugo (Diredawa), respectively.

Since rainfall is erratic and unreliable in its amount and distribution in both farming and pastoral

areas of PSNP weredas, there exists chronic food shortage in most cases for more than 3 months.

It can be said that before the implementation of the PSNP, the micro-watersheds were heavily

eroded and degraded due to overgrazing, wanton cutting of woody vegetation, over browsing and

continuous cultivation without any SWC measures.

The climate, especially in pastoral areas, is dry and warm while the air temperature is mild in the

farming areas. The pastoral areas fall mainly in the dry Kolla zone while the farming micro-

micro-watersheds fall in dry Weina Dega and Dega, though there are some microwatershds witch

resemble Upper Dega or cooler area like that of Southern Nations (Hossaina) and Amhara

micro-micro-watersheds. These areas are discerned by vegetation species like Erica and Tree

lucern, influenced by micro- land forms such as valleys.

The productivity of the farming areas, in terms of woody and herbaceous biomass, is better than

the micro-micro-watersheds in the pastoral areas both after and before PSNP. Water remains a

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Area in Hectare by Watershed

Actual area, hectars



scarce resource even if it shows improvements after PSNP interventions in sample micro-micro-

watersheds. The biophysical characteristics of sample micro-watersheds studied/assessed are

given in table 3.2, below.

Table ‎4-2: Biophysical Characteristics of sample micro-watersheds Sample micro-

watershed

Actu

al

Area

(ha)

Altitude

range(m)

Mean

annual

RF(mm)

Mean

annual

Tempera

ture(0c)

Major

soil

color

types

Major

cover/

vegetation

Current

land use

Adi_Tsalka 1685 2000-2600 500 10-22 Brown

& red

Cultivation,

plantation,

shrub

grassland

Crop

production,

Grazing

Keish-Ayinalem 420 2200-3100 600 10-22 Brown Cultivation,

plantation,

shrub

grassland

Crop

production,

Grazing

Molla-

Geremoch

809 1760-2080 800 10-27 Black Cultivation,

plantation,

shrub

grassland

Crop

production,

Grazing

Legeberro-

Wekello

1158 1920-2260 1000 22-27 Brown Cultivation,

plantation,

shrub

grassland

Crop

production,

Grazing

Hallie-Ella 112 980-1120 400 22-30 Black Scattered

shrubs &

grasses

Grazing &

Browsing

Negadiras 1305 1740-2180 724-730 15-23 Yellow

&

Brown

Cultivation,

plantation

and wooded

shrub

grassland

Annuals &

perennial

crops

production,

livestock

rearing

Gelegorba 202 1800-1890 938 15-20 Yellow

&

Brown

Same as

above

Same as

above

Adada/Legedug 2262 1500-1900 685-763 25-30 Yellow Same as Same as



Sample micro-

watershed

Actu

al

Area

(ha)

Altitude

range(m)

Mean

annual

RF(mm)

Mean

annual

Tempera

ture(0c)

Major

soil

color

types

Major

cover/

vegetation

Current

land use

o &

Brown

above above

Bikie 184 1130-1200 400 28-33 Grey Scattered

trees, shrubs

and grasses

Grazing and

browsing

Garaguracha-

Garayaya

215 1600-1680 973-1322 20-22 Red &

Brown

Cultivation,

plantation

and wooded

shrub

grassland

Annuals &

perennial

crops

production,

livestock

rearing

Arbegna-Kostei

Genebo

992 2200-2320 845-858 18-20 Yellow

& Black

Same as

above

Same as

above

Doyancho 380 1400-1480 1088 13-18 Red &

Brown

Same as

above

Same as

above

With regards to vegetation, the sample micro-watersheds revealed wooded shrub-grassland

upstream with stony and rocky surfaces intermingling at narrow spots and cultivated at middle

and downstream areas. Narrow valleys are cultivated with small scale irrigation or covered with

grasses and shrubs at spots. In the pastoral areas, dry scattered shrubs and grasses occur on upper

and down slopes without any occurrence of cultivated fields.

Hillsides and mountainous areas of the micro-watersheds have been treated with soil and water

conservation measures including gully treatments, tree plantations, small scale irrigation schemes

and water supply points covering an area of 4,771.45 hectares of land.

4.3 Features of the Public Works Micro-Micro-watersheds

The micro-watersheds selected for the assessment has shown varied features and characteristics

in terms of:

spatial inter-linkages and externalities of expected positive and sometimes negative

linkages of upstream PW activities to downstream, which was difficult to see within the

micro-watersheds delineated due to smallness in size. However, downstream benefits

from upstream soil and water conservation activities was very vivid in terms of



enhancement of volume in rivers and expansion of irrigation in far away downstream

areas as will be explained later;

aspects of multiple program objectives, dimensions and de terminants covering wide

range of activities;

long gestation period and difficulties in determining some program benefits;

difficulties in determining baseline conditions; and

variability of local bio-physical and socio-economic conditions prevailing in the micro-

watersheds, etc,.

4.4 Socio-Economic Characteristics

4.4.1 Households & Family Members Benefiting from PSNP PWs

The Woredas, KAs and the Watershed areas indicated in Table 4.2 are registered, known and

have been supported by PSNP PWs since the beginning of the Program except Hallie-Ella and

Bike of Afar and Somali Regions, respectively. According to the secondary data obtained from

respective Agriculture and Rural Development and Food Security Offices, the total number of

household heads living in the 12 micro-watersheds is 3,212, as presented in Table-3.3.

Table ‎4-3: Households Benefiting from PSNP PWs in the Micro-watersheds (2011/12)

Woreda Watershed No. of HH

Ahiferom Adi-Tsalka 172

Atsbi-Womberta Keshi Aynalem 392

Habru Molla-Germoch 46

Were-Babo Legebero Wekelo 109

Melka Belo Gola Gorba 192

Habro Garaguracha/Garayaya 55

Humbo Arbegna 470

Lemu Doyancho 150

Sofi Negadiras 448

Dire Daw Lege Dugo 474

Afdem Bulabora/ Biokulul 450

Yallo Hallie Ella 400

Total 3358

Source: Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development Offices, December, 2012.

4.4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the HHs Benefiting from PSNP PWs

Among the total households benefiting from the PSNP PWs in the watersheds both in the

highland farming and pastoral community areas, a total of 327 (255 male and 72 female)

households were randomly selected for running the household. The total family members of the

PSNP PWs participants’ on whom household survey was conducted were 1,772 (929 male and

843 female), and the average family size of the household participating in PSNP PWs was 5.4.



Data collected reveals that the religious composition of the households’ living in the highland

farming communities, within the micro-watersheds and participating in PSNP PWs, consists of

Muslims (58%), Orthodox Christians (21.5%), Protestants (19.8%,) and Catholics ( 0.8 %).

Similarly, in the pastoral community areas, 95.6 percent were Muslims while Orthodox

Christians represent 4.4 percent. In terms of education, 53.5 percent of the households

participating in PSNP PWs were illiterate.

4.4.3 Sources of Livelihood

Agriculture is the main stay of the population and it provides the largest share for livelihood in

the watersheds and surrounding areas. Smallholder subsistence and mixed agriculture, in which

livestock husbandry is closely integrated with crop production, is the main farming system of the

population of the areas.

Most of the watershed areas and their environs have been suffering from inadequate and erra tic

rainfall pattern that contributed to recurring production failure and chronic food shortage.

Consequently, incomes are very low and poverty has been widespread and deep in many parts of

the watershed areas.



5 GIS ANALYSIS

5.1 General Description

The GIS analysis was made for all the twelve micro-watersheds selected from seven regional

states and one city administration as shown in figure 4.1 above. The selected micro-watersheds

have diverse biophysical conditions. As indicated above, the rain fall amount varies from 400mm

in Hille Illa to 1,322mm in Golegorba of Harbo in oromia region. Similarly, the slope percent

varies from 0-2 to 0-39 in Golegorba (harbo) to Legedugo (Diredawa), respectively. However,

the temperature is more or less similar in all micro-watersheds. The details are shown in table 5.1

as follows.

Table ‎5-1: Area, rainfall, temperature, slope percent and length of micro-watersheds No. Watershed Actual

area, (ha)

Altitude Annual

Rainfall (mm)

Temp.(0c) Slope

length

(m)

Slope (%)

1 Aditsalka 1685 2000 - 2600 500 10--22 219-619 0-19

2 keshi-aynalem 420

2200 - 3040 600 10--22 619-839 0-10

3 Mollagermoch 809

1760-2080 800 10--27 219-652 0-25

4 legeberoWeqello 1158

1920-2260

1000 22--27 219-652 0-25

5 Halie-ella 112 980-1120 400 22-30 619-839 0-10

6 Bike 184 1130-1200 657-671 28-23 620-1227 0-5

7 Arbegena 99.2 2200 - 2390 845-858 18-20 718-878 0-3.6

8 Diredawa/Legadego 2262

1500-1900 685-763 25-30

1812-1891 0-39

9 Negadiras 1305 1740-2180 724-730 15-23 607-1242 0-27

10 Gara Guracha 215

1600-1680 973-1322 20-22 280-558 0-2

11 Doyancho 380 1400-1480 1088 13-18 280-838 0-5

12 Mekennisa 202 1800 - 1890 938 15 - 20 280-1117 0-3



5.2 Objective of GIS Analysis

The objective of the GIS analysis is to support the overall impact assessment of the PSNP PWs

through:

Identifying and delineating the selected micro-watersheds;

Generating the input factors (biophysical information) for soil loss estimation; and

Providing Land cover change analysis from temporal variations of satellite Imagery.

5.3 Capturing Basic Digital Data and Environmental Analysis of Micro-Watersheds

5.3.1 Delineation of the Selected Micro-Watersheds and Mapping of Infrastructures

5.3.1.1 Delineation of the Selected Micro-Watersheds

Having obtained topographic maps at a scale of 1:50,000 from the Ethiopian Mapping Agency, a

team of experts was deployed to collect spatial data and create polygon on the topographic sheets

of the selected micro-watersheds. This was made in collaboration with the respective Wereda

Natural Resource Management (NRM) officials. Additional variables on land use, management

practices and soil colour were collected at field level, based on land mapping unit, by making

traverse walks and taking field notes of observations.

Topo-sheets with delineated watershed boundaries and other variables that were obtained from

field level studies were scanned and geo-referenced to establish digital map and shape files in

ARCGIS. Area of each watershed was then calculated from the shape files.

Thematic map of current land use, land management factor and soil colour of all micro-

watersheds were linked and mapped as indicated below (4.1a-4.1d) for Negadiras watershed of

Harar. The results have been crosschecked with the previously prepared small scale digital maps

of woody biomass and Ethio-GIS.

Figure 4.1-a Figure 4.1-b Figure 4.1-c Figure 4.1-d

Figure 5-1:A to D: Watershed boundary and land cover management factor and soil colour

maps of Negadiras watershed

5.3.1.2 Mapping of Infrastructures

Infrastructures constructed in the micro-watersheds are collected and mapped as shown in the

following figures; Figures 4.2 and 4.3 and the details are presented in annex section.



Figure ‎5-2: Infrastructure Map of Aditsalka Watershed

Figure 5-3: Infrastructure Map of Keshi Aynalem Watershed

5.3.2 Generate Biophysical Information for Soil Loss Estimation

Slope length, slope gradient, land cover, land management, soil colour and rainfall erosivity are

the input factors for soil loss estimation. The most influential factors for soil loss estimation are

land management factor and land cover changes due to various activities. Slope and soil factors

do not change significantly in the shorter period of time. Hence, land cover and land

management factor, which are mentioned under 4.3.1, are used as input for soil loss estimation.

Shuttle Raddar topographic Mission-Digital Elevation Model, SRTM-DEM of 30 meter was

bought from the Ethiopian Mapping Agency, for generating contours for each watershed and

from which the Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) Model was established.



Figure ‎5-4: Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) of Aditsalka Watershed

From TIN DEM, slope% and slope angle have been derived. Some examples are illustrated

below for Bike and Legedugo micro-watersheds.

Figure ‎5-5: Slope % and Length of Golegorba and Doyancho Micro-watersheds

TRIANGULATED IRREGULAR NETWORK (TIN) OF ADITSALKA WATERSHED,AFEROM

WEREDA

¯0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.320.04

Kilometers



Table ‎5-2: Rainfall, slope length and % of watershed

No. Watershed Rainfall (mm/Y)

Slope length

slop %

1 Aditsalka 500 219-619 0-19

2 keshi-aynalem 600 619-839 0-10

3 Mollagermoch 800 219-652 0-25

4 legeberoWeqello 1000 219-652 0-25

5 Halie-ella 400 619-839 0-10

6 bike 657-671 620-1227 0-5

7 buke 845-858 718-878 0-3.6

8 Diredawa 685-763 1812-1891 0-39

9 Harar 724-730 607-1242 0-27

10 Harbo 973-1322 280-558 0-2

11 Belesa 1088 280-838 0-5

12 Melkabelo 938 280-1117 0-3

5.3.3 Land Cover Change Analysis from Temporal Variations of Satellite Imagery

As there has not been base line data at a large scale or micro-watersheds level, the method the

Consultant followed was to take observation of the vegetation cover change using temporal

variation of satellite imagery and band 642 false colour combinations, where gree n colour shows

vegetation reflectance.

Initially, it was planned to use spot imagery with 5m resolution but it was not possible to get the

recent image of the area. Hence, Landsat Satellite image of 1) Imagery date January, 13,2000 as

baseline and 2) satellite image of imagery date November-30,2010 both from landsat-7ETM+

satellite of spatial resolution 30m, were purchased from the Ethiopian mapping authority.

Recently published abstract shows, 8 to 9 years is ideal for environmental monitoring or change

detection (http://WWW.landcovertrends.usgs.gov/pubs/aBiblio.html Land Cover Trends -

Abstracts of Published Papers, Dec 13, 2012). Hence, as per methodology utilized, it was stated

to use 8 years difference with similar type and resolution of images that is for the year 2002

(Before) and 2010 (after) the intervention of PSNP. Unfortunately, we were not able to find

images from 2002 to 2004 that represent all sample micro-watersheds. As a result, we were

forced to use images of the year 2000 which were available for all selected micro-watersheds as

a base for analysis as an alternative.

http://www.landcovertrends.usgs.gov/pubs/aBiblio.html

http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/pubs/aBiblio.html

http://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/pubs/aBiblio.html



Landsate-7ETM+, satellite image of 2000, dry, clear sky season (December to January) of 30

meter resolution as a base line data (before PSNP intervention) and similar satellite image of the

year 2010 (after first PSNP intervention) of the same season of temporal variation or resolutio n

was used for land cover analysis. As the micro-watersheds are so small, several recoding and

reiterations were done to get the maximum good results using supervised maximum likely hood

classifier image classification method. The findings show that there is generally land cover

change, increase of vegetation cover as a whole, it could be shrub land, grass land, forest or bush

land, at some water sheds it shows new surface water from the black colour spots in the Image,

like it is observed in Legebero Wekello. About 493.458hectars increase in forest land, about

95.64hectars increase in Bush-shrub land and 34hectrar in grass land

The satellite image of the Legebro Wekello watershed signifies the reflectance of the surface as

near zero DN values compared to other Micro-watersheds. Here the aim is not to know the

amount of moisture content and number of ponds of whatsoever nature; rather to show the

changes that have happened to the previously existing land use land cover due to PW

interventions. In this respect previously non existing surface water has been witnessed.

Figure ‎5-6: Land cover change of Legebro Woqello Watershed

Figure ‎5-7: Land cover change of Adi-Tsalka Watershed



Figure ‎5-8: Land cover change of Negadiras Watershed

As it is shown below, increased vegetation cover or greenness is observed in Keshi Ayanalem

(Atsibi) and Legebero-Weqello (Werebabo) micro-watersheds.

Figure ‎5-9: Land cover change map of Keshi Aynalem and Legebero-Weqello Watershed

Next to the above mentioned micro-watersheds, better vegetation cover is observed in Adi-

Tsalka (Ahferom), Molla Geremoch (Habru), Negadiras (Harar), Legedugo (Diredawa), Arbegna

Kostie genebo (SNNPR), Doyancho (SNNPR), Golegorba and Kogna of Oromia



Figure ‎5-10: Land cover map of Molla Geremoch watershed

Except, Haile Illa (Yallo Woreda) and Bike (Afdem) of Afar and Somali regions, respectively,

slight increment of vegetation cover is observed for all the remaining micro-watersheds.

Especially, in Hille Illa of Yallo Woreda, there was no any change in vegetation cover due to the

reasons mentioned earlier in this report.

Figure ‎5-11: Land Cover Map of Hille-Ella Watershed

The temporal variotions in land use/landcover change attributed to the PSNP PW implementation

for the remaining warersheds can be seen in annex section.



6 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

6.1 Analysis of Environmental and Watershed Impacts of PSNP PWs

6.1.1 General

It has been clearly recognized that the implementation of soil and water conservation activities is

of prime importance as far as the new safety net approach for the attainment of food security is

concerned. It is very important due to the fact that the rehabilitation of the environment is an

assurance to the maintenance and further improvement of any level of food security attained at

both individual and community levels. As such, knowing clearly what is going on in this

important area of intervention as well as the achievements and constraints so far directly and

indirectly indicates and whether or not the whole issue of the PSNP PW goal, mission and

objectives is being addressed properly or not is of paramount importance.

The study on environmental and watershed impacts examined the performance of various

indicators of agricultural productivity, natural resource management and human welfare.

Indicators were collected at the level of watershed project sites from household interviews, group

discussions and field observations. To this effect a sample of 12 micro-watersheds were selected

from among the numerous micro-watersheds where PSNP PWs are being implemented in the

different PSNP regions. The IA study team looked into the following performance indicators

using the approaches and methodologies expounded at large above to assess the impacts/measure

successes of the PSNP PW on the watershed project sites.

6.1.2 Estimates of on-site Soil Losses and Reductions due to SWM Activities

For assessing effects of watershed development on soil erosion and land productivity, Public

Works SWC measures are assessed in terms of their physical effects including the direct on- site

effects and the indirect downstream (off-site) effects. The watershed approach on environmental

rehabilitation of the PSNP PW at country level has dominantly shown positive impact in soil loss

reduction.

The main SWC measures planned and practiced in the micro-watersheds include area closure,

hill side stone bunds/terraces, trench bunds, micro-basins, eyebrow basins, check dams, tree

planting on basins in the upstream portions, mainly above foot slopes, etc. On foot slopes and

below foot slopes the activities include stone faced soil bunds and soil bunds with trenches and

planting of fodder crops along bunds, at some localities, in agricultural areas. In the eastern and

southeastern regions like Harari, Eastern and Western Harergei zones of Oromiya and Driedawa,

chat (Catha edulis) is planted along bunds in rows and annual crops in between rows of

perennials. Likewise, in Amhara region of Molla-Geremoch watershed pea-gem-pea (cajanus

cajan) is well established along the trench bunds of both hillsides and arable lands.

To control expansion of deep gullies, rehabilitation of existing ones and preventing new gully

formation and different conservation techniques such as loose check dams, gabion check dams,



rock plugs, score checks, retaining wall structures combined with vegetative measures have been

used for erosion control including seeding with grasses and legumes. Planting of fodder and fruit

trees and other similar strategies have been found to be effective for erosion control. The

vegetative measure (grasses planted along the river/drainage channels) in Adi-Tsakla, Keshi-

Aynalem, Negadiras and Gelegorba micro-micro-watersheds and others have been found to

benefit farmers as a source of fodder for their animals. The gabion check dam structure is,

however, found to be expensive and very difficult to be adopted by poor farmers unless an

external support is in place as done by PSNP PW. Table 5.1 below shows summarized response

of households on the SWC implemented in their micro-watersheds of various components.

Table ‎6-1: Have any Soil and Water Conservation activities been carried out by the PSNP

PWs in your locality?

Place of implementation Frequency Percent

Yes, in the closure area 121 47.5

Yes, on my farm 10 3.9

Yes on communal areas 59 23.1

yes in all the above 56 22.0

No 9 3.5

Total 255 100

Source: MCE PSNP PW IA HH Survey, December 2012

Based on the farmer's perspective and the study team’s field observation, the stone-faced trench

bunds, hillside terraces, check dams and other techniques implemented in most micro-watersheds

are excellent technologies for moisture conservation and soil erosion control. Although the level

of implementation varies from watershed to watershed these techniques seem to be working well,

efficient, easily replicable and cheap.

Except in Halie-Ella and Bikie, 80% of the sampled households reported that SWC measures

along with regeneration of vegetation measures have brought positive environmental impact on

their micro-watersheds. Runoff water and soil loss on barren hills that was a stark reality before

the treatment was significantly reduced after the interventions. The progressive reduction in soil

and water loss and sediment yield, as a result of quick recovery of vegetation on hill slopes and

lands adjoining the foothills, has resulted in a greatly improving surface and groundwater regime

of the micro-watersheds.

During the survey, households were asked whether they implement soil and water conservation

individually on their private holdings or not: the summarized response indicated that 62.7% of

the households respond 'yes' while 37.3% said 'no'. According to the survey, the main reasons for

not practicing soil and water conservation on individual plots were shortage of manpower

followed by shortage of land and lack of awareness.

The replicability of the stone-faced trench bund in non-arable lands and soil trench bunds in

arable lands are found to be tremendous. Farmers are adopting it on their own private lands



without external assistance. This is probably a reflection of two factors. First, the areas are

severely affected by high moisture stress and farmer's adoption is primarily focused on solving

such problem as the trench bund is the most effective technique for moisture conservation.

Second, the emphasis on the use of local materials (stone and soil) with these techniques is also

evident.

Nevertheless, in pastoral areas (Halie-Ella and Bikie) the effect of soil and water conservation

activities implemented by PSNP PW is not clearly seen mainly due to the late implementation of

the PSNP PW Program and the recurrent drought that occurred in the past two consecutive years.

As a consequence, the areas are highly suffering from land degradation and food insecurity.

During the study, households in Halie-Ella and Bikie reported that sever environmental

degradation affects both communities as well as households in the two micro-watersheds. The

most commonly reported problems were soil erosion, recurrent drought, deforestation, gully

formation and lack of food and feed resources.

Generally, the direct physical effects (on-site) of Watershed Development of PWs intervention

activities in the successful watershed areas are tremendous and as such include:

Natural herbaceous and woody vegetation rehabilitation;

Flood and Soil erosion/detachment control;

Interception of erratic rainfall by canopies of woody vegetation;

Establishment of wildlife homes and environment

Enhancement of percolation of moisture through roots of natural and planted trees and

beneath trenches and micro-basins; and

Extension of soil moisture availability periods.

The productivity effects of SWC activities on the other hand include:

Improvement of livestock feed;

Appearance of new springs

Improvement of spring water availability period;

Improvement of land cover;

Improvement of soil fertility

Improvement of the availability of woods for planned and systematic harvesting and

use; and

Improvement of soil depth and organic content through weathering and organic matters

of decaying leaves and annuals.



The indirect (off-site) downstream effects of Upstream SWC intervention in line with on site

effects embrace:

Reduction of sedimentation and flood destruction;

Reduction and control of gully formation;

Improvement of soil moisture holding period;

Improvement of crop yield and production;

Improvement in availability of livestock feed;

Community and HH asset creation;

Improvement of out migration;

Reduction of asset depletion of HHs during drought years; Improvement of land

management skills, awareness and knowhow;

Dissemination of land development techniques in-situ and neighboring Kebeles;

Improvement of river and stream water flow; and

Improvement of drinking and irrigation water availability period.

The rate of on-site soil losses using scientific techniques and measures were not conducted even

before the PSNP project begins. This should have been done by taking water samples from

outlets of streams and rivers that leaves the micro-watershed during different seasons of the year

(i.e. both in good and bad years). Despite this situation, it has been observed that not much soil

is moving down slopes except in times of some conservation structures are broken after PSNP

PW interventions as cases indicate in Hossaina/Lemmo /Doyancho micro-watershed.

Table 5.2 below provides area treated in different micro-watersheds to control flood and

detachment of soils. In general, in all micro-watersheds, more than 2,623ha of hillsides, 2,697ha

of cultivated lands and grazing lands as well as 36ha of gullies have been treated with various

physical conservation techniques.



Table ‎6-2: Size of Areas treated in the sample micro-watersheds

Micro-watershed Land type treated to

halt erosion

Area treated

(ha)

Remark

Tigray/ Adi-Tsalka Hillsides 271.00

Tigray/ Kish-Ayinalem Hillside 262.50

Grassland/grazing 75.00

Amhara/ Molla Geremoch Hill side

Gullies

Cultivated land

154.27

34.20

18.00

Amhara/ Legeberro_Wekello Hillside

Cultivated land

422.00

47.00

Vast area (924) but

only small part

covered

Dredawa/Adada/Legedugo Hillside terrace

Cultivated land

347.00

219.00

The whole treated

area is 25% of the

MWS which is 566

ha

Somali/Bikie Demonstration site and

gullies

Nursery site

Hill side terrace

2.00

1.50

17.00

Oromia/Gelemso/

Garaguracha

Hillside

Cultivated land

50.00

165.00

Welayita/ Arbegna/Kostei

Genebo

Hillside terrace

Cultivated land

239.00

753.00

Hossaina/ Lemmo Doyancho Degraded land

Cultivated land

261.00

119.00

Field estimation

Harari /Negadiras Hillside

Cultivated land (75%)

486.00

614.00

Field estimation



Oromia/Golegorba Hillside

Cultivated land

Check-dam

Seedling plantation

113.00

175.00

4,433.00m

522,200.(number)

Wereda office data

Afar/Hallie-Ella

Settlement surrounding

169.00

Source: MCE PW IA Study, December 2012, FGD, KII and field observations and estimation

The re-growth of natural woody vegetation (trees and shrubs) and grasses has slowed downward

flow of water over the land during rains and increased the power of interception and percolation.

Though not measured, the amount of sediments trapped by different types of bunds, trenches and

micro-basins constructed indicate that a tremendous amount of soil has been retained in-situ after

PSNP, especially in agricultural areas. Increases in percolation and seepages of rain water have

also improved the stands and yields of perennial and annual crops as per the land users and

participants. Added to that, perennials and some irrigated crops planted along streams and

narrow valleys including natural vegetation (Harari, Tigray and Oromiya micro-micro-

watersheds) were observed to be in good stands due to soil conservation, improvement of soil

depth, fertility and moisture holding capacities. An estimation of soil loss rate based on pre-

project and current-project land cover, land use and management situations and application of

the Revised Universal Soil Loss Rate Equation(RUSLRE) modified as per Ethiopian Conditions

is given in Table 5.3 below.

6.1.2.1 Baseline Soil Losses (before intervention)

Non-Public Work participating and non-participating land users told that vegetation and soil

degradation were tremendous due to poor management practices in sample micro-watersheds.

The watershed areas were generally prone to deterioration either by the accelerated removal of

soil, the progressive alteration of soil properties, or the loss of vegetative cover from soil. Some

of the causes of land degradation are natural, being the consequence of hazards such as floods,

bushfires or drought. Others are the consequences of human activities including overgrazing,

deforestation or poor agricultural practices due to high population pressure in the area.

Generally, the land resource, in all sample micro-watersheds, can be defined as land, which has

mainly lost some or all of its value for human use.

During the field survey residences of these micro-watersheds explained earnestly that the areas

were completely bare attributed to upstream soil detachment and losses by sheet, rill and gully

types of erosion. Landslides were also basic problems on lower slopes and down streams mainly

along gullies and streams. In dry areas like Afar and Somali micro-watersheds, soil loses were

due to trampling, overgrazing and over-browsing effects and wanton tree cutting for charcoal and



fire wood. In Dre Dawa, Adada Kebele, Legedugo micro-watersheds, Acacia wood cutting is

still practiced though the effort to halt the problem is in place. According to the Das of the area,

the cutting is done by traders of charcoal who, at the same time, are members of the Kebele. As a

result yield and production of crops have been declining year after year making the food, feed

and wood insecurity gap extremely wide. The negative effects were seasonal and permanent

migration and breaking of marriages and families due to successive droughts followed by

famine. Estimation of soil loss rates in tones/ha/yr of the visited micro-watersheds are given in

Table 5.3 below. Soil loss rate varies from micro-watershed to micro-watershed mainly because

of differences in factors influencing the processes mentioned below.

The rate of soil loss denoted by ‘A’ in the formulae for each micro-watershed was estimated

using the Revised Universal Loss Equation (RUSLE), which involves factors like Rainfall

erosivity ®, Soil erodibility (K), Slope length (L), Slope gradient (S), Land Cover © and

Management Practices (P). The equation applied to determine soil loss rate (A) is formulated as

A=R*K*L*S*C*P adapted by Hurni for Ethiopian conditions in 1985. As per rates of factors

adapted by the same and by relating values of factors derived from field and GIS assessment

conducted by the Consultant, see Annex section

Table ‎6-3: Soil Loss Rate Estimation Before & After PSNP Pws Interventions based on

RUSLRE

Sample MWS Land cover Type Estimated Soil Loss

rate(tone/ha/year)bef

ore PSNP

Estimate

d Soil

Loss

rate

(t/ha/y)

after

PSNP

Estimated Soil

Loss rate

Reduction(t/ha/

y)

Cultivated

for

Cereals,

pulses

Degraded

grass

land/Shru

b-land

Adi-Tsalka X 9.37 5.62 3.75

X 13.19 6.60 6.59

Keish_Ayinalem X 16.72 10.03 6.69

X 16.72 8.36 8.36

Molla-Geremoch X 57.15 34.29 22.86

X 27.65 13.83 13.8

Legebero-Wekello X 103.68 62.21 41.47

X 41.04 20.52 20.52

Hallie_Ella X 9.9 5.94 3.96



Sample MWS Land cover Type Estimated Soil Loss

rate(tone/ha/year)bef

ore PSNP

Estimate

d Soil

Loss

rate

(t/ha/y)

after

PSNP

Estimated Soil

Loss rate

Reduction(t/ha/

y)

Cultivated

for

Cereals,

pulses

Degraded

grass

land/Shru

b-land

X 2.47 1.24 1.23

Negadiras X 63.84 38.30 25.54

X 43.09 25.85 17.24

Gelegorba X 76.0 45.6 30.4

X 51.3 25.63 25.67

Legedugo X 60.8 30.4 30.76

X 45.60 22.8 22.8

Bikie X 19.79 9.9 9.89

X 22.26 13.36 8.9

Garaguracha_Gara

yaya

X 40.49 24.30 16.19

X 50.61 25.31 25.3

Arbegna Kostei

Genebo

X 20.52 12.31 8.21

X 30.78 15.39 15.39

Doyancho X 44.54 26.73 17.81

X 25.31 12.65 12.66

Source: MCE PSNP PW IA, calculation based on GIS data and USLE factors adapted for

Ethiopia by Hurni (1985)

6.1.2.2 Soil loss and Yield after Intervention (Closed Areas and, Crop Land)

The major factor which influences the sustained increase in crop production is soil fertility. Soil

fertility decline is a progressive reduction in the productivity of a soil mainly as a result of

erosion. It is a complex process demonstrated through deterioration in organic matter content,

nutrient availability and biological activity in agricultural soils. It becomes evident through



impaired germination, reduced crop yield and declining crop quality, along with increased

farming costs brought about by the need for increasing amounts of chemical fertilizer

application. The extent and severity of this form of degradation is not well documented, largely

because its effects may be attributed to a variety of other causes such as climatic variations,

changing farming practices, or the consequences of other forms of degradation such as water and

wind erosion. It is known to occur in all studied micro-watersheds. It is particularly likely to

occur in cropping lands of low natural fertility, in locations where rainfall is generally variable

and marginal. Extensive cropping lands in the micro-watersheds are likely to become

increasingly affected.

However, field observations in different units of sample micro-watersheds and discussions held

with groups of different informants (PSNP Participants, none PSNP participants, Woreda and

Kebele task forces and Technical committees and DAs) indicated that soil losses upstream have

been reduced tremendously year after year through the implementation of major strategies of

environmental rehabilitations that include:

construction of stone terraces, soil bunds, and micro dams;

establishment of area enclosures (areas enclosed from human and animal

interference to promote natural regeneration) and community woodlots

(enclosures with enrichment plantation of trees or areas of new plantation);

enforcement of grazing restrictions, regeneration of natural herbs and woods that

enhanced good land cover in the up slops;

planting of trees and fodder crops along bunds on steep slopes;

construction of check dams and check dams with gabions in shallow and deep

gullies, respectively; and

planting of grasses and trees on gully sides and regeneration of natural species.

In tackling the problem of land degradation, the PSNP PW approach has gradually moved from

mere soil conservation to that of integrated land management. The study team has observed in all

studied regions (except Afar and Somali) that the watershed, which is a compact homogeneous

unit, has become the obvious choice for planning and management of natural resources. The

watershed concept went beyond the physical soil conservation approach to a wider perspective

for development, conservation and management of land and water resources. Subsequently,

watershed prioritization was taken up as a strategy for planning and a national policy watershed

development is formulated to take into account the physical situation and availability of

resources along with the needs of the people.



6.1.3 Estimation of On-Site Productivity Impacts on Crop, Herbaceous and Woody

Biomass

6.1.3.1 Crop Production

Perhaps the greatest impact of successful watershed management projects can be viewed in terms

of changes in agricultural production. Improved soil moisture management can have dramatic

effects on rain fed crop production, which coupled with enhanced ground water availability, can

lead to some dramatic increase in total agricultural production on both arable and non-arable

lands. In this study, this parameter served to measure the success of the projects, as low

agricultural production is the major challenge of the area. In fact, the reason for improvement in

crop production also depends on various factors like input utilization, agricultural extension and

improved cultural practices. But implementation of the integrated watershed management

practices through PSNP PW has contributed to raise the productivity of crops in the selected

micro-watersheds as well as at national level, wherever the project is implemented.

The watershed management project has brought significant contribution to the improvement of

crop production in micro-watersheds especially in those micro-watersheds which started earlier

including Adi-Tsalka, Keshi-Aynalem, Garaguracha-Garayaya, Molla-Geremoch and Negadiras.

Integrated watershed management has singularly contributed to the development of agriculture in

these areas. The lost interest in practicing agriculture has been revived with recovery and

rejuvenation of arable lands in the lower areas of the micro-watersheds even if it is too premature

to expect a spectacular performance in terms of productivity in a short period of years.

Furthermore, the small size of holdings and the allocation of land for more than two crops is a

serious limiting factor to estimating size of economic impact.

However, the informants told that crop yields improved gratly through PSNP SWC activities

around homesteads and crop fields and shortened food insecurity periods at many of the

households. It has even enabled rich households to produce more for consumption, sale and

creation of additional assets. According to the respondents, the major factors contributing to crop

production improvement include:

construction of soil faced stone and soil bunds with trenches,

plowing against slopes/contour plowing,

row planting of fodder crops and perennial crops along bunds,

establishment of agro forestry systems and check dams, and

utilization of manure, compost and chemical fertilizers as management practices that

improved the soil water holding capacities, rooting depths and fertility levels from year to

year

Crop yields and production, as per analysis of data gathered from randomly selected HHs,

indicated substantial increments in crop yields and total production after interventions of PSNP

public work programs (Table 5.4 below). The yields of cereals and pulses increased (66.17%)



and (22.35%), respectively. The yield of root crops and fruits has also shown a remarkable

improvement. Organic and chemical fertilizers have been used in all cases. In line with this,

Vncampenhout and et al., (2005), after their research in Tigray, reported that stone bunds have

increased crop yields by 7 % taking into account the land taken by the structure.

Table ‎6-4: Crop yield change of PSNP PW Activities in sample MWs

Frequency

of crops

Type of

production

Prior

PSNP/2005/1997EC

Post PSNP Yield

increment

in Qt/ha

Yield

increment

in %

Ha Yield/ha in

Qt

ha Yield/ha in

Qt

5 Cereals 147.16

16.8414/5

=3.37

151.74

28.0113/5

= 5.60

2.23 66.17

3 Pulses 39.93

14.7085/3

=4.90

37.07

17.9845/3

=5.995

1.095 22.35

3 Perennials 6.65

12.2308/3

=4.008

5.8

13.0095/3

=4.33

0.322 8.03

Source: MCE HH survey done in December, 2012

6.1.3.2 Changes in Herbaceous Biomass Production

Observation in sample micro-micro-watersheds indicated that herbaceous vegetation cover in the

degraded upper, middle and lower slopes of micro-micro-watersheds have tremendously

increased specially in closed areas. In successful micro-watersheds at national level the degraded

grazing land and the up lands have become potentials for feed resource. On top of this, the

project has introduced an improved utilization of the feed resources through cut-and-carry and

stall-feeding systems instead of free grazing. As a consequence, the availability and utilization

of forage have been improved. However, some stony and rocky surfaces are still bare because of

the naturally slow process in the formation of soil, in such areas.

The amount of herbaceous biomass production before and after the project were not measured

and recorded in terms of Dry Matter (DM) production. Nevertheless, the land users tell that the

herbaceous vegetation production in closed areas and on field boundaries and bunds have

improved the availability of livestock feed through cut and carry system. Grasses and other herbs

are cut from closed areas during flowering stages and are sold to the community. For instance,



in Tigray region (Keshi-Aynalem watershed) grass harvested from closed areas feeds livestock

for 5 to 6 months. In Amhara region, Legebereo-Wekelo watershed, households have totally

stopped purchasing of feed from other areas. Similarly, in Oromia/Garaguracha-Garayaya micro-

watershed, grasses are cut and sold for an average of 15,000 birr per annum. The money is

invested for communal use for construction of offices and meeting halls in the Kebeles.

Biomasses are also being produced along bunds in cultivated areas to improve production and

stabilization of bunds. On the other hand, out 327 surveyed households, 35 households have been

engaged in beekeeping; out of which 25.7% were before PSNP, 31.4% before and after PSNP

and 42.9% after PSNP indicating that the number of bee keepers has increased dramatically due

to increment in bee flora. Beekeeping has been taken as a good alternative because the average

land holding of the farmer is small in almost all watershed projects. 5.5 shows the increment in

bee-flora as highly influenced by the physical and biological SWC activities. Consequently, the

yield and production of both modern and traditional hives have increased the income of

households involved in the business. Beekeeping in the PSNP Areas is becoming the best

alternative source of income that does not disturb the environment and increase pressure on the

land.

Table ‎6-5: Number of Beehive Owning HHS as indicator of Bee Flora Increment Total

Sample

HHs

Beekeeping participant HHs in

number & %

Income Reason for

income

increment

Reason for

income reduction

before Before

PSNP

Before

and after

PSNP

After

PSNP

Before

PSNP

After

PSNP

35 9 11 15 low Improved Increment of

bee flora

Degradation of

bee flora

100% 25.7% 31.4% 42.9%

Source: household survey done by MCE in December, 2012

6.1.4 Changes in Woody biomass productivity

6.1.4.1 Planted Trees

In the PSNP watershed areas, tree planting has become a common practice in closed areas as

enrichment and on cultivated and homestead areas as agro-forestry systems. Trees planted

include fodder crops; fruit crops and trees for shade, fuel and construction. Trees planted include

both indigenous and exotic species. On average the woody biomass productivity of planted trees

in all micro-watersheds has increased at national level despite the survival rate of planted trees

on steep slopes and especially in pastoral areas is very low due to very shallow and shallow soil

depths, rockiness and stoniness and erratic rainfall and occurrence of successive droughts. The



situation is better in agricultural areas where the soil depth is relatively well and the rain fall

variability is somehow better than in pastoral areas.

Trees are planted around homesteads, along field boundaries, on sides of footpaths and in

degraded areas including gullies in agricultural areas. Planted trees have not only improved the

climate, but also upgraded the biomass productivity. The planted trees generate additional

income from sale of timbers. For example, in Keshi-Aynalem watershed of Tigray region, more

than 129 households have planted eucalyptus trees ranging from 50 to 3000 trees and are making

substantial benefits.

Trees planted in the Pastoral and agricultural areas, as revealed during transect walks

observations in the sample micro-micro-watersheds, are presented in Table 5.6 below. These

trees and perennial crops provide fuel wood, shade, construction material, fruits and roots for

food and protect the soil from direct rainfall that detaches the soil.

Table ‎6-6:Major planted trees, perennials and grasses in pastoral and agricultural sample micro-

watersheds

Pastoral area Agricultural area Perennials

Acacia saligna Acacia saligna Chta edulis

Leucania liucocephala Leucania liucocephala Papaya, banana, avocado,

Sesbania sesban Pea-gem-pea (cajans cajan) Zeitun/ guva, orange, gishta

Eucalyptus camaldulensis Sesbania sesban Coffee, sugarcane, cassava

Jatropha, True man tree, Eucalyptus camaldulencis Tarro,mango, Pigeon pea, Enset

Elephant grass Jatropha, Grevillia robusta,

Moringa olifera, Omedla robusta,

Tree lucern

Source: Field survey result, MCE 2012

Moreover, the study team has determined the change in planted woody biomass in selected

micro-watersheds where records of planted seedlings, plantation area and planted rates were

available. Accordingly, in Adi-Tsakla, Keshi-Aynalem, Molla-Geremoch and Legebero-Wekelo

micro-watersheds the change in planted biomass has been calculated using the above mentioned

records. The highest woody biomass change is, therefore, recorded in Adi-Tsalka watershed with

2,500 seedlings/ha planted in 124ha and 82% of volume increment with a total of 248,320m3 of

woody biomass. Whereas, the lowest woody biomass change has been observed in Legebero-

wekelo watershed with 1,700 seedlings/ha planted in 51.7ha and 58% volume increment with a

total of 70,352m3 of woody biomass. See annex section.



6.1.4.2 Natural Re-growth of Trees

The natural regeneration of trees in agricultural areas where the rainfall amount and distributions

are much better than in the pastoral areas, have been observed as being faster, denser and

containing mixtures of various indigenous species of shrubs and trees. The species composition

varies with variability of micro-climate and altitude. Except in pastoral areas, species of trees

observed are of mid land/ Weinadega type and in transitional areas the species are mixtures of

lowland, midland and high land ecologies. Naturally, rehabilitated species in the agricultural

areas were not only common in closed areas but also seen scattered in crop fields, on field

boundaries and on minor escarpments occurring in between cultivated and settled areas.

Trees and shrubs thus protected from wanton cutting pressures and over browsing are given in

table 5.7 below. Generally, these species provide dried wood for fuel and sale; shade for humans

and animals; construction wood for sale and local use based on systematic harvesting and

planting techniques. Moreover, the naturally re-growing canopies of woody tree species

contribute to intercepting and percolating the incoming rainfall and controlling rapid, down slop

movement of soils and flood. In addition, the decaying leaves improve the soil conditions and to

some extent its fertility level and water holding capacity. These factors contribute to improving

crops yields in the micro-micro-watersheds

Table ‎6-7: atural woody species observed in sample Micro-Watersheds

Pastoral Area Agricultural area Remarks

Acacia etbica Dodonaea viscoassa,

Dodonaea angustifolia

Acacia tortilis Lantana Camara

Balanites aegiptiaca Rhus natalensis, Rhus vulgaris

Carissa edulis Croton macrostachyus

Combretum collinum Olea africana

Combretum molle Rhus natalensis

Comiphora habessiniaca. Carissa edulis

Grewia bicolor Juniperus procera

Grewia ferruginea Dediho(LN)/Euclea schimperi

Ziziphus mucronata, Acacia abyssinica

Ziziphus spina-christi Cordia africana

Ficus Sp

Ensilal (LN) Ensilal is a herb with unique

flavor used for brewing local

hard liquor

Acacia nilotica, Acacia

brevspica

Terminalia brownii

Rossa abyssinica

Acacia tortilis

Acacia albida

Wellenso (LN)



Pastoral Area Agricultural area Remarks

Combretum sp

Tatissa (LN)

Acacia saligna

Omedla robusta

Polyscias fulva

Dovyalis abyssinica

Atat (lN)

Arundinaria alpina Appeared in micro-climate of

Hossaina/Belessa/ Doyancho

MWS along streams covered

with natural forest

Phonix reclinata

Erica arborea Appeared in micro-climate of



with natural forest

Dokma(LN)

Azamir/ Bersaa abyssinica

Hypericum revolutum Appeared in micro-climate of



with natural forest

The change in stocks of woody biomass has been estimated using the specific land cover wood

biomass stocking rates derived by WBISPP (2005) for Ethiopia. The annual sustainable wood

biomass yield rates were also those derived by WBISPP (2005). Hence, for all micro-watersheds,

the stocking rate before closure has been calculated by taking vegetation cover of the micro-

watersheds before PSNP PW was commenced and the current vegetation cover as the change in

stocking rates after closure. Accordingly, the highest woody biomass change is observed in

Keshi-Aynalem and Garagurecha micro-watersheds with 9.16t/ha and 7.58t/ha, respectively.

Discussion with communities and field observations made by the study team corroborate the

remarkable vegetation cover gained on previously degraded lands and the supplement fodder and

fuel-wood resources made available to the respective communities. However, in the pastoral

areas of Halie-Ela and Bikie, there is no increment in woody biomass after closure. As observed,

this phenomenon was mainly due to the droughts occurred in the last two years (Annex section)

6.1.5 Analysis/Estimation of Carbon Sequestration

The contribution of PSNP PWs to carbon sequestration seems significant though each sample

watershed covers relatively small area. Carbon is stored (sequestered) above-ground by plants,

crops and trees, and below-ground in the soil and roots. Thus, the re-growth and enrichment of

natural vegetation in closed areas, planting trees on cultivated fields, along bunds and on road



sides and homesteads of PSNP programs are also making similar contributions in regulating

weather changes and improving the climate by absorbing carbon dioxide.

Perennial and annual crops planted in fields and homesteads are also increasing the absorption

rate of carbon dioxide in the same way the reforested and closed areas. Major conservation

activities contributing to carbon sequestration in PSNP areas or micro-watersheds and adapted to

neighboring areas include stone and soil bunding, trenches, micro-basins, tree and fodder crops

planting, perennial and annual crops plantation and regulation of deforestation and forest

management. Though the amount of carbon dioxide sequestrated by the PSNP PWs is not yet

scientifically estimated for such cover types, the land users of the micro-watersheds witness the

reduction in temperature, the increase in vegetation cover and amount of annual rainfall

indicating that Green House Gas (GHG) emission is reduced as a result of increase in carbon

sequestration.

According to Humbo carbon credit area, (a project being undertaken by World Vision support)

and other international experiences in carbon trade, the amount of carbon sequestration can only

be estimated after five years of watershed management practices so as to arrive at reliable results.

In well managed forest areas, the annual GHG removal from one hectare of land is estimated at

about 3.5 tons of CO2. In line with this, the current impact assessment study has estimated the effect of PSNP PWs on

carbon sequestration as given in table 5.9 below. The calculation was based on data found from

different study sources of stoking rates of biomass of different land cover types and applying

them for before and after PSNP PW interventions scenario. Researches and studies conducted in

Ethiopia and elsewhere in the world indicate that the estimated carbon content of one tone of dry

vegetation is about 50% dry weight and that of moist/un-dried is about 55%. On the other hand,

the carbon to CO2 ratio is estimated to be 3.666. Thus, multiplying the stocking rate change in

tones per hectare (above ground biomass) by factors of 0.55 and 3.666 provides the amount of

carbon sequestered in each land cover types of closed areas after PSNP PW intervention (Table

5.8). The sequestrated carbon below ground is estimated at 30% of the above ground weight.

Table ‎6-8: Estimation of carbon sequestration amount after 5 years of PSNP Interventions Cover type

before

PSNP PW

Stoking

Rate

(tone/ha)

Cover type

After PSNP

interventions

Stoking

rate

(tone/ha)

Stocking

rate

change

(tone/ha)

Estimated

carbon

content

(%)

C:

CO2

ratio

Estimated

Amount of

sequestrated

Carbon in

(tons/ha)

Degraded

Grassland

2.67 Open shrub-

land

5.07 2.4 55 3.666 4.839

Open shrub

land

7.74 Dense shrub

land

10.25 2.51 55 3.666 5.061

Bare soil 1.09 Grassland 1.58 0.49 55 3.666 0.988

Source: Calculation based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) recommended method (Parson et al., 2005)



6.1.6 Changes in Water Availability

The effect of soil and water conservation measures on hill slopes and wastelands along with

regeneration of vegetation usually reduces runoff water losses. Consequently, in the successfully

managed/implemented micro-watersheds, the water table rises from year to year and people use

this water for watering animals, drinking and irrigation. Irrigation practices have been increasing.

For Example, in Adi-Tsalka watershed the coverage of irrigation in the area was very minimal

before PSNP PW and limited to only 62 hectares. Now, many plots of land are cultivated under

irrigation. The number of hand dug wells and motor pumps have increased. Currently, about 187

hectares of land is cultivated under irrigation in the watershed.

In fact, no research has been conducted in the sample watershed areas of the PSNP public works

to determine changes in water availability. However, during the PSNP PW Impact Assessment,

the experts have investigated to understand the situation from different sources such as

interviews, focal group’s discussions and observations. Except in the pastoral areas, where the

PSNP PW activities are being carried out in settlement surroundings or comparatively small

areas and the intervention periods are short (not more than 2 years), there is significant

improvement in the availability of both ground and surface water. For instance in Tigray,

Amhara, Oromia and SNNPRS micro-micro-watersheds, availability of water has significantly

improved. The availability of ground water is enhanced through rainfall collection in trenches,

micro-basins, percolation ponds, and natural seepages through roots openings of herbaceous and

woody species. In Tigray ground water is available now at a depth of 4-5 m in the areas where

the program has been implemented.

Majority of household respondents in Adi-Tsakla, Keshi-Aynalem, Legebero-Wekelo,

Gelegorba and Negadiras micro-watersheds agreed that surface water in their watershed

increased (the time of flow was prolonged and discharge rate of surface water increased)

because of the conservation activities carried out by the projects. The significance of surface

water improvement varies from watershed to watershed.

Similarly, groundwater depth is greatly improved, influenced by soil and water conservation

interventions on the upper catchments. In areas with good conservation activities, groundwater

rises to the level of 5meters and this has created great opportunity for irrigation development

through development of springs and construction of shallow hand dug wells. Nevertheless, in the

pastoral areas (Halie-Ella and Bikie) where less conservation activities are implemented, depths

to groundwater have dropped.

Out of the 28 households who currently use irrigation in the sample WSs, 20 households (71.4%)

reported that they started to use irrigation after PSNP PW project has commenced and while 8

households (28.6%) started prior to PSNP PW interventions.



6.1.6.1 Assessment of downstream effects of SWC Public Works – SDR (Sediment Delivery

Ratio)

Due to lack of recorded data, the downstream effects of PW SWC activities were covered by

discussions held with upstream and downstream communities and experts working in the sample

micro-watersheds. According to the results of the discussion, the soil and water conservation

measures undertaken upstream have greatly:

reduced the existence of flood created gullies;

reduced the amount of sediment load carried downstream and destroyed crop fields;

reduced severe soil erosion;

increased availability of moisture; and

improved crop yield and production in neighboring kebeles and micro-watersheds

through soil moisture availability.

The amount of sediment loads reduced and the increase in crop production was not compared

with measured data due to lack of records. One of the off-site effects of soil and water

conservation measures being reduction of sediment delivery ratio(SDR) entering into streams

through runoff from hillsides and cultivated fields, it would have been appropriate to estimate the

amount based on base line data. Nevertheless it seems appropriate to mention that sediment

delivery after SWC interventions could be calculated based on measured data before

intervention. Sediment delivery ratio being constant (i.e. 0.66) both for cropland and grazing

land with 0.65 and 0.95 percent SWC efficiency, respectively, sediment delivery after

interventions and sediment reduction (tones per year) can be calculated. Thus it is essential to

determine baseline micro-watersheds in the future where the PSNP PWs are implemented.

6.1.6.2 Downstream Water Availability

In areas where SWC measures contributed in controlling soil erosion and enhanced percolation

of rain fall, this has not only improved availability of in-situ water but also increased the amount

of base flow in the streams. It also improved soil moisture downstream through seepages. As a

result new springs flourished and amount of flow per second and length of periods of availability

of water improved and prolonged.

Volume of water increased in streams and rivers to enable irrigation practices. For example, in

Adi-Tsalka watershed of Tigray region and Legebero-Wekelo watershed of Amhara region new

perennial streams have been developed down at the outlet of the micro-watersheds, along the

treated gullies and created great opportunity for irrigation as well as livestock water supply

services. Similarly, in Eastern Oromiya Zone, Melka Belo wereda, Gelegorba micro-

Watershed, availability of water has been extended by 3 months (i.e. instead of end of September

to the end of December). On the other hand, in Tigray and Amhara sample micro-watersheds,



availability of water due to upland conservation has transformed agriculture to two to three

seasons of crop production per annum. As a case in point, in Keish-Ainalem watershed in Tigray,

80 ha of land is under irrigation. Individual households in narrow valley bottoms and homestead

areas using small ponds, springs and streams are practiced in most of the sample micro-micro-

watersheds except in Harari/Negadiras, Dredawa/Adada/Legedugo, Welayita/Humbo and in

Afar/Hallei-Ella and Somalei/Bikie settlements where springs did not appear very much due to

the effect of extended drought

6.1.7 Environmental and Social Manage ment Framework (ESMF)

6.1.7.1 Identification and Assessment of Potential Adverse Impacts of PW Projects

Even though all activities implemented by PSNP PW are focused on natural resources

rehabilitation and social infrastructures promotion which, of course, is expected to bring positive

impacts, they could also have some environmental and/or social adverse impacts in the areas

where the projects are implemented. Appreciating such inevitable fact the PSNP PW has

introduced an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) with clear

implementation guideline described in the Program Implantation Manual (PIM). Hence,

according to data and information from pertinent stakeholders, especially the woreda and kebelle

PSNP PW technical committees, each and every activity is screened using this guideline by the

evaluation committees set from wereda to watershed level. In fact, sometimes comparative

advantage is taken in to account to evaluate a single project and weigh its environmental and/or

social impact towards the targeted objectives. For example, in all studied micro-watersheds some

respondents (mainly those who are based at the foot of the hills) were complaining about area

closures restricting free movement of livestock and consequently decreasing their stocks. This

can be taken as a social adverse impact of the area closure but most of these households later

realized area closure is providing much better fodder than free grazing. Besides, benefit of

households based at the foot of the hills is compensated through beekeeping practice as they are

more accessible for the rehabilitated and flora cover of the micro-watersheds. On the other hand,

vast majority residents of the micro-watersheds are in favor of the project and they want to close

the hillsides from livestock movement. In this regard decision makers at all levels try to keep the

balances of the adverse impact and anticipated benefits plus community/majority interests.

6.1.7.2 Natural Resource Base

Preparation of natural resource conservation and management plans has been found to be guided

by PSNP Project Implementation Manual (PIM) and Environmental and Social Management

Framework (ESMF). The manual and the framework provide guidance on how to identify and

screen subprojects using screening, implementation, follow-up, and monitoring and evaluation

formats. It was learned that the potential impact of any PSNP PWs on the natural resource base

such as the forest, soil, water, etc was carefully screened in order to avoid or minimize adverse

impacts. To effect plans and sub project activities, coordination offices, task forces, and

Technical committees have been established on regional, zonal, werda and kebele level



administrations. The required training has been provided to all levels of implementers as per the

PIM.

6.1.7.3 Social Impacts

The intensive physical and biological soil and water conservation activities implemented in all

micro-watersheds (except Halie-Ella and Bikie) together with the social infrastructures like

access road, school, health post, rural access road, water points, market centers, etc undertaken

by PSNP PW have brought numerous social impacts on the beneficiary households. Above all,

most households have developed internal confidence and their lost interest in agriculture has

been revived with recovery and rejuvenation of arable lands in their localities. Besides, apart

from crop production many households have started to look for other alternatives income

generating schemes like beekeeping, eucalyptus tree, fruit production, fattening, etc.

Moreover, households have started to permanently stay at their localities with their livestock by

avoiding out migration to other places in search of food, water and feed. This in turn enabled

them to continuously manage and sustainably utilize their watershed resources. Especially, the

ultra poor households (the first target of PSNP PW) have gained significant benefits including

narrowing of food gaps and asset creations triggered with improving of social status. On the

other hand, the constructed social infrastructures are playing vital roles in reducing of social

burdens like travelling time to access school and health services, alleviating of water born

diseases, establishment of market linkages, etc.

Generally, the PSNP PW activities have dominantly positive social impacts on the studied micro-

watersheds and residents mainly in mitigation of natural resource degradations, improving of

livelihood status and contributing for poverty eradication at large. Moreover, as most of the

implemented activities of the PSNP PW are planned in consultation with the local communities

and focused on environmentally friendly interventions not much of any significant negative

social impacts has been witnessed.

Nevertheless, there are also some adverse social impacts seen during the assessment such as area

closures are affecting few households nearest to hillsides to decrease their livestock number,

constructed infrastructures (schools, health posts, roads, FTC, etc) are computing individual

households farm and grazing lands, few households have lost their access to hillsides and their

private trees, etc. The low quality infrastructures constructed by PSNP PW are also affecting

proper delivery of public services. For example, in most micro-watersheds schools constructed

by the program have no plastered floor, they are not fitted with windows and doors and they lack

school desks. Such shortages in turn severely affect the teaching and learning process and health

situation of school children at large.

These have been assessed in line with the ESMF but there was limitation in resources to mitigate

them. Hence, some sort of compromise is going on by bearing some of the transitory problems

hoping a good future.



6.1.7.4 Assessment of the ESMF performance

During the field assessment all respective regional, woreda and kebelle officials as well as

beneficiary households have confirmed that they apply social and environmental screening of

any proposed activities before implementation is started. In connection with this, standard format

is developed and training is given to all stakeholders who involve in the evaluation and screening

process. In fact, the involvement of local communities on the screenings of the proposed

activities through the checklists in the standard format is found to be minimal. Much of it is done

by experts both at wereda and kebelle levels. They are the major actors as far as the undertaking

of ESMF is concerned. In other words, the available documents and the field interaction with the

communities during the study in all micro-watersheds suggest that the ESMF evaluation

processes in the PSNP PW activities largely followed a "top-down" approach. This should be

replaced by "bottom-up" approach in that all stakeholders should be provided with the chance to

participate in ESMF evaluation processes. The study team has tried to review the existing

formats and found it quite relevant except the requirement of minor amendments.

Based on the ESMF screenings undertaken in some micro-watersheds have totally changed or

amended proposed activities which were believed to come with adverse social and natural

impacts. For example, in Adi-Tsakila watershed of Tigray region a community access road was

proposed to be constructed stretching from the hillside but after screening/evaluation the

proposed route was changed due to its impact on distraction of vegetation. Similarly, in

Legebero-Wekelo watershed of Amhara region a proposed spring development aimed at

irrigation development was dropped by wereda technical committee after its negative impact on

potable water supply of the area was found to be significant.

6.2 Analysis of Livelihood and Social Impacts

6.2.1 Livelihood Capital Asset

6.2.1.1 Community Natural Capital

The assessment and analysis made by the study team with respect to changes in natural capital

(land, water, vegetation, biodiversity, etc.) and environmental services show significant changes

that contributed to the improvement of the livelihood of the targeted population. These are

presented below under several sub-headings.

i) Land on Hillside and Mountain Areas

The qualitative and quantitative data collected using different methodologies and tools from the

12 micro-watersheds and Woredas indicate that tremendous soil and water conservation

intervention measures were implemented to rehabilitate the degraded watershed areas through

PSNP PWs, which have been going on since 2006.

The major areas of intervention focused on activities that included soil and water conservation

(hillside terrace, hillside terrace with trench, herring bones, soil sedimentation dam( SSD) , and

trench bunds); gully treatment (stone check dam, gully reshaping, gully plantation, gabion check



dam); hillside plantation (pitting, planting of different kind of species and area closure); water

harvesting (check dam pond, community hand dug well, household level owned hand dug well);

small scale irrigation development(diversion check dam, concrete canal); community road

construction (earth road and culvert/ford) and development of social infrastructures (additional

classrooms construction, satellite school construction, dry pit latrine construction, health post,

Farmer Training Centre (FTC), Development Agent(DA) and Teachers’ Houses, and the like).

The different soil and water conservation activities implemented in the assessed micro-

watersheds have contributed to the rehabilitation of the natural resources like land, water,

vegetation coverage and biodiversity. Overall, the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) made with

rich, middle and poor farmers of the community members in each of the micro-watersheds,

observations made during the transact walk in the micro-watersheds and the household survey

analysis confirm that:

Soil erosion within the micro-watersheds areas reduced,

Enclosed hillside and mountain areas are covered with rehabilitated grasses, exotic

forest, different wood types and new planted trees,

Bare lands are changed into green areas,

Ground water recharge within the watershed has increased,

Sever flood occurrence has reduced ,

Gully areas have been rehabilitated and used for production of horticultural and fodder

crops,

Wildlife survival within the rehabilitated areas increased, and

Infiltration of moisture into the ground has increased, and availability and volume of water resources for human and livestock use increased,

Similar to FGD participants 82.4 percent of the HHs survey response indicates that there are

positive changes in the development of natural resources including land, vegetation cover and

improvement in increased volume of streams, spring waters and underground water table within

the micro-watersheds in which impact assessment was conducted.

ii) Ownership of Land on Hillside and Rehabilitated Mountain Areas

The ownership title and use right of hillside and mountain areas rehabilitated with natural

resources varies from region to region.

In the case of Tigray’s Adi Tsalka and Keshi Aynalem communities, the natural rehabilitated

resources on the hillside and mountain areas are proposed to be transferred to the youth groups,

who will be organized into a cooperative society. The project will be used as income generating

scheme to the cooperative through beekeeping, livestock fattening, , and tree plantation for fuel

and other wood products. However, in both micro-watersheds assessed, the youth are not yet

well organized to take over the natural resources rehabilitated on hillside and mountain areas. As

a result, the natural resources rehabilitated are still controlled and managed by the watershed

communities and individual farmers.

In the micro-watersheds of Gera-Moch and Lege-Bero-Wakelo, the rehabilitated hillside and

mountain areas are divided among all the household community members living within the

watershed regardless of their participation in the implementation of PSNP PWs. Simi larly, the

management, maintenance and the use of the natural resources rehabilitated on the hillside and



mountain areas are left to the individual owners, and it is the individual household that uses the

grasses and trees (naturally grown and planted ones) for his own consumption and as a source of

income generation. This implies that both in Tigiray and Amhara regions, those who own natural

capital (land) benefit from the natural resources rehabilitated due to the PSNP PWs intervention

than those who have been participating in natural resources rehabilitation(SWC) activities.

In the case of micro-watersheds of Negadiras in Harari, Lega- Dugo in Dire Dawa, Gele- Gorba

and Gera-Guracha Gera –Yaya in Oromia, Bukie Dengola and Arbegna Kostei in Wolayita and

Doyancho in Hadiya in SNNPRS, the rehabilitated natural resources on hillside and mountain

areas of the micro-watersheds are owned by Kebele Administrations(KAs) rather than the

watershed communities. Management of the micro-watersheds that include protection,

maintenance, and income generated through cut and carry and sell of grasses and other products

from the watershed areas is under the jurisdiction of the respective Kebele Administrations. The

community members who participated in the implementation of soil and water conservation

measures do not get income from grasses and plants that are sold from the rehabilitated natural

resources. However, both participants and non participants of the PSNP PWs have the right to

buy at cost grass and trees grown on the rehabilitated hillside and mountain areas.

This implies that those who have resources (cash) would benefit more regardless of their

participation in the PSNP PWs. This also indicates that the community resources are managed

and controlled by Kebeles, which are under the government structure, means that the

community have no right on the resource and the benefits are not equally distributed across all

wealth groups (poor, middle and wealthy)

In Afar, Yallo Woreda, Halle Ella KA and Somali, Afdem Woreda, Bikie KA, Bulaburoa

Biokulul sub-KA, the soil and water conservation measures taken through PSNP PWs support

didn’t contribute much to the rehabilitation of the natural resources due to continuous erratic

rainfall and drought occurrence in the regions. According to the information obtained from Yallo

Woreda Administration and KA level conducted FGD, there has been severe drought in the

Woreda for the last two years and the newly planted trees in the treated gullies died and the

majority of the population have migrated to the highland areas of Amhara and Tigray regional

states.

iii) Small Scale Irrigation Development

According to the FGDs held in each of the micro-watersheds and the secondary data obtained

from the respective Woredas, it was confirmed that the different types of soil and water

conservation interventions (gully treatment, planting of trees on hillside and mountainous areas,

etc.) implemented within the micro-watersheds have contributed to the increased volume of

water recharge both in streams and underground water resources.

Similarly, 85.6 percent of the household survey respondents indicated that springs and

underground water recharge have increased since the implementation of PSNP PWs within all

the micro-watersheds except Hale Ella, Bike and Dire Dawa City Administration, where it was

reported that there was no improvement in the status of water availability both for humans,

livestock and pasture since the last two years.



In spite of the overall opinions expressed by FGD participants engaged in PSNP PWs

implementation, irrigation development and its usage are mainly practiced in Adi Tsalka and

Keshi Aynalem micro-watersheds. It was also found that some households practiced small scale

irrigation in Legebero Wekelo (Amhara) and Gola Gorba (Oromia) micro-watersheds.

In the case of Adi Tsalka Watershed, in 2007/8, a farmer living in the watershed tried to dig a

hand well for about 12 meters to get water for irrigation but failed. However, after the

implementation of the different soil and water conservation activities like, terraces, soil and stone

bund, check dams, half moon, area enclosure, gully treatment, planting trees on hillsides,

mountainous, river banks and on individual farm land plots, etc.,the volume of underground

water table, streams and springs have increased within the micro-watersheds.

According to the secondary data obtained from Ahiferom Woreda and Adi Tsalka watershed,

there are 5 hands dug wells, 3 diversion check dams with 108 meters concrete canal and 2 check

dam ponds currently owned by the community members. The hand dug wells and diversion

check dams are owned both by community members and individual farmers. Irrigable farm lands

are owned individually by those who own plots within the schemes. Those who do not have

irrigable farm lands within the irrigated areas do not get benefit from the enhancement of water

for irrigation development. However, they benefit from payments for their labour contributions.

During the FGDs held with the three groups of farmers (rich, middle and poor) in the watershed,

the participants confirmed without any hesitation that the increased volume of streams and

underground water within Adi Tsalka watershed is the result of the different soil and water

conservation intervention measures taken during the last PSNP PWs implementation period

(2007-2011). The secondary data obtained from Ahiferom Woreda also indicates that irrigable

farm land within Adi Tsalka watershed has increased from 62 hectares prior to the start of PSNP

PWs implementation to 187 hectares in 2011/2012.

In the case of Keshi Aynalem watershed, it was reported by the three FGD participants (rich,

middle and poor) that about 80 percent of the watershed is covered by different types of soil and

water conservation interventions like hillside terrace, stone faced trench bund, soil trench bund,

deep trench, hillside terrace with trench band, stone bund, SS dam, half moon, eyebrow basin

percolation pit, etc. that contributed to increased volume of down flow streams and springs

within the watershed.

Most of the irrigation users/beneficiaries of the increased volume of underground water and

stream flowing down from Keshi Aynalem watershed are the youth organizations in Hayalome

Kebele Administration. Some households of Keshi Aynalem watershed who own plots of

farmland in the irrigable area and rehabilitated gullies are also using the irrigation for the

production of horticulture and other fodder crops.

Overall, 21.4 percent of the households interviewed in the 12 micro-watersheds reported that

they are engaged in irrigation farming with the major part of the water coming from stream

diversion (53.6%), hand dug shallow well (10.7%), water harvesting in ponds(17.7%),

flood(10.7%), and others(7.1%). Majority of the irrigation users responded that they are using it



since the start of the PSNP PWs, and the average farm land used for irrigation is less than one

eighthof a hectare.

iii) Water Supply Sources

As stated above, the different soil and water conservation interventions in each of the micro-

watersheds have contributed to the creation of increased volume of underground water, springs

and steady flow of streams throughout the year. Except in Halle Ella, Bulabora, Biokulul and

Lega Dugo, shortage of water supply is not reported as a serious issue.

The household survey finding also indicates that out of the total households interviewed, 52. 2

percent reported that they get protected/safe water for consumption, while 47.8 percent reported

that they use unprotected/unsafe water. Interviewed household responses also indicate that PSNP

PWs have contributed to the increase of available safe water within their community, to

reduction of water borne diseases, reduction of travel time and drudgery of women to fetch

water from far distances.

6.2.1.2 Assessment and Analysis of Changes in Social Capital: networks, groups, social relations,

etc.

i) Social Relations Created

The PW strategy was designed in such a way that it involves all community members in a form

of organized group in the identification, selection, prioritizing and implementation of projects at

the watershed level so as to achieve the overall goal of integrated watershed management. The

implementation process carried out for selection of the poorest of the poor households to

participate in the different types of PSNP PWs implementation has brought changes on

community members’ outlook and attitudes towards maintenance, protection and management of

the natural resources.

Working on soil and water conservation interventions and other public works in organized

manner and on a group basis that consisted of both male and female members helped the PSNP

PWs participants and the non participants:

to be gender sensitive,

to realize the necessity of equal payment for both male and female,

to identify, prioritize and select sub-project activities based on the demand of community

members with special emphasis on natural resources rehabilitation and other public

works,

sharing of women’s burden through apportioning light public works for women,

categorizing community household members as rich, middle and poor based on the

criteria set by community members and objective reality of each of the household to

participate in PSNP PWs and to be graduated from it,



to understand that action oriented community mobilization and organization could bring

change in the rehabilitation of the devastated natural resources, and

created willingness to work on public owned interventions and promoted working

habit/culture in the entire micro-watersheds including pastoral communities.

The field level assessment of the PSNP PWs participants’ and non participants’ opinion on the

implementation of the program is very much similar and all agree that action taken by the

community members to rehabilitate natural resources of the hillsides and mountain areas of the

micro-watersheds through the implementation of PSNP PWs has contributed very much.

In addition to the creation of cohesive social relations among the community members on the

implementation of PSNP PWs, sustainable social groups that would facilitate future development

programs have also been organized. Attitude of the watershed community members including

PSNP PWs participants and non participants have positively changed towards the rehabilitation

and management of natural resources. Taking care of and protecting the rehabilitated hillside and

mountain areas with bushes, grasses and trees both on individually and communally owned has

greatly increased. Open grazing of livestock has decreased and its impact on natural resources

rehabilitation has been recognized by the community members. Consequently, by-

laws/regulations were passed by the communities for the protection and management of the

rehabilitated natural resources.

Following are some of the social groups created within the watershed due to the set up

requirement of the PSNP PWs implementation process.

ii) Kebele and Community Watershed Planning Committees & Food Security Task

Forces Established

The assessment made in each of the Woredas, Kebele Administrations and Community Micro-

watersheds indicates that there are organized Kebele level and Community Level Watershed

Planning and Food Security Task Forces to facilitate identification and selection of micro-

watersheds. Identification, prioritization and selection of sub-projects; and selection,

organization and mobilization of PSNP PWs participants is conducted with full participation of

the watershed community members. At Kebele level, Community Watershed Planning

Committee and Food Security Task Force are comprised of members from Kebele

Administration, DA, Women and Children’s Affairs, Information Desk, Health Extension,

School Director, Elders and Youth and Sport and Development Cadres.

Similarly, at Community Watershed level, Kebele Food Security representative, DA,

Development Cadre, Forman, men and women, youth and elders are represented both in

Community Watershed Planning and Community Food Security committees. The creation of

such structures at Kebele Administration and Watershed levels has contributed to the smooth

implementation of the integrated watershed management programs.



iii) Rural saving and Credit Cooperative Society (RUSACCOs) Formation

Unlike the previous Household Package of Other Food Security Programs (OFSP), which used to

be distributed through administrative bodies like Kebele Development Committees and agencies

that have no specialization in financial services (e.g. Multipurpose Agricultural Cooperative

Societies), the current Househld Asset Bulding Program (HABP) loan is envisaged to be

channeled through specialized financial institutions like RUSACCOs and MFIs.

However, the envisaged strategy of channeling HABP loan fund, particularly through

RUSACCOs is not practiced in the micro-watersheds assessed. This is mainly due to lack of

organizing RUSACCOs within the micro-watersheds and other factors related to it. For example,

secondary data obtained from Ahiferom and Atsbi Womberat Woredas indicates that 10 and 16

RUSACCOs are, respectively organized, but are not active in the provision of credit to their

members. This is also confirmed by FGD participants that the organized RUSCCOs are very

weak in their financial capacity because most of them depend on members’ saving, which is not

adequate to give credit to their members. The envisaged channeling of HABP loan fund through

RUSACCOs was not put into practice and the impacts expected to be achieved from distribution

of loan fund to PSNP PWs participants are not significant.

Households’ survey responses on credit distribution to the PSNP PWs participants indicates that

access to credit was mainly made from HABP through Agricultural Office (39.9%), Micro

Financial Institutions own finance (20.9%), Informal Sector (4.6%), and Agricultural

Multipurpose Cooperative Societies (3.9%), RUSACCOs own finance (0.7%) and the remaining

from combinations of the above MFIs.

iv) Water Users Groups/Water Users Associations

Among the 12 micro-watersheds assessed and supported by PSNP PWs, small scale irrigation

(SSI) is mainly carried out only in Adi Tsalka Watershed and in the other communities of the

same Kebele Administration named Zata. The secondary data obtained from Zata KA indicates

that, there are 342 male 140 female household heads owning plots of irrigated farm land

organized into Water Users Groups through which stream diversion canals and sharing of water

are managed. Overall, among the households who use irrigation, 75 percent of them responded

that they are organized into Water Users Groups/ Water users Associations.

v) Market Groups/Cooperatives

Vegetables and horticultural crops producers within the watershed of Adi Tsalka are not

organized in Marketing Groups/Cooperative Societies nor linked to market organizations. Each

individual household engaged in the production of vegetables and horticultural crops takes his

produce to the market place(s) located outside the watershed and the KA using his own donkey

or camel. Apart from the lack of organization into marketing groups or marketing cooperatives,

lack of accessible road that connects the watershed with the market is another challenge the



producers encounter. The labour based RR9 road of about 5 kms constructed through the

support made by PSNP PWs within the Zata Kebele Administration is not accessible and below

standard for vehicle transport. As a result, vegetables and horticultural crops produced within the

watershed do not get adequate market. FGD participants of the watershed have indicated that the

produced vegetables and horticultural crops are sometimes spoiled at the farm gate.

6.2.1.3 Assessment and Analysis of Changes in Human Capital (Skills, knowledge, good health

and ability to engage in labour)

i. Skill Development

Information and data obtained from the FGDs conducted in the micro-watersheds indicates that

PSNP PWs participants engaged in the different types of soil and water conservation activities

have gained sufficient skills. Similar to participation in the implementation of soil and water

conservation activities, PSNP PWs participants engaged in the construction of infrastructures

like earth road, additional class rooms, dry pit latrine, teachers’ residence, satellite school,

fencing of school, health posts etc, have acquired additional skills from foramen and DAs. As a

result, PSNP PWs participants could make design of soil and water conservation activities and

infrastructure structures to be constructed within their micro-watersheds without any external

support. Therefore, the participation of PSNP PWs participants in different soil and water

conservation and infrastructure development activities helped them to develop different skills

like masonry, building, carpentry, etc.., and this has changed the livelihood status of the

participants.

i) Knowledge Gained

Awareness creation and practical trainings given on site for the PSNP PWs participants on soil

and water conservation interventions and infrastructure development by DAs, Woreda level

staffs of Agricultural and Rural Development, Food Security, Administration, other Sector

Offices, Steering Committees, Task Forces and Development Committees have contributed to

increased knowledge of PSNP PWs Participants and the community members of the watershed,

in general. The FGDs carried out in all the micro-watersheds and observation made during the

assessment clearly showed that knowledge on the issues of natural resources management,

infrastructure development, income generating activities, saving and asset building concepts and

practices, etc.., have increased. In this regard:

PSNP PWs participants and community members of the micro-watersheds gained

knowledge of maintaining soil and water conservation structures when broken or

mismanaged both on individual farms and plots given for individual household from

rehabilitated areas;

Knowledge of cut and carry system, from the rehabilitated area, and feeding livestock is

developed; and cut and carry system of wood products for fuel, other home use and/or

for market gained;



Knowledge of planting trees, horticultural crops and vegetables on irrigated farm, in

homestead areas and farming plots have increased; and knowledge of agro forestry is

increasing since the start of PSNP PWs;

Knowledge of using pigeon peas and other tree crops for fodder and home consumption

has increased;

Knowledge of saving income earned from PSNP PWs payment/transfer is developed

and some PSNP PWs participants are able to own oxen, milking cows, sheep, goats,

donkeys, heifers, etc.,;

Knowledge of fattening at household level and the use of cut and carry system is

promoted;

Knowledge of pond construction and preparation for water collection for various uses

including small scale irrigation and for livestock use has increased;

Knowledge of bee keeping and honey production is promoted; and

Some households in the Pastoral Community areas have gained knowledge of crop

farming in places where there is adequate rainfall and possibility of using irrigation for

the production of crops.

ii) Working Culture Improved

Information and data obtained from FGDs carried out with PSNP PWs participants in the

highland areas engaged in mixed farming and also with those in Pastoral Community Areas

engaged in livestock herding indicates that different types of working practices have been

improved or newly acquired. Among the work practices that have been adapted mainly due to the

implementation of PSNP PWs include:

Working in organized group and arranged manner on the different types of soil and

water conservation interventions and infrastructure development on program base

promoted ;

Starting and ending the PSNP Public Works to be performed at the same time depending

on the completion of the work unit (PD) given;

Using own implement/tools required for the implementation of soil and water

conservation interventions and infrastructure construction when there is inadequacy of

tools and implements provision from the concerned office has improved ;

Working in group sprit and cohesiveness among the different groups engaged in the

implementation of PSNP PWs is practiced and strengthened; and

Satisfaction of the watershed community members, PSNP PWs participants and non

participants for the rehabilitation of hillside and mountain areas for common use

through common action is enhanced.



6.2.1.4 Assessment‎and‎Analysis‎of‎the‎Potential‎Impacts‎of‎Infrastructural‎PW’s‎(schools,‎clinics‎

and roads)

Infrastructure is one of the components of the Public works (PW) sub-projects of the productive

safety net program (PSNP). Unrestricting efforts were made to carry out the impact assessment

of the constructed infrastructure in selected sample micro-watersheds/kebelles through

conducting site visit and visual observation of the physical status of each of the structures and

discussions made with FGD of PW participants, non-participants, task forces, HHs survey, and

transect walk was also made.

Numerous types of infrastructures (sub-projects) have been constructed and rehabilitated within

the selected sample micro-watersheds/kebelles. As it was observed during site visits and

discussed with stakeholder meetings, there has not been base line data, planning and design

documents for the infrastructures in all the surveyed micro-watersheds, which would have helped

the task of the current impact assessment. Hence, on the basis of the physical observation made

during the site transit walk and secondary data obtained from the respective Weredas and

kebeles, the following findings were obtained.

The Infrastructure sub-projects are categorized into three groups, which include water supply and

small-scale irrigation infrastructure social and community road infrastructure as listed below.

Water supply for humans, domestic animals and small-scale irrigation projects;

Social Infrastructure sub-projects

o Schools and additional classrooms including dry latrines and fences;

o Health posts with fences;

o Farmers Training Centers (FTCs);

o DAs and teachers houses;

o Kebele administration offices;

o Credit facilitation office;

o Grain /satellite store;

Community Road and bridging structures

The types and nature of infrastructures constructed and rehabilitated and their locations by

Woreda and sub-watershed is given in annex section.

6.2.1.5 Assessment and Analysis of Impacts of PSNP PWs Infrastructures

a. Impact assessment of Water Supply and Irrigation

Under the water & small-scale irrigation subprojects category, all types of subprojects including

construction of different types of ponds, irrigation channels and hand dug wells were assessed

and it was learnt that the respective communities were involved in the selection and planning

process of the subprojects. PSNP has not fully funded the irrigation systems; its involvement

was limited to funding construction of canals and other related structures. However, it has funded

a considerable number of water supply related infrastructures for both domestic/livestock water



use and minor irrigation schemes, especially for vegetables. River diversion, hand dug wells and

rain water harvesting technologies are used by irrigation scheme beneficiaries and their

knowledge and practice of irrigation has greatly improved. To site some of the outstanding

examples:

Two ponds were constructed in Lemmo Woreda, Doyancho watershed, mainly for

livestock and irrigation use. Moreover, one spring was developed in Melka Bello

Woreda, Golegorba watershed for multipurpose use like water supply for humans,

livestock, seedling raising, etc.

There were 5 community hand dug wells and 3 diversion check dams in Adi-Tsalka

community watershed while in the case of check dam ponds, there are 4 ponds in which

two are in Adi-Tsalka and two check dam ponds and one community pond in keshi

Aynalem micro-watersheds. Currently, about 80 hectares of land is being cultivated

under irrigation.

Moreover, 2 springs were developed in two community-micro-watersheds of which one

is in Molla Geremoch and the other one in LegeberoWekelo watershed.

Positive impacts

These water sources have enabled the community to have access to water both for humans and

livestock. The beneficiaries of these water sources are both PSNP and non PSNP beneficiaries.

Hence, the following positive impacts are observed through site observation, FGD and household

survey responses.

The burden of water-borne diseases has substantially decreased;

Time to fetch water for domestic purposes was reduced.

Increased quantity and quality of drinking water to households.

Due to the upper catchments treatment water table of the command area and downstream increased and a number of hand-dug-wells constructed for irrigation purpose in Keshi-

Aynalem watershed.

The effect of successful soil and water conservation activities has increased the number

and amount of streams on the surface as well as raised the water table of ground water in

the Legebero-Wekelo watershed. As a result access to potable water mainly from the

developed spring increased.

Crop production increased, income of the community increased and meet the objectives of food security due to development of irrigated agriculture in most of the micro-

watersheds



Figure ‎6-1: Irrigation infrastructure for horticultural crops at Keshi-Aynalem Watershed,

Negative impacts

Generally, it can be said that limited or no environmental impacts have been observed due to the

type/scale of the projects. However, the following negative impacts may be noted.

The household questionnaire survey analysis showed that out of the total respondents, 10.5% responded that soil erosion in the irrigated farms increased due to irrigation

development.

5.3 % of the respondents mentioned that there were some people dislocated due to

scheme construction and 21.1 % responded that irrigation development caused conflict

between the upstream and downstream water users.

26.3% of the respondents mentioned that irrigation development has contributed to incidences of malaria and other water born diseases.

Additional springs have been developed within the watershed; however, as per the

perception (FGD) of the community of Molla-Geremoch watershed in South wello zone,

existing springs and volume of flowing streams have been reduced due to increased

eucalyptus tree plantation within the area.



b. Impact assessment of Social infrastructure

Health Infrastructures

According to the Farmers Group Discussion, the following perceptions have been gathered as to

the benefits obtained from the rehabilitation and construction of health posts near by the

community.

Positive impacts:

Reduced morbidity as a result of provision of primary health care services.

Decreased incidences of water-borne diseases.

Access to reproductive health services has increased leading to lower fertility

Average distance to health facilities decreased due to the construction of more health clinics via the PWs.

Health posts constructed are well functioning and they are to the standard. The

construction of health posts at the required posts per community needs have reduced

travel time of community beneficiaries to long distances.

Transport costs and travel time savings due to closeness of the health posts

Improved environmental sanitation and personal hygiene due to awareness created along

with provision of essential health services including sanitary facilities

Decreased incidence of falling ill of targeted households and other members.

Increased targeted households labour time available for strategically more value adding agricultural activities and their out puts.

Increased contribution to rise in labour productivity of households operating in the

community-micro-watersheds targeted.

Increased contribution to increased income and food security of households targeted.

Increased contribution to the rise in the GDP of woredas targeted.

Schools and additional class rooms

On the basis of FGDs, household survey responses and on site observations made the following

positive impacts have been identified:

Positive impacts

Access to primary school increased

Traveling distance to nearest school before the project was about 3 to 4km in the entire

micro-watersheds, but, now it is decreased to 100 m distant.

Enrollment rate of students highly increased and dropout decreased.

The construction of additional classrooms, library, fencing and dry latrine in the primary school have created good atmosphere in improving the quality of education

Construction of teachers’ residence created good working atmosphere in improving the

quality of education

The construction of teachers residence created good working atmosphere in improving the quality of education



The access to education increased due to reduced distance to school

Negative impact:

The location of the additional class rooms constructed in most of the micro-watersheds

are proper, but the floor of their class rooms are not lined with concrete and as a result the

students are exposed to soil born diseases.

Impact Assessment of Roads

Based on the primary information gathered through FGD and house hold survey, the following

positive impacts have been observed.

Positive impacts

As per the farmer’s group discussion, the constructed and /or rehabilitated roads have created

better access to social services such as ambulance and veterinary services as well as access to

market centers as in the cases of Keshi Aynalem and YalloWereda in Afar region. Moreover, in

the case of Legebero-Wekelo, the communities acknowledge that the construction and/or

rehabilitation of the roads have improved market outlets to their agricultural products.

The questionnaire survey carried out in the highlands showed that out of the total respondents,

several benefits were obtained due to road construction and rehabilitation programs. The

responses given by the respondents are listed here under:

Market outlet has been created (15. 29 % of the respondents)

Trade and other off-farm activities have been promoted (10.3% of the respondents)

Travel time to Market has been reduced ( 12.71% of the respondents)

Provision of inputs and output market were facilitated (by 13.7% of the respondents)

Access to social services (health, education, water etc. has been enhanced (by 9.4% of the

respondent)

Employment opportunities have been created (by 9% of the respondents)

Price of crop and livestock improved (by 9% of the respondents)

In general, 20.6% of the respondents have responded all the above benefits.

Impact Assessment of Farmers Training Centre

The FTCs are designed as local level focal points for farmers to receive information, training,

demonstrations and advices. The training includes both classroom and demonstration on farmers’

fields. FTCs are expected to form an important node between extension and farmers in the

agricultural sector. Each FTC is to be staffed by three ATVET graduates (one each in the areas

of crops and crop diseases, livestock and natural resource management) and supported by a

peripatetic graduate covering several FTCs and trained in cooperatives management or related

fields. Each graduate is expected to train 120 farmers per year in his/her field of specialization,

offering three-month basic training courses.

FTCs are in place in all the twelve community-micro-watersheds. The PSNP program fund has

been used to support the establishment of FTCs in all operational areas since 2005.



It has been observed that there are variations in the standard of FTCs that have been constructed.

Some have only one classroom while others contain adequate training rooms, an administrative

block and stores. Lack of adequate training space and basic training equipment may constrain the

performance of the centers and the realization of outcomes expected from this intervention.

Preliminary results of the outputs indicate that the FTCs have achieved some of their objectives.

Although they are at their early stage of implementation, the FTCs have been instrumental in

delivering training in the relevant fields of agriculture and natural resources conservation and

management. The following are the preliminary outcomes and impacts of the FTCs attested by

farmers interviewed in the twelve community-watershed areas:

FTCs are village level institutions serving farmers in several ways. In addition to providing training to farmers, the FTCs have also became centers of exchanging

information regarding agricultural production, inputs, outputs markets and social issues.

About 61.7 % responded that they have attended training programs in the various

agricultural fields in the past few years provided by FTC while, 37.7 % said they have not

attended.

6.2.1.6 Assessment and Analysis of Changes in Financial Capital (income, saving, access to credit,

loans, etc)

i. Multiple Income Source

The assessment made in the micro-watersheds found in the high land areas indicated that, the

major sources of income for those PSNP PWs participants were found to be from crop

production (26%), livestock rearing (12%), engagement in PSNP PWs (14%), sell of wood

(13%), remittance (17%), and petty trade (9%) and other casual works, small business

enterprises, etc. (9%). On the other hand, the major source of income for the Pastoral

Communities participating in PSNP PWs were found to be in livestock rearing (25%),

engagement in PSNP PWs (23%), crop production(20%), petty trade (11%), sell of wood (8%),

remittance (5%), and other casual works, small business enterprises, etc. (8%).

Table ‎6-9: Major Sources of Income and its Percentage contribution of PSNP PWs Participants Major Sources of Income Percentage Distribution

High Land Pastoralist

Crop Production 26.0 20.0

Livestock Rearing 12.0 25.0

PSNP PWs participation 14.0 23.0

Petty Trade 9.0 11.0

Sell of wood and wood products(charcoal making) 13.0 8.0

Remittance 17.0 5.0

Others 9.0 8.0

Total 100 100

Source: Household Survey for 2 PSNP PWs Impact Assessment, December, 2012



As it could be observed from table 5.9, 14 % and 23% of the households` annual income of the

highland and pastoral communities, respectively, has been obtained from PSNP PWs

engagement. It was also confirmed during the FGDs held in each of the micro-watersheds that

engagement in PSNP PWs has been one of the major sources of income for both the Highland

and Pastoral Community Areas.

In addition, the household survey result, on the farming households participating in PSNP PWs,

indicated that only 3.3 percent of them are able to produce crops that are adequate for 12 months,

while the majority (84.3%) of the HHs responded that they could depend on income obtained

from their own production for only 6 and less months and the remaining 6 and more months had

been covered from income obtained in PSNP PWs participation, mainly due to lack of adequate

farmland. This could be observed in more details from Table 5.10 below.

Table ‎6-10:Households Responses Indicating Inadequacy of Crops Produced for 12 Months Percentage of HHs Responses Inadequacy in Months Remarks

44.0 6 Months

40.3 4 Months

9.9 9 months

3.3 Adequate

2.5 No Response

100.0

Source: Household Survey for 2nd 2011 PSNP PWs Impact Assessment, December 2012.

ii. Land ownership

As to ownership of farmland, 92% of households living in the Highland Farming Community

within the micro-watersheds responded that they owned farmland. However, 80.4 percent of

them reported that they do not have adequate farmland, which is on the average less than 0.5

hectare/farming household. Yet, 94.8 % of the Pastoral Community Areas reported that they do

not have adequate farmland, even though they obtained 20% of their annual income from crop

production. Similarly, findings from the FGDs carried out in each of the micro-watersheds

indicated that, most of the PSNP PWs participants are the poorest of the poor and do not have

adequate farmland. Nevertheless, recurrent drought has been widely reported as a major

livelihood constraint in pastoral areas than shortage of farmland because they depend more on

livestock rearing than crop production.

iii. Participation in PSNP PWs

As confirmed by FGDs participants, their participation in PSNP PWs created opportunity to

generate income for household members that was used:



for filling food gap at least for six months (44.0%), four months (40.3%) and nine months

(9.9%) for PSNP PWs household heads, respectively;

for buying school materials (exercise books, pen, pencil, school bag, school uniforms

etc...) for children to send them to school;

for buying assets like (ox, milking cow, sheep, goat, donkey, camel, chicken, beehives

etc...) that helped some households to build their assets;

for improving the condition of houses and some have changed the thatched roof to

corrugated once;

helped to reduce migration and its burden of travel in search of employment, particularly

for male household heads and also helped them to stay with their families;

to get married and establish family life for some youths; and

to lease land for farming from others who could not farm due to old age and other

disabilities.

iv. Livestock asset

Increment in livestock number and livestock asset ownership, after the implementation of PSNP

PWs, is better presented in the findings of the household survey. The 5s below (tables 6.11 and

5.13) summarize the findings in the highland farming communities and pastoralists, respectively.



Table ‎6-11: Aggregated Livestock Ownsership in Highland Areas of the Micro Water HHs

Types of livestock Total livestock number owned

by the respondents

Difference

%

(increased)

Prior to

PSNP PWs

Post

PSNP PWs

Cattle 280 522 242.0 86.4

Sheep 193 351 158.0 81.9

Goat 272 326 54.0 19.9

Poultry 313 661 348 121.4

Donkey 40 87 47.0 117.5

Camel 0 3 3.0

Total 1098 1950 852 77.6

Source: MCE, Household Survey for 2nd 2011 PSNP PWs Impact Assessment, December 2012.

One of the major factors for increment of livestock population in the highland areas of the micro-

watersheds is thought to be the opportunity they got to participate in PSNP PWs, which in turn

enabled them to get additional income for the purchase of additional livestock.

Similar to the above, HHs respondents of the FGD group categorized as “rich” at Keshi

Aynalem watershed indicate increased ownership of livestock and other assets that resulted from

their participation in the PSNP PWs. Table 5.12 below shows the increment gained.



Table ‎6-12:Livestock ownership of some FGD members graduated from PSNP PWs prior and

after joining the PSNP PWs at Keshi Aynalem Watershed, Atsbi-Womberata Name Sex Type of livestock Number of Livestock Status of

PSNP PWs

Participants 2005

2012

Keshi G/gzeabher

Mezgebe

M Ox 1 2

Graduated

Cow 1 2

Donkey 1 2

Beehives 0 4

eucalyptus tree 0 3000

Keshi Tesfay Gidey

F ox 1 2

Graduated

Sheep 5 0

Donkey 1 1

Cows 0 1

Calves 0 2


Haleka Gidey Hagos

F ox 1 2

Graduated

Donkey 1 1

Cow 0 2

Beehives 0 2

Sheep 0 8


Ato Gidey Hailu

M ox 1 2

Graduated

Sheep 5 12

Beehive 1 2

Cow 0 1



Donkey 0 1

eucalyptus trees 0 850

Ato Tsegay Halefom

M ox 1 2

Graduated

Donkey 1 1

Sheep 3 0

Cow 1 1

Beehives 0 3

eucalyptus trees 0 1740

W/ro Teberh Hagos

M cow 1 2

Graduated

Sheep 7 6

Donkey 1 1

Chickens 7 0

Ox 0 1

Calves 0 2

Haleka Yemane Hagos

F ox 1 1

Graduated

Sheep 4 0

Donkey 1 1

Calves 0 2

W/ro Nigisti Enun

F sheep 6 11

Graduated

Chickens 5 3

Ox 0 1

Cow 0 1

Source: FGD with categorized “rich” Group at Keshi Aynalem, Atsbi-Womberat, December 2012

HH survey results from Pastoral Community Areas indicate that livestock population at

household level has been decreasing (since 2011) in Halle Ella KA of Yallo Woreda and

Bulabora, Biokulul Sub- Kebele Administration of Bikie KA in Afdem Woreda. This could be

visualized from table 5.14, shown below.



For the reduction of livestock ownership at the household level in the Pastoral Areas, there could

be various factors among which drought could be one; and in the case of Hallie Ella KA as

reported by the FGD participants and Woreda Steering Committee, there was drought for the last

two years and it was reported that drought has affected livestock population of the KA and the

Woreda as a whole. In fact, it was not possible to find many households of Hallie Ella KA within

the area for the FGD and it was reported that many of the HHs have migrated with the remaining

livestock to the highland areas of Amhara and Tigray regions for grazing.

Table ‎6-13:Aggregated Livestock Ownership of HHs in Pastoral Community Areas Prior and

After PSNP PWs implementation

Types of livestock

Number of Livestock owned

Difference percentage Prior

PSNP PWs

Post

PSNP PWs

Cattle 122 27 -95 -77.9

Sheep 330 261 -69 -20.9

Goat 612 482 -130 -21.2

Poultry 20 44 24 120

Donkey 48 56 8 16.7

Camel 78 46 -32 -41.0

Total 1210 916 -294 24.3

Source: Household Survey for 2 PSNP PWs Impact Assessment, December, 2012

v. Savings

As both findings from HHs survey and FGDs responses indicated, majority of the PSNP PWs

participants in the Highland Areas were selected from the poorest of the poor communities of the

watershed and 84.4 percent of them did not own adequate farmland and they consumed the

income they earned from participation in PSNP PWs. Only very few of them and the better off

ones who joined PSNP PWs were able to save some money to buy additional livestock that

contributed to their asset building. Therefore, data and information gathered could not

substantially support that many of the PSNP PWs participants were able to save income obtained

from PSNP PWs that contributed to their asset building.

vi. Access to Credit/Loans

Sixty two percent of HHs respondents and FGDs discussants on the categorized “rich, middle

and poor” groups indicated that they know about the credit provided to the PSNP PWs. Many of



the FGD participants indicated that they know about the Family Package Program which was

very much popular once and used to be distributed through Agricultural Multipurpose

Cooperative Society and the credit funded by Agriculture and Rural Development Office.

However, under the new system, access to credit/loan to the PSNP PWs participants was aimed

to be channeled through specialized financial institutions like RUSACCOs and MFIs and the

source to come from HABP. This was not put into practice in most of the regions due to various

reasons among which the HABP fund was not transferred to MIFs and RUSACCOs. In the case

of RUSACCOs, they were not fully organized as they are expected to be, and even those which

were organized are not financially strong because of the weak capacity of their members’ to save

and give credit.

As to the major sources of credit from which the PSNP PWs participants get, the household

survey finding indicated that 39.9 % was from MoA Household Asset Building Program, 20.9%

was from MFIs, 4.6% from informal sector, 3.9% Agricultural Multipurpose Cooperatives and

0.7% RUSACCOs.

In addition to lack of access to credit facilities, high interest rate charges, and smallness of credit

amount given in relation to high inflation rate and collateral requirement made by MFIs were

identified as major problems.

6.2.1.7 Vulnerability Context

It is widely recognized that erratic rainfall, recurrent drought, shortage of farmland, inadequate

farm inputs and farm implements have been affecting the livelihoods of farming and

pastoralists communities living in food insecure woredas of Ethiopia. Although opinions vary on

the severity and frequency of drought, scholars argued that drought continues to be the cause for

severe hardship to the farming and pastoral communities. In response to drought and food

insecurity problems, both the farming and pastoral communities adapt themselves to cope up

with such impacts.

In the case of the pastoral communities, most of the coping strategies evolve around ensuring the

survival of the livestock herds on which they depend to a large extent for food

security. However, during severe drought situations which corroborate scarcity of pasture and

water that causes loss of livestock and traditional coping strategies can become increasingly

insufficient, leaving the communities vulnerable to shocks.

Similarly, in the farming communities, most of the population depend on farming and livestock

rearing. Crop failure is caused by drought that usually leads to household food deficit. Added to

this, absence of off-farm income generating opportunities also leads to asset depletion and

increasing levels of destitution at household level.

In response to such food insecurity issues caused by drought and other factors, PSNP public

works program was designed to address a key underlying cause of food insecurity –

environmental degradation, which has been going on since 2006/2007 in identified and selected



food insecure Woredas in the highland farming communities. The impact assessment made in the

12 sample micro-watersheds, in the identified food insecure Woredas, indicated that PSNP PWs

program has provided predictable and timely resources to chronically food insecure households

through payments to able bodied members for their participation in labour intensive public

works. As HHs survey results, FGDs responses, Key Informant Interviews(KII) and secondary

data collected from those assessed micro-watersheds indicated, large portion of the resources of

the PSNP PWs was allocated for natural resources rehabilitation and as a result it is assumed that

80 percent of the natural resources have been rehabilitated.

In terms of livelihood promotion, households’ food insecurity gap for the farming highland

areas and pastoral communities was reported to be filled for 61.1% and 74.4%, respectively,

from the income obtained through participating in PSNP PWs.

Overall, benefits gained from participation in PSNP PWs included:

Helped households with enough income (cash/food) to meet their food gap and thereby

protect their household assets from depletion.

Contributed to build community assets so as to contribute for addressing root causes of food insecurity.

Maintaining household assets build through other programs so that recipient households

come out of the problem of food insecurity.

Enhancing livelihood opportunities through the creation of community assets and

Reduced environmental degradation that helped to generate additional income at

household level.

However, this does not mean that PSNP PWs participants are food secure and their vulnerability

to chocks and shortage of food has been overcome, and if their participation in the PSNP PWs is

ceased, they will be exposed to shocks. This is mainly due to:

Capital assets created at household level due to PSNP PWs intervention have not been

sufficient to reduce asset depletion and vulnerably to shocks;

84.4% of the HHs responses indicated that family annual food requirements is only

covered for about 6 and less months from own production or asset created (see table

5.14)

61.1% and 74.4% HHs of the farming and pastoral communities respectively responded

that they have been covering their food gaps from the income obtained through

participation in PSNP PWs (See table 5.15).



Table ‎6-14:Number of Months the Household can Cover food needs from own production

Number of Months Covered

Percentage Distribution of Respondents

Pastoral Community

Area

Farming Highland

Area

4 78.9 40.4

6 21.1 44.0

9 0 12.3

12 0 3.3

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Household Survey for 2nd 2011 PSNP PWs Impact Assessment, December 2012

Moreover, 85.7 % of the HHs of farming communities and 87.6% of the HHs of pastoral

communities reported that their food requirement is not fully secured even as they

participate in PSNP PW programs.

Table 6-15: Current Food Security Status of PSNP PWS Participants

Current Food Security Status of PSNP

PWS Participants

Percentage Distribution of

Respondents

Pastoralist

Community

Area

High Land

Farming Area

It is fully secured 14.3 12.4

It is partially secure 74.6 74.1

Never has been fulfilled 11.1 13.5

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Household Survey for 2nd PSNP PWs Impact Assessment, December 2012

One of the major causes for food insecurity could be limited access to physical capital

(productive land) for the majority of the PSNP PWs participants. The HHs survey finding also

indicates that 95% of the farming community participating in PSNP PWs do not own adequate

farm land, but in the case of the pastoral communities land could not be the major cause because

only 8% were found not to own land and in Pastoral Community Areas, land is communally

owned.



6.2.1.8 Changes in livelihood strategies

Even though the changes made in livelihood status of the PSNP PWs participants is not to be

considered very high, there are changes observed that have contributed to improved living

standards of many of the PSNP PWs participants. Among others, the following are

improvements/changes observed in the livelihoods of the households.

82.4% of the HHs in the farming communities who participated in PSNP PWs confirmed

that the implementation of PSNP PWs in their respective micro-watersheds have

improved livestock feed and water availability, which contributed to increased livestock

production and productivities and the benefits from additional income generated from

this activity;

92% of the HHs in the farming communities reported that PSNP PWs has improved their crop production and productivity;

Soil and water conservation on individually owned and rehabilitated plots of land,

enclosed areas and farm lands that contributed to get additional income from the

rehabilitation of natural resources (grasses, trees, fruits and vegetables, crop production

etc..) are practiced; and this has contributed to improvement in the livelihood of the

family among some households;

Open grazing ceased and cut and carry system introduced;

Regular working habit with group on PSNP PWs is developed;

Some households have adapted new technologies like beekeeping, use of water for

irrigated cropping, modern livestock management etc., that have contributed improved

living standard

6.2.1.9 Changes in livelihood Outcomes

Even though it would be difficult to conclude that improvements have been made to the

livelihood of the participants, the community capital assets, created in the process, has brought

significant changes in the natural resources rehabilitation and the livelihood improvement

impacts could be noticed in the future. Yet, the most serious problems that could affect

livelihood of the PSNP PWs participants in the micro-watersheds assessed are, recurrent drought

and shortage of farmland. These can be improved through the continued implementation of the

natural resources rehabilitation programs with the support of the PSNP PWs and expanding on

farm and off-farm income generating schemes.

6.2.1.10 Changes in Transforming Structures and Processes

The established structures, at different levels, have contributed to the implementation of PSNP

PWs supported watershed based sub-projects like schools; roads; soil and water conservation

structures, water development (spring, ponds, wells),health posts, farmers` training centres were

constructed and or rehabilitated .These community assets have contributed to address the root

causes of food insecurity by improving soil moisture and productivity of land, improved

availability of fodder for livestock, improving knowledge and skill, improving health and

reducing morbidity and mortality, enhancing access to water supply for domestic use, livestock



as well as small scale irrigation usage, improved access to credit and market as well as

information technologies

6.3 Economic Impact Assessment

A number of PSNP Public Works subprojects have been implemented in the twelve sample

micro-micro-watersheds selected for the current impact assessment study. These included SWC

measures (soil bunds on farmlands, hill side/upland terracing, pitting, micro basins and

plantings), area enclosures (important for herbaceous and woody biomass regeneration

particularly for forage/ grass and tree/fuel wood productivity improvement), small -scale/spate

irrigation development (dams, ponds, river diversions, etc); and development of infrastructure

sub-projects (water supply facility, rural feeder roads, schools, and health facilities).

The impacts of these interventions are expected to result in reduced soil degradation and restore

multiple functions of the land and water resources that lead to:

increased agricultural productivity;

increased rain water infiltration and water supply to groundwater and base flow of local

streams;

increased herbaceous and woody biomass from enclosed areas, which lead to increased

forage/ grass productivity;

increased fuel wood and poles from indigenous trees and plantations;

increased bee forage for honey production; and

re-charged groundwater leading to initiation of springs and increased stream base flow

for irrigation and water supply.

The impact of these measures should be identified, estimated and quantified in quantity and

monetary terms using appropriate techniques of assessment. In the following sub-sections, the

assessment techniques and procedures used and the economic impact assessment of the PSNP

PW interventions has been presented.

6.3.1 Economic Impact Assessment Techniques and Procedures Used

In the present economic impact assessment of PSNP PW subprojects, Cost Benefit Analysis

(CBA) techniques have been applied. In order to effectively apply CBA technique, valuation of

benefits and costs of the interventions and discounting of the identified and quantified streams of

future benefits and costs to present values have been carried out.

6.3.1.1 Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis (CBA) is the standard method of evaluating interventions and projects. It is

a systematic procedure for measuring and quantification of all monetary benefits and costs

associated with interventions (subprojects) with long-term effects. It also consists of impact



analysis to determine the physical parameters followed by valuation of the identified impact. All

direct, indirect and external effects are incorporated into the impact analysis. The object is to

compare the present value of a stream of benefits to a stream of costs spread over the life of the

project.

6.3.1.2 Discounting

Discounting is used to calculate the present value of future costs and benefits. A typical Benefit-

Cost (B/C) analysis calculates the discounted benefits per discounted costs to get a benefit-cost

ratio over a period of time. Evaluation can be based on a number of decision criteria – internal

rate of return (IRR), cost-benefit ratio (CBR) and net present value (NPV). NPV is defined as the

difference between the sum total of the present value of discounted benefit streams and the

discounted value of cost streams over the life of the project. The higher the NPV, the better is the

project or impact. In this economic impact assessment, net present value (NPV) and benefits-

costs ratio (BCR) were used.

Earlier studies have used different discounting rates in evaluation of interventions and projects.

For financial analysis (from the interest of personal discount rate of the farmer investing in a soil

conservation measure), Enters (1998) recommends that rates of between 15 and 25 percent

should be used. In the 2011 PW IA Phase I impact assessment, a rate of 15 percent was used.

The same discount rate was used in this 2011 PW IA II assessment.

For economic CBA (from the interests of social welfare of the nation), the rate should reflect the

“social” time preference. Generally, national planning agencies set the discount rate for the

government investment projects and this has been followed in the present analysis. In Ethiopia

this is generally set at 10 percent.

6.3.2 Financial and Economic Analysis

Financial and economic analyses have similar features. Both estimate the net benefits of an

investment project based on the difference between the with-project and the without-project

situations. However, the concept of financial net benefit is not the same as economic net benefit.

While financial net benefit provides a measure of the commercial (financial) viability of the

project on the project-operating entity, economic net benefit indicates the real worth of a project

to the country. Financial and economic analyses are also complementary. For a project to be

economically viable, it must be financially sustainable.

The basic difference between the financial and economic benefit-cost analyses of the project is

that the former compares benefits and costs to the enterprise in constant financial prices, while

the latter compares the benefits and costs to the whole economy measured in constant economic

prices. Financial prices are market prices of goods and services that include the effects of

government intervention and distortions in the market structure. Economic prices reflect the true

cost and value to the economy of goods and services after adjustment for the effects of



government intervention and distortions in the market structure through shadow pricing of the

financial prices.

6.3.3 Identification, Quantification and Valuation of Economic Benefits and Costs

The most essential tasks undertaken in any CBA are identification, quantification, and valuation

of the streams of benefits and costs of the object of the study under consideration (be it

investment project or policy alternative). A wide range of valuation techniques is available to

measure actual value of uses. Price based valuation techniques are ge nerally the first techniques

considered. However, in the absence of market prices and/or where price distortions cannot be

adequately allowed for, alternative valuation techniques may be employed.

Many goods and services from micro-watersheds are traded, either in local markets or

internationally including: wood products (timber and fuel); non-wood forest products (food and

medicine); crops and livestock products; wildlife (meat and fish); and recreation. For those

products that are commercially traded, prevailing market prices can be used to compare the costs

and benefits of the interventions. Price-based valuation includes the ‘market price method’ and

the ‘productivity method’.

For non-marketed goods and services a set of valuation techniques can be grouped together

under the heading ‘cost-based valuation’. These techniques assess the costs of different measures

that would ensure the maintenance of the benefits provided by the subprojects or service that is

being valued. These cost estimates are then used as proxies for the unknown economic benefits.

These techniques include the ‘damage cost avoided’, ‘replacement cost’, ‘substitute cost’, and

‘cost and time saving’ methods.

In the current 2011 PSNP PWIA II economic assessment, both direct market price and indirect

cost and time savings methods have been applied to evaluate the benefits and costs of the sub-

projects. For the economic impacts of SWC measures (crop productivity), enclosed areas

(biomass productivity enhancement), and small-scale irrigation (increased crop productivity)

local market prices were used to evaluate their costs and benefits. For the economic impacts of

infrastructure subprojects like rural feeder roads, health facilities/ posts, and rural water supply,

the cost and time saved (transport cost savings, time saved and used for other productive

purposes) from previous practices due to the implementation of the subprojects were used to

evaluate the economic benefits and costs.

6.3.4 Economic Impact Assessment of PSNP PW Subprojects

6.3.4.1 Economic Impact of SWC Measures on Crop Productivity

The benefits of SWC structures such as soil /stone bunds and terracing on farmland or upland

location attributed to PSNP activities were expected to have positive impact on crop prop and



chat productivity. Positive impacts on cropland due to reduced run-off from SWC structures.

Two approaches were followed to quantify and valuate the impacts, i.e., on-site and off-site

(downstream) effect of SWC. In cases the SWC structures were constructed on the farmland of

households, on-site impacts have been quantified and valued by collecting information from key

representative farmer households at field level. Such practices were particularly observed in

Keshi Ayinalem Micro-Watershed and others in Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, Afar, Harari, and Dire

Dawa regions. In case the SWC structures were constructed on upland communal areas,

downstream impacts of upstream conservation measures on individual farmlands (off-site effect)

have been considered and valuated by taking information from farm households at field level.

Such practice was observed in Adi-Tsalka Micero-Watershed (Tigray).

6.3.4.2 Farm Level Economic Analysis

Farm level economic analysis refers to economic impact assessment of PSNP PWs SWC

measures on private household farms, although most interventions were done on communal

upland farms. In cases SWC measures were carried out on upland areas, downstream farmlands

(off-site) were considered (Adi-Tsalka, Legabero Wakelo, etc) and in cases SWC structures like

soil bunds or stone bunds were implemented on-private farms on-site farmlands (Keshi

Aynalem, Legabero Wekelo) were considered for the analysis.

Accordingly, farm level economic analysis (financial analysis for private) of crop production on

SWC treated farmland has been estimated for all sample micro – micro-watersheds, except Bike

in Somali Region using data collected at field level. In cases the SWC structures were

constructed on farmland itself, it was assumed that crop yields and revenue decrease by 1% in

the first year, increase by 25% in the second year, and attains highest level and remain the same

in year 3 and onwards.

Crop Production (Rainfed) on SWC Treated Areas

Table 5.16 below shows financial NPV calculated for one hectare farm crop (rainfed) budget for

Keshi Ayinalem micro-watershed projected over 25 years period using a discount rate of 15%.

The NPV was found to be ETB 1,454.13 and an on-farm B - C ratio of 1.04. The result is

positive and shows that public resources committed to SWC activities at targeted household farm

level are worthwhile public investment.



Table ‎6-16:A One Hectare Crop (rainfed) Financial Budget for Keshi Ayinalem Micro-

Watershed, projected over 25 years period

Items

Revenue stream Wheat barley faba bean Total Wheat barley faba bean Total Wheat barley faba bean Total

Area 0.125 0.25 0.125 0.5 0.13 0.25 0.13 0.50 0.125 0.25 0.125 0.5

Productivity (Qt/ha) 5.5 4.5 3.5 18.00 15.00 20.00 12.5 10.5 16.5

Production (Qts) 0.69 1.13 0.44 2.25 2.25 3.75 2.50 8.50 1.56 2.63 2.06 6.25

Price/Qt 367 355 347 544 481.75 709.00 544 481.75 709

Gross revenue/plot 252 399 152 804 1,224 1,807 1,773 4,803 850 1,265 1,462 3,577

1,607 9,606 7,154

C o s ts / 0 .5 0 ha

Inputs, labour and annual maintenan 72 2,306 2,234

Inc re m e nt a l c o s t / ha 4,469

Capital costs - 4,300 4,300

Incremental /ha 8,600

Benefit flow projection per 1 Ha farmland

Year Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12

Crop Sales revenue 1591 2411 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154 7154

Annual costs 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469 4,469

Capital costs 8,600.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net Revenue (11,478) (2,058) 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685 2,685

NPV, 15% = 1,454

B-C Ratio 1.04

Before After Incremental benefit due to SWC

Gross revenue /ha (*2)

Inc re m e nt a l

Source: Field data

The financial NPVs and B-C ratios at farm level were calculated for all sample micro-watersheds

are presented in Table 5.17. In all sampled micro-micro-watersheds, the estimation gave positive

and robust NPVs ranging from ETB 338.34/ha to ETB 26,455.22/ha showing that the

interventions carried out on SWC structures under rainfed crop production at household farm

level are worthwhile. The NPVs were found to be high in Legabero Wekelo (Werebabo),

Arbegna Koste (Humbo), Gola Gorba (Melka Balo), and Negadras (Sofi) micro-micro-

watersheds.

The results of earlier studies conducted in Ethiopia on the economic impact of SWC measures on

rainfed crop production are also consistent with the current findings. For instance, Dirk Jobst

Rolker (2012) in his CBA analysis of soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies in Anjeni

Watershed of North-Western Ethopia (Amhara) found an NPV of ETB 3,547/ha for crop

production on soil bund structures (on-site benefit). PSNP PW 2009 impact assessment

conducted in 10 micro-micro-watersheds found that all SWC measures except soil bench terrace

also gave robust NPVs ranging from ETB 635/ha to ETB 9,555/ha of crop production, implying

that PSNP investments at farm level would be worthwhile as they shall environmentally,

economically and financially contribute to betterment of targeted households that are chronically

food-insecure.



Table ‎6-17:Farm Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratio of Rainfed Crop Production on SWC

Treated Areas in Sample Micro-Micro-watersheds, using 15% discount rate over 25 years

Region Micro -Watershed Discounted

Benefits (ETB)

Discounted

Costs (ETB) NPV (ETB) B-C Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 46,559.46 41,487.16 5,072.30 1.12

,, Keshi Aynalem 37,819.38 36,365.25 1,454.13 1.04

Amhara Molla Geremoch 44,971.09 36,793.20 8,177.88 1.22

,, Legabero Wekelo 43,268.93 16,813.71 26,455.22 2.57

Afar Halle Ella - Yallo 2,598.59 1,849.35 749.24 1.41

Oromia Gola Gorba 53,396.59 34,358.04 19,038.55 1.55

,, Garaguracha - Habro 35,885.72 32,348.39 3,537.33 1.11

Harari Negadras - Sofi 20,689.09 6,238.11 14,450.98 3.32

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 36,686.63 30,296.10 6,390.53 1.21

SNNP Arbegna Koste 39,114.24 5,394.90 33,719.34 7.25

,, Doyancho 27,666.62 27,328.28 338.34 1.01

Source: Field data

6.3.4.3 Community Micro-Watershed Level Economic Analysis

Economic analysis at community micro – watershed level refers to economic (or social) cost-

benefit analysis for the whole community-community watershed. It measures the impact of the

interventions on the welfare of society as a whole. Scaling up the estimated NPV of a hectare of

farmland at farm level to the total land area put under SWC measures in the study areas enables

us to visualize the value of SWC effects at the community micro-watershed level. Economic

analysis at community-watershed levels was based on data obtained at field level from key farm

households, computed with 10% discount rate and is summarized by each sample micro-micro-

watersheds. The values for the community-micro-watersheds are given in Table 5.18.

Table ‎6-18: Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio for Rainfed Crop Production in SWC Treated

Areas at Micro-micro-watersheds Level, discounted at 10% over 25 years

Region Micro -

Watershed

Crop

cultivated

area (ha)

Discounted

Benefits (ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C

Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 122 7,976,284.08 6,894,195.51 1,082,088.57 1.16

,, Keshi

Aynalem

258.5 14,465,185.68 12,506,658.66 1,958,527.02 1.16

Amhara Molla

Geremoch

178 11,240,516.20 9,175,036.91 2,065,479.29 1.23

,, Legabero

Wekelo

13 789,864.11 305,098.83 484,765.28 2.59

Afar Halle Ella 18.75 136,836.38 44,947.99 91,888.39 3.04

Oromia Gola Gorba 172.75 12,952,823.14 8,084,438.42 4,868,384.72 1.60

,, Gara Guracha 13.75 692,878.83 609,138.04 83,740.79 1.14

Harari Sofi -

Negadras

83.5 2,425,832.27 726,605.43 1,699,226.85 3.34

Dire

Dawa

Lega Dhugo 118.5 6,104,626.20 4,995,411.99 1,109,214.21 1.22

SNNP Arbegna Koste 156.72 8,607,801.38 1,153,046.47 7,454,754.91 7.47

,, Doyancho 125 4,856,227.76 4,511,307.92 344,919.83 1.08

Source: Field data



The NPVs (using a discount rate of 10%) are all positive, ranging from ETB 83,740.79 (in Gara

Guracha - Oromia) to ETB 4,868,384.72 (in Gola Gorba – Oromia). The Benefit Cost Ratio

spread from 1.08 (in Doyancho) to 7.47 (in Arbegna Koste - Humbo). The B-C Ratios were

found relatively low in Halle Ella, Doyancho, Gara Guracha, Adi–Tsalka, Keshi Ayinalem, Lega

Dhugo, Molla Geremoch, and Gola Gorba community micro-micro-watersheds. The low B-CRs

in these micro-micro-watersheds are due to the extremely high costs. The positive results of

NPVs and B-CRs of all community micro-micro-watersheds strongly indicate that soil and water

conservation projects under PSNP PWs are worthwhile public investments to make on

chronically food insecure communities. The results also indicate the level of contributions such

interventions would make to raise community asset formation of targeted chronically food

insecure communities.

6.3.5 Economic Impacts of Enclosed Areas

Enclosed areas are expected to bring positive impacts on regeneration and productivity growth of

herbaceous and wood biomasses of the concerned micro-micro-watersheds. The economic

benefits identified in herbaceous biomass changes in the sample micro-micro-watersheds

included increased forage for livestock and increased bee forage and honey production while that

of wood biomass changes are increased fuel wood from indigenous trees, increased poles and

fuel wood from plantations, and re-charged groundwater leading to spring initiation and

increased stream base flow for irrigation. The downstream effect of enclosed areas was observed

to be reduced sediment to rivers. Its global benefit is also expected to be increased sequestration

of CO2 (a Greenhouse gas) contributing to a reduction in global warming.

On-Site Effects: Enclosed Areas:- Enclosures improve the hydrology and soil inside the forested

land in several ways: they prevent physical soil loss, maintain or increase soil water holding

capacity, protect or increase top soil depth, prevent the loss of soil nutrient content and increase

soil organic matter. An increase in soil quality within enclosures has a number of biophysical and

socioeconomic implications. As a result of improved soil quality and soil water content the total

amount of biomass production will increase with its subsequent ecological and economic

benefits. Biomass production within the forested area and its economic value is one of the

important on-site economic benefits of enclosures dealt in CBA.

Off-Site Effects: Downstream locations of Enclosed Areas:- Because of their sediment trapping

capacity, enclosures can prevent sediment loads from leaving the catchment and silting up water

reservoirs. Vegetation restoration in enclosures also acts as a ‘sink’ area where the incoming

water infiltrates and/or deeply percolates beyond the root zones and contributes to the ground

water recharge and induces new springs. The new water sources can be used, among other

things, for irrigation. Reservoir sedimentation protection and new springs development are the

major downstream benefits of enclosures in the micro-micro-watersheds studied.



6.3.5.1 Changes in Herbaceous Biomass Production

PSNP PWs supported enclosed areas were observed in Adi-Tsalka (Ahferom), Keshi Ayinalem

(Atsibi Wonberta), Molla Geremoch (Habru), Legebro Wekelo (Worebabo), Halle Ella (Yallo),

Lega Dhugo (Dire Dawa), and Arbegna Koste (Humbo) micro-micro-watersheds. Changes in

herbaceous biomass production in these micro-micro-watersheds have been assessed in terms of

changes in honey production/beekeeping (attained due to improved bee forage) and forage grass

production both at farm level (financial analysis) and community watershed level (economic

analysis). Quantification, valuation and analysis of the changes have been described as follows.

Farm Level Financial Analysis

(i) Changes in Beekeeping (Honey Production)

It has been observed that area closures have resulted in a dramatic increase in the provision of

bee forage as a result of the increase in herbaceous and woody plants, which in return has

enabled significant increases in the annual yields of honey. This has encouraged PSNP PW

beneficiaries to introduce and adopt modern beehives for honey production in the studied micro-

micro-watersheds where enclosed areas were implemented.

For example, in Adi-Tselka Micro-Watershed beneficiary households reported that their honey

yield has increased from 3 kg per traditional hive to 25 kg per modern hive per annum. Local

market prices for honey in Eastern Tigray on average are ETB 64.80 per kg (taken from CSA

producer prices survey). Investment costs amount to ETB 870 for a hive including bee colony

and materials. A one Improved Hive Budget and cash flow (for Adi-Tselka Micro-Watershed) is

shown in Table 5.19.

The Financial NPV per improved hive at 15 percent discount rates over 25 years was found to be

ETB 7,744.48 (positive) with B-C Ratio of 3.84. The result shows that investment on honey

production at farm household level in the enclosed area is worthy.



Table ‎6-19:Financial NPV and B-C Ratio for One Improved Beehive in Adi-Tsalka Micro-

Watershed

Calculation of 1 Improved Beehive Budget and Cash Flow (over 25 years)

Revenue Stream PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 PY7 PY8 PY9 PY10 PY11

Improved beehive (no.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Yield productivity (kg/beehive/yr)25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Price of honey (Birr/kg) 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.8

Gross revenue (Birr/beehive)1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620

Annual costs

Labour for protection (2 PDs)56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3

Harvesting & processing (4 PDs)112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6 112.6

Food (flour & sugar) 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136

Subtotal 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9 304.9

Capital costs

Beehive and bee colony cost )850

Materials and tools/beehive 20

Subtotal 870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Net cash flow 445 1,315 1,315 1,315 1,315 1,315 1,315 1,315 1,315 1,315 1,315

Financial NPV, 15% = 7,744.48

B-C Ratio 3.84

Source: Computed from Field data

The study team observed that beekeeping has been practiced in enclosed areas of Adi-Tselka

(Afferom), Keshi Ayinalem (Atsibi Wonberta), Gara Guracha (Habro), and Lega Dhugo (Dire

Dawa) micro-micro-watersheds. The financial NPVs calculated for these micro-micro-

watersheds are all positive ranging from ETB 3,110.91/ hive (farm level) in Gara Guracha

(Oromia) to ETB 13,454.06/hive in Keshi Ayinalem (Tigray) micro-micro-watersheds (see Table

5.20). The NPVs were found relatively high in Keshi Aynalem, Lega Dhugo, and Adi-Tsalka

micro-micro-watersheds and the lowest in Gara Guracha micro-watershed. The NPV /hive in

Gara Guracha is found low because the beneficiary households practice traditional beekeeping

methods which do not show much changes compared to modern beekeeping.

Table ‎6-20:Farm Level NPVs and B-C Ratio for Improved Beekeeping in Enclosed Areas of

Sample Micro-Micro-watersheds, calculated using 15% discount rate over 25 years


Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C Ratio

Tigray Adi-Tsalka 10,471.92 2,727.44 7,744.48 3.84

,, Keshi Ayinalem 16,755.07 3,301.02 13,454.06 5.08

Oromia Gara Guracha 3,619.92 509.01 3,110.91 7.11


Source: Field data

Previous studies also showed positive economic impacts which support the current economic

impact assessment on honey production in enclosed areas. PSNP PW 2011 Phase I impact



assessment conducted in Keleta Watershed (Dodota and Sirrie Woredas of Oromia) and Zamra

Watershed (Tigray) revealed an NPV of ETB 2,350/ hive and ETB 5,453/hive at 15% discount

rate respectively.

(ii) Changes in Forage/ Grass Productivity and Production

Exclusion of livestock from closed areas leads to an increase in herbaceous biomass, which in

return increased forage/grass productivity in the enclosed areas. In addition, grasses grown on

terraces to stabilize the structures also used as additional sources of livestock feed as long as the

cut-and-carry system is used.

It has been observed that enclosed areas were divided among people who manage their land

parcel and use grass through this system in some micro-micro-watersheds. Beneficiary

households practiced forage/ grasses cut and carry system from the plots allocated to them in the

enclosed areas.

For example, in Adi-Tselka Micro-Watershed beneficiary households practiced forage grasses

cut and carry system from enclosed area obtained an incremental forage grass harvest of 60

shekim/ha per annum. Taking average local price of 50 ETB/shekim calculation of NPV/ ha gave

positive NPV of ETB 8,168.55 with a B-C ratio of 1.73. This indicates that production of forage

grass in enclosed areas attributed to PSNP PWs is worthy and increased income of beneficiary

households. The financial NPV and B-C Ratio calculated for improved forage grass produced on

one hectare plot is presented in Table 5.21.

Forage /grasses cut and carry system was practiced in Aditsalka, Keshi Ayinalem, Molla

Geremoch, Legabero Wekelo, Halle Ella, Gara Guracha, Lega Dhugo, and Arbegna Koste

micro-micro-watersheds. The NPVs of these micro-waterhseds are positive and ranged from

ETB 363.40 /ha in Arbegna Koste to ETB 88,516.86/ha in Lega Dhugo. The B-C ratios similarly

ranged between 1.10 in Arbegna Koste and 10.09 in Lega Dhugo. The NPVs are relatively high

in Lega Dhugo (ETB 88,516.86/ha), Molla Geremoch (ETB 55,051.17/ha), Gara Guracha (ETB

40,544.47/ha), and Keshi Ayinalem (ETB 19,187.81/ha) micro-micro-watersheds (see Table 5.22

for details). Although there was no changes in vegetation coverage in Halle Ella micro-watershed

(Afar region), some agro pastoralists have practiced forage grass development near settlement

areas and achieved positive NPVs. These forage grasses could not be reflected in the vegetation

cover assessment because of their annual nature which are immediately harvested after the rainy

seasons.



Table ‎6-21:Financial NPV and B-C Ratio of Improved Forage Grass Production on One

Hectare Plot in Adi-Tsalka Community Miro-Watershed

Calculation of Financial NPV /ha for improved forage/grass in Adi-Tselka Micro-watershed

Benefit Stream y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 y7 y8 y9 y10 y11 y12 y13

Area (Ha) 1

Incremental forage harvest (shekim)60

Average price (Birr/shekim) 50

Gross Revenue 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Costs

Annual costs 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548

Capital costs 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2,948 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548 1,548

Net cash flow (Birr) 52 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452 1,452

Financial NPV, 15% =

B-C Ratio 1.73

8,168.55

Source: Field data

Table ‎6-22:Farm Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratio for Forage Grass Produced in

Enclosed Areas of Sampled Micro-Micro-watersheds, calculated using 15% discount rate

over 25 years Region Micro –Watershed Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C Ratio

Tigray Adi – Tsalka 19,392.45 11,223.89 8,168.55 1.73

,, Keshi Aynalem 27,149.43 7961.62 19,187.81 3.41

Amhara Mola Geremoch 64,641.49 9,590.32 55,051.17 6.74

,, Legabero Wakelo 32,320.75 20,248.91 12,071.83 1.60

Afar Halle Ella – Yallo 10,342.64 6562.62 3,780.01 1.58

Oromia Gara Guracha 46,541.87 5,997.41 40,544.47 7.76


SNNP Arbegna Koste 3,878.49 3,515.09 363.40 1.10

Source: Field data

The current PSNP PW 2011 phase II economic impact assessment finding for forage grass

production in enclosed areas is consistent with some similar works in Ethiopia. For instance,

Bedru Babulo (2007) in his economic valuation and management of common-pool resources

(enclosed areas) conducted in Tigray found an NPV of ETB 1,265/ha for closed site grass (on-

site benefit: on forested area). Similarly, the PSNP PWs 2011 Phase I impact assessment

conducted in Keleta Watershed (Oromia) found a financial NPV of ETB 4,687/ha discounted at

15% for forage grass production in enclosed areas.



Community Watershed Level Economic Analysis

Table 5.23 presents the economic NPVs and C-B Ratios for beekeeping and forage grass

production in PSNP PWs enclosed areas at community micro-micro-watersheds level. The NPVs

and B-C Ratios for modern beekeeping were found positive and ranged between ETB

140,437.08 in Gara Guracha (Oromia) and ETB 17,206,018.26 in Keshi Ayinalem (Tigray). The

NPV for Gara Guracha is very low at community watershed level, because of the fact that

beneficiaries are being practicing traditional beekeeping, though the B-C ratio is high (7.32).

The NPVs in the other micro-micro-watersheds (Adi-Tsalka, Keshi Ayinalem, and Lega Dhugo)

are relatively high indicating that investment in beekeeping in enclosed areas is a worthy

business and enabled beneficiaries to build assets.

The result for forage grass production in enclosed areas at community micro-watershed level

showed that the NPVs are all positive ranging from ETB 1,883.11 in Arbegna Koste (SNNP) to

ETB 4,998,064.82 in Lega Dhugo (Dire Dawa). However, the NPVs are very low in Arbegna

Koste (ETB 1,883.11), Halle Ella (ETB 36,294.29), and Legabero Wekelo (ETB 39,614.73)

because the area put under forage grass production is low (1.925 ha and 2,25 ha respectively) in

these community micro-micro-watersheds.

Table ‎6-23: Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio for Beekeeping and Forage Grass Production in

Enclosed Areas at Community Micro-Micro-watersheds Level, discounted at 10% over 25

years

Region Micro –

Watershed

No. of

Beehives

Discounted

Benefits (ETB)

Discounted

Costs (ETB)

NPV (ETB) B-C

Ratio

Beekeeping/ Honey Production

Tigray Adi-Tsalka 155 2,279,244.75 551,567.28 1,727,677.47 4.13

,, Keshi Ayinalem 895 21,057,280.52 3,851,262.26 17,206,018.26 5.47

Oromia Gara Guracha 80 406,651.39 55,558.70 351,092.70 7.32

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 500 7,624,713.62 2,031,344.21 5,593,369.40 3.75

Forage Grass Production Foraged

area (ha)

Tigray Adi – Tsalka 10.875 296,138.43 166,648.34 129,490.09 1.78

,, Keshi Aynalem 13.2 503,231.10 142,012.57 361,218.52 3.54

Amhara Molla Geremoch 16.5 1,497,711.60 218,085.12 1,279,626.49 6.87

,, Legabero

Wakelo

2.25 102,116.70 62,501.97 39,614.73 1.63



Afar Halle Ella 6.25 90,770.40 54,476.11 36,294.29 1.67

Oromia Gara Guracha 6.875 449,313.48 55,861.22 393,452.26 8.04

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 40 5,518,840.33 520,775.52 4,998,064.82 10.60

SNNP Arbegna Koste 1.925 10,483.98 8,600.87 1,883.11 1.22

Source: Computed from field data

6.3.5.2 Changes in Woody Biomass Productivity

Forest development and tree plantations including nursery establishment on the communal land

are one of the major tasks of PSNP-PWs. Moreover, farmers are also starting to grow trees

around their farms and/or home compounds and cut whenever they deem it to be necessary or

useful, though the level of tree plantations on the private land in lowland agro-ecology is very

minimal due to water and moisture shortage.

The observation made during field assessment in micro-micro-watersheds showed that most trees

planted on deforested and degraded land by the PW activity are naturally rejuvenated in the

rehabilitation enclosures. After the PSNP-PW farmers are either using their own garden trees or

buying from the market woods for house construction and agricultural tools which was not the

case in the previous time. Moreover, in the highland and the midland households who are

intentionally planting trees for the market are selling trees and generating meaningful income.

The economic impact of enclosed areas or private homestead land on tree plantations and fuel

wood production attributed to PSNP PWs interventions have been quantified, valued and

analyzed at farm level in the sample micro-micro-watersheds.

Farm Level Financial Analysis

The benefits, costs, NPVs, and B-C Ratios for fuel wood and poles/ eucalyptus trees has been calculated for one hectare holding, assuming that harvesting of trees start from 8 years and

onwards of planting in staggering.

Table 5.24 presents farm level financial NPV and B-C Ratio for fuel wood and poles/eucalyptus

trees produced at household level in enclosed areas of Keshi Ayinalem (Tigray), Lega Dhugo

(Dire Dawa), and Arbegna Koste (SNNP) micro-micro-watersheds calculated using 15%

discount rate over 25 years. The financial NPVs for fuel wood were found positive for Keshi

Ayinalem (ETB 28,727.14) and Dhugo (ETB 16,595.50) with B-C ratio of 2.37 and 3.02

respectively. The result is, however, negative for Arbegna Koste micro-watershed showing that

investment in fuel wood at household/ farm level is not worthy.



Table ‎6-24:Farm Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratio for Fuel Wood and Poles Produced in

Enclosed Areas of Sample Micro-Micro-watersheds, calculated using 15% discount rate

and over 25 years

Region Micro -

Watershed

Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C

Ratio

Fuel Wood Production

Tigray Keshi Aynalem 49,760.55 21,033.42 28,727.14 2.37


SNNP Arbegna Koste 5,026.32 6,447.06 (1,420.74) 0.78

Poles /Eucalyptus Tree

Tigray Keshi Aynalem 34,555.94 21,375.28 13,180.66 1.62



On the other hand, poles / eucalyptus tree plantation for commercial purpose was found practiced

in Keshi Ayinalem (Tigray) and Molla Geremoch (Amhara). The financial NPVs and B-C ratios

calculated for both micro-micro-watersheds were positive (ETB 13,180.66/ha and ETB

14,797.76/ha respectively) indicating that investment in poles production in enclosed areas due

to PSNP PWs interventions has brought positive economic impacts and should be continued in

the future as well.

The results of the current assessment are consistent with previous studies conducted in Ethiopia

on economic impact of enclosed areas on poles/ eucalyptus tree production. The PSNP PW 2011

phase I economic impact assessment carried out in Keleta Watershed (Oromia) gave an

economic NPV of ETB 3,016/ha discounted at 15% for eucalyptus tree production in enclosed

areas.

Community Micro-Watershed Level Economic Analysis

Economic analysis of enclosed areas at micro-watershed level has been done both for poles/

eucalyptus trees production in enclosed areas or on homestead land as well as for fuel wood

production in communal enclosed areas of the sample micro-micro-watersheds where such

practices exist. The economic impact of sustainable woody biomass increment in communal

areas have also been quantified and valuated and presented in the following sections.



i. Tree Plantation and Fuel Wood Production in Enclosed Areas

Table 5.25 presents the NPVs and B-CR of poles/ tree and fuel wood production in enclosed

areas at community micro-watersheds level discounted at 10% over 25 years. The NPVs and B-

CR were found all positive, indicating PSNP PW area enclosure measures are worthy activity.

The NPV for fuel wood was relatively high in Keshi Ayinalem (ETB 5,548,110) and Lega

Dhugo (ETB 1,525,373) micro-micro-watersheds and very low in Genebo Koste micro-

watershed. The NPV was very low in Genebo Koste micro-watershed (ETB 12,926.99) because

the area put under area enclosure was low (14).

Similarly, the economic NPVs estimated for poles/ eucalyptus tree production was positive for

Keshi Aynalem (ETB 1,828,468) and Mola Geremoch (ETB 556,140).

Table ‎6-25: Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio of Fuel Wood and Poles Production in Enclosed

Areas at community micro-micro-watersheds Level, discounted at 10% over 25 years

Region Micro -

Watershed

Area

Planted

(ha)

Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C

Ratio

1. Poles/Tree Production

Tigray Keshi Aynalem 50 3,156,465.90 1,327,997.51 1,828,468.39 2.38

Amhara Mola Geremoch 16.5 849,973.14 293,833.62 556,139.51 2.89

2. Fuel Wood Production

Tigray Keshi Aynalem 76 7,215,933.57 1,667,823.26 5,548,110.30 4.33


SNNP Arbegna Koste 14 128,554.35 115,627.37 12,926.99 1.11


ii. Natural Re-Growth of Trees: Sustainable Yield of Fuel wood

The increased sustainable yield of fuelwood from indigenous trees after closure was estimated

under the environmental and watershed development impact assessment section. Table 5.26

shows the incremental wood biomass and estimated economic NPV discounted at 10% over 25

years. The NPVs are all positive ranging from ETB 61.66/ha in Molla Geremoch to ETB

5,393.52/ha in Keshi Ayinalem micro-micro-watersheds. The NPVs were found high in Keshi

Ayinalem (ETB 5,393.50), Gara Guracha (ETB 2,103.50), Arbegna Koste (ETB 1,526.70),

Legabero Wekelo and Negadras (ETB 1,072.84 each) micro-micro-watersheds because the

incremental wood biomass is relatively better in these micro-watersheds.



Table ‎6-26: Economic NPVs of Incremental Wood Biomass/ Fuel Wood in Sampled Micro-

micro-watersheds, discounted at 10% over 25 years

Region Micro –

Watershed

Incremental Wood

Biomass/ Fuel

Wood (ton/ha)

Value of

incremental

Wood Biomass

(ETB/ha)

Incremental

Wood Biomass

NPV

(ETB/ha)

Remark

Tigray Adi – Tsalka 3.98 254.72 705.16

,, Keshi Aynalem 9.16 586.24 5,393.52

Amhara Molla Geremoch 0.49 31.36 61.66

,, Legabero Wekelo 2.51 160.64 1,072.84

Afar Halle Ella – Yallo 0 0 0

Somali Bike -(Bulabora) 0 0 0

Oromia Gola Gorba 2.51 160.64 1,526.69

,, Gara Guracha 7.58 485.12 2,103.51

Harari Negadras – Sofi 2.51 160.64 1,072.84

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 2.40 153.60 956.99

SNNP Arbegna Kostie 2.51 160.64 1,526.69

,, Doyancho 2.40 153.60 730.06

Source: Estimated from Field data and observations

iii. Carbon Sequestration

It is believed that PSNP PWs have contributed towards carbon sequestration in micro-micro-

watersheds where area enclosures and SWC measures were implemented. The amount of carbon

stored ((sequestered) above-ground by incremental wood biomass in the sampled micro-micro-

watersheds have been estimated under the environment and watershed impact assessment

section. The value of Carbon stored (CO2 sequestered) in wood biomass is estimated at a rate of

US$ 3.75 (ETB 67.50) which is agreed upon by the Ethiopia Humbo Project near Soddo

undertaken in enclosed area over some 5,000 ha receiving payments through the Carbon Fund

for carbon sequestered in the increase in woody biomass. The estimated value of carbon

sequestrated is presented in Table 5.27 below.



Table ‎6-27:Carbon Sequestration and Value of Biomass in Sampled Micro-watersheds

Region Micro –Watershed Incremental

Wood

Biomass

(ton/ha)

Estimated

% carbon

content

C:

CO2

ratio

Estimated

carbon

sequestrated

Carbon

(tons/ha)

Value of

Sequestrated

Carbon

(ETB*/ha)

Tigray Adi – Tsalka 3.98 55 3.666 8.02 541.68

,, Keshi Aynalem 9.16 55 3.666 18.47 1,246.68

Amhara Molla Geremoch 0.49 55 3.666 0.99 66.69

,, Legabero Wekelo 2.51 55 3.666 5.06 341.61

Afar Halle Ella - Yallo - 55 3.666 - -

Somali Bulabora-Bike - 55 3.666 - -

Oromia Gola Gorba 2.51 55 3.666 5.06 341.61

,, Gara Guracha 7.58 55 3.666 15.28 1,031.64

Harari Negadras - Sofi 2.51 55 3.666 5.06 341.61

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 2.40 55 3.666 4.84 326.64

SNNP Arbegna Koste 2.51 55 3.666 5.06 341.61

,, Doyancho 2.40 55 3.666 4.84 326.64

* Value of 1 tone Carbon is US$3.75, which is equal to ETB 67.50.

Source: Wood biomass and carbon sequestration estimated under environment and

watershed development section of this study

6.3.5.3 Economic Impact Assessment of Irrigation Structures

PSNP PW has not funded irrigation in totality and has mostly funded work for construction of

canals and other structures. It has also funded ponds or wells which have been used for both

domestic/livestock water use and minor irrigation purposes especially for vegetables.

It has been reported by beneficiary group discussant and irrigation development agent (DA)

during the field assessment that area enclosures and SWC (terraces, soil and stone bund, check

dams, half moon, etc) and other biological interventions including planting trees on communal

areas (hillside, mountainous areas, river banks and on individual farm land plots) have

contributed to increased water table and volume of underground water which enhanced use of

irrigation from different sources (wells, pond, dams, and river diversion).

Data from sample micro-micro-watersheds on irrigated crops plus rainfed crops was used to

quantify and valuate benefits and costs for irrigation structures implemented by PSNP PW in

micro-micro-watersheds where such activities were conducted. Prices and costs were adjusted by

taking average prices of 2007/08 – 2011/12 taken from CSA price survey reports.



Both farm level (financial) and community micro-watershed level (economic) analysis have been

done for the sample projects. Table 5.28 shows farm level NPV and B-CR for One Hectare of

irrigated crop production for Gola Gorba micro-watershed (Oromia). The NPV/ ha was found to

be positive, ETB 25,199.72 with a B-C ratio of 1.74. The result indicates that irrigation crop

production (which enabled to produce two to three times per annum) supported by PSNP PW is a

worthy business and increases income of beneficiary households.

NPVs and B-CR for irrigated crop production were also estimated for Adi-Tsalka and Keshi

Ayinalem (Tigray), Legabero Wekelo (Amhara), and Gola Gorba (Oromia). The per hectare

NPVs and B-CR were found relatively low in Gola Gorba (ETB 25,199.72 and 1.74) and Keshi

Ayinalem (ETB 35,368..54 and 1.48) and the highest in Adi-Tselka (ETB 60,331.39 and 2.86)

and Legabero Wekelo (ETB 206,198.41 and 3.03) (see Table 5.29 for details). The results the

assessments were all positive showing PSNP PW supported irrigation crop production gives a

rewarding return for investments being made.

The results of the current economic impact assessment are consistent with previous studies

conducted on economic impacts of small-scale irrigation in Ethiopia. For instance, economic

analysis was done for pond irrigation during “impact assessment of the PSNP PWs program” in

2009 shown that a single pond can generate ETB 60,457/year per hectare with a B-CR of 2.96.

The PSNP PW 2011 Phase I impact assessment conducted in Zamra (Tigray) and Keleta

(Oromia) micro-watersheds also resulted positive NPV of ETB 57,022/ha from small-scale

irrigation from stream and spring and ETB 4,385/ha from spate irrigation respectively.



Table ‎6-28:Farm Level Financial NPV and B-CR for One Hectare Irrigated Crop

Production for Gola Gorba Micro-Watershed

A One Hectare Irrigated plus Rainfed Crop Budget Flow for Gola Gorba Micro-Watershed

Item

1. Rainfed Crops Wheat maize total Wheat maize total Wheat maize total

Area 0.0625 0.125 0.1875 0.0625 0.125 0.1875 0.0625 0.125 0.1875

Yield (Qtl/ha) 8 8 26 16 18 8

Production (Qtls) 0.5 1 1.5 1.625 2 3.625 1.125 1 2.125

Price (Birr/Ql) 567 340 567 340 567 340

Revenue (Birr/Plot) 283.5 340 623.5 921.375 680 1601.375 637.875 340 977.875

2 Irrigated crops Onion Tomato Total Onion Tomato Total Onion Tomato Total

Area 0.0312 0.0312 0.0624 0.0312 0.0312 0.0624

Yield (Qtl/ha) 64 60 64 60

Production (Qtls) 2.00 1.87 3.87 2.00 1.87 3.87

Price (Birr/Ql) 367 306 367 306

Revenue (Birr/Plot) 732.83 572.83 1,305.7 732.83 572.83 1,305.7

Total revenue/0.25 ha 623.50 2,907 2,284

Total incremental revenue/ha 2,494 11,628 9,134

Costs/ha

Annual Costs (Inputs, labour and maintenance) 415.00 1,605.00 1,190.00 4,760.00

Cosapital costs (material & labour) 154.40 1,038.55 884.15 3,536.60

Total 569.40 2,643.55 2,074.2 8,296.60

Small-Scale Irrigation + Rainfed Cash flow for 1 Ha farm

Benefits Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9

Revevue (irrigated +

rainfed crop sales) 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4 9 ,13 4

Costs

Annual costs 4,760 4,760 4,760 4,760 4,760 4,760 4,760 4,760 4,760

Capital costs 3,537 - - - - - - - -

Total costs 8 ,2 9 7 4 ,7 6 0 4 ,7 6 0 4 ,7 6 0 4 ,7 6 0 4 ,7 6 0 4 ,7 6 0 4 ,7 6 0 4 ,7 6 0

Net Cash Flow 8 3 8 4 ,3 7 4 4 ,3 7 4 4 ,3 7 4 4 ,3 7 4 4 ,3 7 4 4 ,3 7 4 4 ,3 7 4 4 ,3 7 4

Financial NPV, 15% = 2 5 ,2 0 0

B-CR 1.7 4

Before After Incremental

Incremental

Source: Field data

Table ‎6-29:Farm Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratio for Small-Scale Irrigation Crops

Production in Sample Micro-Micro-watersheds, calculated using 15% discount rate and

over 25 years


Benefits (ETB)

Discounted Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB) B-C Ratio


,, Keshi Aynalem 109,114.84 73,746.30 35,368.54 1.48

Amhara Legabero Wekelo 307,534.03 101,335.62 206,198.41 3.03

Oromia Gola Gorba 59,044.38 33,844.65 25,199.72 1.74

Source: Field data

The NPVs were also scaled up to micro-watershed level to examine the economic impact at

micro-watershed level. 5.30 presents NPVs and B-CR of small-scale irrigated crop production at

micro-watershed level by multiplying per hectare values by the area put under irrigation

infrastructure. The result showed robust NPVs, all positives, ETB 5,147,045 for Adi-Tsalka,

ETB for 2,216,616 for Keshi Aninalem, and ETB 1,825,124 for Legabero Wekelo micro-micro-



watersheds. However, the NPV and B-CR for Gola Gorba is relatively low, i.e., ETB 287,351.36

and 1.79 respectively.

Table ‎6-30:Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio of Small-Scale/ Spate Irrigation Crop

Production at Micro-micro-watersheds Level, discounted at 10% over 25 years

Region Micro -

Watershed

Irrigated

Area

(ha)

Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB) B-C Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 60.25 7,848,223.47 2,701,178.72 5,147,044.75 2.91

,, Keshi Aynalem 43.0 6,588,478.73 4,371,862.68 2,216,616.05 1.51

Amhara Legabero Wakelo 5.85 2,526,282.57 701,158.63 1,825,123.94 3.60

Oromia Gola Gorba 7.875 652,923.05 365,571.69 287,351.36 1.79


6.3.5.4 Economic Impact Assessment of Economic and Social Infrastructure Subprojects

In the current assessment, economic impact assessment has been carried out for rural roads,

water supply, and health infrastructure sub-projects. Details of the assessments are presented in

the following sub-sections.

6.3.5.4.1 Economic Impact Assessment of Rural Feeder Roads

Direct quantitative benefits identification and valuation from rural feeder roads is problematic as

these roads are multi-purpose and the benefits from the various uses are not easily captured as

well as predicting and valuing income generation in relation to the use and access to social

services and social mobility is difficult. However, it has been attempted to quantify and value

their economic benefits indirectly through the ‘‘cost saving approach’’ as a proxy. In this

context, transport cost savings (transporting inputs from market to kebele central place and

outputs from kebele center to main market) are assumed to measure benefits of rural feeder

roads constructed on labour based PSNP PW, which are assumed to bring improved access to

markets. Accordingly, CBAs have been calculated at household level and micro-watershed/

catchment level.

Table 5.31 shows household level budget cash flow of rural feeder road for Keshi Ayinalem

Micro Watershed with a discount rate of 15% over 25 years. The result shows that an ETB 292

cost was saved per volume handled by a household per annum. It was assumed that each

household will transport a volume of 4 quintals of inputs and 8 quintals of outputs annually. The

NPV and B-CR calculated at 15% discount rate was found to be ETB 1,279.99/household and

3.11 respectively.

Similarly, the NPVs and B-CR calculated for the other micro-micro-watersheds at household

levels are all positive. The NPVs ranged from ETB 61.76/HH in Legabero Wekelo (Amhara) to



ETB 12,968.32/HH in Hale Ela (Afar). See Table 5.32 for details. The result indicates that

investment in rural feeder road at household level worthy.

Table ‎6-31:Household Level Cash Flow of Rural Feeder Road for Keshi Ayinalem Micro

Watershed

Costs (Birr/HH)

Before Program After ProgramB irr/ Qt l

B irr/

vo lume

handled Annual maintenance (labour) 20

Input transport to kebele 45 10 35.00 140

Farm output transport to main market25 6 19.00 152 Investment cost (material & labour)550

Total cost Savings (Birr) 54.00 292 Total cost 570

Benefit stream Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12

Cost savings 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00 292.00

Costs /HH

Annual costs 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Capital costs 550.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Costs 570.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Net cash flow -278.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00 272.00

Financial NPV, 15% =

B-CR 3.11

Costs charged (Birr/Qtl) Costs saved/

HH*

* Shows costs saved per potential volume transported annually by a HH. It was assumed that each HH will transport a

volume 4 Qtls of input and 8 Qtls of output annually.

1,279.99

Benefits stream

Calculation of Cost Benefit of Rural Feeder Roads For Keshi Ayinalem Micro-Watershed at Household Level

Source: Field data

Table ‎6-32:Household Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratio for PSNP PW Supported Rural

Feeder Road in Sample Micro-Micro-watersheds, calculated using 15% discount rate and

over 25 years Region Micro -Watershed Discounted

Benefits (ETB)

Discounted Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 1,551.40 359.14 1,192.25 4.32

,, Keshi Aynalem 1887.53 607.54 1,279.99 3.11

Amhara Legabero Wakelo 1034.26 972.50 61.76 1.06

Afar Halle Ella – Yallo 19,780.30 6811.98 12,968.32 2.90

Oromia Gola Gorba 5429.89 2598.27 2,831.61 2.09

,, Gara Guracha 3102.79 2567.95 534.84 1.21

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 4654.19 3445.38 1,208.81 1.35

Somali Bulabora - Bike 3232.07 2094.32 1,137.75 1.54

SNNP Arbegna Koste 2327.09 1060.06 1,267.04 2.20

,, Doyancho 387.85 179.36 208.49 2.16

Source: Field data

The NPVs were scaled up at micro-watershed level to examine the total economic effect of

PSNP PW supported rural feeder roads multiplying household NPVs by the number of users

including non-PSNP beneficiaries (see Table 5.33). The NPVs are all positive and ranged

between ETB 44,817 in Legabero Wakelo and ETB 7,334,026 in Halle Ella (Afar). The NPVs



are very low in Legabero Wakelo (ETB 44,817) and Adi-Tsalka (ETB 61,322), and

comparatively high in Halle Ella (ETB 9,240,873), Lega Dhugo (ETB 3,372,258), Bulabora-

Bike (ETB 2,974,918), Arbegna Koste (1,637,716), and Gara Guracha (ETB 1,604,502).

The result of the current assessment is found to be in line with the 2009 PSNP PWs impact

assessment of rural feeder road. The NPV calculated was found to be ETB 200/household

attributed to road improvement while community-watershed /catchment level NPV was ETB

30,772 with B-CR of 1.46.

Table ‎6-33: Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio of Rural Feeder Roads at community micro-

micro-watersheds Level, discounted at 10% over 25 years

Region Micro –

Watershed

Total users

including

non-PSNP

PW (No.)

Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C

Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 423.00 249,573.22 188,251.27 61,321.94 1.33

,, Keshi Aynalem 517.00 1,370,306.27 352,356.59 1,017,949.68 3.89

Amhara Molla Geremoch 423.00 921,501.10 188,251.27 733,249.83 4.90

,, Legabero Wakelo 220.00 319,511.81 274,694.88 44,816.93 1.16

Afar Hale Ela 400.00 11,110,296.98 3,776,270.55 7,334,026.43 2.94

Oromia Gola Gorba 273.00 2,081,546.82 951,761.14 1,129,785.67 2.19

,, Kogna 1,769.00 7,707,496.22 6,102,994.56 1,604,501.66 1.26

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 1,721.00 11,247,541.83 7,875,284.25 3,372,257.58 1.43

Somali Bike - Afdem 1,825.00 8,282,799.02 5,307,880.84 2,974,918.17 1.56

SNNP Genebo/ Arbegna Koste

904.00 2,954,031.90 1,316,315.72 1,637,716.19 2.24

,, Doyancho 1,137.00 619,235.67 261,531.04 357,704.63 2.37

Source: Field data

6.3.5.4.2 Economic Impact Assessment of Water Supply Sub-Projects

Quantification and valuation of the economic benefits (CBA) enjoyed from improved access to

water for drinking and other purposes (direct use value) due to more supply of adequate quality

water to users is difficult. However, it has been attempted to quantify and valuate economic

impact of water supply sub-projects (spring, wells, hand pump, etc.) using indirect techniques. In

this context, time saved from fetching water from remote place and costs saved from buying or

transporting water are considered as benefits of PSNP PW water supply sub-projects. Different

approaches have been used by different agencies and authorities to value time in monetary terms.

The Inter-American Development Bank assumes that time savings should be valued at 50

percent of the market wage rate for unskilled labor. Whittington, et al (1990) concluded that the

value of time might be near- or even above-the market wage rate for unskilled labor. In this

economic impact assessment, the average market wage rate for unskilled labour taken from CSA

price surveys was used to value time saved from fetching water from remote areas.

NPVs and B-CR have been calculated at household level for micro-micro-watersheds where

water supply sub-projects were implemented by PSNP PWs support (see Table 5.34). The NPVs



are all positive and ranged from ETB 161.70/household in Keshi Ayinalem to ETB 13,946

/household in Bike micro-micro-watersheds. The NPV are more significant and important for

Bike (Somali) and Gola Gorba (Oromia) where time and labour spent on fetching or buying

water from remote area reaches 170 and 100 man days per household respectively. Furthermore,

the costs incurred by individual household are very low because most of the services were

covered by government.

As per the result of the current study, the time and labour saved due to PSNP PW supported

water supply subprojects enabled household head and family members to dedicate more time to

productive activities such as farming which in return increased their income equivalent to the

NPVs and improved their livelihood.

Earlier economic impact analysis of water supply sub-projects in Ethiopia also showed positive

NPVs and B-CR which is in line with the current assessment. In this context, the impact

assessment of PSNP PWs conducted in 2009 showed an NPV of ETB 457/ household and B-CR

of 3.7 for spring based water supply sub-project, indicating that investment in water supply

project is viable.

Table ‎6-34:Household Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratio for PSNP PW Supported Water

Supply in Sample Micro-Micro-watersheds, calculated using 15% discount rate and over

25 years


Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 545.90 338.94 206.95 1.61

,, Keshi Aynalem 2,521.02 1,599.54 921.48 1.58

Amhara Legabero Wekelo 300.26 138.55 161.71 2.17

Oromia Gola Gorba 12,928.30 397.12 12,531.18 32.56

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 7,814.83 431.33 7,383.51 18.12

Somali Bike - Bulabora 14,343.30 397.12 13,946.18 36.12

SNNP Arbegna Koste 4783.47 487.62 4,295.85 9.81

,, Doyancho 7304.49 387.70 6,916.79 18.84

Source: Field data

Micro-watershed level economic NPVs and B-CR were also calculated to capture community

level effects aggregated by all beneficiary households including non-PSNP (see Table 5.35

below). The aggregate economic NPVs at community micro-watershed level were found high in

Lega Dhugo (ETB 8,929,905), Bike (ETB 8,824,464), Gola Gorba (ETB 4,811,067), Doyancho

(ETB 4,424,502.65), and Arbegna Koste (ETB 3,132,402.87), and relatively low in Legabero

Wekelo (ETB 12,679) and Adi-Tselka (ETB 39,323) micro-micro-watersheds.

The economic impact study of PSNP PWs conducted in 2009 also showed an NPV of ETB

1,713,750 at program level for spring water supply sub-projects which supports the current



impact assessment. In summary, it can be concluded that investment in water supply sub-projects

in the PSNP PW supported micro-micro-watersheds has positive economic impact for the

beneficiary community concerned.

Table ‎6-35: Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio of Rural Water Supply at community micro-


Region Micro -Watershed Total users

including

non-PSNP

PW (No.)

Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV (ETB) B-C

Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 124 95,052.95 55,729.49 39,323.46 1.71

,, Keshi Aynalem 537 1,901,004.49 1180685.74 720,318.75 1.61

Amhara Legabero Wakelo 50 21,081.43 8402.16 12,679.27 2.51

Oromia Gola Gorba 273 4,956,063.85 144,997.05 4,811,066.80 34.18


Somali Bike - Bulabora 450 9,063,469.84 239,006.13 8,824,463.72 37.92

SNNP Arbegna Koste 517 3,472,693.97 340,291.10 3,132,402.87 10.21

,, Doyancho 455 4,666,960.13 242,457.47 4,424,502.65 19.25

Source: Field data

6.3.5.4.3 Economic Impact Assessment of Health Sub-projects

The potential benefits of health sub-projects include avoided treatment costs or saved transport

costs and time from going to remote places in search of health facility (direct benefits), avoided

loss of life or ill days gained through reduction in mortality and morbidity (indirect benefits) due

implementation of the sub-projects. However, evaluating benefits to place an indirect value on

life gained or ill days gained through reduction in mortality and morbidity is complex and

difficult. Therefore, reduced expenditure by household on medical care, drugs, and traditional

healers as well as transport cost and time saved or gained from going to remote health facility

were considered as benefits of new health facility implemented by PSNP PWs in the micro-

watershed. The time saved was valued at average market wage rate prevailing in the area.

It was found that PSNP PW supported health sub-projects were implemented in Adi-Tsalka and

Keshi Ayinalem (Tigray), Mola Geremoch and Legabero Wakelo (Amhara), and Ge nebo Koste

and Doyancho Tumedo (SNNP) micro-micro-watersheds. The NPVs and B-CR calculated for

these micro-micro-watersheds at household level where health sub-projects are all positive and

ranged from ETB 163.46 /household in Mola Geremoch to ETB 3,055.86/household in

Doyancho (see Table 5.36). The NPV are high in Arbegna Koste (ETB 4,310.05), Doyancho

(ETB 3,055.86), and Adi-Tsalka (ETB 2,961.33) micro-micro-watersheds, because the cost and

time saving from going to remote areas for search of health services (benefits) are high and

significant in these areas. On the other hand, the NPVs for Mola Geremoch (ETB 163.46), Keshi

Ayinalem (ETB 1,111.93), and Legebero Wekelo (ETB 1,695.15) micro-micro-watersheds were

found low because the cost and time savings are not that much substantial since other health

services were found in neighboring villages not far from these areas.



Table ‎6-36:Household Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratio for PSNP PW Supported Health

Facility in Sample Micro-Micro-watersheds, calculated using 15% discount rate and over

25 years


Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C

Ratio


,, Keshi Aynalem 5,494.53 4,382.59 1,111.93 1.25

Amhara Molla Geremoch 749.84 586.38 163.46 1.28

,, Legabero Wekelo 4,072.41 2,377.27 1,695.15 1.71


,, Doyancho 5,753.09 2,697.23 3,055.86 2.13

Source: Field data

Regarding community micro-watershed level economic analysis of water supply sub-projects,

the economic NPVs discounted at 10% were found to be the highest in Arbegna Koste (ETB

5,502,239), Doyancho (ETB 5,056,302.85), Legabero Wekelo (ETB 1,178,599), and Keshi

Ayinalem (ETB 977,560). On the other hand, the calculated NPVs were found relatively low in

Molla Geremoch (ETB 278,363) and Adi-Tsalka (ETB 574,454) community micro-micro-

watersheds, because the benefits (costs and time saved) enjoyed from PSNP PW were low as

health services present before PSNP are closer to the beneficiary households. The B-CRs are also

robust in Arbegna Koste (4.60), Adi-Tsalka (2.34), and Doyancho (2.22) since capital and

maintenance costs are low (construction uses PSNP rates for construction was low) and

government provides the other services at below the market rate. See Table 5.37 for details.

NPVs and B-CR estimated for health sub-projects earlier in Ethiopia also support the current

findings. In the 2009 PSNP PW impact assessment, the calculated NPVs and B-CR at

community – watershed/ catchment were ETB 1,065,242 and B-CR of 2.18 respectively. From

these findings, it can be concluded that PSNP PW supported health sub-projects have positive

economic impacts through medical care and travel cost as well as time savings which can be

used on other productive activities. The economic impact of health sub-projects go beyond these

economic benefits, since life saved from mortality and labour time saved from illness (morbidity)

was not estimated in this assessment.

Table 6-37:Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio of Health Facility/ Health Post at Community Micro-

Micro-watersheds Level, discounted at 10% over 25 years

Region Micro -

Watershed

Total users

including non-

PSNP PW

(No.)

Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs

(ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C

Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 138 1,002,105.22 427,651.08 574,454.14 2.34

,, Keshi Aynalem 490 3780587.17 2,803,026.88 977,560.29 1.35

Amhara Molla Geremoch 668 703,361.68 424,998.26 278,363.41 1.65

,, Legabero Wekelo 490 2802082.25 1,623,482.97 1,178,599.28 1.73

SNNP Arbegna Koste 904 7,028,626.58 1,526,387.73 5,502,238.84 4.60

,, Doyancho 1137 9,185,329.11 4,129,026.26 5,056,302.85 2.22

Source: Field data



6.3.5.4.4 Economic Impact Assessment of School Infrastructure Sub-projects

In the current assessment, it was found that PSNP PWs program has constructed new schools as

well as additional blocks and class rooms for eixisting schools so as to improve access to

education and education quality for children of communities residing in the watershed areas.

Accordingly, blocks and class rooms were constructed to establish new primary schools (either

first or full cycle) in Halle Ella (at Abado 1 – 4 grade), Arbegna Koste, and Doyancho micro-

micro-watersheds. Additional blocks and class rooms (school expantion) were also constructed

in Adi-Tselka, Keshi Ayinalem, Molla Geremoch, Negadras, and Lega Dhugo micro-micro-

watersheds. Furthermore, basic alternative (satellite) schools were newly constructed (mostly to

give service from 1 – 3 or 1-4 grades) in Legabero Wekelo, Negadras, and Lega Dhugo micro-

micro-watersheds. The new schools and additional blocks and classes constructed for existing

schools have created education access to a total of 1,850 students (pupils).

The potential benefits of school infrastructures include avoided or saved transport costs,

reductions in distance, and time saved from going to woreda or remote schools. Since PSNP PW

intervention in school infrastructure was focused on primary schools in the sampled micro-

micro-watersheds, the current economic impact assessment considered reductions in distance,

time and transport costs saved from going to remote schools as benefits of school infrastructures.

It has been found that 4.53 kms distance on average was saved due to nearby school constructed

by PSNP support in the micro-micro-watersheds. It was assumed that a student on average will

save about 92.73 minutes in round trip per day. It was assumed that there will be 20 days of

schooling per month and 10 months schooling in agriculture based and 9 months in pastoral

based micro-micro-watersheds. Furtheremore, it was assumed on average 5 Birr transport cost

will be saved from round trip travel to remote school by a student per day. The time saved was

valued at average market wage rate prevailing in each area.

Accordingly, CBAs have been calculated at household level and micro-watershed/ catchment

level. Table 5-38 presents household level financial NPV and B-C Ratios calculated using 15%

discount rate over 25 years. The NPVs calculated for the micro-micro-watersheds at household

level for school infrastructures were all found positive and ranged from ETB 8,138.56

/household or pupil in Doyancho to ETB 13,186.56 in Lega Dhugo / student. The B-C Ratios

ranged between 4.03 and 6.02 indicating that investments on school infrastructures by PSNP

PWs are worthy businesses.



Table ‎6-38:Household Level Financial NPV and B-C Ratios for PSNP PW Supported

Schools in Sampled Micro-Micro-watersheds, with 15% discount rate over 25 years


Benefits (ETB)

Discounted

Costs (ETB)

NPV

(ETB)

B-C Ratio


,, Keshi Aynalem 13,800.96 2,690.68 11,110.27 5.13


,, Legabero Wakelo 13,889.84 2,334.00 11,555.84 5.95

Afar Halle Ella 13,526.23 3,144.33 10,381.91 4.30


Harari Negadras - Sofi 11,053.37 2,464.44 8,588.93 4.49


,, Doyancho 10,828.10 2,689.53 8,138.56 4.03

Source: Field data and observation

Economic NPVs and B-C Ratios were also calculated at community watershed level considering

the potential students to be served by the constructed schools each year over 25 years period

using 10% discount rate. Table 5-39 shows economic NPVs and B-C Ratios of school

infrastructures at community micro-watershed levels. It was found that the NPVs are all positive

and ranged from ETB 747,637.96 in Halle Ella to ETB 10,364,362 in Lega Dhugo indicating that

investments in school infrastructure by PSNP PW are viable interventions. The NPVs are

relatively low in Halle Ella (ETB 747,638) and Legabero Wekelo (ETB 825,381) micro-micro-

watersheds because the numbers of expected beneficiary students in these micro-watersheds are

low, only 50 students each.

Table ‎6-39: Economic NPVs and C-B Ratio of Schools Infrastructures at community micro-


Region Micro -

Watershed

Potential user

pupils in

micro-micro-

watersheds

(No.)

Discounted

Benefits

(ETB)

Discounted

Costs (ETB)

NPV (ETB) B-C

Ratio

Tigray Adi - Tsalka 100 1,830,385.12 335,982.24 1,494,402.88 5.45

,, Keshi Aynalem 200 3,875,896.09 690,146.29 3,185,749.80 5.62

Amhara Molla Geremoch 200 4,084,849.55 753,643.96 3,331,205.58 5.42

,, Legabero Wukelo 50 975,214.49 149,833.57 825,380.92 6.51

Afar Halle Ella 50 949,685.31 202,047.35 747,637.96 4.70

Harari Sofi - Negadras 200 3,104,256.92 626,607.01 2,477,649.90 4.95

Dire Dawa Lega Dhugo 550 12,212,340.41 1,847,978.58 10,364,361.83 6.61

SNNP Arbegna Koste 200 3,267,552.87 644,719.48 2,622,833.38 5.07

,, Doyancho 300 4,561,484.92 1,048,772.59 3,512,712.33 4.35

Source: Field data from Infrastructure Assessment Section



6.3.6 Overall Economic Impacts

6.3.6.1 Overall Economic Impacts of Sub-Projects at Sampled Micro-Micro-watersheds

The overall community level economic benefits to public works of the sub-projects assessed in

the sample micro-micro-watersheds are presented in Table 5.40. The overall aggregate sampled

community micro-micro-watersheds NPVs were found to be ETB 166.69 million. This overall

total NPV is the incremental benefit enjoyed by the community of sampled micro-micro-

watersheds due to PSNP PW sub-projects implemented in the areas. The sub-projects comprised

high economic NPVs were water supply (ETB 30.89 million), school infrastructure (ETB 28.56

million), beekeeping (ETB 24.88 million), rainfed crop production (ETB 22.31 million), and

rural feeder roads (ETB 20.27 million). The contribution of natural re-growth of wood biomass,

carbon sequestrated, and poles/ trees plantation is relatively low; ETB 15,149.95, ETB 4,906.41,

and ETB 2,384,608 respectively.

The benefits from tree plantations and fuel wood production due to PSNP PW are relatively

small because eucalyptus tree plantation was practiced in only 2 micro-micro-watersheds (Keshi

Aynalem and Mola Geremoch) and fuel woods production in 3 micro-micro-watersheds (Keshi

Ayinalem, Lega Dhugo, and Arbegna Koste).

Although implemented in eight (8) micro-micro-watersheds, the NPVs of water supply were

found comparatively high and significant because benefits from water supply in terms of saved

time, labour and costs in fetching water from remote areas were substantial and important

particularly in dry areas like Lega Dhugo (Dire Dawa), Bulabora (Somali), Gola Gorba

(Oromia), Arbegna Koste and Doyancho (SNNP).

Micro-watershed wise, the aggregated economic NPVs were found high in Keshi Aynalem (ETB

35.0 million), Lega Dhuga (ETB 39.69 million), Arbegna Koste (ETB 17.64 million), and Gola

Gorba (ETB 11.10 million) while it was found the lowest in Gara Guracha (ETB 2.44 million)

and Legabero Wekelo (ETB 4.4 million). See Figure 5.2 for details.

The percentage share of sub-projects in the total aggregate micro-watershed level economic

NPVs is presented in Figure 5.3. Accordingly, the economic benefits to water supply sub-project

in the sampled micro-micro-watersheds comprised 18.5 percent of the total quantifiable benefits

followed by benefits to school infrastructure (17.1 percent), incremental honey production/

beekeeping (14.9 percent), rainfed crop production on or adjacent downstream to SWC treated

areas (13.4 percent), and rural feeder roads (12.2 percent). Benefits to tree production from

plantations and the indigenous trees, fuel wood, and forage grass production in enclosed areas

are relatively small, 1.4, 4.3 and 4,3 percent, respectively.



- 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

Rainfed Crops

Irrigated Crops

Beekeeping

Forage grass

Fuel Wood

Poles plantation

Wood biomass re-growth

Carbon sequestrated

Rural roads

Water supply

Health posts

School Inf rast.

NPVs in Million ETB

Su

b-P

roje

cts

Figure 6-2: Micro-Watershed Wise Aggregated Economic NPVs of Sampled Micro-Micro-

watersheds

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

SWC-Crops

Irrigated Crops

Beekeeping

Forage grass

Fuel Wood Plantation

Poles Plantation

Wood Biomass Re-growth

Carbon Sequest.

Rural Road

Water Supply

Health Posts

Schools

Percentages

Su

b-P

roje

cts

Figure 6-3: Percentage share of Sub-projects in Aggregated Mico-Watershed Level

Economic NPV



6.3.6.2 Overall Economic Impacts of Sub-Projects at National Level

Overall economic impacts of PSNP PW sub-projects at program /National level has been

estimated taking the average NPVs alculated for the sampled micro-micro-watersheds multiplied

by the overall number of Hoseholds practicing or benefiting from the sub-projects. Figure 5.4

presents the aggregated program/ national level economic NPVs by sub-projects. The overall

aggregated program/ national level economic NPV for all sub-projects was estimated to be ETB

10,201.9 million. Water supply sub-project contributed ETB 1,890.9 million followed by school

infrastructure (ETB 1,748 million), beekeeping in enclosed areas (ETB 1,522.6 million), SWC

based crop production (ETB 1,365.5 million), rural feeder roads (ETB 1,240.5) and health

infrastructure (ETB 830 million). Details can be seen from annex section.

From these results, it can be concluded that investments in PSNP PWs sub-projects have

achieved positive and high economic returns to the beneficiary and non-beneficiary

communities.

1,365.5

580.0

1,522.6

443.1

145.9

433.7

0.9

0.3

1,240.5

830.4

1,890.9

1,748.1

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

SWC Crop production

Irrigated crop production

Beekeeping (Honey production)

Forage grass

Poles/ Eucalyptus trees

Fuel woods

Woody Biomass

Carbon Sequestrated

Rural Feeder Road

Health Infrastructure

Water Supply

School Infrastructure

NPVs in Million ETB

Su

b-P

roje

cts

Figure 6-4: Aggregated National Level NPVs by Sub-projects



Table ‎6-40: Overall Community Micro-Watershed Level Economic NPVs due to PSNP Public Works SWC, Area Enclosures,

and Social Infrastructures

Region Micro-

watershed

Total

Rainfed

Crops

NPV (ETB)

Total

Irrigated

Crops NPV

(ETB)

Total

Beekeep ing

NPV

(ETB)

Total

Forage

Grass

NPV (ETB)

Total

Poles/

Plantation

NPV

(ETB)

Total

Fuel

Wood

NPV

(ETB)

Natural

Re-

growth of

Wood

Biomass

NPV

(ETB)

Value of

Carbon

Sequest.

(ETB)

Total Rural

Road NPV

(ETB)

Total Water

Supply

NPV

(ETB)

Total

Health

Posts NPV

(ETB)

Total School

Infrastructur

e NPV

(ETB)

Overall Total

NPV

(ETB) Tigray Adi –

Tsalka

1,082,088.57 5,147,045 1,727,678 129,490 0 0

705.16

541.68

61,322 39,323 574,454 1,494,403 10,257,050

,, Keshi

Aynalem

1,958,527.02 2,216,616 17,206,018 361,219 1,828,468 5,548,110

5,393.52

1,246.68

1,017,950 720,319 977,560 3,185,750 35,027,177

Amhara Molla

Geremoch

2,065,479.29 0 0 1,279,626 556,140 0 61.66 66.69 733,250 0 278,363 3,331,206 8,244,192

,, Legabero

Wekelo

484,765.28 1,825,124 0 39,615 0 0 1,072.84 341.61 44,817 12,679 1,178,599 825,381 4,412,395

Afar Hale Ela 91,888.39

0 0 36,294

0 0 0 0 7,334,026 0 0 747,638 8,209,847

Oromia Gola Gorba 4,868,384.72 287,351.36

0 0 0 0 1,526.69 341.61 1,129,786 4,811,067 0 0 11,098,457

,, Gara

Guracha

83,740.79 0 351,092.70

393,452 0 0

2,103.51

1,031.64

1,604,502 0 0 0 2,435,923

Harari Negadras 1,699,226.85 0 0 - 0 0

1,072.84

341.61

0 0 0 2,477,650 4,178,291

Dire

Dawa

Lega

Dhugo

4,902,539.61 0 5,593,369 4,998,065 0 1,525,373 956.99 326.64 3,372,258 8,929,905 0 10,364,362 39,687,155

Somali Bulabora –

Bike

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,974,918 8,824,464 0 0 11,799,382

SNNP Arbegna

Koste

4,729,020.03 0 0 1,883 0 12,926.99

1,526.69 341.61 1,637,716 3,132,403 5,502,239 2,622,833 17,640,890

,, Doyancho 344,919.83 0 0 0 0 0 730.06 326.64 357,705 4,424,503 5,056,303 3,512,712 13,697,199

Total NPVs 22,310,580

9,476,136.10

24,878,158

7,239,644

2,384,608

7,086,410

15,149.95

16,965.36

4,906.41 20,268,249

20,268,248.

70

30,894,663 13,567,519 28,561,938 166,687,958

Percent share of total

benefits (NPVs)

13.4 5.7 14.9 4.3 1.4 4.3 0.01 0.003 12.2 18.5 8.1 17.1 100.0




7 Conclusion and Recommendations

The impact assessment of the PSNP PWs in the 12 sample micro-watersheds selected from the

PSNP regions of Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, Afar, Somali and Harari National Regional

States and Dire Dawa City Administration mainly assessed and analyzed the impacts created on

the overall watershed and environment in terms of the improvement in the management of

natural resources by way of the rehabilitation work of degraded lands, livelihood and economic

benefits. The following conclusions and recommendations could, therefore, be drawn from the

2nd 2011 PSNP PW IA conducted.

7.1 Conclusions

For the large majority of the populations living in the micro-watersheds assessed, the

main stay is mixed agriculture in which livestock husbandry is closely integrated with

crop production. However, the mixed agriculture activities carried out could not

provide decent means of living due to the vagaries of weather and limitations in natural

resources management, demographic aspect and economic and social facilities. As a

result the communities are still vulnerable to natural shocks and food insecurity. It was

in response to such dire condition that PSNP PWs has been formulated and

implemented as a means of mitigating the problems primarily through community

members full participation in the rehabilitation of natural resources and degraded lands

in conjunction with the provision of socio-economic services such as extension and

credit and construction of infrastructures.

In consequence, it can be generalized that much of the degraded and bare lands in the

micro-watersheds, particularly hillside and mountain areas have been rehabilitated, soil

erosion reduced, deforestation and inappropriate agricultural practices minimized,

surface and ground waters have been enhanced with the resulting increase in irrigated

agriculture and increased income from sell of vegetables and fruits, open grazing

system of livestock highly reduced, etc. In some areas, wildlife has also been

rehabilitated. Beekeeping and production is also becoming an important source of

income due to the increment in flowering plants. In addition, the increased number of

water points within the micro-watershedsand the availability of domestic water points

in nearby areas reduced the travel time required to fetch water easing women’s burden.

However, this has not been witnessed in the pastoralist areas especially in Halle E’ella

of Afar and Bulabora/ Biokulul of Somali micro-watersheds where people are still

suffering most from shortage of domestic water supply.

Again, as the results of the impact assessment show, community members within the

micro-watersheds have started to benefit from the rehabilitated natural resources

through the use of cut and carry system of grass for their livestock feed, using fuel

wood from individually owned wood plots, cutting and selling of trees particularly

eucalyptus from their own wood plots. Grasses obtained from rehabilitated areas have

been instrumental in increased livestock and milk production that has become an



important source of income to the majority of the communities. Part of the grass is used

for covering house roof/thatched roof and fuel.

Infrastructures development in the form of construction of additional class rooms and

satellite schools; residence for teachers, development agents and health extension

agents; feeder roads construction, water points, etc., implemented with the support of

PSNP PWs have contributed a lot to the livelihood improvement of the community

members of the micro-watersheds.

Knowledge gained from participation in PSNP PWs activities helped households to

apply the same on their own private farm plots and this has helped them to abate the

acceleration of soil erosion thereby increasing productivity.

PSNP PWs transfer in the form of cash was found to contribute to:

the purchase of livestock and other ruminants as an asset building,

buy school materials (school uniform, exercise books, pen pencil etc.) for their

children to send them to school and continue with their education,

the reduction of out migration of household heads and other family members

in search of employment for income,

the increase in knowhow and skill in the case of some industrious households in

masonry, carpentry , etc., besides its importance in creating working culture and

norms, especially in pastoral community members of Afar & Somali, and

The reduction of selling of assets to buy food for family members during shocks

and drought.

From the analysis of the economic impacts point of view, it can be said that the overall

incremental economic benefits achieved at community micro-watershed levels due to PSNP PW

sub-projects implementation are all positive and ranged from ETB 2.38 million (poles/eucalyptus

trees plantation) to ETB 30.89 million (water supply) aggregated for all sampled micro-micro-

watersheds studied. Furthermore, the overall aggregated program/ national level economic NPV

for all sub-projects was estimated to be ETB 10,201.9 million. Water supply sub-project

contributed ETB 1,890.9 million followed by school infrastructure (ETB 1,748 million),

beekeeping in enclosed areas (ETB 1,522.6 million), SWC based crop production (ETB 1,365.5

million), rural feeder roads (ETB 1,240.5) and health infrastructure (ETB 830 million). These

results imply that investments made by PSNP PWs on SWC, area closures, small-scale irrigation,

and infrastructure activities are worthy and enabled beneficiary households to increase income

and enhanced asset building.

However, in spite of such vivid impacts created on the livelihood of the PSNP PWs participants,

the findings from the assessment also indicate that:



Payment/transfers for participation in public works are not paid on time forfeiting

one of the major requirements and aims of the PSNP to assure predictable income.

Payment made in cash for participation in the public works per day is very much

below the prevailing labour market. In almost all the micro-watersheds assessed,

payment for daily labour is over ETB 50.00 while for PSNP PWs, it never

exceeded ETB 15.00, in all the regions. Hence the rising demand for payment in

kind is the reflection emanated from that, the Birr 15.00 could not buy any cereal

crop of 3 kilogram which is equal in terms of payment made for participation

PSNP PWs.

The HABP programme is envisaged to provide credit facility to PSNP PWs participants

and graduating ones through Micro Financial Institutions (MFIs), so that they could be

engaged in business activities of their own choices. This was not put into practice in most

of the regions due to various reasons. Among these:-

HABP fund was not transferred to MIFs and RUSACCOs,

RUSACCOs are not well organized and those organized ones are not financially

strong,

MFIs interest rate charges are very high as up to 18 %, and

PSNP PWs participants report that they cannot fulfil the collateral requirement

system.

Overall, the PSNP PWs, which have been going on since 2006, have contributed to the

rehabilitation of degraded natural resources, reduction of soil erosion, increased biodiversity of

the enclosed areas and rehabilitated hillside and mountain areas, contributed to increased volume

of springs, underground water resources, etc. Similarly, in terms of livelihood promotion, PSNP

PWs activities have strengthened household assets of some of the participants, improved social

facilities and also noticeably reduced PSNP PWs participants’ vulnerability to shocks and

stresses.

7.2 Recommendations

Provision of capacity building training continuously to the community member on

natural resources management and rehabilitation activities,

On time payment for households and their members participating in PSNP PWs,

Provision of adequate credit by appropriate MFIs based on households demand

driven business types with affordable interest rate,

Provide special support for women owning land and demanding to be engaged in

irrigation based crop production,

Improve payment made for PSNP PWs participants based on daily market labour of the

area,

Consider/plan to construct micro-dams that could bring fundamental change in irrigation

usage for various agricultural development and production activities,



Design PSNP PWs like other interventions that could absorb the landless PSNP PWs

participants and others to be engaged in production activities.

In addition, there should be long term monitoring of PSNP PW SWC and Area Enclosure sub-

projects in selected Community-Micro-watersheds in terms of sediment loads and seasonal river

flows to determine whether changes in these characteristics are occurring. This will enable a

better estimate of the value of these downstream impacts.

Comprehensive information management system on PSNP PWs, which comprises baseline data,

together with area data disaggregated by sub-projects and micro-micro-watersheds should be put

in place at all levels, particularly at Woreda Offices of Agriculture, Offices of Kebele

Administration and DAs so as to enable a more complete economic impact assessment to be

made.

GIS and remote sensing is a basic tool for Agriculture, Natural Resource management,

environmental modeling, engineering and any other spatial based applications. Changes as a

result of various interventions are easily detected using multi temporal satellite images and

accurate measurements can be done using surveying techniques. All multi-sectoral data which

are obtained from different sources are brought together to conduct spatial analysis using GIS

application. Frequent collection, processing and analyzing those spatial data at local and regional

level is very useful for researchers, planners, decision makers and development partners to

monitor and evaluate any development endeavors undertaken in the relevant areas.

However, as has been assessed by the study, technical skill on data collection, management and

appropriate utilization of those spatial data are very limited. As a result, data availability mainly

in spatial dimensions was as per requirement.

To enhance the monitoring and evaluation of any development programs, the regional and

woreda expertise should be aquatinted with GIS and Remote Sensing technologies. Hence it is

our recommendation that a short and midterm training program on Remote Sensing and GIS is

implemented for agriculture and Natural Resource experts as well as Productive Safety Net

Program coordinators.



REFERENCES

Asian Development Bank; 1999; Handbook for the Economic Analysis of Water Supply

Projects.

Bedru Babulo; 2007; Economic valuation and management of common-pool resources:

the case of enclosures in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia; Unpublished PhD

Desertation; Division of Agricultural and Food Economics, Catholic University of

Leuven.

Dirk Jobst Rolker; 2012; Costs and Benefits of Soil and Water Conservation (SWC)

Technologies in North-Western Ethiopia; Unpublished MSc Thesis; Land Degradation

and Development Group, Wageningen University.

John-Paul van den Ham; 2008; Dodota Spate Irrigation System Ethiopia: A case study of

Spate Irrigation Management and Livelihood options; Unpublished MSc Thesis;

Irrigation and Water Engineering Group, Wageningen University.

MoA; 2011; 2011 PUBLIC WORKS IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASE I FINAL

REPORT (DRAFT); Productive Safety Net Program.

MoARD; 2010; PSNP – Program Implementation Manual, June 2010, Addis

Ababa.Pedro Belli, Jock Anderson, Howard Barnum, John Dixon, and Jee-Peng Tan;

1998; HANDBOOK ON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INVESTMENT OPERATIONS,

Operational Core Services Network Learning and Leadership Center.

Pedro Belli, Jock Anderson, Howard Barnum, John Dixon, and Jee-Peng Tan; 1998;

HANDBOOK ON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INVESTMENT OPERATIONS,

Operational Core Services Network Learning and Leadership Center

World Bank and Government of Ethiopia (MoA); 2009; Impact Assessment of the PSNP

Public Works Program, Ethiopia; Productive Safety Net Program, Addis Ababa

World Bank and Government of Ethiopia (MoA); 2009; Impact Assessment of the PSNP

Public Works Program, Ethiopia; Productive Safety Net Program, Addis Ababa

Documents

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF - … Safety Net Program Final Report Metaferia Consulting Engineers v II) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A) General Chronic food insecurity has been a salient feature