Project Implementation, Lessons and Future Considerations at Kabe Watershed in the Blue Nile Basin – A UNEP-ILRI-Wollo University

Collaboration Initiative

Kindu Mekonnen (ILRI), Alan Duncan( ILRI) and Elizabeth Migongo-Bake (UNEP)

Enhancing communities’ adaptive capacity to climate-

change induced water scarcity in drought-prone hotspots

of the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia

1

Final stakeholders workshop “Adapting to climate change induced water stress in the Nile river basin” project, Lord Errol, Gigiri, Nairobi- Kenya,

27-28 May 2013

Introduction about the watershed site

Implementers of the project

Major issues/constraints at Kabe watershed

Interventions to adapt CC/variability and other

supporting activities

Successes/achievements of the project

Research and development gaps

Lessons learnt

Conclusions and recommendations

Outline of the presentation

2

Administrative location –

Woreilu Wereda, South Wollo

Zone, Amhara Region

1. Introduction about Kabe watershed

Altitude (2822-3837 masl)

The watershed has 4 sub-

watersheds- Amanuel,

Yewel, Abagirja and Fortu 3

Mean annual RF- 840 mm

Area - 16.166 km-2

4

Upstream

Midstream

Downstream

Upstream, midstream and

downstream interactions at

Kabe watershed are very

strong

Kabe Landscape Upstream-Downstream Interactions

Mixed crop-livestock farming

with little cash crops

Two cropping seasons (Mehir

and Belg)- But the latter has

become unreliable for agri use

Upstream

UNEP – Overall oversight of the project and linkage to other related

activities in the region

ILRI- Provide technical support and link UNEP and Wollo University in

the implementation of the project in collaboration with other local

institutions

WU- Lead the implementation of the project at the landscape scales

in collaboration with ILRI, sub contact SARC (ARARI) for action

research and Woreilu Wereda Office of Agriculture for community

Mobilization

2. Key Partners and Roles in Project Implementation

5

Unpredictable onset and offset of rainfall

Lack of access to technologies

Shortage of feed (quality and quantity)

Loss of vegetation cover

Soil loss and nutrient depletion Poor market accessCrop pests and diseases Weak collective action on NRM

issuesLimited income sources Weak institutional collaboration

3. Major issues/constraints at Kabe watershed

Low crop and livestock productivity, food

insecurity and vulnerability 6

Technologies/practices:

Improved crop varieties, home-garden activities, livestock (breeds

and feed), water (water harvesting and springs development), SWC

(physical and biological), forestry/agroforestry

Capacity building and Knowledge sharing events:

Trainings

Workshops, meetings, field-days/visits, blogs, wiki

Others:

Digital stories, mapping and baseline studies

4. Interventions to adapt CC/variability and other supporting activities

7

Established strong partnership among partners

Created demand for research and development

Produced baseline information (socio-economic, resource maps,

etc)

Built capacity of some farmers and extension workers through

training and site visits

Identified, introduced and evaluated potential crops, livestock ,

water and other NRM technologies and practices that enable

communities’ capacity to adapt CC/ variability: Examples =

5. Successes/ achievements of the project

8

9

Crop type Crop type Duration (months)

Grain yield (t/ha)

biomass yield (t/ha)

Wheat Improved 4.3 3.7 8.1 Local 4.8 1.8 4

Barley Improved 4 4.8 11.4 Local 4.1 1.8 7.8

Field pea Improved 3.4 3.5 7.6

Local 3.2 1.2 5.8

Faba bean Improved 4.5 3.2 6

Local 4.8 0.9 5

Improved crop varieties

Improved wheat (Dinkinesh), barley (Estayish) and field pea (Adi) varieties had a grain and biomass yield gain of 1.9 and 4.1; 3 and 3.6; and 2.3 and 1.8 t ha-1 over the grain and

biomass yield of the local varieties, respectively.

10

Home-garden activities Home-garden root crops, vegetables(carrots, potatoes, shallots,

cabbages) and fruit trees (apple, plum) benefited 46 men and 4 women households.

Late blight on potato and root rot on garlic are challenges in the watershed.

11

Livestock (breeds and feed) Local ewes mated with improved rams produced more than 80 lambs. Improved sheep weighed on average 3.8 kg at birth (local breeds average

1.9 kg). Improved sheep were sold on average for $80 ($38 for local sheep breeds).

12

Water (water harvesting and springs development)

213 (106 male and 108 female) farm households benefited from the two improved springs.

Construction and utilization of 3 hand dug wells and 1 water harvesting dam.

The hand dug wells can irrigate 0.13 -0.5 ha of land.

13

Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) (physical and biological) Coverage of physical SWC- 247 ha, Biological SWC measures- 215

ha Survival (%) of trees and grasses -47.56%

14

Grazing land management

Grass biomass harvested after blocking from grazing 82 ha of grazing lands was 2.8 t ha-1 on dry weight basis.

Project implementation in terms of area coverage and involvement

of farmers is limited in scope.

6. Research and development gaps

Technology coverage is limited to entry points.

15

The potential of backyards for forage development (fodder

trees) is not adequately exploited.

Studies on technological options/agronomic practices that improve

the productivity of collectively managed grazing lands are minimal.

Locally available feed resources (indigenous fodder trees and crop

residues)received little research attention.

16

Off-farm income, capacity-building on researchers and market-

linkage activities received little attention.

R&D on income-generating activities (poultry, beekeeping, livestock

fattening) is minimal.

The potential contribution of the available watering points (18

natural springs) to adapt CC/variability has not been well studied.

Eucalyptus is replacing native woody species along the landscapes.

However, the impact of the species for adapting CC/variability in

terms of water use and livelihood have not been investigated.

17

18

The project demonstrated the possibility of achieving practical

climate change adaptation measures quickly through strong

engagement with existing local institutions.

Practical field demonstrations were effective in stimulating local

demand for innovations.

It is important to provide strong orientation on M&E protocols

when involving local institutions in a R4D project .

7. Lessons learnt

The project work created opportunities to identify more

CC/variability R&D issues that can be addressed at farm, landscape

and watershed scale or beyond.

Introduced and tested entry points of the project are good

learning grounds and served to direct project coordination on

where to focus and bring visible impacts.

19

The presence of partners/institutions around Kabe watershed are

good opportunities to capitalize on future collaborations.

8. Conclusions and recommendations

20

Therefore:

•More research is needed to fully understand the long-term impact

of various interventions on hydrological processes and locally

available genetic resources.

•The project was short and the early success stories of the project

should be scaled out/up within and beyond the watershed.

•The pilot project should be either extended or a new project

initiative developed to generate more robust evidence for the

benefits of some climate change adaption interventions that require

more time and follow up.

Thank you!

Thank you!

21