• Like
  • Save
Enhancing communities’ adaptive capacity to climate-change induced water scarcity in drought-prone hotspots of the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Enhancing communities’ adaptive capacity to climate-change induced water scarcity in drought-prone hotspots of the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia

on

  • 911 views

Presented by Kindu Mekonnen (ILRI), Alan Duncan( ILRI) and Elizabeth Migongo-Bake (UNEP) at the Final Stakeholders Workshop on Adapting to Climate Change Induced Water Stress in the Nile River Basin ...

Presented by Kindu Mekonnen (ILRI), Alan Duncan( ILRI) and Elizabeth Migongo-Bake (UNEP) at the Final Stakeholders Workshop on Adapting to Climate Change Induced Water Stress in the Nile River Basin Project, Nairobi, Kenya, 27-28 May 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
911
Views on SlideShare
474
Embed Views
437

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

4 Embeds 437

http://www.ilri.org 415
http://ilri.org 18
http://www.ilri.cgiar.org 3
http://ilri.cgiar.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Enhancing communities’ adaptive capacity to climate-change induced water scarcity in drought-prone hotspots of the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia Enhancing communities’ adaptive capacity to climate-change induced water scarcity in drought-prone hotspots of the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia Presentation Transcript

    • Project Implementation, Lessons and Future Considerations at KabeWatershed in the Blue Nile Basin – A UNEP-ILRI-Wollo UniversityCollaboration InitiativeKindu Mekonnen (ILRI), Alan Duncan( ILRI) andElizabeth Migongo-Bake (UNEP)Enhancing communities’ adaptive capacity to climate-change induced water scarcity in drought-prone hotspotsof the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia1Final stakeholders workshop “Adapting to climate change induced waterstress 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 othersupporting activities Successes/achievements of the project Research and development gaps Lessons learnt Conclusions and recommendationsOutline of the presentation2
    •  Administrative location –Woreilu Wereda, South WolloZone, Amhara Region1. Introduction about Kabewatershed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
    • 4UpstreamMidstreamDownstream Upstream, midstream anddownstream interactions atKabe watershed are verystrongKabe Landscape Upstream-Downstream Interactions Mixed crop-livestock farmingwith little cash crops Two cropping seasons (Mehirand Belg)- But the latter hasbecome unreliable for agri useUpstream
    • UNEP – Overall oversight of the project and linkage to other relatedactivities in the regionILRI- Provide technical support and link UNEP and Wollo University inthe implementation of the project in collaboration with other localinstitutionsWU- Lead the implementation of the project at the landscape scalesin collaboration with ILRI, sub contact SARC (ARARI) for actionresearch and Woreilu Wereda Office of Agriculture for communityMobilization2. Key Partners and Roles in Project Implementation5
    • Unpredictable onset and offsetof rainfallLack of access to technologiesShortage of feed (quality andquantity)Loss of vegetation coverSoil loss and nutrient depletion Poor market accessCrop pests and diseases Weak collective action on NRMissuesLimited income sources Weak institutional collaboration3. Major issues/constraints at Kabe watershedLow crop and livestock productivity, foodinsecurity and vulnerability 6
    • Technologies/practices:Improved crop varieties, home-garden activities, livestock (breedsand feed), water (water harvesting and springs development), SWC(physical and biological), forestry/agroforestryCapacity building and Knowledge sharing events:TrainingsWorkshops, meetings, field-days/visits, blogs, wikiOthers:Digital stories, mapping and baseline studies4. Interventions to adapt CC/variability and other supportingactivities7
    •  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 throughtraining and site visits Identified, introduced and evaluated potential crops, livestock ,water and other NRM technologies and practices that enablecommunities’ capacity to adapt CC/ variability: Examples =5. Successes/ achievements of the project8
    • 9Crop type Crop type Duration(months)Grain yield(t/ha)biomass yield(t/ha)Wheat Improved 4.3 3.7 8.1Local 4.8 1.8 4Barley Improved 4 4.8 11.4Local 4.1 1.8 7.8Field pea Improved 3.4 3.5 7.6Local 3.2 1.2 5.8Faba bean Improved 4.5 3.2 6Local 4.8 0.9 5Improved crop varieties Improved wheat (Dinkinesh), barley (Estayish) and field pea (Adi) varieties had a grainand biomass yield gain of 1.9 and 4.1; 3 and 3.6; and 2.3 and 1.8 t ha-1over the grain andbiomass yield of the local varieties, respectively.
    • 10Home-garden activities Home-garden root crops, vegetables(carrots, potatoes, shallots,cabbages) and fruit trees (apple, plum) benefited 46 men and 4women households. Late blight on potato and root rot on garlic are challenges in thewatershed.
    • 11Livestock (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 average1.9 kg). Improved sheep were sold on average for $80 ($38 for local sheep breeds).
    • 12Water (water harvesting and springs development) 213 (106 male and 108 female) farm households benefited from the twoimproved springs. Construction and utilization of 3 hand dug wells and 1 water harvestingdam. The hand dug wells can irrigate 0.13 -0.5 ha of land.
    • 13Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) (physical and biological) Coverage of physical SWC- 247 ha, Biological SWC measures- 215ha Survival (%) of trees and grasses -47.56%
    • 14Grazing land managementGrass biomass harvested after blocking from grazing 82ha of grazing lands was 2.8 t ha-1on dry weight basis.
    •  Project implementation in terms of area coverage and involvementof 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 (foddertrees) is not adequately exploited. Studies on technological options/agronomic practices that improvethe productivity of collectively managed grazing lands are minimal.
    •  Locally available feed resources (indigenous fodder trees and cropresidues)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, livestockfattening) is minimal. The potential contribution of the available watering points (18natural 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 interms of water use and livelihood have not been investigated.17
    • 18 The project demonstrated the possibility of achieving practicalclimate change adaptation measures quickly through strongengagement with existing local institutions. Practical field demonstrations were effective in stimulating localdemand for innovations. It is important to provide strong orientation on M&E protocolswhen involving local institutions in a R4D project .7. Lessons learnt
    •  The project work created opportunities to identify moreCC/variability R&D issues that can be addressed at farm, landscapeand watershed scale or beyond. Introduced and tested entry points of the project are goodlearning grounds and served to direct project coordination onwhere to focus and bring visible impacts.19 The presence of partners/institutions around Kabe watershed aregood opportunities to capitalize on future collaborations.8. Conclusions and recommendations
    • 20Therefore:•More research is needed to fully understand the long-term impactof various interventions on hydrological processes and locallyavailable genetic resources.•The project was short and the early success stories of the projectshould be scaled out/up within and beyond the watershed.•The pilot project should be either extended or a new projectinitiative developed to generate more robust evidence for thebenefits of some climate change adaption interventions that requiremore time and follow up.
    • Thank you!Thank you!21