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 access
Crop pests and diseases Weak collective action on NRM
issues
Limited 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