Report on the implementation of the Kabe
Watershed Pilot Project in Ethiopia, 2011-
2013
Kindu Mekonnen, Alan Duncan and Beth Cullen (ILRI)
Workshop on the lessons and success stories from a
pilot project on climate change adaptation
interventions in Kabe watershed, south Wollo,
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 11-12 February 2013

Outline of the presentation
 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 of the project
 R&D gaps for future consideration
 Concluding remarks
2

1. Introduction about Kabe
watershed
 Administrative location –
Woreilu Wereda, South Wollo
Zone, Amhara Region
Altitude (2822-3837 masl)
 Area - 16.166 km-2
 Mean annual RF- 840 mm
 The watershed has 4 sub-
watersheds- Amanuel,
Yewel, Abagirja and Fortu 3

Upstream
Upstream
 Upstream, midstream and
downstream interactions at
Kabe watershed are very Midstream
strong
 Mixed crop-livestock farming
with little cash crops
 Two cropping seasons (Mehir
Downstream
and Belg)- But the later has
become unreliable for agri use 4

2. Implementers of the Project
UNEP – Overall oversight of the projects 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 5

3. Major issues/constraints at Kabe watershed
Unpredictable onset and offset Lack of access to technologies
of rainfall
Shortage of feed (quality and Loss of vegetation cover
quantity)
Soil loss and nutrient depletion Poor market access
Crop pests and diseases Weak collective action on NRM
issues
Limited income sources Weak institutional collaboration
Low crop and livestock productivity, food
insecurity and vulnerability 6

4. Interventions to adapt CC/variability and other supporting
activities
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
7

5. Successes of the project
 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 visit
 Identified and introduced some potential technologies and
practices that can enable communities capacity to adapt
CC/ variability impacts
8

6. R&D gaps that need future consideration
 Project implementation in terms of
area coverage and involvement of
farmers is limited in scope (focused
mainly in one sub-watershed, and
involved and benefited few farmers).
 Technology coverage is limited to
entry points (water harvesting
techniques, crop varieties,
livestock breed etc). 9

 The potential of backyards
for forage development
(fodder trees) is not
adequately exploited.
 Locally available feed
resources received little
research attention
(indigenous fodder trees
and crop residues). 10

 Generating evidence for some
activities require more time
(fertilizer trials, performance
evaluation of introduced sheep
breed, fruit trees, impact of
SWC activities).
 R&D on income generating activities (poultry, beekeeping, livestock
fattening) and irrigated agriculture is minimal.
 Off-farm income, capacity building on researchers and market
linkage activities received little attention. 11

 Detailed studies on collective actions for grazing land
management, gully rehabilitation and landscape/WS based SWC
are lacking.
 Studies on technological
options/agronomic
practices that improve the
productivity of collectively
managed grazing lands are
minimal.
12

 There are more than 18 watering points in the watershed.
However, the potential contribution of these watering points to
adapt impacts of CC/variability has not been well studied.
 Eucalyptus is replacing native
woody species along the
landscapes. However, the
positive and negative impact
of the species for adapting
effects of CC/variability has
not been investigated. 13

7. Concluding remarks
 Although the pilot project operated for one year and focused
on few entry points/cases, it enabled us to identify more
CC/variability related R&D issues that can be addressed at farm,
landscape and watershed scale or beyond. It also showed us
where capacity building schemes should target to successfully
implement project activities/interventions and bring desired
outputs/outcomes.
 Introduced and tested entry points are good learning grounds
that directed us where to focus and bring visible impacts. 14

 The commitment and presence of partners/institutions
(SARC/ARARI, WU, Wereda Offices, Communities, CGIAR)
around Kabe watershed are good opportunities to capitalize
on future collaborations.
15