Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Report on the implementation of the Kabe Watershed Pilot Project in Ethiopia, 2011-2013


Published on

Presented by Kindu Mekonnen, Alan Duncan and Beth Cullen (ILRI) at the 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

Published in: Technology
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Report on the implementation of the Kabe Watershed Pilot Project in Ethiopia, 2011-2013

  1. 1. Report on the implementation of the KabeWatershed 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
  2. 2. 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 othersupporting activities Successes of the project R&D gaps for future consideration Concluding remarks 2
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 2. Implementers of the ProjectUNEP – Overall oversight of the projects 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 communityMobilization 5
  6. 6. 3. Major issues/constraints at Kabe watershedUnpredictable onset and offset Lack of access to technologiesof rainfallShortage of feed (quality and Loss of vegetation coverquantity)Soil loss and nutrient depletion Poor market accessCrop pests and diseases Weak collective action on NRM issuesLimited income sources Weak institutional collaboration Low crop and livestock productivity, food insecurity and vulnerability 6
  7. 7. 4. Interventions to adapt CC/variability and other supporting activitiesTechnologies/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 studies 7
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10.  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
  11. 11.  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
  12. 12.  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
  13. 13.  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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15.  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