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.

EIA report Lalibela1

335 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EIA report Lalibela1

  1. 1. i Environmental Impact Assessment Report For Small-Scale Irrigation Schemes In Lalibela Food Security Project Lalibela District, North Wollo Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia July 2014 Addis Ababa By Misigana Hidata Natural Resource Mangment Officer for LWF Goro Project
  2. 2. ii I. Table of contents I. Table of contents .................................................................................................................................. ii II. Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................... iii III. List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................................. iv V. Executive Summery............................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................- 1 - 1.1. Objectives of the Study.............................................................................................................- 2 - 1.2. Project Screening ......................................................................................................................- 2 - 2. Literature Review..............................................................................................................................- 3 - 2.1. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework ..........................................................................- 4 - 3. Methodology and Approaches ..........................................................................................................- 5 - 3.1. Description of the Study Area...................................................................................................- 5 - 3.2. Baseline Information on Bio-Physical and Socio-Economic Situation ......................................- 7 - 3.3. Study Design..............................................................................................................................- 8 - 3.3.1. Sampling Technique..........................................................................................................- 8 - 3.3.2. Tools for Data Collection...................................................................................................- 8 - 3.3.3. Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................- 8 - 4. Result and Discussions......................................................................................................................- 9 - 4.1. Environmental Impact Statement...........................................................................................- 10 - 4.2. Significant Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................- 11 - 4.3. Environmental Impact Matrix.................................................................................................- 12 - 4.4. Identified Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................................- 13 - 5. Environmental Management Plan ..................................................................................................- 14 - 6. Environmental Auditing ..................................................................................................................- 15 - 7. Nature of public participation.........................................................................................................- 17 - 8. Summary and Recommendations...................................................................................................- 17 - 9. References ......................................................................................................................................- 19 - 10. Appendix .....................................................................................................................................- 20 -
  3. 3. iii II. Acronyms and Abbreviations • CA: Command Area • Df: Degree of freedom • EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment • LWF/DWS: Lutheran World Federation, Department for World Service • P: Probability value • PA: Peasant Association • SNNP: Southern Nation National People
  4. 4. iv III. List of Tables and Figures Table 1 Household and Population Size of the Operation areas.................................................- 6 - Table 2 Base line status of Biophysical Environment ................................................................- 7 - Table 3 Chi-Square and Probability of Significance ..................................................................- 9 - Table 4 Significant Environmental Impacts, the Impact Profile...............................................- 11 - Table 5 Environmental Impact Matrix......................................................................................- 12 - Table 6 Impact Mitigation Measures........................................................................................- 13 - Table 7 Environmental Management Plan Schedule................................................................- 14 - Table 8 Chi-Square Distribution...............................................................................................- 20 -
  5. 5. v V. Executive Summery This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study was set out to investigate the environmental impact of two small-scale irrigation schemes in Shumsha and Medagie kebeles of Lalibela Woreda, North Wollo zone Amhara region of Ethiopia. The irrigation schemes are proposed to serve 130 households for Shumsha and 94 households for Midagie kebele in the command area of 60 and 21.2 hectares of land respectively. The EIA study was carried out by team of experts composed of LWF technical staffs and government experts, together with target communities and Development Agents at field level. The approaches applied during field data collection consisted of site observation and measurement, household interviewing and focus group discussions. By the assessment, the identified major impacts of irrigation development on environmental aspect are verified for their significance by statistical methods. The result of the assessment reveals that ground water quality, soil salinity problems, soil stability, water use conflict, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity aquatic ecosystem and vegetation covers have significant negative environmental impact, while efficient utilization of domestic labors, creation of income opportunities, promotion of women economic empowerment, ensuring household food security and improving nutrition are the major positive impacts of irrigation development in Shumsha and Medagie kebeles. The Environmental Impact Matrix analysis also indicates there was no non reversible impact identified and all negative impacts can be mitigated by proper irrigation water and environmental management activities. Finally, the study recommends that proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming, catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities as a mitigation measures for every significant environmental impact to happen as result of irrigation development in the target areas. Further, the study indicates the monitoring mechanisms and indicators to be mentored at every stage of the project activities.
  6. 6. - 1 - 1. Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment is an instrument to forecast and consider both positive and negative environmental and social consequences of a proposed development project. It is a tool by which possible benefits of a project is analyzed and considered by full involvement of all project stakeholders, in this case includes LWF, government line offices and local communities. It is also by which significant impacts of the project is analyzed and mitigation measures proposed; so that harmful and the potential harmful impacts of the project will be mitigated or avoided. The Lutheran World Federation Department for World Service (LWF/DWS) is an international humanitarian and development organization that is currently addressing development issues in various parts of Ethiopia has designed a three years Food Security Project to be implemented in three kebeles of Lalibela Woreda, North wollo Zone in Amahara National Regional State. The planned interventions through this project aim to address key challenges of the target community and ultimately achieve food security among the target communities in Lalibela Woreda. Among the key proposed activities include construction of two small scale irrigation schemes at Shumsha and Medagie kebeles. The irrigation scheme at Shumsha kebele is proposed to irrigate 60 hectares of land and expected to benefit approximately 130 households in irrigated crop production in the command area, whereas the proposed scheme in the Medagie is capable to irrigate 21.2 hectares of land and benefits more than 94 households in the command area. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an integral part of the project assessment process in order to learn what potential impact the irrigation construction will have on the environment including the bio-diversity of the area and also to suggest the mitigation measures. Considering this, EIA study was conducted in two small-scale irrigation schemes in July 2014. The assessment was carried out by a team of experts composed of 4 LWF technical staffs (one environmental officer, one agriculturalist, one surveyor and one irrigation engineer) and two government/district experts, one from District Office of Environmental Protection and Land Administration (DOEPLA) and the other from Office of Agriculture and Rural Development (DOARD), together with target beneficiaries and Development Agents at field level.
  7. 7. - 2 - Finally, the study team produce this EIA report consists of the following main sections; begins with executive summery that briefly elaborates information about the assessment and highlight the main findings and recommendations; it then presents the introduction, which focuses mainly on the objectives and nature of the assessment; and provides review of different literatures on EIA standards and pre-findings relevant to the major theme of the assessment; and then it describes methodologies not to over rush scientific producers; it then presents results and discussions of Environmental management plan to mitigate the negative environmental impacts and lastly provides summary and recommendations upon serious environmental issues that requires a especial attention by the project proponents. 1.1. Objectives of the Study • To insure sustainable management of natural resources by the project target communities • To protect and enhance quality of all forms of life, • To assess the project’s environmental positive and negative impacts and provide mitigation measures for the negative impacts, • To promote local communities and insure public participation, 1.2. Project Screening Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the requirement of the country’s environmental policy, which acknowledges that private and public sector development programs and projects recognize any environmental impacts early in the planning phase and incorporate their containment into the development design. Hence, importance of EIA for irrigation project is not questionable. Accordingly, the LWF/DWS has conducted the EIA for two small-scale irrigation schemes in Lalibela district as one part of the project assessment process. According to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Environmental Protection Authority (2000); irrigation projects has been screened for its impacts on downstream users, soil chemical properties, water quality, change in river morphology, sedimentation, social conflict, vegetation cover and human health
  8. 8. - 3 - 2. Literature Review EIA is a management tool for planners and decision makers and complements other project studies on mitigation of biophysical and socio economic environmental impacts. Environmental assessment is now accepted as an essential part of development planning and management. It should become as familiar and important as economic analysis in project evaluation. EIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate ways in which the environment will be improved as part of the development process. It also predicts the conflicts and constraints between the proposed projects and its environment. It provides an opportunity for mitigation measures to be incorporated to minimize problems. It enables monitoring methods to be established to assess future impacts and provide data on which managers can take informed decisions to avoid environmental damage (FAO, 1995). Hence, the LWF/DWS-ET has made this environmental impact assessment to maximize positive impacts of the irrigation projects in two target kebeles of Lalibela woreda by implementing sustainable environmental management plan. Initially EIA was seen by some project promoters as a constraint to development. But this view has been gradually disappearing. It is now well understood that environment and development are complementary and interdependent and EIA is a technique for ensuring that the two are mutually reinforcing. A study carried out by the Environmental Protection Agencies showed that there were significant changes to projects during the EIA process, marked improvements in environmental protection measures and net financial benefits, (Wathern, 1988). So that, Irrigation projects without considering environmental issues costs much in terms water use conflicts among communities of upper and lower stream, land degradation by salinity and erosion, soil nutrient depletion if inappropriately regulated by certain type of vegetables, loss of water quality because of water fragmentation, waterborne diseases and other social issues. Environmental assessment is appropriate for both site specific projects and wider programs or plans covering projects activities over a wide geographic area (Tiffen, 1989). In this document the term "project" is used for irrigation projects in site specific areas of two kebeles. As this
  9. 9. - 4 - document is specifically prepared to address irrigation related issues like its drainage, water use and other environmental issues; it is to be used to carry out environmental impact management activities with regard to biophysical and socioeconomic issues of both short and long-term. Usually the primary costs of irrigation projects are mostly much higher than predicted. This is because of from the outset, not all the environmental mitigation costs are adequately incurred together with unforeseen costs. The initial investments will be lost if the complementary expenditures are not made. This explains why many irrigation projects are constructed at excessive costs and remained with social conflicts by compromising minimum permissible water flow in the natural waterways, Debebe. (2010). This can be a good lesson to LWF/DWS and other organizations to carefully consider financial and water use economy while constructing the irrigation schemes to enable communities use the water resources efficiently to improve their livelihood without compromising the minimum permissible amount of water in the natural water course and determine appropriate command area that can be managed by the amount of water. Unless and otherwise, water use conflicts among the water users will cost higher because of an ambitious irrigation design. 2.1. Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework According to Environmental Proclamation Number, (181/2011); “Environmental Impact assessment is to be a process which indicates the impact assessment starting from the plan up to completion during the preparation of development proposals, selecting places, operating, revising and terminating. Hence, LWF/DWS-ET has made this EIA to address the major environmental negative impacts of the proposed irrigation projects in close consultation and collaboration with government line offices and target communities. Increasingly, at the national level, environmental policies are being introduced, perhaps including a National Environmental Action Plan or National Plan for Sustainable Development. Such policies are often supported by legislation. Government policies in
  10. 10. - 5 - areas such as water, land distribution and food production, especially if supported by legislation, are likely to be highly significant for irrigation and drainage projects. Hence, this EIA outline the policy environment relevant to the study. Results are also easily understood and interpreted in the light of prevailing policies. According FAO, (2000/53); Policies and regulations are sometimes conflicting and may contribute to degradation. Assessments could be within the scope of EIA to highlight such conflicts and detail their consequences in relation to the irrigation and drainage proposal under study. An example of conflicting policies would be an agricultural policy to promote agrochemicals to increase production and an environmental policy to limit the availability of persistent chemicals. A totally laissez-faire policy will result in unsustainable development, for example through uncontrolled pollution and distortions in wealth. This creates problems which future generations have to resolve. On the other hand, excessive government control of market forces may also have negative environmental impacts. For example, free irrigation water leads to the inefficient use of this scarce and expensive resource, inequities between head and tail users and water logging and salinity problems. Hence, this EIA report addressed all significant concerns and their mitigations to the project proponents in line with sustainable environmental management direction. 3. Methodology and Approaches Like any empirical studies, this EIA approach has followed standard procedures to find important environmental impacts and recommend mitigation measures for impacts that could happen during implementation of the irrigation activities. Hence, this section focuses on description of the study area, base line environmental information and the study design. 3.1. Description of the Study Area Lalibal/Lasta Woreda is one of the districts in North Wallo Zone, Amhara National Regional State of Ethiopia. It is found at 675 km northeast from Addis Ababa. It is bordered on the east by Gidana district, on the west by Bugna district, on the north by Wag Hemra Zone and on the south
  11. 11. - 6 - by Meket district. The intervention areas namely Midaghe and Shumshaha kebeles are located within 6 km and 34 km distances from the Lalibela town respectively. The area altitude ranges between 2,200-1,850 m.a.s.l and average temperature varies between 20 and 350 c. Rainfall varies from 950 to 1,400 mm per year. Agro-ecologically the project kebeles are categorized under Kolla (dry tropical climate), with annual rainfall and spatial distribution not sustaining plant growth and maintain to maturity. Based on the 2007 national census conducted by the Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA), Lalibela woreda has a total population of 117,777, of whom 58,451 are men and 59,326 women; 17,367 or 14.75% are urban inhabitants. The majority of the inhabitants practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, with 97.65% reporting that as their religion, while 2.32% of the population said they were Muslim. The number of population and households living in the targeted two kebeles is shown in the table below. Table 1 Household and Population Size of the Operation areas No Name of Kebeles Household size Population size Male Female Total Male Female Total 1. Medagie 1,245 486 1,731 2,641 2,789 5,430 2. Shumshaha 764 253 1,017 2,129 2,275 4,404 Total 2,009 739 2,748 4,770 5,064 9,834 Livelihood of communities of the two target Kebeles is based on subsistence crop production predominantly carried out under rain-fed conditions. There is an average of three livestock, six goats and one donkey per household. Opportunities for off-farm income are very limited and most people thus rely to a large extent on agriculture for their subsistence. The major crops grown in Medagie are teff and wheat. Teff is the most preferred crop, while sorghum and wheat ranks the second major crops grown in Shumsha and Medagie areas respectively. Farmers usually grow teff, wheat, barley, beans and sorghum in Shumsha areas. The rate of land degradation is also high in the areas mainly due to limited natural resource conservation activities practiced. However, the recent efforts by the government of community mass mobilization in natural resource soil and water conservation activities carried out on
  12. 12. - 7 - hillsides and other degraded lands seems to bring some positive changes in raising awareness of the target communities of Medagie and Shumsha kebeles. In this regard, farmers usually used to practice farm terracing, soil and stone bunds in farmlands located on steep/slope terrain areas to combat soil and water erosion problems. Some farming communities in Midagie kebele also observed using Eucalyptus plantation for its economic importance despite of its ecological costs by scavenging soil nutrients and water resources. 3.2. Baseline Information on Bio-Physical and Socio-Economic Situation This part is very important to know initial environmental status of the operation area in order to know the prevailing environmental changes as a result of the project interventions and audit against the base line while taking mitigation measures. The following table is to show baseline information in terms of biophysical and socioeconomic environmental variables. Variables were rated as low, medium, high ways qualitative rating through physical observation and public discussions. Table 2: Base-line status of Biophysical Environment No Environmental Variables Name of the Irrigation Projects and their some Biophysical and Socioeconomic status. Shumsha Irrigation Site Medagie Irrigation Site A Biophysical Variables 1. Soil Fertility Medium Medium 2. Soil Stability Low Low 3. Soil Erosion Medium Medium 4. Soil productivity Low Medium 5. Silt accumulation Low Low 6. Water logging problems Low Low 7. Vegetation cover change Low Low 8. Wild life Low Low B Socio Economic Variables 1. Resource use complain Low Medium 2. Human Health Good Good 3. Income generation status from irrigation resources Not at all Poor
  13. 13. - 8 - 3.3. Study Design The study was designed as empirical descriptive type that provides comprehensive information about environmental situations and public concerns with respect to the possible biophysical and socio economic environmental variables because of the project interventions. Data was collected from sample population for both biophysical and socio economic variables and analyzed statistically for their significant environmental impacts so that mitigation measures are recommended for the possible negative environmental impacts of the project. 3.3.1. Sampling Technique Sample households were taken from direct beneficiaries of the proposed irrigation schemes using non probability sampling of purposive type. The study area, that is, the irrigation sites has a total household population of 130 for Shumsha and 94 for Midagie irrigation sites. Accordingly, a total of twenty sample households were selected randomly proportional to size from each irrigation sites. 3.3.2. Tools for Data Collection In this assessment, both primary and secondary data were collected. The required primary data for the assessment was collected from 20 sample respondents through household interviewing, focus group discussions, and site observation and direct measurements of some physical environmental variables like river flow rate, train or slope, altitude and temperature. Relevant secondary data was also collected from government line offices. Further, telephone conversations were used with different officials to triangulate data from secondary sources for some consistency barriers. 3.3.3. Data Analysis Statistical analysis was used to measure significance of negative impacts by the proposed irrigation projects on biophysical and socio economic environmental variables. From sample
  14. 14. - 9 - statistics, an inference was made by statistical inferential model we called Chi-square using SPSS software. In this method, every environmental variable were analyzed and rated for any possible negative impact that they could receive from the irrigation project activities. 4. Result and Discussions From the formula of Chi-Square; 2; where, X2 is Chi-Square, Of is Observed frequency; Ef is Expected frequency with respect to degree of freedom (df) of variables; there calculated X2 value and probability of getting the value is taken from Chi-Square table (Table 3). The following table shows significance of environmental impact from the irrigation projects on proposed biophysical and socio-economic components based on P values. Note that, Ho or null hypothesis stated that “there is significant negative impact from irrigation projects on biophysical and socio economic environmental components”. If probability (P) values are less or equals to 0.05 at the specified degree of freedom (df), the null hypothesis is to be refused and the impact is insignificant. If P value is greater than 0.05; the null hypothesis is to be accepted and mitigations measures are recommended. The following table is to show significance of impact of the proposed irrigation projects on biophysical and socio economic environmental elements. Table 3: Chi-Square and Probability of Significance No. Environmental Variables proposed to be affected For SHUMSA IRRIGATION SCHEME FOR MIDAGE IRRIGATION SCHEME df X2 P Value Significance Status X2 df P Value Significance Status 1. Climate 3 8.333 <0.05 Insignificant 8.333 3 0.05 Insignificant 2. Air Quality 2 6.667 <0.05 Insignificant 6.667 2 <0.05 Insignificant 3. Ground water quality 1 1.000 >0.05 Significant 1.000 1 >0.05 Significant 4. Surface water quantity 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 5. Surface water quality 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 6. Soil salinity 2 2.000 >0.05 Significant 2.000 2 >0.05 Significant 7. Soil stability 2 1.444 >0.05 Significant 1.444 2 >0.05 Significant 8. Train 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant
  15. 15. - 10 - 9. Water use conflict 1 1.000 >0.05 Significant 1.667 2 >0.05 Significant 10 Vegetation cover 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 4.667 3 >0.05 Significant 11 Wetland 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 12 Aquatic habitats 2 1.667 >0.05 Significant 1.667 2 >0.05 Significant 13 Fish stock 2 6.000 <0.05 Insignificant 6.000 2 <0.05 Insignificant 14 Terrestrial habitats 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 15 Wild life aquatic 1 5.778 <0.05 Insignificant 4.778 1 <0.05 Insignificant 16 Wildlife Terrestrial 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant 17 Forest resource 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.555 1 <0.05 Insignificant 18 Biodiversity 1 2.778 >0.05 Significant 2.555 1 >0.05 Significant 19 Ecosystem function aquatic 1 2.778 >0.05 Significant 2.444 1 >0.05 Significant 20 Ecosystem function terrestrial 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.4441 1 <0.05 Insignificant 21 Rear species 1 5.000 <.05 Insignificant 6.000 1 <0.05 Insignificant 22 Protected area 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.000 1 <0.05 Insignificant 23 Human health 1 5.778 <0.05 Insignificant 5.777 1 <0.05 Insignificant 24 Socio-Economic 1 3.778 <0.05 Insignificant 3.454 1 <0.05 Insignificant 25 Cultural Heritage 1 5.444 <0.05 Insignificant 5.444 1 <0.05 Insignificant The data in table 3 above shows the identified environmental components for which negative impacts from the proposed irrigation projects are significant. These are ground water quality, soil salinity, soil stability, water use conflict, aquatic habitat, bio diversity and aquatic ecosystem functions for irrigation projects and impact on vegetation cover is also significant for Midage irrigation scheme. 4.1. Environmental Impact Statement The study assessed possible environmental impacts of the two irrigation schemes at Shumsha and Midage kebeles of Lalibala district. The result of the study from Chi-square analysis showed that environmental components that could be negatively affected by the irrigation projects are soil physical and chemical properties and water use regime of communities especially with upper stream users and even among the same schemes within the river ecosystem. However, all negative impacts found significant can be mitigated and avoidable if provided that proper environmental management plan could be implemented proactively. Results of the study also identified environmentally positive impacts of the irrigation projects. From focus group discussion of both irrigation projects, the irrigation has significant contribution of income creation, efficient utilization of domestic labors, ensuring household food security and
  16. 16. - 11 - improving nutrition and promotion of women economic empowerment. Irrigation is generally considered as an effective way of increasing agricultural production (more land under crops, more crops per hectare per year, more crop production per hectare per season). As production increases, per capita income increases; and thus the socio-economic condition and livelihood improve. Thus the access to irrigation or development of irrigation facility has a positive impact and profound role to play on poverty reduction. 4.2. Significant Environmental Impacts The data reveals in Table 3 above shows the identified environmental variables that are negatively affected by the two irrigation projects. The following table is to show significant environmental impacts and the impact profile. Table 4: Significant Environmental Impacts, and the Impact Profile No. Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Profile 1. Ground water quality • Increase in water turbidity • Raising in saline water table • Addition of toxic chemicals 2. Soil salinity • Raise in saline water table • Change in soil physics and release of salt from soil micro pores during inappropriate time of irrigation • There also threat of silt deposit form upper catchment to irrigation water and irrigable field as there is no vegetation cover and trapping mechanisms on the catchments 3. Soil stability • During construction of irrigation infrastructures and flood irrigation, as the soil is fragile and young it could easily liable to disturbance 4. Water use conflict • This is a serious issue if proper command area is not demarcated from possible minimum canal flow during design. It is difficult to shorten command area after once included. It causes social conflict, economic loss. 5. Aquatic habitat • Aquatic habitat will be damaged if minimum permissible flow is not maintained in natural water flow. • Addition of agro chemicals could damage aquatic habitats 6. Bio-Diversity • Addition of agro-chemicals could affect biodiversity 7. Aquatic ecosystem function • Addition of agro-chemicals could affect aquatic ecosystem function 8. Vegetation cover • Construction of irrigation infrastructures will affect the vegetation cover especially for Medagie irrigation. Besides, the farm area is partially covered with Eucalyptus trees as they are using as cash crop.
  17. 17. - 12 - 4.3. Environmental Impact Matrix Ideally, all development activities costs environment. However, it is important to get the lower opportunity costs by mitigating significant environmental impacts indicated in Table 3 above. The following table is to show status of significant environmental impacts by environmental impact matrix. Table 5 Environmental Impact Matrix Description of Codes: A: Significant Environmental Effect that can be Mitigated B: Potential Significant Negative Environmental Effect unknown C: Significant Public Concern D: Significant Negative Environmental Effect that Cannot be Mitigated E: No Significant Negative Environmental Effect F: Positive Environmental Impact Project Undertakings Environmental Components Negatively Affected by the Irrigation Projects Ground waterquality SoilSalinity SoilStability Wateruse Aquatic Habitat Bio Diversity Climate Aquatic Ecosystem Function Human Health Vegetation Cover HHEcono Construction of headwork E E A C A E E A E E E Construction of Canals A E A E E E E E E A D Irrigation Agronomy A A E C A A E A A A D Post Harvest E F F E E E E F E F Interactive effects A E A C A E E A E A D Cumulative effects A: Significant Environmental Effect that Can be Mitigated
  18. 18. - 13 - 4.4. Identified Mitigation Measures The study also identified mitigation measures for identified potential environmental negative impacts of the irrigation projects. The following table is to show the mitigation measures per every significant impact. Table 6 Impact Mitigation Measures No. Impacts Identified Mitigation Measures 1. Ground water quality • Practice of organic farming • Use of appropriate furrow length to irrigate vegetables • Adjusting time of irrigation 2. Soil salinity • Adjust time of irrigation • Appropriate drainage lines at every edge of farm field • Silt clear up from canals and treatment of upper catchment 3. Soil stability • Construction of retain wall during irrigation infrastructure construction especially for sensitive and slid-able soil • Avoid flood irrigation • Allow appropriate amount of water per territory canal outlet based on furrow length and slop 4. Water use conflict • Predetermination of command area based on crop annual water requirement and available water without compromising natural waterway. CA= • Water scheduling and determination crop type during critical water shortage • Treatment of upper catchments to increase side recharge to river 5. Aquatic Habitat • Use of organic farming 6. Bio Diversity • Use of organic farming 7. Aquatic Ecosystem Function • Use of Organic farming • Catchment treatment to encourage drawdown 8. Vegetation Cover • To substitute another plantation site out of irrigation • To substitute multipurpose ecologically friendly trees than eucalyptus trees
  19. 19. - 14 - 5. Environmental Management Plan The identified significant and negative impacts of irrigation development on environmental aspect are ground water quality, soil salinity, soil stability, water use conflicts, aquatic habitats, biodiversity, aquatic ecosystem function and vegetation cover. The following table is to show adverse impacts with respect to the project stages and proposed mitigation measures and implementation schedules. Table 7: Environmental Management Plan Schedule Project Stage Project Activities Adverse Impacts Proposed Mitigation Institutional Responsibility Implementation Schedule Construction stage Head work & canal construction Water quantity in river will be at risk Allow minimum permissible amount of water in river Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation At the start of construction Soil stability disturbed Retaining walls of side embankments and catchment treatment Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation At the start of construction Aquatic Ecosystem Function affected Allow minimum permissible amount of water in river and catchment treatment Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation At the start of construction Some vegetation plantation will be removed Support Substitution of plantation sites out of irrigation area Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation At the start of construction Operation stage Irrigation Agronomy Ground water quality Organic farming and proper irrigation water management Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation During operation Soil salinity Irrigation water management and catchments treatment Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation During Operation Aquatic Habitats could be damaged Organic farming and catchment treatment Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation During Operation Effect on bio diversity Organic Farming and water use efficiency Follow up and monitoring for proper implementation During Operation The EIA study also assessed capacity of the district office of Environmental Protection and Land Administration. The office has vested the responsibility of implementing and regulating environmental activities by government. To accomplish regulation and implementation of environmental activities, the office has shortage of motor cycle to monitor and follow up field activity implementation, skill gap of geo spatial technologies and lack of computers for data management by database system.
  20. 20. - 15 - 6. Environmental Auditing Environmental auditing is a detailed environmental monitoring plan for proper implementation of the recommended mitigation measures for identified negative environmental impacts. There are parameters to be monitored and the monitoring report should be submitted to respective offices. Hence, all activities stated as the impact mitigation measures are to be audited using against plans. Environmental mitigation measures will be taken throughout the project lifetime to avoid or minimize the destruction to environment. These are proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming, catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities. Besides, various soil and water conservation structures will be constructed and biological measures such as tree planting will be undertaken to treat the irrigation catchment areas and other degraded lands. Furthermore, the target community will be educated to utilize, preserve and manage their scarce resources effectively. Total amount of budget estimated for the implementation of these natural resource management activities over a three years period is 1,897,375 Birr. The following table is to show implementation schedule and budget used as parameters for auditing. S.N. Activity Description Unit Quantity Unit Price (ETB) Total Budget Year I Year II Year III ETB (Birr) EUR (Euro) CAD (Canadian Dollar) Physical Target Budget (CAD) Physical Target Budget (CAD) Physical Target Budget (CAD) 1 Treat the irrigation watershed with physical and biological measures 1.1 Physical conservation measures - Soil bund construction Km 45 11,250 506,250 19,471 28,125 13 8,125 32 20,000 - Stone bund construction Km 30 3,750 112,500 4,327 6,250 9 1,875 21 4,375 - Cutoff drain construction Km 20 3,500 70,000 2,692 3,889 6 1,167 14 2,722 - Check dam construction Km 10 10,000 100,000 3,846 5,556 10 5,556 - Micro basin excavation No. 24,000 7 168,000 6,462 9,333 9,600 3,733 14,400 5,600 - Construction of farm terrace Km 45 2,500 112,500 4,327 6,250 13 1,806 32 4,444 - Road construction/maintenance Km 15 10,000 150,000 5,769 8,333 11 6,111 2 1,111 2 1,111
  21. 21. - 16 - 1.2 Biological Measures - Establish/strengthen project tree nursery sites (labor & materials) # of nursery 2 22,500 45,000 1,731 2,500 1 1,250 1 1,250 - Support/rehabilitate government nursery sites (materials) # of nursery 2 10,500 21,000 808 1,167 2 1,167 - Purchase seeds for conservation Kg 100 120 12,000 462 667 50 333 50 333 - Produce conservation tree seedlings # of seedlings 450,000 0.30 135,000 5,192 7,500 135,000 2,250 180,000 3,000 135,000 2,250 - Plantation of conservation seedlings # of seedlings 436,500 0.15 65,475 2,518 3,638 130,950 1,091 174,600 1,455 130,950 1,091 2 Introduce target farmers to improved natural resources conservation practices - Per-diem participants (600person x 3days x 65Birr) # of trainees 770 195 150,150 5,775 8,342 250 2,708 270 2,925 250 2,708 - Stationary (writing pad and pen) # of trainees 770 30 23,100 888 1,283 250 417 270 450 250 417 - Refresher (tea/coffee, soft drink for 3days x 20Birr) # of trainees 770 60 46,200 1,777 2,567 250 833 270 900 250 833 3 Promote controlled grazing system and area closure Ha 60 2,000 120,000 4,615 6,667 42 4,667 18 2,000 3.1 Provision of tools - Spade hoe No. 150 90 13,500 519 750 90 450 60 300 - Crow bar No. 80 120 9,600 369 533 48 320 32 213 - Pick axe No. 200 80 16,000 615 889 120 533 80 356 - Sledge hummer No. 80 125 10,000 385 556 48 333 32 222 - Line level No. 30 25 750 29 42 18 25 12 17 - Measuring tape (30-50meter roll) No. 30 120 3,600 138 200 18 120 12 80 - Measuring tape (pocket size) No. 30 25 750 29 42 18 25 12 17 - Nylon rope Roll 40 150 6,000 231 333 24 200 16 133 Total – NRM Activities 1,897,375 72,976 105,410 27,966 60,095 17,348 Exchange Rate (as at June 2014): 1 CAD 18 ETB : 1 EUR 26 ETB
  22. 22. - 17 - 7. Nature of public participation Prior to any project planning, all stakeholders including potential beneficiaries should be consulted and involved. They have to be involved in the identification of problems, planning of activities, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This is important for developing sense of ownership, on the part of the community, and ensures sustainability. Accordingly, the project involved the target communities and government line offices during the assessment of this environmental impact study and continues throughout the implementation process. 8. Summary and Recommendations This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted in two small scale irrigation projects at Shumsha and Medagie kebeles of Lalibela Woreda, North Wollo Zone Amhara National Regional State of Ethiopia. The irrigation scheme at Shumsha kebele is proposed to irrigate 60 hectares of land and expected to benefit approximately 130 households in irrigated crop production in the command area, whereas the proposed scheme in the Medagie is capable to irrigate 21.2 hectares of land and benefits more than 94 households in the command area. The EIA study was carried out by team of experts composed of LWF technical staffs and government/district experts together with local communities and field level Development Agents. The approaches applied during field data collection consisted of site observation and measurement, household interviewing and focus group discussions. The discussion involved all segments of the community including women, men, leaders, youth, elders and influential members as well as development agents. By the assessment, the major impacts of irrigation development on environmental aspect are verified for their significance by statistical methods. The result of the study reveals that ground water quality, soil salinity problems, soil stability, water use conflict, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity aquatic ecosystem and vegetation covers have significant and negative impacts of irrigation development on social and environmental aspect. Environmental Impact Matrix was done to indicate importance of impacts that can affect
  23. 23. - 18 - environmental components. The matrix analysis shows there was no non reversible impact identified and all impacts identified are impacts that can be mitigated. The study further shows that efficient utilization of domestic labors, creation of income opportunities, promotion of women economic empowerment, ensuring household food security and improving nutrition are the major positive impacts of irrigation development in the targeted intervention kebeles. Finally, the study recommends that proper use of irrigation water, promoting organic farming, catchment treatment and water scheduling, maintaining permissible flow in natural water way and clear demarcation of command area and construction of appropriate drainage facilities as a mitigation measures for every significant environmental impact to happen. The study result also indicated monitoring mechanisms and indicators to be mentored at every stage of the project activities.
  24. 24. - 19 - 9. References 1. Amhara Regional State Environmental Proclamation. (181/2011), Bahirdar 2. Debebe. (2010), Irrigation use and challenges, Addis Ababa 3. Ethiopia Federal Environmental Authority. (2000), Addis Ababa 4. FAO. (2000/53), Environmental Impact Assessment of Irrigation and Drainage Projects, London. 5. Tiffen. (1989), EIA for Program Planning, UK 6. Watern. (1998), Cost of EIA Preparation, USA
  25. 25. - 20 - 10. Appendix Table 8 Chi-Square Distribution d.f. .995 .99 .975 .95 .9 .1 .05 .025 .01 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.71 3.84 5.02 6.63 2 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.21 4.61 5.99 7.38 9.21 3 0.07 0.11 0.22 0.35 0.58 6.25 7.81 9.35 11.34 4 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.71 1.06 7.78 9.49 11.14 13.28 5 0.41 0.55 0.83 1.15 1.61 9.24 11.07 12.83 15.09 6 0.68 0.87 1.24 1.64 2.20 10.64 12.59 14.45 16.81 7 0.99 1.24 1.69 2.17 2.83 12.02 14.07 16.01 18.48 8 1.34 1.65 2.18 2.73 3.49 13.36 15.51 17.53 20.09 9 1.73 2.09 2.70 3.33 4.17 14.68 16.92 19.02 21.67 10 2.16 2.56 3.25 3.94 4.87 15.99 18.31 20.48 23.21 11 2.60 3.05 3.82 4.57 5.58 17.28 19.68 21.92 24.72 12 3.07 3.57 4.40 5.23 6.30 18.55 21.03 23.34 26.22 13 3.57 4.11 5.01 5.89 7.04 19.81 22.36 24.74 27.69 14 4.07 4.66 5.63 6.57 7.79 21.06 23.68 26.12 29.14 15 4.60 5.23 6.26 7.26 8.55 22.31 25.00 27.49 30.58 16 5.14 5.81 6.91 7.96 9.31 23.54 26.30 28.85 32.00 17 5.70 6.41 7.56 8.67 10.09 24.77 27.59 30.19 33.41 18 6.26 7.01 8.23 9.39 10.86 25.99 28.87 31.53 34.81 19 6.84 7.63 8.91 10.12 11.65 27.20 30.14 32.85 36.19 20 7.43 8.26 9.59 10.85 12.44 28.41 31.41 34.17 37.57 22 8.64 9.54 10.98 12.34 14.04 30.81 33.92 36.78 40.29 24 9.89 10.86 12.40 13.85 15.66 33.20 36.42 39.36 42.98 26 11.16 12.20 13.84 15.38 17.29 35.56 38.89 41.92 45.64 28 12.46 13.56 15.31 16.93 18.94 37.92 41.34 44.46 48.28 30 13.79 14.95 16.79 18.49 20.60 40.26 43.77 46.98 50.89 32 15.13 16.36 18.29 20.07 22.27 42.58 46.19 49.48 53.49 34 16.50 17.79 19.81 21.66 23.95 44.90 48.60 51.97 56.06 38 19.29 20.69 22.88 24.88 27.34 49.51 53.38 56.90 61.16 42 22.14 23.65 26.00 28.14 30.77 54.09 58.12 61.78 66.21 46 25.04 26.66 29.16 31.44 34.22 58.64 62.83 66.62 71.20 50 27.99 29.71 32.36 34.76 37.69 63.17 67.50 71.42 76.15 55 31.73 33.57 36.40 38.96 42.06 68.80 73.31 77.38 82.29 60 35.53 37.48 40.48 43.19 46.46 74.40 79.08 83.30 88.38 65 39.38 41.44 44.60 47.45 50.88 79.97 84.82 89.18 94.42 70 43.28 45.44 48.76 51.74 55.33 85.53 90.53 95.02 100.43 75 47.21 49.48 52.94 56.05 59.79 91.06 96.22 100.84 106.39 80 51.17 53.54 57.15 60.39 64.28 96.58 101.88 106.63 112.33 85 55.17 57.63 61.39 64.75 68.78 102.08 107.52 112.39 118.24 90 59.20 61.75 65.65 69.13 73.29 107.57 113.15 118.14 124.12 95 63.25 65.90 69.92 73.52 77.82 113.04 118.75 123.86 129.97 100 67.33 70.06 74.22 77.93 82.36 118.50 124.34 129.56 135.81
  26. 26. - 21 - Environmental Impact Assessment Format for Irrigation Projects I. House Hold Interview A. General 1. Project Name_______________________________________________________________ 2. Project Tittle________________________________________________________________ 3. Project Year_________________________________________________________________ 4. Name of the River____________________________________________________________ 5. Project Location_____________________________________________________________ 5.1.Region_____________________________ 5.2.Zone_______________________________ 5.3.PA_________________________________ 5.4.Coordinate N________________________ E_________________________ B. Household Status 1. Respondent’s ID and Family Size Sex Age Family Size ID Number M F T 2. Land Use Status in Hectare Cultivable None Cultivable Forest Land Marginal Irrigable Non Irrigable Pasture Total 3. Socio Economic Indications 3.1. Number of Livestock? ______________________________________________________________ 3.2. Type of Grazing you are using? _______________________________________________________ 3.3. For how many months in a year you are using open grazing? _______________________________ 3.4. What are your most income sources? _________________________________________________ 3.5. Percent of your income covered from the irrigation site? __________________________________ 3.6. Percent of communal land you are using for grazing? _____________________________________ 3.7. Type of crop residue you are using for feed? ____________________________________________ 3.8. Have you been faced feed shortage in the past three years? 1. Yes 2. No 3.9. How many % of your land is within the command area? 3.10. If size of land within the command area is greater than 0.5 hectare, would you manage it? 3.11. If No for question number 3.10; how would you mange irrigation water use issues? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3.12. Have you ever been faced water shortage in the last three years? 1. Yes 2. No 3.13. If yes for question number 3.12; in what months? List the months. ______________________________________________________________________________ Temperature Min ______Max_________ Altitude __________________________ Annual Rain Fall____________________ Major soil type_____________________ Land Capability_____________________ Land Suitably_______________________ Somephysicaldata oftheirrigationsite Name of Enumerator_______________________Tel.__________________signiture______
  27. 27. - 22 - 3.11. What are the minimum and maximum distances in km to get water resources with respect to Difference seasons? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 3.12. What are the coping strategies used during the shortage? ___________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 3.13. Is your source of water for consumption the same as the water intended for irrigation? 1. Yes 2. No 3.14. Are there alternative water sources than what was proposed for irrigation? 1. Yes 2. No 3.15. Is your family members infected with water born diseases for the last six months? 1. Yes 2. No 3.16. What is the most important water born diseases at your locality? ______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 3.17. Do you know where malaria reproduces? 1. Yes 2. No 3.18. Do you have latrine? 1. Yes 2. No 3.19. What are the most sources of Environmental pollutions around you? 1. Open defecation 2. Night dumping, 3. Chemical spoilage 4. Natural Resources Management 4.1. Have you ever been participated on conservation activities for the last six months? 1. Yes 2. No 4.2. What is the most conservation activities carried out? 1. Biological conservation, 2. Physical conservation 3. Both 4.3. What are your concerns about the irrigation site for its impacts on your usual natural resources management activities? _______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 4.4. What are the most natural resources you are getting from the proposed irrigation site? 1. Fire wood, 2. Pasture, 3. Construction wooden materials, 4. All 4.5. Do you allow your land resources for irrigation infrastructures? 1. Yes 2. No 4.6. If no, for Question number 4.5; how would you react?________________________________ 4.7. Is you or any of your relatives displaced because of the irrigation infrastructures? 1. Yes, 2. No 4.8. Do you need the irrigation scheme? 1. Yes 2. No 4.9. How the irrigation site will benefit you? ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 4.10. Is the opportunity cost of irrigation greater? 1. Yes, 2. No 4.11. If yes for Question number 4.10, State it. _________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 6. Technical Observation by Subject Matter Specialist 6.1. Vegetation feature of the irrigation site _____________________________________ 6.2. Topographic feature of the site, ____________________________________________ 6.3. Permissible river flow, ___________________________________________________ 6.4. Appropriate command area that can suite amount of water, _____________________ 5.1. Storm on importance of the irrigation site as well as public concerns with regard to Social, Economic, and Cultural issues. Statement of the Consensus, ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________

×