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

Kindu Mekonnen, Alan Duncan and Beth Cullen (ILRI)

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

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 of the project

R&D gaps for future consideration

Concluding remarks

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

Mixed crop-livestock farming

with little cash crops

Two cropping seasons (Mehir

and Belg)- But the later has

become unreliable for agri use

Upstream

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

2. Implementers of the Project

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 accessCrop pests and diseases Weak collective action on NRM

issuesLimited 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 visit

Identified and introduced some potential technologies and

practices that can enable communities capacity to adapt

CC/ variability impacts

5. Successes of the project

8

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).

6. R&D gaps that need future consideration

Technology coverage is limited to

entry points (water harvesting

techniques, crop varieties,

livestock breed etc). 9

Locally available feed

resources received little

research attention

(indigenous fodder trees

and crop residues).

The potential of backyards

for forage development

(fodder trees) is not

adequately exploited.

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