PROJECT PROPOSAL: Improved water sources managrement in the Mencha Kebele

1. GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of Applying Woreda/Community Group(s): Mieso WoredaPAC.
Project Focal Person (Lead) Name:- ,Tel:- ,Title:-PAC Chairperson.
Nam of the project: Improved water sources management in the Mencha Kebele
Name, proposed location:-Kebele Mencha, Woreda Mieso, Zone Siti, Region Somalia.
Project Duration:-4months Tentative starting Date: Jan.1, 2019, ending date: April 30, 2019.
Estimated Total Project Budget: 885,500.00 ETB
Budget Requested from SGF: 796,950.00 ETB.
Estimated Community Cost Share: 88,550 ETB.

2. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION

Meiso is one of the seven districts of Sitti zone [formerly called Shinile Zone] with estimated
total population of 92,086 [47,187 male, 44,899 female, 1,212 urban and 90,874 rural] [CSA
woreda level population projection 2017]. Mencha kebele is found in the Meiso woreda.
Socio-economic data is not specifically available for the target kebele but the data for Meiso
district is assumed representative for the area. According to the 2017 CSA data, the area has a
zone population of 591,901 [308,215 male and 283,686 female, and 86,493 urban and505, 410
are pastoralists].
The highest temperature is 37 degree centigrade and the lowest is 14.5 degree centigrade.
The area is disaster prone and typically characterized by food insecurity and very low social and
economic development levels. Low development levels are largely attributed to droughts, and
trends indicate that the impact of extreme weather events is increasing.
The main rainy seasons of the district are dira and karan. Dira normally starts about late
March and ends mid-May. Karan starts in July and continues up to early September. In the
agro-pastoral areas of Shinile Zone, like the rest of the Zone, the dira’ (gu) rains are followed by
the Hagaa season, which is a dry spell that can cause crop failure if the dira’ rains were not
sufficient.
Rural livelihoods in the project area are to a large extent dependent on products from rangelands
and forests. Camels and goats browse the thick thorny bushes, sheep and cattle prefer the lush
pastures of grasslands. Communities also cut grass and store it as fodder for the dry season.
Trees provide wood for energy, livestock feed, medicines and to some extent timber, food and
shelter. Particularly traditional tree species, such as Acacia bussie and Combretumk collinum are
popular amongst the rural population.
About 60% of the rural population is engaged in livestock rearing (ERCS 2014). On average,
pastoralist households hold a herd of between 12 and 25 cattle (Wetlands International 2015).
When there is a surplus pastoralists sale milk and ghee. Agro-pastoralists, comprising about 25%
of the rural population (ERCS 2014), pursue a mixed livelihood system wherein they are
engaged in livestock herding and rain fed crop farming (maize and sorghum).. The main reasons
why the population in this LZ has shifted towards agro-pastoralism in the last decade or two
include: Reduction in herd sizes due to the recurrent droughts; to stop what is perceived as an
encroachment by farming Oromo Communities into Somali farming areas in Shinile. Farmers
living a settled existence produce rain fed crops for consumption and trade (15% of the rural
population, ERCS 2014) and urban residents making a living from formal and informal
employment (SCUK/DPPB 2004).
Among the district, agro-pastoral groups, wealth is determined mainly by livestock holdings,
especially cattle. This is followed by land holdings. The persons with higher numbers of
livestock have the potential to cultivate more land. Based on these criteria three major wealth
groups have been defined poor (25-35%), middle (45-55%) and better off (15-25%).
The rangelands are caught in a spiral of desertification, land degradation and drought (DLDD),
deforestation and land fragmentation. DLDD has been identified as a key threat to the
communities, and sustainable economic development as they lead to reduced human well-being
due to increased poverty and vulnerability of the affected populations. The intervention kebele is
characterized by high mean temperatures, low, erratic and unpredictable rainfall, and patchy
vegetation. The scope for sedentary arable farming is limited. Long-term meteorological data
does not exist for the kebele, but community perceptions suggest that rainy seasons have
shortened during the last decade—with rains starting later and ending earlier—and that rain
frequency, distribution and predictability is decreasing. Overall there is a perception of
increasingly erratic climate variability, further exacerbated by a myriad of other under-lying
factors (limited community access to infrastructure, resources and information; limited
community access to educational opportunities; and increased population pressure and conflict),
creating vulnerability.
The indigenous water and pasture management systems are the entry points to communities and
usually ensure that the traditional rights of access are adhered to. Indigenous rangeland
management knowledge (as used by herders) is the product of environmental management over
time and has shown its usefulness in the face of modern interventions, climate change and other
environmental changes. Indigenous institutions form the principal mechanism for allocating
rights to use land and water resources. The manner in which these institutions exercise their roles
has major implications for the use and management of land and water resources.
The pastoralist communities in the target kebele have accumulated centuries of experience and
knowledge about resource management through their long traditional institutions (UGAs,
EEGOs, jiffos, HogamiyahaOlahas, local rangers (guardians), Ella/Ollok owners, etc). In the
target kebele, traditional institutions are run almost exclusively by older men who make
decisions that affect everyone else in society. They set rules and regulations that forbid
inappropriate practices, they ensure that rangeland resources are used and maintained properly.
The leadership negotiates with neighboring groups on the use of water and pasture and allocates
range and water resources. Their key strategy is managing mobility; they decide if, when and
where the community should move. Traditional management of pastoralist rangelands depends
on careful and wise use of community knowledge. The main consideration is availability of
pasture and water. To ensure the availability of good pasture, pastoralists practice herd splitting
and range burning. Herd splitting conserves and safeguards range resources from being
degraded and overgrazed and reduce competition among various livestock age groups. Herds
and flocks are broadly split into base and satellite herds.
Water sources in the kebeles include natural (rivers, springs, waterholes) and constructed sources
(shallow wells, boreholes, dams, ponds, sand dams, subsurface dams and berkas, which are
underground cisterns are common among these pastoralists. Rivers and springs are open to all,
whereas boreholes and dams might be managed by government institutions or on community
level, and shallow wells and berkas are often private. Those people who control a particular
water-point also control the surrounding pastures. These differences in tenure have implications
for water and rangeland management.
The pastoral production systems have always relied upon surface and ground water sources.
Water points are important not only in terms of the grazing, which they permit in their vicinity,
but also as transit points for animals on migration from one grazing area to another. Such
reliable transit water points can be extremely important in permitting the movement of livestock,
especially in terms of drought, from poor to good rangelands. In the absence of such water
points, herds can be cut off and suffer great losses.

There are no permanent natural surface water sources in the project area. Communities mainly
use water from shallow wells and scoop holes in dry river beds, birkas, boreholes and balleys
(traditional community ponds in natural depressions. women and children are responsible for
fetching water. Water access, also in comparison with national averages, is poor.
During the wet season most communities can collect water from nearby balleys, birkas and
shallow wells. During the dry season trips up to six hours have to be undertaken to collect water
because water levels drop (ERCS 2014).
According to the ECRS (2014), water tables are receding deeper, and springs and wells are
discharging smaller amounts of water or completely drying up.
Water is mostly used for domestic purposes and watering livestock. Water quality in the river
beds declines during the dry season. As the water level lowers in the bed, less and less water is
available, and the taste and smell deteriorate. In turn, water from ponds is very susceptible to
contamination, especially because of livestock entering the facilities. Next to erosion, waste
dumps are also contributing to land (and water) degradation. Waste dumping is widespread in the
wetlands and streams. After disposal, this waste is transported by flash floods, and pollutes the
downstream rivers and wetlands. Further, birkas in the project area are mostly uncovered,
without a silt trap, filtration or any other water treatment mechanism, which results in high
degrees of contamination and loss of water through evaporation.
Low water quality has multiple and severe impacts on livelihoods. The time spent on fetching
water is high, water-borne and water related diseases such as diarrhoea and malaria are prevalent,
and the recurrence of losses of crops and livestock is high.
Field observations indicate that a large number of water structures are non-functional, often
broken-down due to poor maintenance. Siltation and eutrophication are the most visible
challenges. These are often forebears of worse. Many sources are contaminated with human and
animal feces, and thereby probably loaded with large numbers of life-threatening pathogens.

3. OBJECTIVES AND MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF THE PROJECT

3.1. Objective of the project
The objective of this project is to rehabilitate six water-sources/water-points and make ready for
use in Mencha kebele
3.2. Major Planned Activities and Implementation Schedule
6. IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES
From the outset, the PAC facilitated the kebele community to identify and prioritize resource
rehabilitation and enhancement activities and facilitating the development of detailed community
action plans for the implementation of prioritized activities.

Accordingly, PACT/SIPED will provide hand tools and technical support, whereas the
community will contribute labor and locally available materials during activity implementation.
Government partners are also expected to provide technical support and monitor the progress and
impact of activities.
The project will craft community bylaws for sustainable water and grazing management and
enforced through collaboration of indigenous and state institutions.
As legally/locally recognized entity, the project holder has a written constitution (bylaw), sound
internal management systems, policies and procedures along with organizational structure that
clarifies roles and responsibilities, methods of planning and organizing activities, guiding project
management, procurement, property management, record keeping, partnerships, financial
accountability, and transparency including disclosure of sources of funding and utilization of
funds.
The project holder is also well aware that the specific nature of the in-kind grant required from
SIPED II/USAID give due emphasis on P&I, neutrality, transparency, etc. Hence, while
implementing the project all community members who might benefit from the project (elders,
women, youths, PWDs) will be provided an opportunity to participate in the life cycle of the
project.
Activities like clearing bush infestation, selective bush thinning of lands that are being
encroached with invasive bushes to enhance the pasture productivity and improve pasture
availability for weak animals, calves and milking cows that cannot travel long distances during
dry season.
 Major Planned Activities and Implementation Schedule
List of Major Activities Unit Quantity Implementation Schedule Responsible Remark
O N D J F M A M J J A S person
Establish or activate the water, sanitation ppts 40 communiti
and hygiene (WASH) es
committee/WASHCO sensitization,
strengthening
Identify and select river beds, birkas, No. water- 6 WASHCO
boreholes and balleys which require points and Woreda
rehabilitation water
development
office
Conduct WASHCO-government joint No. of 40 WASHCO
consultation meetings beneficiarie
s
Community or social mobilization for No. of 500
conservation of water-points perimeters, beneficiari WASHCO
cleaning and fencing, digging, and so es
forth

Procurement of hand tools for water 500 100 digging

points rehabilitation No. of units PACT/SIPE iron, 100 axes,
D 100 shovels,
100 rakes, 100
pick
axe/machete
Implement effective water-sources or No, of 6 Community,
water-points rehabilitation water- PACT/SIPE
points/sourc D and
es woreda
experts
4. EXPECTED OUTPUTS
This project has an expected output that 100 households have improved their skills and knowledge of managing rangelands

5. BUDGET
The total estimated cost of the project is 885,500.00 ETB. Of the total budget 90% will be covered from the small grants fund. The remaining
10% will be covered by community contribution and from other sources in the form of labor, in kind and cash. The table below show the
detail cost items, the disbursement schedule and source of funds.
Financial information and Cost Share

STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONS FOR PEACE

AND DEVELOPMENT (SIPED II)

Component II of SIPED II Small Grants Fund of Activity Budget Template

Proposed Activity Name: Improved water-sources management in the Mencha Kebele
Proposed Location Kebele: Mencha, Woreda: Mieso, Zone: Siti Zone, Region: Somali National Regional state
Proposed Starting Date(s): Jan.1, 2019
Detail Budget Breakdown
S. Unit Disbursement Schedule (Month) Budget
Description Unit Quantity Total
No. Cost O N D J F M A M J J A S Notes/Assumptions/Source
Establish or
activate
The whole cost by the
1 WASHCO , ppts 1000 40 40,000
community
sensitization
meetings
WASH specialist
identifies, selects
No. of
and justifies the
consultant 20 4000 80,000.00
rehabilitation
days
needs of six
water-points
Community
mobilization for
user based tariff
system, tariff
setting for No cost, fully managed by
creating sense of WASHCO
ownership,
maintenance and
creating social
fund account
Water technician No. of 6 80,000.00 480,000
 assigned for water-
technical advice points
and rehabilitation
operation of the
identified water-
points
2 Shovels/spade Units 200 100 20,000.00
3 Axe Units 200 100 20,000.00
6 Machetes Units 200 100 20,000.00
Pick-axe Units 200 100 20,000.00
Digging irons Units 200 100 20,000.00
One Community
no. of
mobilization at 5 10,000.00 50,000.00
months
the local level
Monitoring and No. of
5000 4 20,000.00
evaluation months
Sub-total 770,000.00
VAT 115,500.00
Grand total 885,500.00
6.
IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES
From the outset, the project holder well noted that the role of the woreda’s PAC will be to facilitate the
PNRM process to bringing together community structures, relevant local government offices and private
sector to reflect, plan and implement the rangeland management which end up with the development of
Joint Community Action Plan and provide the necessary technical support to formulate project proposal
to access the SGF.
As legally/locally recognized entity, the project holder has a written constitution (bylaw), sound internal
management systems, policies and procedures along with organizational structure that clarifies roles and
responsibilities, methods of planning and organizing activities, guiding project management,
procurement, property management, record keeping, partnerships, financial accountability, and
transparency including disclosure of sources of funding and utilization of funds.
The project holder is also well aware that the specific nature of the in-kind grant required from SIPED
II/USAID give due emphasis on P&I, neutrality, transparency, etc. Hence, while implementing the project
all community members who might benefit from the project (elders, women, youths, PWDs) will be
provided an opportunity to participate in the life cycle of the project.

7. MONITORING, EVALUATION, RESULTS AND LEARNING

The project holder has previous experience in monitoring and evaluation of similar projects and tracking
of progress/results.
The progress of the project is monitored and evaluated by community’s representatives, woreda’s experts,
and pact through participatory methods on monthly bases.
As part of effective joint project management exercise, corporate governance and leadership, the project
holder will work in collaboration with relevant stakeholders to ensure community participation and
inclusive implementation, monitoring and evaluation. To facilitate the process information generated by
the project will be shared publicly in timely, accessible and understandable formats, including the use of
open source formats and the availability of bulk data that can be reused by the public.
The project is monitored on monthly bases and evaluated at the end of the project by multi-
disciplinary experts. Based on the results of the project result learning activities will be held.
Hence, using its experience the project holder will prepare a monthly work plan and submit for the PAC
approval and then to the concerned CSO, the Woreda/Kebele Environment Protection office and Pact
Ethiopia; as per the plan:
• Organize regular monthly meeting to all concerned to review the status of project implementation.
• Conduct joint monitoring visit and wherever necessary prepare and share monitoring reports to
concerned bodies
• Produce regular monthly report and submit to all to update status (progress made, achievement
against plan, challenges and measures taken)
• As part of the monitoring plan the project holder develop a mile stone, clearly state how, who, when
and frequency of monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the project.

8. SUSTAINABILITY
The sustainability of this project relies upon the existing community structures and traditional
institutions. Therefore, capacity building of these structures at different levels, and expanding the
available and potential partnerships like government, CBOs, and NGOs is essential. A co-
financing opportunity is also to be searched out. Further, the project will start a community
social development fund immediate to the launching of this project.

9. APPLICATION CERTIFICATION
I the undersigned hereby would like to certify that:
1. The information contained in the project application is complete and accurate.
2. The applicant agrees to comply with all Federal and Regional policies and requirements
imposed on the project funded in full or part by the SGF.
3. The applicant acknowledges that the assistance made available through the SSG funding will
not be used to substantially reduce prior levels of local, (NON-SSG funding) financial
support for community development activities.
4. The applicant fully understands that any facility built or equipment purchased with SG funds
shall be maintained and/or operated for the approved use throughout its economic life.
5. On behalf of the applying community structure, we the undersigned authorize and submit this
application for SG funding. (DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED Minute Action and/or
written PAC Approval signed by the Chairman of the PAC).

AuthorizedRepresentative:__________________ Endorsed by:___________________

Title: ________________________ Title: PAC Chairman
Signature: ____________ Signature: _______________
DATE: _______________ DATE: _______________