Integrated Water Resources

Management (IWRM)
Intervention Plan for Legedadi
Water Supply Dam Catchment

Mar 14, 2023

Addis Ababa
Presentation outline

 Introduction
 Description of Lagadadi
Water Supply Dam
Catchment
 Main findings
 Proposed watershed dev’t
interventions and costs
 Implementation modality?
 Conclusion and
Recommendations
Introduction
Land degradation can have
far-reaching and severe
impacts on
 Society 1. Loss of Arable Land: (productivity > water, food insecurity and malnutrition)
 Economy and 2. Biodiversity Loss: Loss of habitats for plant and animal.
 Environment 3. Desertification: Fertile land is transformed into desert.
4. Soil Erosion: loss of topsoil and reduced soil fertility; sedimentation of water
bodies, impacting water quality (pollution) and aquatic ecosystems.
5. Water Scarcity: land's ability to retain water, reduced groundwater recharge
and increased water runoff.
6. Climate Change: Release stored carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
7. Economic Losses: Reduces the income of farmers and pastoralists.
8. Social Conflicts: Competition for dwindling resources, such as water and arable
land, can lead to social conflicts and displacement of communities.
9. Reduced Resilience to Natural Disasters: make regions more vulnerable to
natural disasters like droughts and floods, increasing the severity of such
events.
 The main casual factors for land
Casual factors: degradation in the Legedadi
catchment include:
 Natural
1. Deforestation:
 human-induced
2. Overgrazing: Excessive livestock grazing > vegetation
cover, and erosion.
3. Unsustainable Agriculture: Poor land management
practices (monoculture, pesticide and herbicides use,
and inadequate soil conservation measures
4. Soil Erosion accelerated by human activities
5. Climate Change:
6. Land Mismanagement: Poor land use planning,
inadequate land tenure systems, and insufficient land
management policies.
7. Population Pressure: poverty, increased land use,
deforestation, and overexploitation of resources,
Integrated water resources management (IWRM)
IWRM is a process which promotes the coordinated development and
management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the
resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without
compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems

IWRM is based on the three principles:

 Social equity,
 Economic efficiency and
 Environmental sustainability
 Im B io -
pro
v t he
sup e wa tify sical s &
ply ter
n
ide Phy nitie Study objectives:
rtu
nd zard

p o
op • To prepare an IWRM
ce d ha

intervention development plan

ints
ed n an
l a

for Lagadadi Water Supply Dam

stra
To atio
u

con
Catchment
ad
r

Community-
g r
de

level
objectives:

Ide
opp onstr

nti omic s &

w

eco uniti s
t in e
flo

fy S
ort aint
c
im duc

n
o ci
sed To re
en

o-
e
To
rec prop
om os
o il
s
ce the con men e fea
u na serv datio sible
red n in tur
o
T sio hed al r ation ns fo
ero ters e so of r
wa urc
es
 Specific activities
• Analyze the biophysical & socio-economic conditions
relevant for planning;
• Analyze the status of soil erosion and land degradation;
• Prepare a micro- Carryout Land Capability Classification
watershed level • Undertake problem analysis and propose appropriate
management integrated watershed management measures and
implementation plan strategies along with responsible institutions
• Identify key project/intervention assumptions and risk
• Propose a participatory monitoring and evaluation
activities
• Identify the livestock production systems along with
their impacts on land degradation, then
• Design strategies how livestock development should be
integrated to improve household food security and
• Estimate cost for all livelihood improvement.
recommended activities
 Scope of the study
The study was limited to the Lagadadi catchment and its 24
sub-catchments, focusing on development of the plan
(biophysical, and financial analysis). And, it will focus in detail
on few selected sub-catchments.
Description of Lagadadi Water
Supply Dam Catchment
Location and extent
Zone or Kifle
ketema Woreda Kebelle Area (ha) %
Oromia cities Sendafa city Dabe Muda Godo 3416.5 16.9
Girar Berak 3114.5 15.4
Sendafa Bake 01 1060.6 5.2
Sendafa Bake 02 418.1 2.1
Tabo 444.7 2.2
Tukkiye 1180.8 5.8
Sendafa city Total 9635.2 47.5
24
Semen Shewa Berek Bura Berak 401.9 2.0
Fitche Lencha Choba Bululta 3067.7 15.1
Meta Guta Kombolle 760.5 3.8
Ripha Dambel 332.1 1.6
Berek Total 4562.1 22.5
Sheger Kura Dire Dire 01 376.5 1.9
Jida Kifle
Ketema Dire Sokoru 1069.6 5.3
Dire Total 1446.0 7.1
• The Lagadadi catchment falls within 17 kebelles
Kura Jida Mugaro Habiru Aba Mala 496.0 2.4 (13 Rural and 4 Urban kebelles)
Sendafa Bake 03 542.8 2.7 • 4 Kebelles belong to Berek Woreda /Fitche
Sire Goyo 740.1 3.7 • 6 kebelles to Sendafa city,
Kura Jida Total 1778.9 8.8
Walgawo Lege Bolo Lege Bari 2717.3 13.4
• 2 kebelles to Dire woreda
Walgawo 127.5 0.6 • 3 kebelles to Kura jida woreda
Walgawo Total 2844.7 14.0 • 2 Kebelle to Wolgawo woreda
Sheger Kura Jida Kifle Ketema Total 6069.6 29.9 • Total Area: 20,267 ha (202 Km2)
Total 20267.0
 Gully erosion
Lagadadi Water Supply Dam Catchment (Major
problems, examples)
 Waterlogging or problem of drainage
 Soil erosion
 Land use change/land use conflict/Urban rural
conflict/land grabbing
 Low local capacity.
 Low crop and livestock production and productivity.
Left: Hand-dug well, and middle: deep well and right: cattle drinking manually from hand dug well.

Remnant patch of Juniperus procera in Shurube/row cultivation (traditional drainage

the catchment system) without use of BBM
Methods

 We analyzed/prepared /improved
 Slope
 Soil map (from Awash to SMU)
 Land use land cover mapping (LULC)
 Land capability classification (LCC)
 Stream ordering
 Climate analysis/future climate
Resolution Temporal
 Soil loss/Sediment analysis Types of data
Landsat 8 OLI 30 m 2022
Source
http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
and Google earth engine
SRTM-30 30 m 2000 http://glovis.usgs.gov/

WoldClim 30 arc sec https://www.worldclim.org/

(monthly) data/worldclim21.html
CHIRPS daily 0.05o (~ 1981-20122
5km) ftp://ftp.chg.ucsb.edu/ pub/org/chg/pro
ENACTS daily ~ 4km 1981-2022 ducts/ CHIRPS1.8/africa_daily/tifs/ africa
http://iri.columbia.edu/
_p05_tif/
resources/enacts/)/ NMA map room
Main Findings
Topography 1.0 Slope

S. no. 0 Description Slope class Area (ha) %

1 Flat or almost flat 0 to 3 7,366.7 36.35
2 Gently sloping 3 to 8 7,949.5 39.22
3 Sloping 8 to 15 2,577.2 12.72
4 Moderately steep 15 to 30 1,589.7 7.84
5 Steep 30 to 50 647.7 3.20
6 Very steep > 50 136.2 0.67

Total 20,267.0 1.0

2.0 Soil
• Most of the soils are deep to very deep with
the exception of the miscellaneous land
(vale, river and escarpments).
• Relatively very shallow soils have been
observed in steeper slopes
• Moderately deep ones have been observed
at flat to moderately steep slopes
• Most of the soils are dominated by heavy
textured Vertisols

S. no. Reference soil

group Area (Ha's) %
1 Vertisol 15,578.1 76.9
2 Leptosol 2,571.6 12.7
3 Cambisol 1,691.8 8.3
4 Luvisol 425.6 2.1
Soil map of the Lagadadi catchment Left: (source: Awash Total area 20,267.0 100.0
Basin Study database); Right: FAO-ISRIC soils database
Soil mapping unit

The soil mapping unit (SMU) with

Geo-pedologic approach (improved
units). Data was extracted from the
soil datasets.
3.0 Land use land cover
• Eucalyptus plantation is dominant tree/vegetation found in the
study area.
• There are very few natural remnant trees (e.g. Juniperus
procera) which survived on hill sides
• The dominant LULC type in the catchment is intensively
cultivated land
Area
S.no. LULC code Description Ha's %
1 C1 Intensively Cultivated Land 11,549.5 56.99
2 GL Grass Land 3,685.2 18.18
3 S Rural Settlement 1,485.7 7.33
Dense Forest (Eucalyptus
4 DFp plantation) 1,233.8 6.09
5 US Urban Settlement 1,168.7 5.77
6 WB Waterbody 374.6 1.85
7 BGL Bush Grass Land 190.1 0.94
8 DFc Dense Forest coppice 174.3 0.86
9 Bua Built-up Area (green-houses) 96.6 0.48
10 OGL Open Grass Land 87.5 0.43
11 Qu Quarry Area 67.9 0.34
12 BSL Bush Shrub Land 60.2 0.30
13 DBL Dense Bush Land 46.3 0.23
14 SF Sparse Forest 24.5 0.12
15 MFp Moderately Dense Forest land 22.3 0.11
Total 20267.0 100.00
 Grasslands (GL)

Intensively cultivated (C1)

Dense Forest Eucalyptus Plantation (DFp)

Rural Settlement (RS, eucalyptus tree as
a
fence and backyard)
 4.0 Land Capability Unit
• land is classified in different capability classes, which range
from I to VIII
• Land classes I up to IV are classified as capable for arable
agriculture and V and VIII for non-arable uses.
Slope Soil Past Water Surface
Area Infiltra Textur
S.n Mapping class dept erosio loggin stonine SCRC LCU
(ha) tion (I) e (T)
o. Unit (L) h (D) n (E) g (W) ss (S)
12,816.
1 Plane 6 2 1 1 2 1 7 0 IV IV(w)
2 Swale 1,517.1 2 1 1 2 1 7 0 IV IV(W)
3 Foot Slope 1,300.2 3 4 3 0 0 3 3 VII VII(E)
4 US 1,212.5 2 -99 2 -99 -99 -99 0 NA NA
5 Back Slope 1,153.3 4 4 3 0 0 3 3 VII VII(E)
6 Escarpment 801.4 6 5 4 0 0 3 3 VIII VIII(D)
7 Summit 662.6 2 3 2 1 1 7 0 IV IV(D,E)
8 WB 372.9 1 -99 0 -99 -99 -99 0 NA NA
9 Vale 99.8 4 4 4 0 0 3 3 VII VIII(E)
10 Flood Plane 90.8 1 1 0 2 1 7 0 IV IV(W)
11 Riser 61.7 4 5 4 0 0 3 3 VIII VIII(D,E)
12 Built-up 61.4 2 4 2 0 2 3 0 VII VI(D)
13 Rock 48.3 3 4 3 0 2 3 3 VII VII(E)
14 Settlement 34.2 2 3 2 1 1 3 0 IV IV(D,E)
15 Scarp 34.1 4 5 4 0 0 3 3 VIII VIII(D,E)
Total 20,267
 5.0 Climate
Rainfall
• The average annual rainfall (34 years) is 1,215 mm
• The main rainy season (known as Kiremt) between June and
September contributing about 73 % of the total annual
rainfall
• Dry season from October to January contributed (5%)
• The minor rainy season, locally known as Belg, contributing
(22%)
Std Std
Month Mean Min Max Range Median Dev Variance Error Kurto Skew Count Conf (95%) CV (%)
Jan 12.8 0.0 59.8 59.8 2.8 17.9 321 3.1 1.1 1.5 34 0.19 140.3
Feb 30.4 0.0 155.9 155.9 19.7 34.7 1207 6.0 3.6 1.6 34 0.37 114.4
Mar 61.8 0.0 248.9 248.9 49.3 52.7 2780 9.0 5.2 2.0 34 0.57 85.3
Apr 85.8 16.3 197.6 181.3 81.5 49.8 2480 8.5 -0.7 0.5 34 0.54 58.0
May 85.0 0.5 241.3 240.8 79.2 50.9 2587 8.7 1.3 0.8 34 0.55 59.8
Jun 144.6 64.5 271.1 206.6 143.2 53.6 2875 9.2 -0.3 0.5 34 0.58 37.1
Jul 270.1 180.1 428.0 247.9 270.3 53.8 2894 9.2 1.1 0.7 34 0.58 19.9
Aug 291.3 182.8 426.5 243.7 296.4 56.8 3228 9.7 -0.2 0.2 34 0.61 19.5
Sep 181.7 49.9 386.0 336.1 174.0 67.8 4590 11.6 1.1 0.7 34 0.73 37.3
Oct 34.2 0.0 126.9 126.9 29.5 32.1 1029 5.5 0.3 0.8 34 0.34 93.7
Nov 9.0 0.0 79.4 79.4 0.8 17.5 306 3.0 8.0 2.7 34 0.19 194.6
Dec 9.2 0.0 65.0 65.0 0.1 17.9 321 3.1 3.6 2.2 34 0.19 195.4
Annual 1215.8 945.3 1567.9 622.6 1196.9 157.4 24783 27.0 -0.3 0.4 34 1.69 12.9
Season 1 263.0 69.2 636.0 566.8 237.6 112.4 12629.7 19.3 2.4 1.1 34 1.21 42.7
Season 2 887.7 659.0 1157.8 498.8 888.9 120.8 14588.1 20.7 -0.1 0.3 34 1.30 13.6
 Temperature
• The maximum mean (31 years) monthly temperature
of the study area is 28 °C
• The minimum mean temperature is 12°C
• The mean minimum of minimum monthly temperature
is 8°C
• Monthly maximum of minimum temperature is 14.8 °C

Kurtosis

Skewne
Median

Std Dev

Varianc
CV
Range

Count
Month
Mean

Conf lvl (95%)

Error
(%)
Max
Min

Std

ss
e
Jan 18.3 16.9 19.4 2.5 18.4 0.7 0.5 0.13 -0.5 -0.5 31 0.01 4
Feb 19.2 17 20.9 3.8 19.1 1 1.1 0.19 -0.7 -0.3 31 0.01 5.4
Mar 21.1 19.4 22.2 2.9 21 0.7 0.5 0.13 -0.1 -0.5 31 0.01 3.5
Apr 22 20.3 24 3.7 22 0.8 0.6 0.14 0.5 0.2 31 0.01 3.4
May 22 20.8 23.1 2.3 22.1 0.5 0.2 0.08 1.6 -0.6 31 0.01 2.1
Jun 21.4 20.1 22.6 2.4 21.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 0 -0.2 31 0.01 2.5
Jul 20.3 19.2 21.5 2.4 20.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 -0.1 0.2 31 0.01 2.9
Aug 20.1 18.7 21.2 2.5 20 0.5 0.2 0.09 1.2 -0.1 31 0.01 2.4
Sep 20 19.3 20.9 1.7 20.1 0.5 0.2 0.08 -0.7 -0.1 31 0.01 2.3
Oct 20.2 19.3 21.1 1.8 20.2 0.5 0.2 0.09 -0.7 0 31 0.01 2.4
Nov 19.3 18.2 20.3 2.1 19.2 0.6 0.3 0.11 -1 0.1 31 0.01 3
Dec 18.3 16.8 19.7 2.9 18.3 0.6 0.4 0.11 0.8 0.1 31 0.01 3.4
Annual 20.2 19.4 20.9 1.5 20.2 0.3 0.1 0.06 0.1 -0.1 31 0 1.7
LR
21.7 20.5 22.9 2.4 21.7 0.5 0.2 0.09 0.8 0.1 31 0.01 2.2
(MAM)
SR
19.3 18.6 20 1.4 19.3 0.4 0.2 0.07 -1.1 0.1 31 0 2.1
(OND)

The average monthly mean temperature (31 years) Mid of century RCP 4.5 (top row) and 8.5 (bottom row) Maximum
Temperature (TMAX) projection for Lagadadi catchment
Soil erosion modeling

6.0 R factor

Erosivity (R) values and classes top left: Moore (1979); top
Middle: global R (GloREDa) and top Right: Hurni (1985). In
addition, the erosivity (R) for the three methods is plotted.
Below left at individual scale and bottom right all rescaled to
the same value.
A=R*K*L*S*C*P
Where:
A = soil loss in tons per hectare per year
R = rainfall erosivity factor
K = soil erodibility factor
L = slope length factor
S = slope gradient factor
C = land cover factor
P = conservation practice factor
8.0 Soil erodability factor (k) using Williams equation
9.0 Soil loss (RUSLE)
Potential soil loss Difference in soil loss

SSY=0.005*20267+6; SSY= 107.335

ton/ha/yr (Haregeweyn et al., 2008)
SDR = 20,267 ^- 0.125; SDR = 0.289502
QS = E*SDR; QS = 14.81 * 0.289502; QS =
4.28 ton/ha/yr

Soil loss classes Actual loss Actual loss Potential Potential

S.no (ton/ha/yr) Severity levels (Ha’s) (%) loss (Ha’s) loss (%)
1 0-1 Very slight 12,347.01 60.92 3165.30 15.6
2 1-5 Slight 3,319.92 16.38 2777.85 13.7
3 5-15 Moderate 1,520.55 7.50 3207.87 15.8
potential_soil_loss = Hurni_f1 (R)* k_williams1 (K) *LS 4 15-30 High 772.02 3.81 2191.32 10.8
525.6 2.59 1440.18 7.1
Difference in soil loss =(actual – potential) after 5 30-50 Severe
1612.89 8.0
6 50-100 Very severe 590.13 2.91
classification 7 >100 Extremely severe 1,067.85 5.27 5747.67 28.4
Water body 123.92 0.61 123.92 0.6
20,267 100
7.0 Soil erosion severity/risk classes for Lagadadi catchment

S.no Soil loss Severity levels Ha’s %

classes
(ton/ha/yr)
1 0-1 Very slight 12,347.01 60.92
2 1-5 Slight 3,319.92 16.38
3 5-15 Moderate 1,520.55 7.50
4 15-30 High 772.02 3.81
5 30-50 Severe 525.6 2.59
6 50-100 Very severe 590.13 2.91
7 >100 Extremely 1,067.85 5.27
severe
Water body 123.92 0.61
20,267 100.0
10.0 Possible development options
• The flat to gentle slope together with the heavy clay soils contribute to the poor
drainage and waterlogging problems require drainage structures
• Proper conservation and land management practices are quite important mainly near
the reservoir area
• Area that have slopes greater than 15 % coupled with the high amount of rainfall and
shallow soil depth have severe soil erosion. Hence, they require SWC practices
• Physical/biol SWC structures are proposed:
• Graded bund and water disposal structures on cultivated lands
• Plantation/fertility management and terraces on hillsides
• Various technologies for gully rehabilitation, and
• Disposal structures for excess water disposing to safe outlets
 Land capability units (LCU) Land use land cover Slope

Interpretation unit
(land use land
cover, slope, and
land capability Stream order
units merged)
 11.0 Recommended SWC structures (see the word
document)

Bush
Slo grass Dense Forest Tot
pe land Bush shrub land Dense Bush land Grassland Intensively cultivated Open grass land Rural settlement +c al
Rec H H
LCC % Ha om a Recom a Recom Ha Recom Ha Recom Ha Recom Ha Recom Ha Recom Ha

• Grass strips/graded soil

bunds
IV(D,E • Enrichmt • Waterways & cutoff
) plantation drain •
• Waterways • Alley cropping Homestea •
• Cuttoff drain •Agronomic soil fertility d Enrichm 69
2 1 10 • Stock exclusion 21 357 mgmt 217 plantation 88 ent 7

•
Fertilizing/Manuring

• Forage shrub
plantion • Grass stripts
• Padocking/cut & • Agronomic practices
1 77 carry 14 • Soil fertility mgmt 0 91
IV(w)
• Stack exclusion
• Oversawing
legumes
• Cuttoff • • Graded soil bund
• Enrichment drain Fertilizing/Manuring • But-off drains & water • Fetility/Manuring
plantation • Stock ways • Planting forage •
• Waterways exclusion • Forage shrub • Alley cropping (Alley) Homestea • 14
• Cuttoff drain • Oversawing 329 plantation • Agronomic practices • Padocking 107 d Enrichm 33
2 0 34 • Stock exclusion 46 legumes 2 • Padock/cut & carry 9768 • Fertility mgmt 15 • Cut and carry 3 plantation 39 ent 4
12.0 Where to implement? We need to prioritize!

Intervention on the entire Legedadi catchment can be

challenging mainly due to
1) High cost
2) Large area
3) Limited capacity
4) Not all areas are priority for sediment reduction
for the Legedadi water supply reservoir

We proposed to limit VEI intervention to erosion hotspot

and high risk areas
1) Consider kebelles/sub-catchments near the reservoir
2) High erosion/soil loss/degradation
3) Accessibility and Labor availability
4) Acceptability
• Considering the level of degradation, sediment
delivery to the reservoir and accessibility, the
Lagadadi sub-catchments were prioritized and
ranked for IWRM intervention.

S.no. Sub-catchment Priority rank Area

1 19 1 st 580.7
2 16 2 nd 947.4
3 18 3 rd 510.1
4 20 4 th 578.6
5 21 5 th 607.4
6 24 6 th 718.5
7 17 7 th 393.7
Total 4,336.4
The Lagadadi selected sub-catchments with their respective
selected kebelles
Total Area
Sub catchment Kebelle Name Area (Ha's)
Lencha Choba Bululta 726.6
Mugaro Habiru Aba Mala 30.6
16 Ripha Dambel 190.2 947.4
Mugaro Habiru Aba Mala 255.0
17 Ripha Dambel 141.9 396.9
Lencha Choba Bululta 509.9
18 Mugaro Habiru Aba Mala 0.2 510.1
Mugaro Habiru Aba Mala 185.8
19 Sire Goyo 404.3 590.1
Lege Bolo Lege Bari 331.8
Lencha Choba Bululta 246.7
20 Sire Goyo 0.1 578.6
Dabe Muda Godo 60.2
Girar Berak 163.4
Lege Bolo Lege Bari 855.8
Sendafa Bake 03 243.4
21 Sire Goyo 1.7 1324.5
Lege Bolo Lege Bari 472.1
Sendafa Bake 03 243.4
24 Sire Goyo 1.7 717.1
Grassland
Access?
Berek woreda
13.0 Proposed interventions and cost
• Physical SWC
• Biological SWC
• Capacity building
Proposed physical SWC measures
Physical SWC

Bund on Terrace on Gully Disposal structures on

cultivated lands hillsides development cultivated & hillsides

- Graded Soil bund Terraces: Check dams:

- Stone faced soil bund - Gabion - Cutoff drain
- Hill side
- Graded Fanya-juu - Stone - Waterway
- Bench
- Brushwood
- Arc-weir
- Bamboo-mat

Stone bund

Bench terrace Gully treatment

SWC practices (some)

(a) Hillside terraces in a steep

slope,
(b) semi-circle terraces in
exclosures,
(c) deep trench for harvesting
water,
(d) exclosure in degraded steep
slopes,
(e) bench terraces and
(f) animal feed through a cut-
and-carry system after
exclosures.
 Proposed Biological SWC measures
Biological SWC

Gully Homestead
On cultivated lands On hillsides Area closure
development plantation

- Grass strips
- Stock exclusion
- Alley cropping
- Forage shrub plantation - Gulley side plantation
- Agronomic soil fertility mgmt
- Over sawing legumes - Grass gully stabilization
- Fertilizing/manuring
- Agro-forestry
- Bund stabilization

Stone bund

Bench terrace Gully treatment

Capacity building intervention Management
intervention
(1) costs to address capacity building through awareness • Per-diem,
raising, training, experience sharing and various • fuel, and
workshops • Top-up for
(2) Organize workshops, and project
coordination
(3) To building the capacity of project implementers though
staffs hosted in
materials, vehicles and office facilities including Hand tools
VEI-international
for various SWC measures
-Ethiopia office
 Activity General intervention Intervention Labor costs Material costs
Cultivated land Graded Soil bund 36,750,000

14.0 Summary of all the costs

Graded Fanya-juu 6,300,000
Stone face soil bund 35,750,000
78,800,000
Terrace on hillands Hill side terrace 2,975,000
Bench terrace 900,000
3,875,000
Gulley development Gabion Check Dam 2,168,800
Arc-weir check-dam 252,000
Loose Stone Check dam 347,000
Material Euro (1 Eur Brush Wood check Dam
Sand Bag Check Dam
289,200
1,171,143
S.no Activity cost (birr) Labor (birr) Total (Birr) = 56 birr) Bamboo-Mat Check-Dam 460,000
Gully wall Reshaping 4,265,000
Physical
Gully head treatment 304,000
SWC
9,257,143
1 Physical SWC 116,999,130 115,932,143 232,931,273 4,159,487 Material Physical Hard core
Sand for Arc-weir
98,100,000
1,200,000
Cement 1,000,000
Bamboo-Mat 920,000
2 Biological SWC 2,075,700 30,213,244 32,288,944 576,588 Sand Bag
Brush Wood
1,260,000
3,789,000
Gabion 8,756,530
Hand tools 1,973,600
3 Capacity building 18,608,000 332,286 116,999,130
Disposal structures Water way 14,400,000
Cutoff Drain 9,600,000
4 management 7,641,360 136,453 24,000,000 116,999,130
Sub-total for physical SWC 115,932,143 116,999,130
Exit cost Grand total for physical SWC
Nursery site upgrading 11,381,444
232,931,272.9

5 (lumpsum) 5,000,000 89,286 Biological SWC on CUL

Biological SWC on Hillside
6,450,000
3,120,000
Biological Gully Dev’t/ revegetation/ 4,450,000
SWC Planting of MPTS on Disposal Structures 486,000
Total 119,074,830 146,145,387 296,469,577 5,294,100 Agroforestry practices
Area Closure, rehabilitation of degraded lands and mgt
4,186,200
139,600
Material costs 2,075,700
30,213,244 2,075,700
Grand total for biological SWC 32,288,944
Awareness raising, training,
Capacity experience sharing and
building various workshops 15,408,000
Organize workshops 2,946,000
Capacity (material) 254,000
Capacity building sub-total 18,354,000 254,000
Grand total for capacity building 18,608,000.0
Management
costs Per-diem, fuel & top-up 7,641,360
Exit cost 5,000,000
Overall total 177,140,747 119,328,830
Grand total 296,469,577
How to implement it?
Implementation modality
Development intervention implementation plan and cost
• Implementation schedule/Window
1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter
SN Activity Unit
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 SWC On CUL
Graded Soil Bund Km
Stone Face Soil Bund Km
Stone Bund Km
2 SWC on Hillside
Hill side Terracing Km
Bench Terrace Km
3 Gully Dev’t
Gabion Check Dam M3
Stone Check dam M3
Brush Wood check Dam Lm
Arc Weir Check dam No
5 Disposal Structures
Water way Km
Cutoff Drain Km
6 Biological SWC
How do we implement it (structure)?

 Existing government (OANRB - woredas) structures coordinated by VEI.

 Existing Community Watershed Team (CWT),
 Kebelle Watershed Team (KWT) and
 Woreda Watershed Team (WWT) should be activated.

 MoU signed between OANRB and VEI.

 Selected woredas - main implementer.
 Focal person at woreda level, and VEI.
 OANRB (Region, Zone) VEI

Regional and zonal focal

persons

Selected Woredas

Woreda Cooperatives Woreda Steering comitee

VEI technical committee (VTC)

Office (WSC) Proposed institutional
linkage to implement
Woreda office of IWRM
agriculture

Natural Resources Case

Team

Woreda Technical
Committee (WTC/WWT)

Kebelle Watershed Team

(KWT)

Community Watershed
Community Watershed Site Forman’s
User’s Cooperatives
Team (CWT) (SF)
(CWUC)
Summary of the costs

Material Euro (1 Eur =

S.no Activity cost (birr) Labor (birr) Total (Birr) 56 birr)

1 Physical SWC 116,999,130 115,932,143 232,931,273 4,159,487

2 Biological SWC 2,075,700 30,213,244 32,288,944 576,588
3 Capacity building 18,608,000 332,286
4 Management 7,641,360 136,453
Exit cost
5 (lumpsum) 5,000,000 89,286

Total 119,074,830 146,145,387 296,469,577 5,294,100

Conclusion
 The area is degraded: hence an integrated water resources
management (IWRM) intervention is justified.

With the proposed interventions, strategies and budget:

 The 4,336 ha’s of land area proposed under intervention (only

prioritized area). All areas requiring intervention = 18,671.5 ha’s
 The target set by VEI (5-10% sediment reduction) can be achieved
with in the 4 years period
 Crop production and productivity can be improved
 Improved conservation of natural resources can be achieved (forest
cover, biodiversity, etc)
 Capacity will be developed (woreda, kebelle and communities)
 Recommendation
The major recommendations are as follows:
 The main problem in the plane areas of the catchment is waterlogging or poor drainage. Hence,
appropriate disposal structures while conserving water and soil should be put in place.
 Appropriate action is required to be undertaken with high emphasis to areas showing higher
erosion rate
 It is recommended that notable action has to be taken in the important parts of the catchment
based on the land capability unit
 The study observed that the current forest development program in the catchment is virtually low.
Thus, it is suggested that forest development and integration of agro-forestry system shall get due
attention in the study area
 It is suggested that the catchment management effort need be based on integrated and watershed
logic approach with respect to sub catchments levels
 Farmers should be advised to practice cut-and-carry system, instead of free grazing in some areas
even though there are good practices in the grasslands along swales
 Awareness training regarding the benefits of cut-and-carry system (agreement enrich for free
grazing) and SWC should be provided to the farmers.
 Thank you
for listening!