Training on

Roads for Water and

Resilience

 

SOCIAL IMPACT OF ROADS FOR WATER HARVESTING: EXPERIENCES FROM TIGRAY

MethodologyParticipatory Rural Appraisal

Transect walk in Megab

The PRA included:• participatory

mapping• transect walk, • wealth ranking

matrix, • gender matrix, • seasonal calendars

and• Interviews with

leaders and officials at the wereda, tabia and regional level.

MethodologyParticipatory Rural Appraisal

Participants of the PRA included:• both men and women, • representatives of

different wealth groups• members of

households that practice irrigated agriculture and other who only practiced rainfed agriculture

• individuals particularly affected by the road

MethodologyHousehold surveys

Household survey was conducted in two locations within the project area1. Sinqata: 65 hhs2. Gra Ares: 65 hhs

Coping strategy matrix

Rich (33%) Medium (41%) Poor (26%)o Can hire daily labour to work on

water conservation works (e.g. digging trenches)

o Can use standard fertiliser and plough four times

o Can build stronger protection at their houses

o Can react quickly 9e.g. rebuild a house within a short period of time

o Can rent somewhere else if their house is damaged

o Can employ Labour and work themselves

o Plough 3 times o Use non-standard

fertiliser

o Have to do the work themselves (which has an opportunity cost)

o Only plough 2 times o Can use only little

fertilizero Cannot remedy a

problem quicklyo Cannot protect

themselves so well from flooding,

o Cannot rebuild their house because they have no savings

Run off impacts

During the last big rain (year) which of your assets have been affected by

Female 

Male 

Count  % Count

P%

Flood Logging (rainfed land)

No 0 0 0 0

Yes 24 68.6 43 45.7

Siltation (rainfed land)No 0 0 0 0

Yes 24 68.6 43 45.7

Erosion (rainfed land)No 0 0 0 0

Yes 15 42.8 24 25.5

Flood Logging (grazing land)

No 0 0 0 0

Yes 24 68.6 34 36.2

Silted (grazing land)No 0 0 0 0

Yes 22 62.8 34 36.2

Erosion

No 0 0 0 0

Yes 10 28.6 10 10.6

House Flood Logging

No 0 0 0 0

Yes 11 31.4 21 22.3

Gender analysis of road constructionimpact 2013

 

Female-headed households

Male-headed households

Mean MeanPlot size lost (no cultivation)

0.16 0.08

Yield loss in kg/ha

126 138

Yield loss in ETB/ha

1089 1192

Figure 1: Crop Yield Assessment from 2008 to 2014, tabia Sinqata, Tigary

wheat q/ha

Barely q/h Mixed q/h Teff q/ha Maize q/ha Sorghum q/ha

Bean q/ha Chickpea q/ha

Grass pea q/ha

y2008 26 21 8.5 8.5 32 2 5 4 2

y2009 32 23 20 8 36 5 6.5 4 2.5

y2010 20 16 10 6 10.5 4 3 3 4

y2011 30 20 26 4 8 4 3.5 5 4

y2012 16 12 10.5 4 10 6 4 2 2

y2013 9 5 8 3.5 4 5 2 3 1.5

y2014 29 18 29.5 12.5 24 9 8 7 4

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

37.5

Crop yield assessment from 2008 to 2014

y2008y2009y2010y2011y2012y2013y2014

wheat q/ha Barely q/h Mixed q/h Teff q/ha Maize q/ha Sorghum q/ha

Bean q/ha Chickpea q/ha

Grass pea q/ha

Normal 20 16 8 14 22 4 4 4.5 3

Best 29 24 12 26 30 6 5.5 6 4

Poor 8 5 3.5 3.5 4 2 2 2 1.5

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

Season Yield variability

Normal Best Poor

Figure 2: Crop Yield Assessment from 2008 to 2014, tabia Gra Ares, Tigary

wheat q/ha Barely q/h Mixed q/h Teff q/ha Maize q/ha Sorghum q/ha

Bean q/ha Chickpea q/ha

Grass pea q/ha

y2008 20 16.5 14 8 14 4 6 4 2

y2009 23 17 17.5 10 7 5.5 8 6 0

y2010 28 24 23.5 10.5 16 3.5 9 7 5

y2012 10 9 7 4 8 2 5 3 4

y2013 9.5 5 8.5 4 10 6 4 3 2

y2014 25 21.5 18.5 10.5 25 8 9.5 7.5 6

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

Crop Yield Assessment from 2008 to 2014

Axis Title

Season Yield variability

wheat q/ha Barely q/h Mixed q/h Teff q/ha Maize q/ha Sorghum q/ha

Bean q/ha Chickpea q/ha

Grass pea q/ha

Normal 18 15 8 13 14 4 5 5 3

Best 28 24 10 18.5 25 8 8 7 6

Poor 9 5 4 7 8 3 2 3 2

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

27.5

Yield impacts of road form water in Sinqata

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

12.11

15.22

8.50

11.61

7.39

4.56

15.67

With intervention

Yield(qt/ha

During road construction

Yield impacts of road form water in Gra Ares

20082009

20102011

20122013

2014

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

9.83 10.44

14.06

6.115.78

5.78

14.61

Yield(qt/ha

During road construction

With intervention

Note that 2014 was a year with very low rainfall

S.N

Constraints to crop production

Rank Rank up to 6

1 Low soil fertility 3 62 Pests and diseases 2 33 Lack of improved

varieties 2 4

4 Lack of access to inputs

- -

5 High cost of inputs 3 56 High climate variability - -7 Low availability of

water 1 2

8 Road induced water over flooding /erosion

1 1

Severity of the problem 1= High, 2=Medium 3= Low

Crop production constraints

Conclusions and way forward (1)

• Water from roads have mixed impacts on agricultural development, both positive and negative

• There is a possibility of maximizing the benefits of water from road with locally adaptive cost effective water management practices

• To promote such technologies adopting and scaling out plausible approach is paramount important

• Call for site-specific participatory study and design using a multidisciplinary approach by teams of specially trained and oriented natural and social scientists in combination with local farmers, resource users and organizations.

• Include roads in water harvesting and soil and water conservation schemes

• Indigenous technical knowledge needs to be taken seriously

• Platform is very important for joint planning, implementation and up scaling

• Stakeholder analysis and social engagement mechanisms should be designed inclusively

• Inclusive and dynamic framework for road planners and designers is required

Conclusions and way forward (2)

Supported by:

Developed by: