WORKSHOP ON THE EXPERIENCE OF WATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGY IN EAST SHEWA AND ARSI … · 2013-07-18 · WORKSHOP ON THE EXPERIENCE OF WATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGY IN EAST SHEWA AND

WORKSHOP ON THE EXPERIENCE OF WATER HARVESTING

TECHNOLOGY IN EAST SHEWA AND ARSI ZONES

Proceedings of a Workshop

February 23-24, 2006

Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre

Organised by Project for Irrigation Farming Improvement

(IFI Project, OIDA-JICA) and

Project on Strengthening Technology Development, Verification, Transfer and Adoption through Farmers Research Groups

(FRG Project, EIAR-OARI-JICA)

Published March 2006 Cover Participants visiting different water harvesting sites during the

workshop Editing Yusuf Kedir, and Kiyoshi Shiratori © EIAR, OARI, OIDA and JICA 2006

Workshop on the Experience of Water Harvesting Technology in East Shewa and Arsi Zones: 23-24 February 2006

1

Contents

Acronyms...................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 Keynote Speech............................................................................................................ 5 1. Experiences of Adama Area Development Program in Water Harvesting Technology ................................................................................................................... 9 2. Water Harvesting Experiences of Self Help Development International Dodota Project......................................................................................................................... 15 3. Implementing Drip Irrigation: Water Harvesting and Utilization Project......... 24 4. Implementing Water Harvesting Structures for Integrated Watershed Management: experiences of J-Green and Melkassa Research Center................... 39 5. Experiences of Oromia Irrigation Development Authority (OIDA) and Irrigation Farming Improvement Project (IFI-JICA) on WHT................................................. 49 Minute on the discussion held on February 23, 2006 .............................................. 55 Minutes of the discussion on February 24, 2006...................................................... 57 Minutes of the discussions on February 24, 2006/06/21 .......................................... 60 Recommendations...................................................................................................... 60 WHT Workshop Schedule.......................................................................................... 61 General guideline for preparation of paper and presentation for the workshop .... 62 Attendee List.............................................................................................................. 67


2

Acronyms ABP Area based programme ADB African Development Bank ADLI Agricultural Development Led Industrialisation ADP Area Development Programme ARDP Agricultural and Rural Development Office ASSP Agricultural Sector Support Programme CCF Christian Children’s Fund CIS Corrugated iron sheet DA Development Agent EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research FDS Family Drip System FRG Farmer Research Group HH Household IFI Irrigated Farming Improvement (Project) JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KA Kebele Administration MARC Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development OARI Oromia Agricultural Research Institute OIDA Oromia Irrigation Development Authority OIDA-CB Oromia Irrigation Development Authority-Central Branch PA Peasant Association PE Poly ethylene PSNP Productive Safety Net Programme PVC Polyvinyl chloride RWH Rain Water Harvesting SG2000 Sasakawa Global 2000 SMS Subject Matter Specialist SNNP Southern Nations USAID United State Agency for International Development WHT Water Harvesting Technology WV World Vision


3

Introduction

This workshop on Water Harvesting Technologies (WHT), held on February 23-24 2006, was a first attempt to provide major stakeholders who were operating in the field of WHT an opportunity in one way or another to exchange experiences gained and lessons learnt in their activities in east Shewa and Arsi Zones. Efficient use of WHT can provide farmers in the area, where unreliable rainfall and moisture stress is the most priority issues for agricultural production, increase production thus better nutrition and income. A diverse group of participants from different organization, government offices, NGOs, farmers union and farmers, gathered at Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre, to share field experiences and lessons learnt in two days of presentations, discussions and field visit. The workshop was organised by: - Project on Irrigation Farming Improvement (IFI Project), which is jointly

implemented by Oromia Irrigation Development Authority (OIDA) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), facilitates rehabilitation and improving irrigated agriculture in the Central Rift Valley since September 2005; and

- Project on Strengthen Technology Development, Verification, Transfer and Adoption through Farmers Research Groups (FRG Project), which is jointly implemented by Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Oromia Agricultural Research Institute (OARI) and JICA, promotes participatory research and innovative farming in the Central Rift Valley since July 2004.

We werepleased to have 53 participants, 5 from ministries, 14 from research, 21 from local government offices, 6 from NGOs, 6 were farmers and 1 from a donor agency. WHT has been one of the core interventions by the government and NGOs in the area. There are different types of WHT such as water harvesting pond, ground tank, treadle pump, drip irrigation and others in combination with high value production mainly vegetables and fruits. The workshop was convened to grasp what were the types of technologies and approaches being introduced to the farmers and what were the outcomes and their constraints. The workshop was expected to consolidate experience of different stakeholders and their constraints. Although, there were major players on WHT in the area but the workshop investigated only a part of the whole issues on WHT. It was rather regarded as a start for more close communication and collaboration among the


4

stakeholders to maximise the impact through more coordinated interventions which were previously made individually. These proceedings make available to persons who could not attend the workshop what was presented and discussed. Since this was a first WHT stakeholder meeting in the area, the information here is more indicative than conclusive. We hope that this report will heighten stakeholders’ interest in exchanging information and collaborative activities where it is possible for better farmer practices. The papers were prepared in English by contributors based on what they presented their experiences in Amharic during the workshop. We thank all the staffs of IFI and FRG Projects for their effort to prepare and manage the workshop. Special thanks go to Dr. Fasil, Centre Manager of Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre (MARC) for accepting the idea of the workshop and allow us to use the centre’s facility. We thank also the catering staffs of MARC for their services for food and refreshment. We appreciate all the participants of the workshop who contributed to the discussions. This workshop has brought a considerable amount of information on what is happening on WHT in the area and shown a possibility of further advancement through linking some of our activities. We are pleased to share the following information with readers and we look forward to increasing production and income of farmers through WHT in the Central Rift valley.

The Editors


5

Keynote Speech

Lakew Desta

Water Harvesting Coordinator Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Distinguished Workshop Participants! Ladies and Gentlemen! I feel honoured and extremely delighted to make a keynote speech on this important experience-sharing workshop. Also I would like to thank the organizers for giving me this opportunity. In the country's ADLI policy and food security programs water is considered as one of the three pillars (land, labour and water) for development. Although the total surface and groundwater potential of the country is estimated at more than 120 billion cubic meter, there is a serious problem in terms of access. Out of the total 4.25million hectare irrigation potential it is only 247,500ha1 (5.8%) that is developed in small, medium and large-scale irrigation programs. Of this developed 55% is traditional. Oromiya region comprises the highest irrigation potential, which is 32% of the country. To harness the available potential effectively financial, physical and human capitals are not adequately available. Obviously there are a number of physical, technical and socio-economic problems. Intensive and high amount of rainfall during the wet season in the highlands is the major cause of degradation particularly soil erosion. The rain/runoff washes down the nutrient rich soil, seed and applied fertilizer. Big gullies are acting as permanent drainage ditches thus depleting soil moisture regime. During the dry season water is a major constraint in many parts of the country and women, children and livestock have to travel distant places to get it. In this respect it is like that a blessing is changed into curse. Peak hydrograph during wet season and absence of any flow over dry seasons, high rainfall variability of unreliability that results in significant runoff variability, erosion and sedimentation problem jeopardizes availability of water. This needs to be changed through effective watershed treatment and various WH interventions. Water is a scarce resource in agricultural (crop and livestock) production in many parts of the country in general and in the rift valley in particular. The lowlands, which are largely inhabited by pastoralists of extensive livestock production lack of

1 Household level expansion is not included here.


6

water is a critical problem. To transform the vicious cycle problem to virtuous opportunities water is the major natural capital of the country. Investment in smallholder agriculture sub-sector using water and related appropriate technology are taken as the starting point for food insecure areas of the country. It is reported that on average 5 million people are chronically food insecure every year. WH and irrigation is an area of opportunity for investment both for export and domestic markets. MoARD and respective regional Bureaux have planned and implemented aggressive and ambitious WH programs in the last three years along the country's food security programs. The major on-going government program of WH is the one associated with the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) and is being carried out in 192 Weredas. In the PSNP WH is the main entry point. The number of food insecure, thus Safety Net Weredas, is increasing from time to time. Of the donor funded programs, African Development Fund (ADB) assisted WH and SSI under the Agricultural Sector Support Program (ASSP) is the major one, carried out in all regions and coordinated by the MoARD. WH is also promoted under World Food Program assistance of a MERET2 project in seven regions. There are also many region specific projects. The strategy followed for dissemination/upgrading WHT under the government program is packaging technologies, preparation of technical guidelines and construction manuals, conducting ToT that includes practical demonstration for regional, zonal and Wereda experts. There are TVET colleges and Farmers' Training Centers, which are also supplemented by DA centered practical demonstration and training. Presently, one of the common approaches being pursued for the promotion of WHT is the Community Based Participatory Watershed Development. Quite a number of underground cisterns surface ponds and micro ponds of various shapes and construction materials have been implemented. Yearly more than hundred thousands of household WH structures (surface ponds, micro-ponds, cisterns of various shapes, hand dug wells, low-cost water lifting, family drip systems, rooftop WH, etc.) are being reported per major regions. Part is with success while the other part is with problem and needs to be refined. Positive effects: 1) overall awareness of the community and development workers on WH has increased; 2) better identification of the needy communities and niches/sites compared to previous years; 3) growing level of integration with income generating activities such as bee keeping, dairy, fattening (e.g. Lome-Mojo and Alaba); 4) establishment of self-help groups under little external assistance, among others, could be mentioned. After implementation of the program there are, however, positive effects and success stories (e.g. Alaba, Chencha3, Kombolcha, 2 MERET - Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transitions to more sustainable livelihoods 3 A farmer was able to get up to 30,000 Eth. Birr from sale of highland fruit seedlings prepared under WH.


7

Bati, Boset, Arsi Dodota, etc) noted in various parts of the country. In areas where the niche commands hand dug wells were found less costly, sustainable and most liked by farmers. Ground water recharging through artificial techniques is required to sustainable utilization of shallow and hand dug wells. Problems in the choice of technology (supply driven, technically focused), inadequate research in the field and little local consultation (indigenous knowledge), lack of access to markets, inadequate credit, lack of improved seed and extension services, lack of proper institutional support services WUAs, etc. could be mentioned. On the structures, among other, water loss through seepage and evaporation are major problems. Other problems: 1) absence of replaceable parts and basic working tools along with the distribution of treadle pumps; 2) unavailability of adequate family drip kits along with WH structures; 3) piercing, tearing, and problem of not laying it properly - problem of plastics on open ponds and its poor subsequent management; 4) no experience sharing by farmers and development workers from successful projects/schemes; and 5) turnover of trained staff and institutional instability are the main ones. Water harvesting (construction of open household ponds/micro-pond) is not a panacea to all problems. The possibility of accessing drinking as well as irrigation water through shallow/hand dug wells, soil storage and runoff farming practices need to be adequately explored before deep ponding option. Household level WH using ponds and micro-ponds should be used where irrigation from shallow ground water abstraction and stream diversion is not a viable option. It was necessary to correct the ambitious WH programs through community based participatory watershed development planning approaches and this is being widely applied in the country. As far as storage by deep ponding is concerned integration of the catchment treatment, conveyance system to the silt trap and the storage, lifting system, again conveyance of lifted water and method of water application to the root of each plant through drip system are all interconnected and effective WH system should not miss one. At the national level, the planned target in the water sector particularly through household level water harvesting, micro and small irrigation is 400,000 ha in each of the short term (2002-2006), medium term (2007-2012) and long term (2013-2016) planning phases. High water potential; earmarked in various regions for irrigation development, high level commitments from donors, NGOs, govt., (New Coalition on Food Security in Ethiopia), etc. availability of wide range of technologies worldwide that can be adapted and up-scaled through applied research are existing opportunities.


8

Research is needed in areas of high yielding and short maturing varieties. Further the research is expected to work on adaptation and efficient utilization of low cost water management technologies, socio-economic and marketing research to enhance access to market (input supply and output marketing). In conclusion, the abject poverty and food insecurity of the country can be tackled if hands are joined. The assistance being provided to the poorly developed water sector by the stakeholders (World Vision, Self Help, CCF, J-Green, SG200, etc) is of great contribution. Gravity force irrigation, SS irrigation, WH and irrigation farming are expected outputs of the project. From this experience-sharing workshop by the respective stakeholders I am sure that its outcome will be very much useful and be shared among WH promoters including MoARD. Thank you.


9

1. Experiences of Adama Area Development Program in Water Harvesting Technology

Berhanu Dawa

Adama Development Program Coordinator World Vision Ethiopia, Adama

1. Introduction 1.1 World Vision Ethiopia, Adama Area Development Program World Vision Ethiopia (WVE) is a Christian humanitarian organization and is operating in the country since 1971. During its early stage of operation, WVE has been engaged in huge life saving relief programs and rehabilitation of relief stricken communities. Since 1990, the organization is undertaking integrated development interventions through its area development programs (ADPs). Currently WVE operates in seven regional states namely, the South Nations-Nationalities and Peoples’ Region, Oromiya, Amhara, Tigray, and Afar, Benishangul-Gumz, and Addis Ababa. The total number of the ADPs in these regions is now forty-one, not including the new phase-in areas to be studied. Adama ADP is one of the forty-one ADPs, which is located around 120kms Southeast of Addis Ababa in Adama woreda of East Shoa Zone, Oromia Region. The ADP was launched in 1991. In the current year, the ADP is implementing six specific projects (one sponsorship and five grant projects). Major areas of development intervention are agriculture, off farm, health, HIV/AIDS, education, capacity building, early warning and disaster management, and child development. 1.2 Justification for working on WHT in the area Located in the hot Great East African Rift Valley (1300-1800masl), the area is characterized by erratic rainfall (760mm mean annual rainfall), frequent drought, crop failure, and lack of water permanent water sources like streams and lakes. The mean monthly temperature of the area ranges from 22oC to 34oC. Awash is the only river that crosses the woreda and only few villages have access to this river. People from vast area of the woreda had to travel for several hours to get water from the river in the past. These days, however, boreholes drilled by the ADP and other organizations are supplying potable water to the community. Except those few kebele administrations (KAs) located along the course of Awash River, the rest are totally depend on rainfall for crop production. “Meher” (that extends from June to September) is the main rainy season during which food crops


10

are grown. Even during this main season of production, the occurrence of rainfall is unreliable. Late or early occurrence, uneven distribution, interruption and insufficiency of the rainfall are common in the area. Scanty showers that fall during “belg” season can only support some grass for livestock. Therefore, water-harvesting technology (WHT) is being introduced by the ADP to counter the effects of the adverse natural conditions noted above and enhance food production through intensive backyard gardening using the water collected in the structures. 2. Planning and Implementation Processes 2.1 Planning Processes Community based and participatory planning approach is the basis for undertaking all the development activities of the ADP. All the stakeholders, especially the community, concerned local government offices and the ADP jointly work on the selection and prioritisation of activities based on the needs and potentials of the of the communities. The identified activities along with their budgets are included in the draft annual plan of the ADP. The draft plan was critically reviewed and commented by team of experts at branch and head office levels. The final plan document was approved by the national director and was returned to the ADP for implementation. Thus, planning and implementation of water harvesting structures follow same process as one of the diverse activities planned every year. As far as area coverage of the activity is concerned, the ADP has targeted fifteen rural KAs with better potential for agricultural development. In fact the ADP operation area covers twenty-nine rural KAs and one rural town (i.e. Awash Melkassa) of the woreda. As enhancement of HH food security is the main goal of the ADP, the lion’s share of the annual budget is allocated for activities that directly contribute to the attainment of the goal. Taken as one of such activities, water harvesting structures are being planned and implanted every year in the targeted KAs during the last three years (i.e. FY’03 and FY’05). The ADP has also planned to construct 51 structures for targeted farmers in 2006. The fact that the area is characterized by porous type of soil and very high rate of evaporation, the ADP has selected concrete lined hemispherical underground structure that can store 55 to 60 m3 of rainwater. The diameter of the structure is 6m and its depth is 3 meters. At completion, the structure is covered either by cone shaped reinforced concrete or corrugated iron sheet (CIS) as shown in picture 1.


11

Nature of the soil in the area, volume of water to be stored, durability of the structure, and capacity of the HHs to manage the structure are the major criteria to select this type of structure. Even though the cost of the structure seems high (Birr 6000.00 per structure), its durability outweighs the cost. Selection of beneficiaries is based on the development policy and strategy of the organization that strictly emphasizes purposeful targeting of the ‘very poor’ and ‘poor’ segments of the community. These are already identified using wealth-ranking method during ADP redesigning process. The poor and very poor HHs to be targeted must have backyards gardens and agree to excavate/dig the site, and contribute local materials like sand, stones and water during construction.

Picture 1 Concrete roofed (left) and corrugated iron sheet roofed (right) rainwater-harvesting structures 2.2 Methods and Levels of Implementation Three parties were involved in selection of the beneficiaries/end users of the structures at planning stage as mentioned above. These are the ADP staffs, woreda rural development office staffs and KA leaders. The selected HHs are expected to express their willingness and commitment to undertake the activity in their backyards. Technical staff from woreda rural development office and the ADP jointly selected the appropriate sites for all structures to be constructed in the backyards of the targeted farmers. Respective KA offices have sent official letters that bear the names of the targeted HHs to the ADP. Then the ADP has trained all the beneficiaries of the technology before the construction according to is plan. Other relevant training like organic fertilizer/compost preparation, horticulture production, improved irrigation practices, etc, have been organized for the targeted HHs. At construction stage of the structures, the ADP has provided construction materials like cement, chicken wire, reinforcement bars, corrugated iron sheets


12

and hollow blocks to each HH. Masons and carpenters were also hired for concrete lining and roofing works, respectively. On the other hand, the beneficiaries were responsible for all excavation works, supply of local materials like sand, stone and water. In monetary terms, the ADP has spent about Birr 5000.00 while a targeted HH has contributed Birr 1000.00 in the form of labour and local materials supply for each structure. Women were participating in all the works that demand labour. In some distant KAs beneficiary HHs provided food for masons on their free will and women have taken the responsibility of food preparation. After completion of the structure, women have played a leading role in backyard gardening activities and they took the produced vegetables to local markets. 3. Current Status of the Activity It’s now four years since the ADP has begun to promote water-harvesting technology on wider scale. Out of the 104 structures planned to be constructed during the last three years, 89 (85.6%) are implemented as indicated in the table below. Failure of some HHs to timely excavate the site and delay of local materials supply needed and stony nature of some selected sites are the main reasons for under accomplishment. The ADP has planned to construct 51 structures in FY’06. Table 1: FY’03 to FY’05 plan and accomplishment of rainwater harvesting structures by Adama ADP

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Total Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual 10 11 33 27 61 51 104 89

Utilization efficiency of the collected water varies from HH to HH. Almost all of the farmers who are benefiting from the structure have tried to practice vegetable gardening using the water from the structure. Farmers are using the vegetables for HH consumption and marketing to get income. How ever, the benefit they gained from vegetable production was small as compared to the income from using the water for animal fattening purpose. Even though conclusive studies are not yet conducted on the income generated as the result of the structures, some women testify that they have earned 30 to 40 Birrs from vegetables per one growing season. But those who have practiced animal fattening were earning over Birr 800.00. Even though, water alone is not the in put needed for fattening, it plays a major role in fattening business. Thus, some of the HHs who have got rainwater harvesting structure could fatten two to three oxen within three months period. Some farmers produce mud blocks for house construction using the water from the structure or sell the water to others and earn money. Therefore, the structures are contributing to the improvement of


13

HHs’ livelihood in different ways, depending on the capacity HHs to utilize them effectively. Effective utilization of the structures is regularly monitored by staffs of the ADP as well as concerned government staff at woreda and KAs levels. In addition, different training and technical advices are given to the heads of the HHs during field visits. Today, there is a remarkable improvement in the level of farmers’ awareness on utilization of WHT. The number of farmers requesting the technologies is growing every year. If construction materials like cement, chicken wire, CIS, etc. are provided; most of the farmers are willing to excavate their site and to subsidize the necessary local materials by themselves. 4. Evaluation of WHT Adopted The types of the structure being constructed by the ADP have long lasting and diverse benefits to the users. A well-managed structure is expected to serve over 30 years. But the cost incurred from the structure can be returned within few years, if utilized effectively. Obviously, it would have been unthinkable for poor farmers to construct such costly structures by their own. The ADP, however, believes that such permanent structures would benefit the targeted poor HHs sustainably and result in significant livelihood improvement. With provision of in put packages like vegetable seeds, improved chicken, treadle pump, etc. along with the structure, the HHs will graduate within one or two years. The ADP does not provide any direct support to such HHs for they are expected to be self-sufficient thereafter. The fact that the technology is introduced during the past few years, great success might not be scored right now. But all the structures constructed during the past three years are benefiting the HHs in one-way or another. The level of efficiency in utilizing the structure varies from HH to HH. It is believed that efficiency of utilization and management of the structures will be improved through time. For instance, the use of the collected rainwater for animal fattening is a new aspect, which was not envisaged by the ADP itself. But this is the profitable direction as far as income generation is concerned. Large water holding capacity, durability, possibility to store water for more months, and multi purpose uses are considered as advantages/strength of the selected technologies. The fact that this type of structure demands relatively high cost, most of the farmers cannot afford to construct it by themselves. Hence the rate of adoption by other farmers could be low. This might be seen as weakness of the technology adopted.


14

More over lack of initial capital and other remunerative activities like animal fattening are major gap. Concerned stakeholders need to exert a concerted effort to bridge these gaps by facilitating access to credit services. Awareness creation works should also be strengthened to enhance dissemination of the technologies. 5. Lesson Gained from the Past The primary purposes envisioned by the ADP while introducing the technology has been focused on promotion of intensive backyard gardening and alleviating moisture stresses in the area. This was geared towards attainment of the main goal of the ADP, i.e. enhancement of food security at HH level. But farmers are proving that the technology can be used for more profitable and income generating activity like fattening. Most of the farmers that are living in KAs far away from Awash River have to take their livestock to the river or other water sources, which takes several hours. But beneficiaries of the water harvesting structures are able to provide water, especially to their farm oxen, and save considerable time to plough their farm fields. The structure is also being used as a source of water for house construction by producing mud blocks. Others sell the water to other farmers and get incomes. All of these uses are believed to contribute to HH food security. 6. Future Plans of the ADP Except its relatively high cost of construction, the technology is found to be appropriate to the locality and easily manageable by farmers. Of course, questions can arise about safety of using the water for livestock consumption/fattening and contribution of the structures to malarial attack. So far, no danger has been reported from the beneficiaries or their neighbours to the ADP. This might imply that the types of the structures being constructed by the ADP are not causing significant adverse environmental impact. Therefore, the ADP will continue to promote the utilization of WHT in the area. Depending on its financial capacity, the ADP will construct structures for targeted HHs’ and will also search for more effective applications of the technology. The ADP is also planned to introduce drip irrigation practices so that farmers may use the water more efficiently when producing vegetables.


15

2. Water Harvesting Experiences of Self Help Development International Dodota Project

Frew Behabtu

Self Help Development International 1. Introduction 1.1 Dodota Integrated Rural Development Project Self Help Development International is an Irish based a non-profitable registered charity organization with its basic philosophy of “helping people to help themselves”. The organization is currently operational in five African countries. In Ethiopia the organization has been implementing integrated rural development projects since 1984. The projects are operational in Oromia and SNNP regions of the country. Area Based Program (ABP), Capacity Building Program and HIV/ AIDS Mainstreaming Program are the three major areas of intervention by the organization in the country. Dodota Integrated Rural Development project is one of the ABP that was implemented in October 1999 in Arsi zone, Dodota sire district of Oromia region. The project area is situated in the rift valley, some 125 km South East of Addis Ababa. The wider objectives of the project are to increase agricultural production and productivity and household-farm incomes as well as to improve accesses to basic social services along with the conservation and restoration of the natural resource bases in the project area. In order to achieve the goals, the project has got eight major components, which are crop production, livestock production, natural resource management, education, water supply, public health, women’s program and capacity building. The project mainly implements its integrated components in collaboration and active participation of the beneficiaries and government bodies. 1.2 Justifications for working on WHT in the area The rainfall pattern in the project area is not evenly distributed. Thus, the yield of crops in the low land area is very low and sometime it completely fails due to shortage of water during the flowering or maturation stage but the rainfall intensity is high if it rains. Therefore in order to use efficiently the rainwater different mechanisms has to be used. Rain water-harvesting technology is one of the options to increase the productivity of an area. Under the natural resource management component the project planned to demonstrate rainwater-harvesting technologies.


16

2. Planning and implementation approaches The project commenced the activities after evaluating the initiative of one farmer how used to dig a pond by himself and used the harvested water for irrigating crop at his backyard (Badosa Betela PA in 2001). Then the project by providing plastic sheet to minimize seepage,eight ponds having 4m by 4m and 3m-depth sizes, excavated at backyards of voluntary farmers . The harvested water has been used as a supplementary irrigation for the production of different vegetables. The capacity of the pond required and seepage losses were the major challenges to effectively irrigate the back yard. To solve these problems, experts from the project and government departments made an experience-sharing visit to Kenya. • Awareness creation is conducted at each PA. • Interested farmers were selected and their backyards were visited to check

whether rainwater could be harvested or not. • The selected farmers were sent to visit areas where farmers are using the pond

and trainings were given on the management. • As a prerequisite, the farmers were requested to dig the pond, to collect local

materials for the construction and to pay back some part of cost • Treadle pump, watering can sand barrels were provided for the selected

farmers. The project and the district natural resource desk have given adequate training for the participants on the management of the water being harvested. More over, farmers to farmers training and field days were organized by the project to enrich their understanding. After analysing the capacity and cost needed for the construction of different water harvesting structures (annex 1), the project has selected 60m3 cemented-hemispherical water tank for the following advantages. The cost break down is summarized in annex 2 • Its minimum cost as compared to others • It doesn’t need additional reinforcement • Due to its shape, the water pressure is evenly distributed so the structure is

more stable • It can be easily done by local masonry

3. Current status of the activities In the year 2003, twenty-five cement lined hemispherical ponds with a capacity to hold 60m3 were constructed. The approach followed for the construction of the


17

pond was that, the farmer excavated the site and collected stone, woody materials and water. Where as the project provided cement, sand, mesh wire, PVC, nails and the masonry. Additionally there has been an agreement made between the project and the beneficiaries to pay back 600 Birr in two years period. In the year 2004, the project requested interested farmers to pay 800.00 Birr (400 Birr before the construction and 400 after a year) for the construction of the pond and eleven ponds were constructed. The repaid money from the farmers was used as a revolving fund for the users to the purchase necessary inputs. In the year 2005, five interested farmers have requested only technical support from the project and constructed the pond by themeselves. Totally, the project constructed forty-four road run off harvesting pond (eight plastic cover and thirty-six cemented) out of these five farmers were introduced with drip irrigation having the capacity to irrigate 500m2. Currently they have bought animal drawn carts, a pair of oxen, and covered their household expenditure and send their children’s to school. Generally, the farmers are able to produce twice per year and able to earn more than 1500.00 Birr. Using watering cans, some farmers are in a position to irrigate 300m2 as complementarily. In one production time, these farmers have obtained additional income of about 700.00 Birr from this plot. Moreover, nine farmers are carrying out animal fattening and seedling production from the harvested water (annex 5). Raising and selling of different vegetables, fruits, forest and forage tree seedling by these farmers also provided opportunities to other farmers to engage in agro-forestry activities. 4. Lessons and Challenges of the implementation • Cost increment of inputs required for the construction. • Wrong conclusion drawn from mismanaged ponds. • Farmers were not familiar with vegetable production. • Unavailability of appropriate construction manuals and demonstration sites in

the country. 5. Opportunities for the technologies • Farmers have shown their interest to adopt the technology • Willingness of different organization to carry out the activity (donors’ interest) • Government policy is in support of the technology Frequent follow up and back up training was provided for the participants to sustain the activity. The farmers are very much interested with the technology and


18

currently other farmers are requesting to have the pond with minimum support for out side. 6. Future plans of the project The project has taken the experiences obtained from Fentale district on irrigation water and input requirements (annex 3) as benchmark for future implementation of the activities. Discussions with the beneficiaries were made what kind of crop to plant. Thus, packages were developed on how to irrigate 300m2 area (annex 4) using watering cans and 500m2 area using drip irrigation. The project has finalized the project at Dodota and a new five-years (2006-2010) project has commenced at lode Hetosa district that is adjacent to Dodota sire. Under natural resource component forty RWH ponds are planned to be constructed.


19

Annex 1.Comparison of costs required for different water harvesting tanks (birr)

Type of the tanks Tank capacities (m3) 10 30 50 60

Hemispherical - 1780.00 2686.00 3435.00 Spherical 1652.00 - - - Bottle shape 1336.00 1941.00 - - Dome cap 2087.00 3137.00 4148.00 4428.00 Brick cap 1902.00 3153.00 4286.00 4780.00 Cylindrical fero cemented 2970.00 - - - Cylindrical brick tank 2267.00 - - - Cylindrical masonry 2358.00 - - -

Annex 2. Bill of quantity to construct a hemispherical water tank (60 m3)

Materials Unit Amount Unit cost Total cost Cement Qt 16 68.81 1100.96 Sand Truck 1 450.00 450.00 PVC 110 m 3 17.50 52.50 Mesh wire Roll 1.5 165.00 247.50 Nail Kg 5 10.00 50.00 For covering • Bamboo sheet No. 12 8.00 96.00 • Wood material Different - - 222.00 • Mulch Bunch 10 3.50 35.00 Labour for the construction - - - 800.00 Total 3053.60 The cost is excluding the labour for excavating the pond and stone required.


20

Annex 3. Irrigation water requirement for potato crop Zone East Showa District Fentale (Metehara) Crop type Potato Area 300 m2

Maturity day 120 days

Descriptions July August September October Total Monthly RF mm (80% probability)

248.4 131.6 39.6 0.1 419.7 Harvested rain water, mm 149.7 103.9 37.1 0.1 290.8

(69.2%) ET, mm/month 171.0 158.0 150.0 158.0 637.0 CET coefficient 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.75 ETc, mm/month 85.5 126.4 180 118.5 ETc, mm/day 2.8 4.1 6 3.8 Seepage 30% Ir, m3 7.3 10.7 15.7 9.9 ET= Evapotranspiration, ETc = Crop evapotranspiration

Efx

AxlixETCIr

1000=

Where;

Ir Water requirement ETc Evapotranspiration coefficient Ir Irrigation interval A Area (m2) Ef Efficiency probability

Inputs requirement for plot Area 300 m2 planted with different crops

Fertilizer (Kg) Expected yield Spacing (cm) Crop types

Seeds required, Kg DAP Urea Per plot Per hectare Rows Plants

Potato 62.5 6.0 4.5 6.0 200 70 30 Tomato 7.5 4.5 6.0 7.2 240 100 30 Pepper 0.0188 3.0 3.0 2.4 80 60 30 Cabbage 0.012 4.5 4.5 6.9 230 60 40 Lettuce 0.020 4.5 4.5 5.0 100 60 30 Onion 0.113 6.0 3.0 4.5 150 20 10 Garilc 12.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 100 30 10


21

Annex 4. Harvested water utilization and crop specific research recommendations Criterion used for the selection of crops and crop varieties

• Drought tolerant • Early maturing • Market oriented • Household food

Agronomic characteristics of vegetable crops selected for backyard irrigation

Crop

type

Varie

ties

Altitu

de (m

)

Soil t

ype

Temp

(0 C)

Days

to ma

turity

(da

ys)

Avera

ge wa

ter

requir

emen

ts (m

m/sea

son).

Potato Tolcha 1700-2800 Sandy loam 15-20 110-125 800 Tomato Marglobe 1100-1800 `` 21-26 110-120 650 Onion Adama red 1800-2500 `` 12-24 110-120 700 Cabbage Copenhagen 1800-2000 `` 15-23 120-140 500 Lettuce Mareko 1700-2000 `` 16-25 110-120 500 Pepper Fana 1400-2100 `` 21-29 110-120 650 Eth. kale B. oleracea Perennial 500 Watering

• perforated watering can • pressure pump (thirdle) • gardening hose

Cropping calendar

・ Round 1 July - October ・ Round 2 February – may

Recommended practices

• tie-ridging furrows • row planting • mulching • sprinkling

- early in the morning - late in the afternoon


22

Input expenditure for 300m2 area (Birr)

Fertilizer Crop type DAP Urea Seed Chemical Total Potato 17.46 10.35 200.30 18.30 246.41 Tomato 13.00 13.80 3.00 48.70 78.50 Pepper 9.98 6.90 0.90 - 17.78 Cabbage 13.00 10.35 1.70 - 25.05 Lettuce 13.00 10.35 2.50 - 25.85 Onion 17.46 6.90 32.50 40.82 97.68 Garlic 9.98 3.45 62.50 - 75.93 Expected yields and income for 300m2 area Crop types Unit Yield (Qt) Unit cost

(birr) Total (birr)

Expenditure (birr)

Revenue (birr)

Potato Qt 6.0 150.00 900.00 246.41 653.59 Tomato Qt 7.2 140.00 1008.00 78.50 929.50 Pepper Qt 2.4 350.00 840.00 17.78 822.22 Cabbage Qt 6.9 120.00 828.00 25.05 802.95 Lettuce Qt 5.0 150.00 750.00 25.85 724.15 Onion Qt 4.5 200.00 900.00 97.68 802.32 Garlic Qt 3.0 250.00 750.00 75.98 674.07


23

Annex 5. Summary of income generated from animal fattening and tree seedling production

1. Animal fattening activity summary

Year: 2005 Number of users: 9 (one pond for each) Cycle: 1

Kinds of animals Descriptions Sheep Cow Ox Total

Numbers of animals 28 1 4 33 Cost

- Purchase

4200.00

400.00

2680.00

7280.00 - Feed 2798.00 150.00 780.00 3728.00 Total 6998.00 550.00 3460.00 11008.00

Selling prices 10834.00 870.00 5163.00 16867.00 Profit total 3836.00 320.00 1703.00 5859.00 �Average net profit/pond/cycle = 651.00 birr

2. Tree seedling production Year: 2005 Number of users: 9 (one pond for each)

Number of participants

Number of tree seedlings raised Unit cost Incomes generated

per individual 3 5,000 0.10 500.00 4 4,000 0.10 400.00 2 6,000 0.10 600.00

The species raised were different fruit and forest seedlings


24

3. Implementing Drip Irrigation: Water Harvesting and Utilization Project

Berecha Turi

Sasakawa Global 2000, Ethiopia

1. Introduction Water scarcity and utilization has been a long existing problem in Sub-Saharan African

countries. Due to erratic and irregular rainfall, agriculture has, at times experienced devastating

periods that were disastrous for the food security of the people. Although the rainfall, combined

with the water resources of the country, should be sufficient to pursue durable and sustainable

agriculture, factors like infiltration, evaporation and different types of erosion have (put a halt

to this possibilities) curtailed its achievement. In collaboration with Israel drip irrigation plastic

tube producer; Plastro P.L.C., SG 2000/Ethiopia has been introducing drip irrigation system

along with proper watershed Management, to enable farmers achieve sustainable agriculture in

some countries.

2. Irrigation Although irrigation has long been a vital part of agriculture in sub-Saharan African countries, it has not earned its rightful place yet. Generally there are four systems of irrigation. - Surface irrigation - Sprinkler irrigation - Sub irrigation - Drip irrigation


25

2-1 Surface Irrigation In surface irrigation, water is conveyed directly over the field, and the soil acts as reservoir for the moisture. Topography should be nearly level to allow the water to run at a slow, non-erosive speed. Its drawbacks are large losses of water due to seepage and evaporation, inefficient distribution of the water and most importantly, excessive leaching of water-soluble nutrients, soil erosion and deleterious effect on soil structure. Heavy soils become paddled under the heavy load of water, which result in a loss of soil aeration and in subsequent baking and cracking when the soil dries out.

2-2 Sprinkler irrigation In sprinkler irrigation, water is conveyed through pipes and is distributed under pressure as

simulated rain. Although evaporation is higher with sprinkler irrigation than with surface

irrigation, the application rate results in a more efficient use of water. The slower rate of

application reduces run off, erosion and compaction of the soil. Sloppiness is not a factor.

Disadvantages for implementers are high initial cost, high water consuming rate and high

power pressure.

2-3 Subsurface irrigation Subsurface irrigation consists of creating and maintaining an artificial water table. In order for

such a system to function properly, the ground must be level and subsurface soil must be

permeable enough to permit the rapid movement of water laterally and vertically to prevent the

loss of water through deep percolation. In most cases, sub irrigation is not an option for African

soils since topography, soil type and investment costs play key roles in application.

2-4 Drip irrigation Drip Irrigation (trickle irrigation) uses a ramifying system of water conducting plastic tubes that deliver water by means of emitters or outlets, to individual plants. Water is applied at a rate of 0.6-40 litters per hour under low pressure (1 bar or less).


26

Certainly, the slogan, “water is life” cannot optimally utilize the water collected, using the traditional and inefficient flood irrigation method. Drip irrigation is an efficient irrigation method, and must be used since it is based on the concept, “More crop per drop”

As an environmentally responsible organization, SG 2000 is committed to the development of methods and tools to preserve water, one of the world’s most precious resources, through introduction of modern drip irrigation systems, to raise yields and efficiency. SG 2000 facilitates the promotion of agricultural methods and technology that increase global food production and bring relief to many less privileged population

3. Drip irrigation system Drip irrigation is obtainable in a wide Variety of systems, products, materials and financial cost. The users should take into account all options and combined them into a system where durability, simple operation and attractive financial cost were molded together to best serve the users market using a variety of drip our-let enables the systems to be used in almost all agricultural habitats and crops trees, high we have crops, vegetables, fruits, flowers and green houses.

3-1 Implementation of the system


27

Drip irrigation systems are always made up of combination of necessities. Development actors at all levels, starting with National level and ending with weekly visit by an expert to individual growers, should be trained on the issue of efficient drip irrigation.

Aimed at realizing the mentioned advantages and disadvantage of drip irrigation systems and materials, professional training and demonstration centers should be established to provide the relevant know how through seminars and workshops. Water availability for drip irrigation is a crucial factor when establishing Family Drip Systems (FDS). Based on calculations done by professionals from water resource and agricultural sectors, a water amount of 6.0 m3 is enough to irrigate 100 m2 plot of land through FDS that enable the growing of vegetables or cereals.

3-2 Drip irrigation system focal points Pressure Transportation Filtration Water out let (dripper) (1) Pressure Pressure can be achieved in three or more ways. a. Mechanical (tap, water pump more of mechanical system.) include discussion

for page 8


28

b. Gravitational (water container elevated at least 5 meters on flat terrain or using top graphical.) include discussion from page 8

c. Gravitational (pressure less) by elevation of water container (tanker) 1 to 2 meters. Include discussion page 8

Water tank to which the FDS is installed

In all three ways location of the water source is an important factor. - The pressure less system can be used on small agricultural plots and

backyards up to 500-1000m2 in size. Financial cost, easy installing and operating make this system attractive. Target- groups are back yard-farmers, small scale farmers, hobby- farmers and farmers under water stress area are recommended.

- The gravitational system is based on a water container placed at a height of at least 5 meters. The pressure thus developed will be 0.5 bar; this is enough to give an even distribution of water both in quality and in location. Water from the elevated container can irrigate an area of more than 1000 m2, depending on the container size and irrigation duration of the crop. Target- groups are private investors, Ur ban area farming, horticulture, green house, garden irrigation, orchards, community farming, etc,


29

The mechanical system is based on the same irrigation method as above, but depends in its water supply on a water pump or an already existing water- supply. Pressure is regulated through values (2) Transportation Transportation of water is done by poly Ethelene (PE)-tubes (raiser, Pled Pipe and laterals) varying in diameter from 12 to 110 mm. The applied diameter depends on field capacity, crop choice, available water - quantity and topography of the field. (3) Filtration Filtration in relation with drip irrigation is compulsory. Especially surface water is always contaminated with soil particles algae, bacterial slime or others. When fertilizers are added, filtration is most important if not applied, it will eventually clog the system and thus disable the system. Filtration should be small-sized enough to produce clean irrigation water, but should not stem the flow of water by choosing a too fine filter. This is related to available pressure, water- requirement and choice

of dripper. Filtration can be from 500 up to 100 micro meters. It can be differentiated in sand

filters and / or biological filters, based on requirements of the customer

(4) Water outlet Out let - choice is based on - water demand of the crop - type of crop - distance b/n plants - distance b/n rows - available water - available pressure For better consumption, the following two types of drippers are available.


30

- A standard inline dripper with intervals of 20,30,40 cm, etc, specially suitable for dense crops like salad, onion, tomato, etc

- A system composed by the user consisting of dripper (2L/h, 4 l/h 6L/h), capillaries (2L/h, 4L/h), adjustable dripper (0-16L/h) or a combination of these are available for implementation Drip intervals are variable and with the use of plugs, drip intervals can be changed between seasons. (Suitable for fruits, flowers, onion, tomato and inter cropping.)

3-4. Smallholders Family Drip system (FDS) Drip Irrigation provides an ideal solution to the unique needs of small holders for conserving scarce water resources while irrigating evenly and efficiently, and helping to increase yields year- round (possibility of 2-3 harvest per annual) In order to adopt drip irrigation for the special needs of small holders, FDS- that is gravity- based non power requiting is found pertinent. A grower who holds more then 500m2 can combine 2-4 FDS units in a cluster, using a common water tank or can extend the size of FDS units from 600m length of hydrogols to two rolls, which is 1200 m long. 1) FDS components (for a unit) Type Quantity 1. Water lank 1 2. Ball value 1 3. Filter 1 4. Union (when important) 1 5. Agri-fit elbow 1 6. Agri- fit Adaptor 1 7. Raiser - (m) depends on the light of the tanker 8. T 1 9. X mm valve (3/4 1 " 1 2


31

10. Y m polyethylene as required 11. Head connect or (pcs) as required 12. Plastic bent (pcs) 2 13. Hydro god (Laterals) (rolls) as required 14. Puncher 15. Inserter 1 16. Barbed coupling as required 17. Line end (pcs) 5 18. Teflon (roll) 1-2 2) System installation Installation of the FDS system first involves marking the block to be cultivated. For example, in a 500m2 field, this block should be 20 m long and 25m wide. The raiser fix into the 'T' thus has 12.5m to be fixed to each side of distribution pipe. The distance between crop beds may be determined according to crop pattern. The best economical spacing of lateral is suggested to be at every 0.80m. Lateral with 30cm spaced emitter has more advantage to grow vegetable crops (Onion, tomato, pepper e t c) The water tank should be installed at the edge of the plot, at least 1.2 -1.5 above the ground (depends on the slope of intended plot). The height of the water tank affects the gravity pressure with which the system operates. Tank size is flexible, but it is recommended that the volume equals the volume of one- day consumption and not equal or less than 2 hours of plot irrigation consumption under normal installation (1.5m height). Water flow through each emitter will be 0.6 litters per hour. The tank can be made either of plastic (Roto), concrete or metal with capacity 1-2 m3 (1mx1mx2m). The tank can be filled by manual pedal pumping (treadle pump), engine pumps or windmill etc. The water source for the system can be any kind of reservoir, bore hole, pond, well, river, canal or stream. Personal or shared


32

pump is simply installed near the water source and a network of pipelines (hose) connected to both the water tank and motorized pump. Beneficiary farmers can pool their resources to purchase one pump, connected it to multiple water tanks by a hose network. The value end the filter is installed at the irrigation out let of the tank, and the distribution pipe is connected to the filter and laid in the middle of the plot. The two drip lines on each bed are connected to the distribution pipe (0.80m spacing b/n the drip lines) on both sides of the PLDE pipe.

Flow Rate Calculation - A master dripper flow Rate = a Lph - Number of hydrogol emitters to be fed = b

cLphb

a

feditterstobenumberofem

eperflowratmasterdrop==

- Master dripper = poly ethylene division emitter = PLDE = 3.85L/ph - 12 hydrogol emitters are to be fed = 12 emitters

LphLph

32.012

85.3=

3-5. Merits of Pressure Less Drip Irrigation Drip Irrigation is attractive economically in many modern flower development farms, green houses, economical farms and small holder farm plots in Ethiopia. Though frequent water application is recommended, it s very slow and in small amounts so that little is lost by evaporation. In most cases, water is directly given to the cultivated plant roots, in the form of droplets. The system is flexible to produce various types of crops through coupling or uncoupling, accommodated by either piercing or plugging of the plastic tubes that carry and distribute water. The flow and pressure from the supply line are reduced or regulated by various types of


33

valves and emitters Drip Irrigation will have dramatic consequences since evaporation from the surface irrigation systems causes salts to accumulate on the soil surface. Additional water supplied in excess of the amount required for plants will leach these potentially damaging salts from the soil zone close to the roots. Salts are pushed out to the periphery of the root profile by an advancing front of water emitted from the outlets. So providing the water by drip Irrigation is far more efficient than welting the entire field. In addition to its flexibility, the total set-up of drip irrigation is very lighter compared to other irrigation systems and can easily be operated and moved by one person. Extended, slopes of less than 50% are not limiting factor for drip irrigation, since erosion problems are under control. Because water delivery is in a closed system and under pressure, only small amount of water is applied; hence; there is no run off. Most of the soil surface stays dry especially between plants; as a result the crop field is essentially free of weeds.

Generally, the loss of water between the rows and through deep percolation is under control, which by then eliminates salinity effects of deep under ground saline water supplies. Almost all-high valve crops can be managed under drip


34

irrigation system, using various spacing (space between emitters, hydrogols)of 20, 30 and 40 cm between emitters on 12mm hydrogoal and 120, 80 and 60 cm between hydrogoals. PLDE pipes are implemented in plots of over 40 small farmers in Ethiopia through SG 2000 water harvesting project.

3-6. Demerits of Pressure Less Drip Irrigation system Most developing countries are very late in accessing such technologies for utilizing their abundant water sources, Large scale farms (commercial farm) need care, time, and trained man power, especially during the period of installation and maintenance. The initial cost per plot of such useful item for the small farmers is high (USD 172.00 for one FDS). Limited manufacturing companies have an opportunity to raise unit price that affects small farmers. Clogging of emitters is observed due to inert materials, soil particles, fine sand, algae and others associated with poorly installed filtration systems. In water stressed areas ruminates and non ruminant animals look for drops of water even under emitters. As a result rodents, ants, termites, sheep, goats and big animals cause leakage to the system while searching for moisture or grazing. These are very important factors for the durability of the system and to keep it operational at a low level. 3-7. Tentative Solutions According to the manufacturers, Plastro PLC, Israel Poly Ethylene (PE) made irrigation materials are fair in price and durable for drip irrigation systems when compared with PVC materials. They can endure unfavourable climate conditions. Fluctuation in temperature does not the life of the material as long as it is kept safely above the ground on racks and protected from rodents and other animals. Thick walled PE probably resist attack against termites, mice, ants and the like.


35

Bacterial slime, soil particles and fine sand could be protected through frequent discharge of water (every day) for 2-3 minutes to keep away particles on sticking to the wall of hydrogoals. This holds true for fertigation process. As far as Ethiopian climate is concerned, the installed PE materials are ultra-violet resistant; so, direct exposure to the sun light has no significant effect. The supplied filtration units and other additional accessories are essential in using FDS with surface water stored under ground water reservoirs.

Underground water reservoir with silt trap

Smallholder farmers use mechanical cleaning when hydrogoals are clogged, by drying under sunlight and gently hitting at emitters, followed by flashing with water for sometime. In some systems the out lets are easily disassembled for cleaning, in case of clogging. A standard minimum three years´ warranty on drip irrigation materials by the manufacturer indicated the durability aspect and trouble-free operations of the FDS.


36

Total investment required for utilizing underground Water Reservoirs and FDS (SG

2000/Ethiopia Experience)

1. Under ground Reservoir (Pair) US$ 1000.00 2. Water tanker (2000 L) US$ 228.00 3. Motorized water pump (Robin) US$ 300.00 4. FDS (set) US$ 172.00 Total US$ 1700.00


37

Economic Analysis of FDS for 500 m2 plot of land with 2 crop harvest/year ( in USD) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Remarks Item Gross revenues 1) Tomatoes yield (kg) 1800.00 2000.00 2200.00 2300.00 2000.00 2200.00 2300.00 2000.00 2200.00 2300.00 2) Tomatoes value CFA per kg 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 1) Lettuce yield (kg) 1900.00 2000.00 2100.00 1900.00 2000.00 2100.00 1900.00 2000.00 2100.00 2000.00 2) Lettuce value (CFA) per kg 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Total gross revenues US$ 454.00 500.00 546.00 559.00 500.00 546.00 559.00 500.00 546.00 563.00

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Remarks Costs & Investment 3) Cost of irrigation system 120.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4) Water tank 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mineral fertilizers (NPK) 73.33 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 110.00 Mineral fertilizer (Urea) 13.00 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 Tomatoes seeds 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Lettuce seeds 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Toots 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pesticides 23.33 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 5) Pedal pump 60.00 0.00 0.00 58.33 58.33 0.00 58.33 0.00 0.00 58.33 Sterilization 60.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 67.00 0.00 Total Costs US$ 625.29 170.13 237.13 228.46 228.46 350.13 295.46 170.13 237.13 228.46

Net Revenue US$ -71.29 329.88 308.88 330.54 330.50 195.88 263.54 329.88 308.88 334.54

Source: More crop per Drip; Drip irrigation project for small Holders, Netafim October 2005


38

4. Recommendations

1) Agriculture development in Ethiopia will continue to depend on small-scale farmer sub sector.

2) Rain fed agriculture should progressively be transformed to irrigate, small-scale agriculture systems. This necessitates the use of shallow rivers, fresh water lakes and streams, shallow tube wells and water harvesting technologies.

3) Water harvesting can help reduce soil erosion by slowing down/reducing runoffs.

4) Stored water should be used in combination with drip irrigation. 5) Stable water supply (even from house roofs) should be used in diversification

of livestock (dairy and meat production) and poultry activity. 6) Dairying should be promoted for areas with high population density. 7) Credit sources (public, private, mixed funds) should in place.

“Few scientists think of agriculture as the chief, or model Science. Many indeed, do not consider it a science at all. Yet it was the first science – the mother of all sciences; it remains the science that makes human life possible; and it may be that, before the end of the century, the success or failure of science as a whole will be judged by the success or failure of agriculture.”

Agriculture-The Island Empire Andre and Jean Mayer, Daedulus 1974


39

4. Implementing Water Harvesting Structures for Integrated Watershed Management: experiences of J-Green and

Melkassa Research Center

Yusuf Kedir Melkassa Research Center

1 Introduction In Ethiopia, on average, people suffer from drought once in 3.4 years since the 1960s. Besides these drought years, it is reported that 85% of the households in rural Ethiopia go through food shortage for three months in the slack season. The rainfall pattern of Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia had been changing at least in the last ten years and resorted to taking necessary measures to cope with the factors that aggravate drought such as deforestation, land degradation, soil erosion (particularly caused from gullies) and decline in soil fertility. To tackle the above problems, in 2002, Japan Green Resources Agency (J-Green) launched a basic study of agriculture and rural development in Oromia Region of Ethiopia in cooperation with Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre (MARC). In 2003, Ethiopian Agriculture and Research Organization (EARO) and J-Green have decided to launch a joint study titled; “Verification Study of Technologies on Natural Resources’ Conservation and Restoration for the Prevention of Desertification” in Merko and Koka peasant associations of Boset woreda1.

１All the information included in this document about Boset woreda is taken from draft survey

report of the project: "Verification Study of Technologies on Natural Resources’ Conservation and Restoration for the Prevention of Desertification." Scope of the Study (Draft), June 2005.

Why water harvesting structures in the area? In Boset Woreda, there is no nursery due to lack of stable water resource. Instead, Boset woreda agriculture office established a nursery in the neighbouring Adama Woreda, where a permanent river, namely the Awash, is situated. They lift up water from the Awash River and supply to the nursery. World Vision Adama Development Program supports part of nursery management costs. The nursery site is located more than 60 km from the furthermost place of the Woreda. Seedlings are carried to the surrounding micro watersheds using an old truck borrowed from Zonal BoA, which often breaks down. Most roads are dirt, and particularly in the rainy season, dirt roads get slippery, both of which become the main causes that the delivery are limited only to the places along paved Nazareth—Miesso road and that delivery sometimes gets late and missing the proper time of plantation.


40

Considering the difficult situations the woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office (ARDO) is facing on natural resources issues, it is an urgent matter to develop alternative and supplementary water resources for nursery establishment for multi-purpose tree seedlings and grass-seed multiplication. 2 General description of the area Boset Woreda, located 115 km southeast of Addis Ababa, lies in the Central Rift Valley. The Woreda is 15,140 ha with a population of 124,196. The altitude of the area ranges from 1000-2000 m. a. s. l., and the topography is dominated by plain, with rugged landscape in some parts. The prominent soil type is light grey sandy loam. The land use is classified into cultivated, grazing, bush and various settlements, accounting for 28%, 7%, 51% and 13% of the total land area, respectively. Its agro-ecological zonation, North-western part of the woreda is located on the skirt of the Ethiopian highlands and its agro-climate zone is classified into Dega (sub-moist in moisture condition, and tepid to cool in thermal condition). Mt. Boset and Mt. Belecha are towering at the southern side of Welenchiti town, and the foot of those mountains also belongs to Dega area. Apart from those high altitude areas, most part of the Woreda lie in Weyna Dega with an annual rainfall of 750 to 800 mm. Vegetation of the area is sparsely covered by lowland species of acacia, thorny bushes, and grasses in farm lands but most of the area is devoid of vegetation and it looks bare land. Social and Institutional characteristics Boset Woreda is one of the most experienced and effectively taking actions for constructing and popularizing of the water harvesting technologies by organizing the farmers and forming different groups. The Woreda experts are working together with the farmers by advising, providing materials and giving trainings in collaboration with NGOs. Some farmers are selected as a model to create awareness among farmers living around the area. These farmers have constructed a number of water harvesting ponds and tankers in their compounds and they are using the collected water for cereal and perennial crops, livestock, and in small extent for their domestic consumptions. In Boset Woreda, five sample Kebeles comprising of thirty one gots have twenty four hills, out of which 9 and 1 hillsides are managed by villagers belong to the PA youth-associations and women’s association of the Kebeles, respectively. Although this way of conserving hillside is limited to only where BoA has a strong guidance (some international organization-led integrated Micro-Watershed (MWS) projects are functioning), it seems that only successful case to protect a hillside is a ‘formal group-based user-rights’ enclosure by PA-based associations in a Kebele’. In case of the study on the micro watersheds in Boset Woreda, as Peasant based associations and individual farmer are anticipated as main bodies to conserve and/or restore hillsides, and gullies and farmlands, respectively. 3 Planning processes Field survey of Merko Kebele and discussion with farmers, persons who are using different water harvesting structures, and Woreda experts were carried out to select the type of the structures and the location where the structures to be constructed. In the J-


41

Green’s preliminary study, Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs) of the Woreda expressed their special interests in the development of water resources for nursery and seed multiplication of forage grasses and leguminous fodder trees. Most farmers were highly interest to provide land for the construction. However, the team has decided to put the structure on communal land on which no personal interest will be reflected and care was taken not to create any dispute among farmers. Hence, the elementary school of the area was selected for the construction based on the following criteria; • Availability of land • Future fate of the structure, to use it in sustainable way • Willingness to afford the land and participate in the construction • Availability of permanent tap water that can supplement the nursery

On the other hand, the urgent need here is to develop water resources that meet the following requirements: (1) its water capacity meets the water requirement of seedlings during the months from March to June; (2) it can be installed wherever possible based on users’ requirements; and (3) its easiness for farmers to maintain using locally available materials at relatively low costs. Water-harvesting tank (often referred to as “cistern” or “underground tank”) is an artificial reservoir covered or lined with a mixture of cement and sand or with a reddish clay paste. The depth of the tank varies from 3 to 8 m and its water capacity ranges from 30 to 200m3. These technologies are more preferred by the farmers than the dug out ponds and are highly accepted. Farmers are constructing these structures in their vicinities by themselves with a support of different organizations. Among the qualities of the hemispherical concrete structure some are: • Their durability, they have longer life span than others. • Their sizes can be increased to meet the demand of an individual, • They can store water for longer period with out losses. • They are suitable for water lifting mechanism than ponds.

The project team has planned to raise around 30,000 forage and forestry seedlings in the nursery to be established around the watershed. Based on the number of the materials the total volume of water to be stored in the tankers was estimated. The estimation was made as follow:


42

Description Values Remark Assumptions

Total no. seedlings 30,000 Grasses & seedlings All are in pots and water is sprinkled

Total nursery days 120 Mar-June Hottest months, for all seedlings

Pan ET, mm/day (average) 5.58 Melkassa weather

station From water surface, No shade, Boset is hotter, similar watering for all stages, no rain fall

ET, mm/day; (average) 3.2 Simple assumption Good shading, watered once a day

Pot area, mm2 7,850 Similar pot sizes Average pot diameter of 100 mm was taken

Amount of water to be added for one pot 25.12 Cm3 / pot/ day The above assumptions are

considered for the calculation

Total amount, litters/ day 753.6 litters

Total volume, litters 90,432 90.432 m3 100% efficiency, No application, conveyance, management losses, not for other purposes

226.08 m3 With 40% efficiency The total amount of water required to raise 30,000 seedlings for three months of nursery period in the area was estimated as 226 m3. This estimation was made based on 40% efficiency; mean that 60% water losses were considered. 4 Methods and levels of implementation A team of professionals from MARC; J-Green and MoARD has visited Merko micro watershed with the objective of selecting a site at which water harvesting structure to be constructed. After close investigation of the area, the site selected was the elementary school of the Kabele based on the criteria explained earlier. And the team agreed for the suitability of the proposed site to construct the structure. During the visit, the group has also discussed on various issues and how to move next. According to the team, the first thing to be cleared out with discussion was how much area the school can provide for this purpose. The other point was that, it is better to build a 100 m3 water harvesting tank than the anticipated 120 m3. Because when the size goes beyond 100 m3, construction and stability of the structure will be in question. In addition, it was


43

agreed to start with small nursery size and to increase it through time. This approach was preferred to minimize risk of failure and will have the chance of maximizing efficiencies on water use & improvement of good nursery management. Period incorporating experienced professionals from Woreda office during implementation was given paramount importance for creating sense of ownership and for coordinating all activities. After step by step fruitful discussions with woreda offices and responsible bodies, memorandum of understanding was signed between the project team and the local committee. The memorandum of understanding was developed in Amharic language and detail discussion has been made on each point. The main issues of the memorandum were; The school • To provide land for the construction of the structure and nursery • To protect the site from any danger • To take over the nursery and equipment after the project termination and to

handle it properly The Kebele • To provide all necessary materials locally available for the construction • To cooperate and coordinate farmers whenever necessary for the accomplishment of

the structures • To mediate whenever there is any dispute • To allocate responsible person who will organize and construct the water

harvesting structures The team • To establish the nursery site together with the water harvesting structures • To hand over the nursery with all nursery equipments for the school after the

project termination • To purchase materials for fencing the school

The Kebele has selected a local contractor who could take the responsibility to construct the structures. Contract agreement was signed between the team and the contractor that was approved by the local representatives. In the agreement the construction costs, the time in which the construction to be completed, the method of construction and responsibilities to be taken by each body were discussed and agreement was reached. During the construction period, efforts were made to use materials and labours from the area. All labour and material costs were covered by the team. The dimensions of the structures, the construction procedure, and the compositions of the materials to be used were specified and prepared by professionals from the team. Responsible persons selected from the Kebele were appointed to monitor day-to-day activities and progresses of the construction, and the qualities of the materials used by the contractor. 5 Current status and evaluation of implementing processes Although construction was completed, due to unexpected problems, the structures cannot store the runoff collected from catchments. Previously both tanks cannot store the runoff even for a week for the reason that using poor quality sand for plastering the tanks. To


44

solve this problem, the upper layers of both tanks were replaced by proper cement-sand mix but the second tank can not store runoff yet. After short period of time, crack was observed at the middle of the second tank. So that maintenance works are undertaken using asphalt emulsions.

The aim of constructing the structures was to supply water for the nursery materials to be raised during the dry season. Since one of the tanks was not maintained yet and currently the nursery is under establishment, it is not possible to evaluate the utilization system of the water. The implementation was not carried out as planned as the proposal. It was started just one month before the rainy season and there was time shortage. So all things have been done in a hurry not to miss the coming rain. Moreover, the type of the structure to be constructed was not selected with sound justification and estimation of materials costs was done for different structure. So, cost and material estimated and actually papered have shown variation as indicated in the table. Comparison table of the estimated and actually used materials and their costs


45

Estimated Actually used

No Items Unit Amount Unit cost, birr

Total cost, birr Amount

Unit cost, birr

Total cost, birr

1 Cement Bag 40 40 1,600.0 60.5 66.2397 4,007.5 2 Sand m3 8 31.25 250.0 531.0 3 Stone m3 32 31.25 1,000.0 1,250.0 4 Wire mesh m2 100 30 3,000.0 0 30 0.0 5 PVC pipe Pieces 1 125 125.0 1 96 96.0 6 Steel pipe Pieces 4 25 100.0 2 34 34.0 7 Wood M 120 5 600.0 434.0 8 Nail Kg 30 10 300.0 9 Corrugate

sheet Piece 30 54 1,620.0 1,856.2

10 Labour Man day 75 8 600.0 1,852.5 11 Mason Man day 10 30 300.0

12 Carpenter Man day 4 30 120.0 13 Concrete pipe Piece 0 0.0 7.5 36.5 273.8 14 Water 0 0.0 55.3 15 Mesh for

filter 0 0.0 27.0

Total 9,615.0 10,417.2 Besides, material costs’ fluctuation was another reason for quantity and cost estimation differences. Some of the items that created the variation are the following. • The unit cost of cement was varied on average from 57 to 75 birr per bag. • Costs estimation for labour was much lower than the actual expense • The estimation did not include the expenses of silt trap, concrete pipe and water for

construction. Main problem during the implementation was contractor’s lack of ability, which caused seepage, delay of the completion, etc. The contractor tried to construct the two tanks at the same time. The main difference between the first and second tank was on the shape of the dug out ponds. The second one was not excavated as the design document with hemispherical shape like the first one. Rather it was with rectangular shape leaving wider space at the middle. To give the hemispherical shape, loose soil was placed between the stone and the surface of the pond. Since the soil was compacted by hand in dry state, the crack was created when the back-filled soil was settled. The following pictures show step by step how the constructions of the two tanks were carried out and where the problem on the second tank was introduced.


46

The first tank The second tank

Placing the stone starting from the bottom

Placing the stone properly was very difficult

The stone was constructed following the slope of the pond

At the middle of the tank, loose soil was filled

Irregularly excavated pond Properly constructed hemispherical shape

Crack created at the middle when the back soil settled

Properly constructed tank


47

The participation of the appointed individuals to monitor the construction has played very important role for the accomplishment of the structures. They were monitoring every activities and were informing the team whenever they faced some problem on the methods of qualities of the material selected by the contractor. Levels of farmers’ awareness The Boset Woreda ARDO has done very interesting works for the popularization of the technologies and towards empowering the farmers through supportive strategies in the area. The office has created linkages with other organization from abroad, like Kenya, and has brought experts to train interested farmers. These farmers are organized with the help of the Woreda office and formulated different groups, each group has 20 members. All the members of the group together will construct a water-harvesting structure for a single member at a time and for the whole member turn by turn. Besides, sorting labour problems, the system has created awareness of water harvesting technologies and induced interest in the area. The approach has also helped the farmers to get some equipment, like brick maker, from different organizations. As far as the project's team-approach was concerned, on the planning, implementation processes and the relevance and type of the structure constructed there was no any complain from the farmers. However, these under ground water harvesting tankers have some construction, management and utilization problems. Among them, some are the following: • Their construction cost is expensive and it is labour intensive. • Transportation of materials is very difficult. • It is difficult to construct the structures using local materials.

6 Lessons gained from the past The two tanks have not been constructed at appropriate time. As of the projects document, prior to constructing the tank, water requirements of the intended nursery materials together with the runoff coefficients of the catchments should be studied. In additions to this information, selection of appropriate water harvesting structure study was not done properly. Accidentally the team has proposed to construct the tanker not to miss rainy season for the nursery to be established in the year 2006 around the area. The construction of the structure was started without written agreement between the contractor appointed by the Kebele and the project team. Rather it was rely on verbal agreement. This minor mistake has created a space for the contractor to deny the verbal agreement and resulted in hot dispute between the team and the contractor. Moreover, the first verbal agreement did not include the time in which the construction to be completed. The contractor has tried to do all the work by himself without any additional labours and has consumed longer time than anticipated. Then, latter on the team has decided to limit the time and has forced the person to abide by a written agreement. For such implementation therefore, skilled contractor should be assigned and care should be taken during the selection. In order to do so, the contract agreements should include


48

each and every issue that might affect the construction work. A contractor's capability should be examined in advance. In case of skill shortage, the contractor must be replaced without any compensation. If the time necessary for completion is overdue, penalties should be imposed strictly. Of course, technical training to improve skill of concerned party should be planned and executed..

7 Future plans of the organization As stated earlier, the project has selected two micro watersheds in Boset woreda, Merko and Koka. Two water harvesting structures were constructed at Merko Kebele. Next, similar structures will be constructed at Koka Kebele. The experiences gained from Merko will have significant role for the accomplishment of the program successfully at Koka. The project team has already contacted Kebele representatives and selected construction site in the school. Therefore, the project team will include all the lessons gained from the past and try to minimize the mistakes committed at Merko for successful implementation of the project at Koka Kebele.


49

5. Experiences of Oromia Irrigation Development Authority (OIDA) and Irrigation Farming Improvement

Project (IFI-JICA) on WHT

Dr. Naruoka Michio( IFI) Yohannes Geleta (OIDA-CB)

1. Introduction When we think of the recurring drought of the region Oromia seems living under unbreakable curse. But when we see the potential of the region at least we become hopeful for the change of the history of the people and the nation. The Government of Ethiopia and the Regional National Government of Oromia have set a policy in utilizing the existing resource to come out of this drought, especially water resource in the possible alternative way. Oromia is a potential rich area in water, land and man power resources, that is about 28 Million population And according to the study conducted by Oromia Economic Study Office (1999), there are 58 billions m3/year of mean annual runoff in the seven basins of the region, about 2.1 Billion m3 of underground water and 1.7 million ha land suitable for surface irrigation. But only less than 10% of the above resource is utilized for irrigation. However, implementation on these resources needs high capital, highly trained man power, and takes time with the contrary to the country need. Therefore it is to be wise to set and implement another less capital intensive and short time taking alternative to tackle the challenge of the generation. One of the alternatives is to introduce and expand different Water Harvesting Technology to utilize the existing resources to escape from the coming un predictable chaos. 2. Past Experiences of OIDA Before OIDA (Oromia Irrigation Development Authority) started implementation of Water Harvesting Technology in organized system, there were some experiences specially in pond construction (Community Pond) in low land of the region by the community and some NGO`S and also Shallow well development in areas such as Becho plains and in Rift valley regions. Considering the government policy to reduce the poverty level of the country, the needs of the community & NGOs’ experiences, about 143,000 Ponds, 500 Tankers and 84,000 Shallow wells are constructed by OIDA since 2003 in Oromia region. . Not only implementing but also evaluation of the constructed schemes was done by OIDA in all Oromia zones in 2003 /2004. The evaluation report indicates the existing problems on WHT, but no concrete solution is suggested. Hence, setting applicable solutions and standardizing the WHT becomes more important.


50

3. Implementation processes of the evaluation OIDA (Oromia Irrigation Development Authority) and PIFI (Project for Irrigation Farming Improvement of JICA) signed an agreement to work on WHT as one component by standardizing WHT in an activity area by developing a guideline. The methodology adopted for analyzing the WHT practical problems are • Evaluation of the report of The Water Harvesting Activities in Oromia Region

(2003/2004) was made • Field Visits On OIDA-IFI Districts Dodota Sire & Merti of Arsi Zone and A/T/J

Kombolcha WHT were conducted. • Other areas field visits, such as Siraro district of East Shewa, two zones from Tigeray

Region were conducted. • Visits to input supplier of WHT(Treadle Pump suppliers, Plastic sheet supplier and Drip

material Supplier) were made • Discussion with the OIDA-CB (Central Branch) Experts, Project area District Experts

and with some beneficiaries during the field visit. • Various guidelines, Manuals, Evaluation reports in the Region and in the country were

referred. • Question and answer system is developed.

This paper is only limited in presenting the practical problems identified during our study time and the method for possible solutions to make the guide line. The solutions for identified problems are not included in this paper because the solutions are not yet traced accordingly in the required manner. The following table shows WHT surveyed by the project team.

Table 1 Water Harvesting Technologies surveyed by IFI

Studied areas Shallow

Wells (No) Pond (No)

Tanker (No)

Others M. Dam. , F. Harvesting

D.Sire - 8 4 - Merti - 3 4 - Siraro - 3 1 - A/T/J/Kombolcha 5 5 1 2 Tigray 7 5 2 1 Total 12 24 12 3

It is obvious that the structures surveyed are not enough to represent all WHT implemented in East Shewa & Arsi Zones, but assuming and believing that all WHT constructed in These area shares the same problem (OIDA evaluation report shows this.) and considering other field survey before the guide line to be made, we are limited to above WHT schemes for problem analysis at this level.


51

4. Major Problems found on Water Harvesting Technology Our experience on the implementation on the WHT & our field study (OIDA-IFI) on WHT shows there are some defined problems on WHT. We summarize the problem in two categories

1- WHT facilities are not working properly. 2- Farmers Motivation to utilize & accept WHT declined

Detail analysis of these problems is explained in brief in the logic tree, which is found in the last part of this paper. 5. Major findings of the Field Survey The field survey result is here below discussed by the logic tree table (Table 2). And the next step, which leads to the solution, that is the Question and Answer method is also shortly explained in this part after the logic tree table (table 3).


52

Table 2 Problem analysis on Water Harvesting technologies NO. Ground Question

(1) What should I do in order to make a tank without cracks? 1.1.1.a Water drain from the cracks in Tank. (2) How to repair cracks? (1) What should I do in order not to make tears? 1.1.1.b Water drain from the tears of sheet in

Pond. (2) How to repair tears? 1.1.1.c Water infiltrate from the Pond into the

ground. (1) How to get a plastic sheet?

(1) What should I do in order to make a roof? 1.1.2.a Water evaporates from Tank. (2) How to repair the roof?

1.1.2.b Water evaporates from Pond. (1) What should I do in order to make a roof? (1) What should I do in order to gather water by the water

catchments? 1.1.3.a Water isn’t gathered by the water

catchments. (2) How to clean the water catchments? (1) What should I do in order to make the canal through

which water flow? 1.1.3.b Water doesn’t run in the canal.

(2) How to clean the canal? (1) What should I do in order to make the silt trap? 1.1.4.a Volume of Tank or Pond reduced by the

silt. (2) How to clean Pond, Tank and silt traps? 1.2.1.a Shallow well’s inner wall is delicate. (1) What should I do in order to reinforce the inner wall of

Shallow well? 2.1.1.a Farmers finish Tank’s or Pond’s water

halfway of crop’s growth. (1) What should I do in order to teach the irrigation

technique? 2.1.1.b Farmers give less water than crop

consumptive use. (1) What should I do in order to irrigate for good crops?

2.1.2.a Farmers couldn’t cure the crop’s disease. (1) What should I do in order to cure the disease? 2.1.3.a Farmers couldn’t bug the harmful insect. (1) What should I do in order to bug the harmful insect? 2.2.1.a Farmers sold low quality crops. (1) What should I do in order to make the high quality crops? 2.2.1.b Farmers sold cheep crops. (1) What should I do in order to make the high price crops? 2.2.1.c Farmers produce crop in the low price

season. (1) What should I do in order to make the crops in the high

price season? 2.2.1.d Farmers didn’t store the harvest till high

price season. (1) What should I do in order to store the crops till high price

season? 2.3.1.a Farmers think that Tank or Pond was

located in inconvenient area. (1) What should I do in order to convenient to access Tank or

Pond? 2.3.2.a Farmer didn’t use the water lifting device. (1) What should I do in order to use the water lifting device? 2.4.1.a Mosquito which is the carrier of Malaria

reproduce in Tank and Pond. (1) What should I do in order to prevent Malaria?

2.4.2.a Farmers think that children and livestock fall down in Tank and Pond.

(1) What should I do in order not to fall down children and livestock in Tank and Pond?

2.5.1.a Farmers think that there is more convenient source.

(1) What should I do in order to develop a new source?


53

Case of Q&A

Q1 What should I do in order not to make tears in the plastic sheet?

A1 Two reasons as for which a tears is made to a plastic sheet are considered. One is that a sheet is damaged at the time of pumping work. Another is damaged when wild animals', such as a hyena's, come to drink water. The following measures are required in order for a sheet to be made not to be damaged. (1) Measure of Working time …………………. …………………. …………………. (2) Measure of Wild Animal …………………... ………………….. …………………..


54

Table1 Identified Problems on Implemented Shallow well, Pond and Tanker.

Problem

Farmers don't use Tank, 1. Tank, Pond and Shallo 1.1 There isn't enough 1.1.1.Water drain from Tank 1.1.1.a Water drain from the cracks in Tank.

Pond and Shallow well well aren't working water in Tank and Pond. or Pond.

properly. perfectly.

1.1.1.b Water drain from the tears of sheet

in Pond.

1.1.1.c Water infiltrate from the Pond into

the ground.

1.1.2.Water evaporate from 1.1.2.a Water evaporate from Tank.

Tank or Pond.

1.1.2.b Water evaporate from Pond.

1.1.3. Enough water don't enter 1.1.3.a Water isn't gathered by

in Tank and Pond. Watercatchment.

1.1.3.b Water don't run in the canal.

1.1.4. Enough water isn't stored 1.1.4.a Volume of Tank or Pond reduced by

in Tank and Pond. the silt.

1.2. Shallow well collapsed. 1.2.1. Shallow well's inner wall 1.2.1.a Shallow well's inner wall is delicate.

fall down and well

collapsed.

2. Farmers motivation 2.1. Famers didn't get 2.1.1.Crop was damaged by the 2.1.1.a Farmers finish Tank's or Pond's

declined. expected harvest. water shortage. water halfway of crop's growth.

2.1.1.b Farmers give less water than crop

consumptive use.

2.1.2.Crop was damaged by the 2.1.2.a Farmers couldn't cure the crop

disease. disease.

2.1.3.Crop was damaged by the 2.1.3.a Farmers couldn't bug the harmful

harmful insect. insect.

2.2. Farmers didn't get 2.2.1. Farmers couldn't sell with 2.2.1.a Farmers sold low quality crops.

expected return. high price.

2.2.1.b Farmers sold cheap crops.

2.2.1.c Farmers produce crop in the

low price season.

2.2.1.d Farmers didn't store the harvest till

high price season.

2.3. Farmers think that 2.3.1. Farmers think hard work 2.3.1.a Farmers think that Tank or Pond was

irrigation is hard work. to go to Tank or Pond. located in inconvinient area.

2.3.2. Farmers think hard work 2.3.2.a Farmer didn't use the water lifting

to draw water. device.

2.4. Farmers think that 2.4.1. Farmers think spread of 2.4.1.a Mosquito which is the carrier of

Tank and Pond is danger. Malaria will be facilitated. Malaria reproduce in Tank and Pond.

2.4.2. Tank or Pond is near 2.4.2.a Farmers think that children and

the house. livestock fall down in Tank and Pond.

2.5. Farmers wish to develop 2.5.1. There are river, seasonal 2.5.1.a Farmers think that there is more

another source. river, spring and convenient source.

groundwater.

Reason Ground


55

Minute on the discussion held on February 23, 2006

Chair: Dr. Fasil Reda, MARC

Rapporteur: Yusuf Kedir, MARC The point of discussion during the afternoon was on identification of major issues that need general agreement from the workshop. There were several ideas raised by the participants during the morning session and Dr. Fasil has started the discussion by summarizing and putting the main issues together as follow. � There are good policy, donors and opportunities so the condition is well to

work more � We need to work hard on awareness creation and trainings on the

technologies and offering another new water harvesting technologies for the farmers. Because, farmers are started to produce different things using these opportunities, such as fattening, vegetable production, dairy and constructing bricks from mud.

� In order to exchange information, we have to have regular annual or some

other convenient time meeting � He also gave emphasis on the level of creating expectation on farmers from

the technologies. We should not over emphasize the advantages of the technologies and misleading the farmers, it is better to take care on such points

� Creating market is another dimension to work on, as he mentioned.

Farmers should take their products to the market so as to get benefit from what they produce using the technologies

There were also other comments given by researchers and farmers from different areas. Their comments are summarized and listed as follow. � Farmers are in need of technicians and spare parts for their treadle pump

and family drip-irrigation system, so there must be some mechanism to help them.

� The cost of water harvesting technologies especially constructed by NGOs

(underground hemispherical cement tank) is very expensive so the engineers have to work on cost reduction.


56

� There should be one standard and model structure that will be popularized and disseminated, but on which structure there was no agreement reached and it was left open for further discussions

� There is lack of coordination and there is no responsible organization to lead

and manage other, so it is urgent to solve this problem � Once farmers get this appropriate technologies properly, other packages has

to developed together so as to improve the efficiencies of the technologies � OIDA and NGO are working on two different water-harvesting structures

and their cost benefit is not studied yet. Therefore, this is the main bottleneck to popularize the technologies. if this issue is solved we can go even to arrange credit facilities, if any organization is sure for the technologies are surely beneficial


57

Minutes of the discussion on February 24, 2006 Plenary session on the site visit

Chair: Chimdo A. Rapportor: Endeshaw H.

It was emphasized in the beginning that the focus of the discussion should be on the activities observed during the visit and what we can learn from it and improve, but not about a given organization. � On capacity: the 50,000lit water harvesting structure may not sufficiently serve

the farmers’ purpose, so it may be better to increase the capacity or add one more structure of the same size.

� Design: from experience the hemispherical structure failed on vertisol that it may be better if tripozoid type is used in the WV sites visited. The plastic coated pond can be roofed with ‘das’ type roofing to reduce evaporation thereby improving the design.

� Cracking: some of the reasons are o Construction error due to the workmanship capacity, training could be

important o Design- the shape and dimension o Quality of construction material (esp.when the farmers are asked to

provide some local resources/materials, it may be of poor quality) o The mixing ration o Improper handling of the cement (ay be stored in places exposed to water

and so on) o when the cement is kept unused for more than 30min from time mixed

with water and sand and if the mixing is done on uncoated soil surface o Regular watering of the structure for the minimum of the first 21 days.


58

� Siltation: The attempt made to control siltation looks insufficient that it has to be given a serious thought. Surface water harvesting may not be a good idea as it involve high siltation, risk and evaporation.

� Roofing: in some of the sites the poles (roof supporters are not coverd with roofs and this may result in wastage of resource. It may be good to cover with a durable roofing than temporary ones.

� Plastic lined pond: having fence around this structure need to be taken as a package of this structure. Roofing should also be considered for this one as for the others

� Agronomy and other management: the drip irrigation is a good beginning but needs improvement. The spacing would rather be 60 than 90 to increase land use efficiency. Study on the land use pattern rather than sticking to one or few commodities. farmers look so ambitious in utilizing the water, what they plan to do does not commensurate with the water harvested (should be balanced).

� Multidisciplinary approach: WHT is a multidisciplinary issue hence demands multidisciplinary approach (soil scientist, engineer, social scientist…). WHT is not an end by itself, issues like soil improvement, water management and crop protection should be integrated, and training can be organized for the same.

� Distance: � Site selection: the sites visited are properly selected. However, during site

selection it is important to be careful to construct the structure by the roads where expansion is imminent, avoid channeling the flood in between residences as observed during the visit (better to find alternative routs); if pond can’t be covered better keep it far fro residence. Selection should be done properly in favor of farmers’ interest, we may not necessarily stick to the ‘poor’ which is also a controversial to qualify. The WH structure is located a bit far from the farm. If possible having a good lifting mechanism could be better to make it more economical. It could also be risky to animals.

� SHI: sometimes the visitors to our site create a kind of demand on the part of the farmer, for e.g., a farmer who had no problem with drawing water with his


59

labor starts to demand water lifting machine when visitors remind him that there is a type of technology for that purpose. As a learning organization, we are ready to learn and change accordingly.


60

Minutes of the discussions on February 24, 2006/06/21

Recommendations

Chair: Dr. Fasil Reda, MARC Rapporteur: Dr. Tilahun/Mr. Yusuf K., MARC

� The shift from the original purpose of WHT (from food crop production to fattening, dairy and the like) signals for the need for redesigning the structure and OIDA would be taking the initiative in this regard. The experience from certain site indicates that the technology could have promising features with good impact, yet modification of the structure and improving approaches to introduce the technology at farmers’ level remains as a challenge.

� The basic problem with WHT is that recommendations are being made on blanket basis. Therefore, we should share experiences among ourselves. It is also necessary to make economic analysis of the profitability of the technology.

� We need to create commonly shared approach among ourselves that avoids discrimination and confusions at farmers’ level through regular monitoring and evaluation of our activities. To implement this, a WHT forum is formed among the stakeholders who operate in East Shewa and Arsi Zones.

� OIDA would take the leadership of the WHT forum. A steering committee will be set up with OIDA acts as a secretariat. OIDA should call the group and discuss on assigning roles and responsibility.


61

WHT Workshop Schedule

1st Day (February 23, 2006) 1. Opening (9:00-9:30)

(1) Welcoming remarks (Dr. Fasil, MARC) (2) Opening remarks (Mr. Samuel Hussen, OIDA) (3) Introduction to the workshop (Mr. Shiratori, FRG)

2. Keynote speech (9:30-10:00) MARD Coordinator for WHT (Mr. Lakew)

3. Coffee break (10:00-10:30) 4. Presentation Part 1 (10:30-12:30) (Chair: Mr. Yohanes, OIDA/Mr. Tekele, OIDA)

(1) World Vision (2) Self help (3) SG2000

5. Lunch (12:30-13:30) 6. Presentation Part 2 (13:30-14:30) (Chair: Mr. Yohanes, OIDA/Mr. Tekele, OIDA)

(4) MARC-J-Green (5) OIDA-PIFI

7. Coffee break (14:30-15:00) 8. Plenary session (15:00-16:30) (Chair: Mr. Hailu, ATARC/Dr. Tulahun, MARC)

(1) Identification of major issue (engineering, management, institutions) (2) Roles of different stakeholder on WHT in the area (3) Establishing linkages among stakeholders

2nd day (February 24, 2006) 9. Site visit (9:00-12:30) (Mr. Yusuf, MARC) 10. Lunch (12:30-13:30) 11. Plenary session on site visit (13:30-14:15) (Chair: Mr. Chimdo, MARC/Mr. Endeshaw, MARC) 12. Wind up session/ Recommendations (14:15-15:00) (Chair: Dr. Fasil, MARC) 13. Closing (15:00-15:10) (Mr. Fasil, EIAR)


62

General guideline for preparation of paper and presentation for the workshop

The workshop is intended to share experiences among the stakeholders gained from the past attempts and efforts towards the implementation of different WHT in East Shewa and Arsi zones. So the papers to be presented by the invited participants are required to give emphasis and discuss their planning and implementation approaches and evaluating it. Identifying clearly the constraints and weaknesses that limit the respective organizations from implementing the technologies effectively together with their possible solutions are the major expected outputs from the workshop. A. Contents of the paper to be submitted (can be improved as required) To address at least the above-mentioned points and to ease the compiling process of the papers, the following format is tentatively prepared. This format is proposed to be used as a general guideline that might be followed and it is not a must to follow it strictly. If any important ideas are missing from the contents, presenters have the right to include and if not, it is also possible not to discuss all the contents. The papers will be compiled into proceedings and distributed to workshop participants and other relevant institutions and personnel. 8 Introduction • Brief explanation about the organization • Justifications for working on WHT in the area

9 General description o f target area and people


63

• location and target group • Social characteristics • Institutional arrangements

10 Planning and implementation processes (for WHT) followed by the organization in the area • Planning processes (main points being considered while planning)

• Area of coverage together with the natures of end users’ selected • Types and scales of the WHT being selected for the area • Criteria followed during the selection of the technologies and the

beneficiaries • Methods and levels of the implementation

• Steps followed by the organization to approach the end users • Stages and levels of support made by the organizations for the

implementation • Level of farmers’ participation on the whole processes (especially

women) • Levels of vertical and horizontal collaborative linkages of the

organization 11 Current status • Achievements against the plan • Utilization efficiencies of the collected water against the targets • Monitoring and follow up of the technologies (structures) and the users • Levels of farmers’ awareness

12 Evaluation of the planning & implementation approaches followed • Successes from the approach and technologies selected • Strengths • Weaknesses • Constraints and gaps

13 Farmers’ perception (with in their social, cultural, environmental, and farming system) on


64

• The relevance of the technologies • The general approaches followed • Types of technologies (structures) selected and constructed • The designs of the structures • The management aspects of the implemented technologies

14 Lessons gained from the past • Implementation aspect • Design aspect • Management and utilization aspect • Social and environmental aspect • Policy aspect

15 Future plans of the organization • Opportunities • Threats

16 The way forward

B. Guideline for the presentation during the workshop Following is a guideline on the contents of the presentation on which each presenter to focus on. This guideline will help both the presenters and the participants to select some important issues to be discussed with in the allocated time period and to concentrate on the selected issues during the workshop. So in order to make the workshop fruitful, each presenter is advised to follow the following contents and points during the workshop. Some points (information) 1) Since farmers are part of the workshop, the presentation and discussion will be

carried out in Amharic language.


65

2) The allocated time of presentation is 20 minutes for each presenter with additional 10 minutes discussion on each presentation.

3) It is better to avoid long sentences and paragraphs on a single slide 4) Try to select best explanatory words in order to shorten the sentences 5) The presentation can be supported by pictures (photos) & drawings for better

clarification Contents of the presentation Justifications for working on WHT in the area Types of technologies • Types and levels of the WHT being selected for the area • Criteria followed during the selection of the technologies and the

beneficiaries Implementation processes • Stages and levels of support made by the organizations for the

implementation of the technologies • Level of farmers’ participation on the whole processes (including women)

Current status • Achievements against the plan (Results) • Utilization efficiencies of the collected water against the targets • Monitoring and follow up of the technologies and the users

Farmers’ perception (with in their social, cultural, environmental, and farming system) on • The relevance of the technologies • Types of technologies (structures) selected and constructed • The designs of the structures • The management aspects (maintenance and economy) of the implemented

technologies Evaluation of the planning & implementation approaches followed • Successes from the approaches and technologies selected


66

• Strengths • Weaknesses • Constraints and gaps

Lessons gained from the past (particular case can be discussed here) • Implementation aspect • Design aspect • Management and utilization aspect • Social and environmental aspect • Policy aspect

Conclusions


67

Attendee List

No Name Position Organization/department

1 Mr. Lakew Desta Coordinator for WHT MoARD

2 Mr. Hune Nega Irrigation Expert MoARD

3 Mr. Masahiro Yagi Advisor, Policy Planning MoARD

4 Mr. Aschalew M&E Expert MoARD

5 Mr. Yohannes Geleta Head of CB OIDA, CB, Adama

6 Mr. Tekele Mengesha OIDA Planning head OIDA

7 Mr. Abreham Wolelgne Team Leader District ARD, Adami Tulu

8 Mrs. Amelework Kassa Expert District ARD, Adami Tulu

9 Mr. Mesfin Seiyfu Irrigation Team Leader District ARD, Merti jegu

10 Mr. Getachew Berta Expert District ARD, Merti jegu

11 Mr. Iyasu Weldu OIDA head District ARD, Lume

12 Mr. Mengistu Tadese OIDA head District ARD, Arsi Negele

13 Mr. Dheresa Tafaa Representative District ARD, Dugda Bora

14 Mr. AlemSeged Dagne Representative District ARD, Boset

15 Dr. Tilahun Hordofa Division Head of Natural Resources

MARC-J-Green, MARC

16 Mr. Yusufu Kedir Researcher MARC-J-Green, MARC

17 Mr. Samual Hussen OIDA design & study tem leader

OIDA,

18 Mr. Mohamed Head of Socio Economics OARI

19 Dr. Tilahun Gletu Head of Natural resources OARI,

20 Mr. Etefa Emama Water Resource R&D Coordinator Ministry of Water

21 Mr. Kozo Inada Chie Advisor, IFI OIDA-IFI,


68

22 Mr. Hideki Sonoyama Coordinator, IFI OIDA-IFI,

23 Dr. Fasil Reda Centre Manager MARC-FRG,

24 Mr. Chimdo Anchala Division Head of Research Extension

MARC-FRG,

25 Mr. Endeshaw Asegu Representative CCF, Borchota

26 Mr. Bedru Research Extension Division MARC-FRG,

27 Mr. Masku Division Head of Natural Resources

ATARC-FRG,

28 Mr. Wole Division Head of Research Extension

ATARC-FRG,

29 Mr. Teha Mume Research Extension Division ATARC-FRG,

30 Mr. Minoru Honma Assistant Resident Representative

JICA Ethiopia Office,

31 Mr. Kiyoshi Shiratori Chief Advisor, FRG JICA-FRG,

32 Mr. Iwao matsumoto Expert for Appropriate Technology and Extension

JICA-FRG,

33 Mr. Nobuaki Oizumi Coordinator, FRG JICA-FRG,

34 Mr. Niftalem Temesgen Irrigation Expert District ARD, Dodota Sire

35 Mr. Mulgeta Chari Expert District ARD, Dodota Sire

36 Mr. Abate Mengesha Team Leader OIDA extension department head

37 Mr. Kurabachew Shewawork Irrigation Expert OIDA

38 Dr. Aboule Ebro Researcher ATARC

39 Mr. Berhanu Dawa Coordinator World Vision, Adama

40 Mr. Zegeye Exepert World Vision, Adama

41 Mr. Berecha Turi Agronomy expert SG2000

42 Mr. Amdemeskel Zerezegi SG2000

43 Mr. W/mariyam Lengisa Irrigation Expert Dodota Sire

44 Mr. Firew Behabtu Project coordinator Self Help, Dhera


69

45 Mr. Hussein Urgeesa DA Adami Tulu

46 Mr. Zelalem Shumi DA Merti

47 Mr. Tesfaye Tufa DA Dodota Sire

48 Mr. Haji Abiyu Eda’o Farmer Dodota Sire

49 Mr. Mohammed Nurgelan Farmer Merti

50 Mr. Bude Gona Farmer Adami Tuku

51 Mr. Makonen Bacha Farmer Dodota Sire

52 Mr. Jundi Eresa Farmer Merti

53 Mrs. Wesane Girma Farmer Dodota Sire

IFI FRG

The workshop was supported by JICA

Documents

WORKSHOP ON THE EXPERIENCE OF WATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGY IN EAST SHEWA AND ARSI … · 2013-07-18 · WORKSHOP ON THE EXPERIENCE OF WATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGY IN EAST SHEWA AND